Licensing Law and Lap Dancing

10th December 2007

Lap-dance protesters need to know the law...

From NE Business see full article by The Journal

The Licensing Act 2003 came into force in November 2005.

I have attended more than 100 hearings up and down the country. Hearings only become necessary when an application is objected to and in most cases concerns are raised by local residents.

It is not uncommon for individuals to attend hearings intent on discussing matters that have absolutely nothing to do with the particular premises. Unfortunately, the licence trade is often blamed for issues that has nothing to do with it and it obviously doesn�t help that the media seem intent on unfairly portraying the trade and exaggerating the impact that the sale of alcohol has.

The Act is clear on what is and isn�t relevant and residents often have to be reminded that, no matter how passionately they believe in what is troubling them, only law and order and safety and nuisance issues which are directly influenced by the premises are relevant and should form part of the discussion in the licensing hearing. In addition, licensing committees can rightly take into account the need to protect children from harm but this is very rarely raised.

Licensed premises should only be taken to task for things that they can reasonably be expected to have control over. How people behave beyond the vicinity of the premises are matters of personal responsibility of individuals under the law.

The above was highlighted recently in an application for variation of a premises licence in the city centre which would allow part of an existing premises to trade as a lap-dancing venue. This form of entertainment has gradually become part of the nation�s zeitgeist and many people wouldn�t give it a second thought. However, there are others who find it immoral and unacceptable. In licensing terms the reality, coincidentally proven by evidence, is that premises of this sort cause less trouble than, for example, nightclubs. This is confirmed by police forces throughout the country. We now have around 150 lap- dancing venues nationally and there is no evidence that their presence makes women any more vulnerable. If this were the case, we would expect incontrovertible evidence.

We have had lap-dancing venues for more than 10 years. Children, who are of course excluded, aren�t exposed to any moral dangers. This is the only context in which morality in licensing is relevant. The Licensing Act 2003 has its faults but it has managed to define what licensed premises can and can�t be rightly blamed for. It is also not to be viewed as a method of imposing censorship.

In one particular application we received more than 1,000 objections, many prompted by a campaign instigated by the Church. Understandably they have a moral agenda but, as we discussed at length in the hearing, this can�t be imposed upon others. Adult entertainment is perfectly legal and a well- run premises has as much right to be allowed to operate as a pub or a restaurant. Indeed, evidence suggests that it would, in terms of impact, be preferable if more existing venues converted to this type of use.

UK Law
	Obscene Publications Act Max sentence increased to 5 years (May 2008)
	Hated Law Blasphemy laws repealed (May 2008)
	Possession of Pornography and The Dangerous Pictures Act (May 2008)
	Communications Law State spying in Britain that would make the Stasi proud (Feb 2008)
	Lap-dance protesters need to know the law (Dec 2007)
	Outraging Public Decency Where the law says you can have sex (Nov 2007)
	Human Rights Links to the Human Rights Act 1998 & case history updates (Oct 2006)
	Issues with the Sexual Offences Act of 2004 (June 2005)
	High Court Judgement confirming that R18 by mail order is illegal (offsite May 2005)
	Proscription of Satellite Channels Used by the Government to ban channels (Feb 2005)
	Court of Appeal judgement from R vs Stephane Laurent Perrin UK Internet jurisdiction (offsite March 2002)
	Video Recordings Act A detailed view (May 2001)
	The Legalisation of Hardcore High Court review of VAC decision to pass hardcore at R18 (offsite May 2000)
	Legal Debate Mail order R18s, satellite proscription etc

Enforcement	Customs Watch news about the enforcement agency with an attitude problem
	Customs Seizures since the change of guidelines in 2000
	Censorship the Corollary of Corruption Part 1 Part 2 The serialisation of a novel by Mike Freeman
	Piss Poor Standards at Derby Trading Standards (Oct 2005)
	Customs Operation Star Trek Child porn raid initiated for videos featuring 21 year olds (Sept 2005)
	Non Consensual Punishment Crown Persecution Service on spanking (Dec 2003)
	Model Persecutions Cheshire police excel in persecution (July 2003)

10th December 2007		Lap-dance protesters need to know the law...


	From NE Business see full article by The Journal
	The Licensing Act 2003 came into force in November 2005. I have attended more than 100 hearings up and down the country. Hearings only become necessary when an application is objected to and in most cases concerns are raised by local residents. It is not uncommon for individuals to attend hearings intent on discussing matters that have absolutely nothing to do with the particular premises. Unfortunately, the licence trade is often blamed for issues that has nothing to do with it and it obviously doesn�t help that the media seem intent on unfairly portraying the trade and exaggerating the impact that the sale of alcohol has. The Act is clear on what is and isn�t relevant and residents often have to be reminded that, no matter how passionately they believe in what is troubling them, only law and order and safety and nuisance issues which are directly influenced by the premises are relevant and should form part of the discussion in the licensing hearing. In addition, licensing committees can rightly take into account the need to protect children from harm but this is very rarely raised. Licensed premises should only be taken to task for things that they can reasonably be expected to have control over. How people behave beyond the vicinity of the premises are matters of personal responsibility of individuals under the law. The above was highlighted recently in an application for variation of a premises licence in the city centre which would allow part of an existing premises to trade as a lap-dancing venue. This form of entertainment has gradually become part of the nation�s zeitgeist and many people wouldn�t give it a second thought. However, there are others who find it immoral and unacceptable. In licensing terms the reality, coincidentally proven by evidence, is that premises of this sort cause less trouble than, for example, nightclubs. This is confirmed by police forces throughout the country. We now have around 150 lap- dancing venues nationally and there is no evidence that their presence makes women any more vulnerable. If this were the case, we would expect incontrovertible evidence. We have had lap-dancing venues for more than 10 years. Children, who are of course excluded, aren�t exposed to any moral dangers. This is the only context in which morality in licensing is relevant. The Licensing Act 2003 has its faults but it has managed to define what licensed premises can and can�t be rightly blamed for. It is also not to be viewed as a method of imposing censorship. In one particular application we received more than 1,000 objections, many prompted by a campaign instigated by the Church. Understandably they have a moral agenda but, as we discussed at length in the hearing, this can�t be imposed upon others. Adult entertainment is perfectly legal and a well- run premises has as much right to be allowed to operate as a pub or a restaurant. Indeed, evidence suggests that it would, in terms of impact, be preferable if more existing venues converted to this type of use.