Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Supervision

Council and HMV find fee solution

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
26 November 2009
HMV will not be prosecuted for failing to get a licence for a performance by Faryl Smith after the store agreed to donate the licence fee to charity.
On Tuesday, the Evening Telegraph revealed Kettering Council was taking the company to court because it did not have a licence for the in-store performance in March.

But after a public outcry that received national publicity the council has said i
t will drop the case if HMV donated the £21 cost of the licence to charity, which the company has now said it will do.

A spokesman for Kettering Council said: "It was always our intention that if HMV were to accept they should have had a licence and will abide by the law in future, then the council will go no further on this occasion.

"If HMV were, furthermore, to make a donation to the mayor's charities equivalent to the licence fee of £21, that would, we feel, be an appropriate gesture."

The council said the planned prosecution was nothing to do with Faryl Smith and it would have gone ahead with any performer.

Hundreds of people attended Faryl's performance in March to mark the release of her debut album. She also met with fans and signed copies of her CD.

The law requires businesses and organisations organising one-off entertainment events to obtain a licence in advance.

The leader of Kettering Council, Jim Hakewill, said: "The council and people of the borough are extremely proud of Faryl and this routine prosecution should not reflect upon her."

HMV spokesman Gennaro Castaldo said: "There does appear to have been some kind of misunderstanding as, to our knowledge, we've not been presented with any opportunity to retrospectively apply for the licence.

"We would, in principle, be happy to do so and, of course, to donate the fee to the mayor's charities, although we do first have to consider some conditions the council has attached to this offer.

"All we ever wanted was a common sense solution and we're pleased this appears to be at hand."



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 26 November 2009 9:29 AM
  • Source: Northants Evening Telegraph
  • Location: Kettering
 
Prev
1
2 3 4 5
1

cleverzippy,

Kettering 26/11/2009 11:42:27
Common sense? The fact that KBC have already made Kettering a nationwide laughing stock over this and the KTFC issue suggests otherwise.
2

Lozza123,

26/11/2009 12:46:01
HMV should have been prosecuted. Promoting the objectives of the Licensing Act should always take priority over any cultural considerations: these are the LACORS guidelines and KBC has ignored them.
The whole point of the licensing act is to allow residents to complain in advance about live music.
3

DT,

Kettering 26/11/2009 13:41:26
So actually there is no legal obligation for KBC to prosecute at all? It seems not. Just more jobsworthery?
4

Lozza123,

26/11/2009 14:08:10
There is a legal obligation for the council to prosecute. They cannot ignore the fact that HMV did not apply for a Temporary Event Notice. It cannot be one law for a well-known local singer and another for everyone else. According to the DCMS, there are proven links between live music and crime and the Act is there to protect local residents by reducing the number of music events.
5

thegoodoldboysfromsaga,

26/11/2009 14:52:47
Lozza123.....Get a Life !!!!
6

Lozza123,

26/11/2009 15:31:16
I’m sorry if you don’t agree with my opinions. But they are facts, and they are the Law, and they are also government policy.

The Licensing Act has quite rightly led to a large reduction in live music events. This has been done to protect local residents from the possibility of being disturbed by noise. Is it not obvious that live music attracts people to premises, and that therefore there is an increased potential for crime?

If local residents do not want live music in their town they have the right to make representations to the local council until the event is cancelled. It’s called democracy.
7

NicB,

26/11/2009 15:36:53
>So actually there is no legal obligation for KBC to prosecute at all?

That's not how local government works I'm afraid. I'm closely related to several people who were/are at "director" and "chief exec" level in several councils and they complain about it constantly.

In most cases where you and I might think "jobsworth" or "pointless", the councils are acting under legal requirements and they just don't have a choice (well, they do - the other option is disciplinaries, sanctions and fines...)
8

DT,

Kettering 26/11/2009 16:12:18
Ok...so requesting that HMV make a donation to the Mayor's charity is fulfilling their legal obligation, yes? Surely the point of the legislation is that income goes to the state coffers...
9

Lozza123,

26/11/2009 16:21:24
The £21 donation does not get round the fact that Faryl Smith's management were involved in the oganising of the event. The Licensing Act stipulates that they must follow due diligence in ensuring that the event is licensed. If they didn't do this they are potentially committng a criminal offence and yet KBC have chosen to gloss over this.

The law is there for a good reason. All music is now licensable in advance in order to protect the public and to allow local residents the time to make objctions.
10

NicB,

26/11/2009 16:33:11
>Ok...so requesting that HMV make a donation to the Mayor's charity is fulfilling their legal obligation, yes?

Not directly. Their legal obligation was to prosecute someone in breach of the entertainment licensing laws, although they obviously have some freedom to grant retrospective licenses. So HMV offers the retrospective fee and that's the legal side done with.

Where the money has to go must be a different matter that isn't directly mandated by law.
Prev
1
2 3 4 5

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.