The Live Music Forum

Open Letter to: Detective Chief Superintendent Martin of the Metropolitan Police

Most recent replies at the bottom of the page

-----Original Message-----

From: Phil Little
Sent: 17 May 2009 12:39
To: Martin Richard J - CO14
Subject: re Live Music and Public Disorder

Open Letter 

Date: 17th May 2009

Dear Detective Chief Superintendent Martin
I am writing to you as a live music campaigner of many years, currently administrating the Live Music Forum.
The basis of my philosophy is the overwhelming evidence that live music has a soothing affect on the population bearing the pressures of our society.  This is borne out by several recent scientific studies, such as 'A Study of the Effects of Visual and Performing Arts in Healthcare' by  Dr Rosalia Staricoff and others.  In fact this has been true for thousands of years in all parts of the world, where singing and dancing are at the core of almost every civilisation's culture.
But, strangely, the Police promote the idea that live music causes significant public disorder. That is far from my extensive personal experience. In fact, only once in forty years, have I witnessed a fight break out at a gig I was playing at. The atmosphere around live music has not changed during that time, just the trends.
Since the Licensing Act 2003 came into effect in November 2005, research by the Department for Culture itself has confirmed a marked drop in casual small gigs where the musicians of the future cut their teeth and old soldiers like myself go to retire.   To my mind this could only have a negative effect on the spirit of the population, making your job much harder to carry out in the wider sense.
As you know, televised sports matches in pubs, such as the UEFA Cup Final that sparked a riot in Manchester last year are not required to have the licensing control that live music does. Given the obvious correlation between serious disorder and this form of entertainment, can you explain why it should be exempt from entertainment licensing control ? What robust statistical evidence do you have that shows a direct and significant correlation between live music and serious crime and disorder ?
I look forward to receiving your reply, because, as guardians of the law you have a great influence on it's application and I am sure it is not your intention to obstruct our fundamental rights to make ourselves feel better through music.
Yours Sincerely

Phil Little
Live Music Forum

On 18 May 2009, at 10:58, < Richard.Martin4@met.police.uk > < Richard.Martin4@met.police.uk > wrote:
Dear Mr. Little thank you for your letter. To answer your query its probably helpful to give you a little background on why the form 696 came into fruition, the work we have done since this time and the current review that we are undertaking.

The event/promotion risk assessment, ‘Form 696’ and event debrief ‘form 696A’ were developed in 2005 as a response to the levels of violence recorded in and around licensed premises and also the need to identify problematic music promotions.

The objective of the form 696 is to identify potential problematic promotions or events taking place by providing details of the promoter and artistes, numbers expected to attend and security arrangements. This is coupled with intelligence monitoring of the venue to produce a comprehensive assessment of the promotion or event. This allows police to work with the promoter and the management of the venue to effectively manage the event by giving consideration to issues such as increasing security, introducing a search policy, or increasing police supervision.  It is not intended to prevent music or indeed close premises as a consequence.

Occasionally the premises owner, DPS or promoter may decide that the risk is too high and decide to cancel the event (8 occasions in 2008). Very rarely police have assessed the risk to public safety as unacceptable and have used their closure powers under the Licensing Act 2003 (No occasions in 2008). We are able to achieve this low level of closures as the F696 process enables police, premises owners and promoters to work together in advance and make informed decisions on security and potential for disorder.

The use of the F696 process has contributed significantly to the 11% reduction in violent crime across London in 2008. Perhaps the most significant statistic is that in 2007 there were 35 shootings in and around licensed premises, this fell to 25 in 2008, a 29% reduction.

Since 2007 we have worked with all the London Borough's to encourage them to include the event/promotion assessments scheme within their Licensing Policy Statements. This recommends the use of the F696 process but does not make it compulsory. Under the licensing Act 2003 there is no provision to apply ‘blanket conditions’, nor would we seek to do so. Where the completion of the F696 is a condition on the licence this is as a result of either; previous problems at the venue; or a premises that has identified the use of F696 within its operating schedule and the licensing authority has translated this into a condition. This is commensurate with the usual process of converting the operating schedule into licensing conditions by the Licensing Authority.

The demographics and dynamics of an event are not a mechanism to discriminate but are used to contribute to the assessment process; it does however remain a fact that certain types of promotion or event have proven to be problematic. This is the very reason that the assessment process was put into place so that the public attending events and the wider community can be satisfied that the police and the premises are working towards the promotion of the licensing objectives, in particular the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety. We would never seek the cancellation of an event based purely on the style or genre of the music.

The main objective of the event assessment process is to ensure a safe working and leisure environment for all people who attend events and promotions; this includes musicians, performers and artistes as well as the venue staff and the customers. The F696 process has proved popular with the promoters themselves. We run a consultative group, the ‘promoters forum’ to ensure the process remains valid. This group currently has 60+ members.

Due to some of the concerns raised by the Musicians Union and other interested parties, I have asked for a review to be undertaken to assess whether the current process  and definition of events still remains valid after fours years of experience with the form. I am still supportive of the concept as are a large number of music promoters, but it is absolutely right that we, in consultation, with promoters , members of the musicians union and other interested parties such as the DCMS work together to look at how we can still achieve the main aim. That is, ensuring any event can take place  safely, without risk of harm to anyone taking part, and coupled with the  need not to adversely affect anyone wishing to attend, play or organise the event. Form 696 has never been intended to adversely impact upon small venues, and if that is the experience of some of your colleagues than we need to ensure that we take account of this in the review.

Unfortunately I cannot comment on the sports analogy which you use as it is not within my area of operation but I wholeheartedly agree that our aim is not to obstruct anyone wishing to feel better by playing and being involved in music. It is simply to enable everyone wishing to do so, to so in peace and free from the risk of harm.

I would be more than happy to invite you up here to show you how the form works in practice and to listen to any other concerns you have. If you would like to have an input into the review process than I would also be happy for you to participate. If this is an area you would like to be involved in could I please ask you in the first instance to contact  DS Thomas Bowen the CO14 lead for event / promotion risk assessment on 0207 321 7760 to engage in this process

yours Sincerely

Richard Martin

Dear Detective Chief Superintendent Martin
Thank you for your reply and kind invitation to participate in your review process. I am happy to accept and will contact DS Bowen separately about that.
You cite a reduction in shootings attributable to the application of Form 696 under the Licensing Act 2003.  As far as the public is concerned, however, this is merely an assertion. Can you detail real examples to back up your claim? Such evidence could be presented in a way which does not reveal the identity of the particular venues or individuals and would go far in convincing people of your case. Furthermore, are you certain that the information gathered in Form 696 could not be secured by other means?
You will probably know that the all-party Culture, Media and Sport Committee in Parliament has recommended that Form 696 be scrapped (Licensing Act 2003 inquiry report, published 14 May 2009). The Committee took evidence from the Police on Form 696 and other matters.
I would point out, however, that my questions were not focussed on that aspect of the legislation. What more concerns me is a developing suspicion, promulgated by the police and local authorities, that live music attracts or fuels disorder, which, I am sure, is not the case. Large screen televised football matches have been the cause of disorder, as everybody knows, and we are mystified as to why this legislative inequity is perpetuated. Are the police lobbying for this form of entertainment to be included as a licensable entertainment? 
If you are not able to comment on this point, is it possible that you could refer me to a senior officer within the  Metropolitan Police who's area this is.
Yours Sincerely
Phil Little

Live Music Forum

DCI Martin replied:

Dear Mr. Little

The use of the form 696 has been an instrumental factor in the ability of the police to work with organisers to reduce the risk of violence around certain promoted events.

The development of the form was conducted in conjunction with licensing venues, licence holders and promoters . Counsel advice through our legal services dept was sought in the development of these forms. Both of these bodies were satisfied that the request for these forms to be completed was lawful which is a view that remains relevant today. Form 696 had during its inception, and still has today, a large amount of support amongst Music Promoters.

That said, I have agreed that it is right at this time to review the process and the definitions we use. We have already met and facilitated a group discussion on potential ways for ward with this form. This group included the Musicians Union, UK Music, and a number of Promoters. from this work , we will begin to review what we do taking into account the views of interested parties and our own experience over the last four years.

I don't believe there is another way of being able to get the information required , however this is also part of the review and if there are less intrusive ways of determining this information then I am happy to consider them.

As I outlined previously, I don't believe live music per se engenders violence , however there are elements out there that are attracted to specific events and this is where the pinch point occurs. It would not be right for me to provide detailed examples of where the form has proved useful without agreement of the parties involved, however I can provide a brief summary of two examples below

Example 1

An event was identified were 27 high profile artists listed to play with expected crowd numbers between 1800 -2000. The event was High Risk due to information received in relation to some of the performers. The intelligence suggested that their events attracted violence and that the event could attract the same problems.

CO14 in conjunction with the Promoters developed and agreed a Risk Management Plan with the venue. This included additional search regimes which included the use of search arches, with a requirement that all patrons were to be searched as a condition of entry, extra security registered door staff were put in place and enhanced policing plan around the premises .

As a consequence the event went ahead with no violence recorded in or around the premises

Example 2

Through information provided on the form 696 and the subsequent intelligence checks it was identified that at a previous venue where the same artists had been playing there had been a serious stabbing between rival gang members.

Intelligence also identified a high likelihood of a repeat incident where rival gangs would be seeking retribution for the original stabbing. It was also identified that the gangs were looking to take firearms to the event.

This information enabled police to contact the venue and confirm which DJs/Promoters were appearing at each venue. It also provided an overview of the security arrangements in place, which allowed for police and the venues to make fast time risk assessments around each event. As a result of working with the management of the premises concerned, the events were voluntarily cancelled.

On the night the gangs clashed at another venue, which didn’t use the form 696. One person sustained a serious stab wound

your final question is related to the football aspect. As I have said before this is outside of my area of operations but I will endeavour to find out who might have a view on this aspect

Yours sincerely

Richard Martin
Detective Chief Superintendent
OCU Commander CO14 Clubs and Vice

From: Phil Little [mailto:phil@littledrum.co.uk]
Sent: 28 May 2009 20:06
To: Martin Richard J - CO14
Subject: re Live Music and Public Disorder

Dear Detective Chief Superintendent Martin

Thank you for your reply. If it is not too much trouble I have one or two supplementary questions.

I am sure you appreciate that making it a potential criminal offence, not to complete Form 696, raises privacy issues for the performers.

Under Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, public authorities, including the Police, must read and give effect to all legislation and ensure, as far as possible, compatibility with ECHR rights incorporated into UK law.

Has the Met taken legal advice on the compatibility of the enforcement of Form 696 as a premises licence condition with the right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR ?

Have the crucial questions of necessity and proportionality been addressed in this context ?

This is particularly significant in view of the fact that, as you say, much of the information needed is already gathered through intelligence, and you have not yet established whether or not there are less intrusive ways in which the information might be collected. If the Met has taken legal advice on any or all of these points, will you now publish that advice ?

Thank you for your attention to this important subject, which ultimately has a bearing on the living of tens of thousands of performers like myself.

Yours Sincerely

Phil Little

www.livemusicforum.co.uk

DCI Martin replied on 2nd June

Dear Mr little

As outlined in my previous response the completion of form 696 in the majority of cases remains completely voluntary. There are a limited number of premises that are required to complete the form as a condition of their licenses. As you know the Licensing Authorities cannot place blanket requirements onto a premises, all have to be treated on their merits. Licensing Authorities are entitled to make these conditions where they are necessary to tackle crime and disorder issues.

The development of the form was carried out with full counsel advice who found the requirement to ask for Promoters to complete the forms to be entirely legal which remains the case today.

In relation to the intelligence aspect, I did not state that most of the information was gathered from additional sources. what I did outline was that once the information has been submitted then we check additional intelligence sources to gauge the level of risk we believe there may be at the event, tasking into account all information we are able to gather. As I stated previously I do not believe there is another way of gathering this intelligence in the way we are able to do at the moment around the form 696, but I am as part of the review open to suggestions you may have.

As you know I have commissioned a review in relation to the form, and as such I do not see any value in publishing previous legal advice. The aim is now to look at the whole process to ensure that we are still able to ensure that any event remains a safe environment for all of those who are engaged in it but with minimal disruption to peoples private lives

yours sincerely

Richard Martin
Detective Chief Superintendent
OCU Commander CO14 Clubs and Vice

We then put in a Freedom Of Information Request for the legal advice obtained by the Metropolitan Police on the legality of Form 696. This was turned down and we lodged an appeal which we are still waiting to hear on.

PL 20/07/09