Jump to content

Recommended Posts

High court upholds Camden busking restrictions

Judge says policy introducing fines of up to ?1,000 for busking without a licence is 'necessary and proportionate'


New licensing restrictions on buskers in Camden have been declared lawful by the high court.


Comedians Mark Thomas and Bill Bailey and musician Billy Bragg are among celebrities who took to the streets to protest over the restrictions being introduced by the council in the north London borough after noise complaints by local residents.


Busking without a licence is to become a criminal offence in Camden, punishable with fines of up to ?1,000.


Bragg, who spent his early career busking around London, said licensing would hurt a fundamental aspect of UK culture.


http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/11/high-court-upholds-camden-busking-restrictions


Busking has been around since 1860 ish


New laws impose restrictions on certain instruments. The Melodeon (Used by Morris Dancers)

is to be classed as a 'Wind' instrument and faces strict restrictions.


Having been a Street Performer myself I understand there needs to be some restrictions on certain areas.

IE Covent Garden, New Bond Street, St Christopher's Place , all regular spots of Blackheath Morris Men

when I danced with them.


But a general clamp down on Buskers and possibly other Street Performers is just not on.


Buskers are an essential part of London. They attract tourists. They cheer people up.


Anyone have any views on the subject.


DulwichFox

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/43058-buskers-and-street-performers/
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...