Re: More PEL clarification ZZZZZZ:-)

Tom & Barbara Brown26/11/03 7:10 PM

> 
> "Chris Rockcliffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

>> One of the "concessions" won by the CIU in the pre Licensing Bill
>> "negotiations" - as I understand it - was their new ability under the new
>> system to be allowed to have up to 12 public hirings in a given year.
>> Presumably this was a sweetener to help them recover some additional costs
>> and perhaps also to avoid any organised dissention on their part.
>> 
>> However, the CIU - to which very many of these are affiliated - on its
>> website, seems to say that PELs are not needed by such private clubs.
>> There is total confusion at present about what is to happen.
> 
> I wouldn't say we're law experts, Chris, but from our reading of the act,
> which we did pretty thoroughly as we had to run a festival workshop on it,
> our conclusion was that any club, private or otherwise, will require a
> license if there is any entertainment provided for members of the club or
> the public. Anyone know any different, and if so, please clarify further!

Barbara, that was my understanding too.  However the concession was "won" by
the CIU for its 16K affiliated clubs by being part of the detail discussions
with the DCMS on the Bill right from the start.

I now have the situation of the CIU telling me one thing, the LA telling me
another and the wording of the Bill being ambivalent OR even wrong.

"Looks like there's going to be some teething problems", said one LA person.
Major root canal work without anaesthesia is more like it - me thinks.

CR