good news or bad news (ARE WE BREAKING THE LAW)

26 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
Our local one is also a hotel,it could be argued that it is not the responsibility of the management what guests get up to .

I think the police may well think differently, if they were called.
The management or owners of any establishment are responsible in the eyes of the law, if any laws are being broken, with the knowledge of those same owners or management.
IF a manger allowed say smoking on their premises, the law would prosecute them. Or if underage drinking was being allowed the licensee would be fined.
They do have a responsibility to their club/hotel, with respect to what their guests do on their premises.

26 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
Our local one is also a hotel,it could be argued that it is not the responsibility of the management what guests get up to .

I think the police may well think differently, if they were called.
The management or owners of any establishment are responsible in the eyes of the law, if any laws are being broken, with the knowledge of those same owners or management.
IF a manger allowed say smoking on their premises, the law would prosecute them. Or if underage drinking was being allowed the licensee would be fined.
They do have a responsibility to their club/hotel, with respect to what their guests do on their premises.
i can see what you are saying,but group sex breaks no laws,i am wondering how the law defines a swingers club i suppose.
Group sex in a hotel room is not a sex club.
The definition would be tested in court within the spirit of the law. There is going to be a number of ways to test this to see what will class or not. A bit like the smoking law. Lots tested it and lost, some tested it and won. Depends if the club or premise wants to stand on the parapet and openly challenge it in court. It will be interesting times.......but like I said I have not read a full definition yet.
The hotel example you have given depends on what it is primarily and depends who reports it to the enforcing authority. How do the enforcing authority gets to know about these places? Usually disgruntled guests reporting them.
Dave_Notts
Dave_Notts

26 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
Our local one is also a hotel,it could be argued that it is not the responsibility of the management what guests get up to .

I think the police may well think differently, if they were called.
The management or owners of any establishment are responsible in the eyes of the law, if any laws are being broken, with the knowledge of those same owners or management.
IF a manger allowed say smoking on their premises, the law would prosecute them. Or if underage drinking was being allowed the licensee would be fined.
They do have a responsibility to their club/hotel, with respect to what their guests do on their premises.
i can see what you are saying,but group sex breaks no laws,i am wondering how the law defines a swingers club i suppose.
The usual laws the police would deploy would be either the Disorderly Houses Act of 1751, or thereabouts, and the similar common law offence of keeping a disorderly house or keeping a brothel.
You can't get a premises licence specifically for a swingers club; the definitions of sexual entertainment venue in the acts and guidance don't cover audience participation on the basis that that would be illegal anyway. However, some clubs have got premises licenses for alcohol and dancing; there seems to be ablind eye being turned in some places.
The result is a slightly odd situation where swingers clubs are tolerated provided they don't upset the neighbours - I'm not even sure the courts could enforce the equalities law in respect of an activity that is in and of itself illegal. Incidentally, staging parties for money in yuour own home is probably a change of use if you do it regularly - now that's a planning application I'd like to see...

26 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
Incidentally, staging parties for money in yuour own home is probably a change of use if you do it regularly - now that's a planning application I'd like to see...

I'm sure Islandcpl would show you his.

26 Sep 2010

That is true FB as " apparently " all the relevant authorities have been informed.
Don't ask for a straight forward answer though, otherwise we will be here till Christmas, and his membership does not last that long....apparently. wink

26 Sep 2010

Quote by Freckledbird
Incidentally, staging parties for money in yuour own home is probably a change of use if you do it regularly - now that's a planning application I'd like to see...

I'm sure Islandcpl would show you his.
I'll bet...

26 Sep 2010

Quote by Freckledbird
Incidentally, staging parties for money in yuour own home is probably a change of use if you do it regularly - now that's a planning application I'd like to see...

I'm sure Islandcpl would show you his.
Planning applications are not required if the parties are being undertaken infrequently i.e. once a month. This would be on a par as the WI's coffee morning not requiring planning applications when they hold it at a house. Primarily the house is still a domestic property and it is not being altered in a material way. Now if it requires a material change then it would, but most house parties do not change the house in a material way.
A premise license is required for alcohol sales and entertainment e.g. recorded music, with some exemptions thrown in. This is why swinging clubs have a "bring your bottle" policy so the licensing section of the local council do not have to be informed.
This new bit of legislation is part of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and will be enforced by the same people i.e. the local council. It falls under the Sex Establishments bit where previously it only counted sex shops, sex cinemas and sex encounter premises e.g. peep shows. Now there is an amendment coming in that will definately cover Lap Dancing but it hasn't been disclosed if swinging clubs will fall under them or not.
Dave_Notts

26 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Incidentally, staging parties for money in yuour own home is probably a change of use if you do it regularly - now that's a planning application I'd like to see...

I'm sure Islandcpl would show you his.
Planning applications are not required if the parties are being undertaken infrequently i.e. once a month. This would be on a par as the WI's coffee morning not requiring planning applications when they hold it at a house. Primarily the house is still a domestic property and it is not being altered in a material way. Now if it requires a material change then it would, but most house parties do not change the house in a material way.
A premise license is required for alcohol sales and entertainment e.g. recorded music, with some exemptions thrown in. This is why swinging clubs have a "bring your bottle" policy so the licensing section of the local council do not have to be informed.
This new bit of legislation is part of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and will be enforced by the same people i.e. the local council. It falls under the Sex Establishments bit where previously it only counted sex shops, sex cinemas and sex encounter premises e.g. peep shows. Now there is an amendment coming in that will definately cover Lap Dancing but it hasn't been disclosed if swinging clubs will fall under them or not.
Dave_Notts
A premises license is also required for dancing, performances of dance and so on.
You're right that frequency of usage is germane, but so is the number of visitors, and the purpose. Holding a coffee morning for the WI is pretty much safe, but running a commercial business with customers visiting the premises is, in my opinion, the wrong side of the line and constitutes a change of use. What's material is the change of use, which doesn't necessarily need a material change to the fabric of the building. A good example near me was a friend who runs her chiropractic business from home - no material changes were made to the fabric of the building, but she needed PP for the change of use.
The Planning Portal gives a handy set of questions you need to ask yourself when contemplating a possible change of use, for instance from C3 to sui generis usage.
You do not necessarily need planning permission to work from home. The key test is whether the overall character of the home will change as a result of a business being conducted from the property. If the answer to any of the following questions is yes, then permission will probably be needed.
*
Will your home no longer be used mainly as a private home?
*
Will your business result in a marked rise in traffic or people calling?
*
Will your business involve any activities unusual in a residential area?
*
Will your business disturb your neighbours at unreasonable hours or create other forms of nuisance such as noise or smells?
The ones I've highlighted in bold seem to me to be very relevant.

26 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
Incidentally, staging parties for money in yuour own home is probably a change of use if you do it regularly - now that's a planning application I'd like to see...

I'm sure Islandcpl would show you his.
Planning applications are not required if the parties are being undertaken infrequently i.e. once a month. This would be on a par as the WI's coffee morning not requiring planning applications when they hold it at a house. Primarily the house is still a domestic property and it is not being altered in a material way. Now if it requires a material change then it would, but most house parties do not change the house in a material way.
A premise license is required for alcohol sales and entertainment e.g. recorded music, with some exemptions thrown in. This is why swinging clubs have a "bring your bottle" policy so the licensing section of the local council do not have to be informed.
This new bit of legislation is part of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and will be enforced by the same people i.e. the local council. It falls under the Sex Establishments bit where previously it only counted sex shops, sex cinemas and sex encounter premises e.g. peep shows. Now there is an amendment coming in that will definately cover Lap Dancing but it hasn't been disclosed if swinging clubs will fall under them or not.
Dave_Notts
A premises license is also required for dancing, performances of dance and so on.
You're right that frequency of usage is germane, but so is the number of visitors, and the purpose. Holding a coffee morning for the WI is pretty much safe, but running a commercial business with customers visiting the premises is, in my opinion, the wrong side of the line and constitutes a change of use. What's material is the change of use, which doesn't necessarily need a material change to the fabric of the building. A good example near me was a friend who runs her chiropractic business from home - no material changes were made to the fabric of the building, but she needed PP for the change of use.
The Planning Portal gives a handy set of questions you need to ask yourself when contemplating a possible change of use, for instance from C3 to sui generis usage.
You do not necessarily need planning permission to work from home. The key test is whether the overall character of the home will change as a result of a business being conducted from the property. If the answer to any of the following questions is yes, then permission will probably be needed.
*
Will your home no longer be used mainly as a private home?
*
Will your business result in a marked rise in traffic or people calling?
*
Will your business involve any activities unusual in a residential area?
*
Will your business disturb your neighbours at unreasonable hours or create other forms of nuisance such as noise or smells?
The ones I've highlighted in bold seem to me to be very relevant.
Yep you are right. That is what is said as guidance. I know a number of Planning Officers who have kicked the requirement into touch as in their opinion it didn't, as most applications are delegated to officer level. So far I know of no parties in houses, that are run once a month, to have been subject to change of use.
They may be waiting for the amendments of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 to kick in to see if this will encompass it. We'll have to wait and see.
Thanks for extending the requirements of a premise license as I thought the e.g. identified it as only an example of other requirements. There are still other activities that fall under it but that will be a long list.
Dave_Notts

26 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Incidentally, staging parties for money in yuour own home is probably a change of use if you do it regularly - now that's a planning application I'd like to see...

I'm sure Islandcpl would show you his.
Planning applications are not required if the parties are being undertaken infrequently i.e. once a month. This would be on a par as the WI's coffee morning not requiring planning applications when they hold it at a house. Primarily the house is still a domestic property and it is not being altered in a material way. Now if it requires a material change then it would, but most house parties do not change the house in a material way.
A premise license is required for alcohol sales and entertainment e.g. recorded music, with some exemptions thrown in. This is why swinging clubs have a "bring your bottle" policy so the licensing section of the local council do not have to be informed.
This new bit of legislation is part of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and will be enforced by the same people i.e. the local council. It falls under the Sex Establishments bit where previously it only counted sex shops, sex cinemas and sex encounter premises e.g. peep shows. Now there is an amendment coming in that will definately cover Lap Dancing but it hasn't been disclosed if swinging clubs will fall under them or not.
Dave_Notts
A premises license is also required for dancing, performances of dance and so on.
You're right that frequency of usage is germane, but so is the number of visitors, and the purpose. Holding a coffee morning for the WI is pretty much safe, but running a commercial business with customers visiting the premises is, in my opinion, the wrong side of the line and constitutes a change of use. What's material is the change of use, which doesn't necessarily need a material change to the fabric of the building. A good example near me was a friend who runs her chiropractic business from home - no material changes were made to the fabric of the building, but she needed PP for the change of use.
The Planning Portal gives a handy set of questions you need to ask yourself when contemplating a possible change of use, for instance from C3 to sui generis usage.
You do not necessarily need planning permission to work from home. The key test is whether the overall character of the home will change as a result of a business being conducted from the property. If the answer to any of the following questions is yes, then permission will probably be needed.
*
Will your home no longer be used mainly as a private home?
*
Will your business result in a marked rise in traffic or people calling?
*
Will your business involve any activities unusual in a residential area?
*
Will your business disturb your neighbours at unreasonable hours or create other forms of nuisance such as noise or smells?
The ones I've highlighted in bold seem to me to be very relevant.
Yep you are right. That is what is said as guidance. I know a number of Planning Officers who have kicked the requirement into touch as in their opinion it didn't, as most applications are delegated to officer level. So far I know of no parties in houses, that are run once a month, to have been subject to change of use.
They may be waiting for the amendments of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 to kick in to see if this will encompass it. We'll have to wait and see.
Thanks for extending the requirements of a premise license as I thought the e.g. identified it as only an example of other requirements. There are still other activities that fall under it but that will be a long list.
Dave_Notts
If it's a party for friends, I'd agree. If it's a business, I'd say it's a change of use.
I think the point about needing a license for dancing or performances of dance is significant, and not just merely extending the categories you referred to.

26 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
If it's a party for friends, I'd agree. If it's a business, I'd say it's a change of use.
I think the point about needing a license for dancing or performances of dance is significant, and not just merely extending the categories you referred to.

A business in a domestic property is not always a requirement for a change of use and they look at it on a case by case basis.
Unless they have River Dance or similar then performance of dance is out of the window for a swinging club. To be sensible, if I wanted to see a dancing performance then I would go to a theatre and not a swinging club. Dancing would be in the same context of a music club, so unless the swinging club has the facilities of a club then they wouldn't need this either.
Dave_Notts

27 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

If it's a party for friends, I'd agree. If it's a business, I'd say it's a change of use.
I think the point about needing a license for dancing or performances of dance is significant, and not just merely extending the categories you referred to.

A business in a domestic property is not always a requirement for a change of use and they look at it on a case by case basis.
Unless they have River Dance or similar then performance of dance is out of the window for a swinging club. To be sensible, if I wanted to see a dancing performance then I would go to a theatre and not a swinging club. Dancing would be in the same context of a music club, so unless the swinging club has the facilities of a club then they wouldn't need this either.
Dave_Notts
Its not just dancing performances, its dancing in general. I know that a pub near us that was struggling put on karaoke every friday as a way to have music because the licence for that was cheaper than for a disco purely because a disco encourages dancing (need the relevant licence for that) whereas a karaoke may have accidental dancing but its not its primary aim.
If a club plays music and folk could dance to it they need a licence for their customers to dance.

27 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

If it's a party for friends, I'd agree. If it's a business, I'd say it's a change of use.
I think the point about needing a license for dancing or performances of dance is significant, and not just merely extending the categories you referred to.

A business in a domestic property is not always a requirement for a change of use and they look at it on a case by case basis.
Unless they have River Dance or similar then performance of dance is out of the window for a swinging club. To be sensible, if I wanted to see a dancing performance then I would go to a theatre and not a swinging club. Dancing would be in the same context of a music club, so unless the swinging club has the facilities of a club then they wouldn't need this either.
Dave_Notts
One person doing a demonstration of folk dancing at a ceilidh is sufficient to constitute a performance of dance and to require the separate category of licence.

27 Sep 2010

While everyone is looking at the problem Swingers clubs may have, there is also the question of Gay / Lesbian clubs or saunas. How will they be affected ? Also, several swingers clubs also advertise Gay / Lesbian / Bi-sexual days or nights.
I think Councils will be more reticent to take action which may affect G/L rights or activities. Maybe for no other reason that G/L are more vocal in protecting their hard won rights.
All the arguments which are pertainent to swingers clubs and parties are surely the same as to G/L clubs and parties..........sex, drinking, dancing, singing etc.
John

27 Sep 2010

Quote by vampanya
Its not just dancing performances, its dancing in general. I know that a pub near us that was struggling put on karaoke every friday as a way to have music because the licence for that was cheaper than for a disco purely because a disco encourages dancing (need the relevant licence for that) whereas a karaoke may have accidental dancing but its not its primary aim.
If a club plays music and folk could dance to it they need a licence for their customers to dance.

Recorded music/dancing/etc falls under the same license so a karaoke will need one.
If the music is incidental to the premise or activity then it won't. If it is just background music then it is incidental so won't require one. Put in a DJ and it is not incidental so will require one, hence the facilities of a club example.
All you get now is a premise license and it costs the same if you want just alcohol sales or dancing or recorded music or etc. There is no different charge for each different one, as long as the business had the sense to apply for it all at once. If they add them on then this would require a veriance of the license and there is an extra admin charge to get these added on at a later date.
Dave_Notts

27 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
One person doing a demonstration of folk dancing at a ceilidh is sufficient to constitute a performance of dance and to require the separate category of licence.

I haven't seen many of them at a swinging club dunno

Dave_Notts

27 Sep 2010

That's cos the example was about a ceilidh not a swinging club.
A pole dance demo at a swinging club would perhaps be relevant then.

27 Sep 2010

Quote by vampanya
That's cos the example was about a ceilidh not a swinging club.
A pole dance demo at a swinging club would perhaps be relevant then.

It could be, but not necessarily. A club owner can either license or not, it is up to the enforcing authority to prove they are doing something. In the case of a single pole is it dance or exercise? If I was the owner I would ask the enforcing authority to prove it was dance/entertainment, as I would say it was for the patrons to limber up before undertaking a strenuous activity wink

. As long as the music is not belting out at the volume of a nightclub then it can be classed as background/incidental music.
Dave_Notts

27 Sep 2010

Thats not the point. You need a licence for people to dance whether its as a show or to a disco. Its not just about performance, its about dancing in general. And it would be stretching the point massively to say that a pole dance in a swingers club was just for excersise.

27 Sep 2010

A pole dance for entertainment would mean that the club has just fallen under the sex establishment license. This carries one helluva lot of conditions so the club owner is not going to bat an eye applying for a premise license if they have already had to wade through the sex establishment hoops.
Dave_Notts

28 Sep 2010

I hate to be a bore but you're wrong there. Pole dancing for entertainment does not automatically mean that it falls into the sex establishment criteria. Far from it. Only the fact that its in a swingers club (for the purpose of this debate) would make it anything to do with adult entertainment and thats because of the venue not the activity. Pole dancing in a pub needs no licence specific to adult entertainment. But that's going off the point even further.
Dancing is dancing and as bizarre as it may seem, establishments have to have a licence for it whether its performance or girls having dance round handbags. All establishments. Pubs included.

28 Sep 2010

Ah my most favorite of websites.....equalities and human rights.
I read about three words and have now just brought up my breakfast.
Do people actually believe all that nonsense they spout?

28 Sep 2010

Quote by Islandcpl1
Thank you for the correction, and the link to the EHRC web site as useful as it is, is only guidance and not a court of law, which is where the new legislation will be interpreted and enforced.

Are you actually able to read? In the first few pages of the "guidance" it mentions its status quite clearly in this respect - not unlike to the status accorded to the Highway Code. I just can't be arsed to cut and paste the relevant reference because you clearly have no intention of pursuing anything other than your own petty agenda.
I'm even more surprised that your posting wasn't punctuated with the usual "idiot" references; perhaps you may be learning a little (albeit slowly) after all!
Yes I read as should you

Gordon Bennett - you still here? lol

28 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
Do people actually believe that human beings deserve to be treated with dignity ,that your colour ,creed ,age ,sexuality,is no excuse for worse a lot of us do.

Human rights have to be earned not given as a right, also equality laws?
The only way equality laws work is when EVERYONE is treated the same, and NOT treated differently just because of your religion or the colour of ones skin, or any other reason.
If people want to treat minorities in a completely different way to the majority, is it any wonder we have bad feeling out there.
Treat everyone the same and maybe just maybe the word " equality " will not be bounded about as though it is a chocolate sweet.
A friends Daughter is doing a course on social care at the moment, where she has to learn about diversity and equality.....it is like a social workers manual.
Equality does not exist, and for many, having human rights is a joke as there are plenty out there who not only do not deserve any rights, but certainly not human rights ones.
Sorry not really a lefty here at this keyboard.

28 Sep 2010

Quote by vampanya
I hate to be a bore but you're wrong there. Pole dancing for entertainment does not automatically mean that it falls into the sex establishment criteria. Far from it. Only the fact that its in a swingers club (for the purpose of this debate) would make it anything to do with adult entertainment and thats because of the venue not the activity. Pole dancing in a pub needs no licence specific to adult entertainment. But that's going off the point even further.
Dancing is dancing and as bizarre as it may seem, establishments have to have a licence for it whether its performance or girls having dance round handbags. All establishments. Pubs included.

This is the quirkiness in the licensing laws. Automatically require one is not an absolute under this piece of legislation. It depends on what you are doing, where and for how long.
Pole dancing does not automatically need one, as you rightly said, as it is dependant on what they are doing. If it is sexual gratification then this can be classed as entertainment and one is required under the sex establishment criteria. If it is for people to use as an exercise regime/limbering up then it isn't required.
Dancing is not dancing I am afraid. It is what the premise is hosting depends if it requires a license. An example here is a village hall that hosts a disco for kids could require a license. The same village hall that has a youth club with a jukebox in the corner and kids dance around their handbags does not require one. It is incidental to the use which is primarily as a youth club.
Now private/domestic houses being used by 10-20 couples for a shag who pay £20 for the pleasure and have a stereo in the corner where one or two couples may get up and dance does not require one for dancing as it is also incidental to the activity i.e. shagging, that is the main activity that is on-going there.
Now to really throw the cats among the pigeons. Even if the private house wants to hold a full blown disco, they do not have to apply for the full license as they are not having it all the time. They can just give the council a Temporary Events Notice. This is just a notice to tell them that they are having it, they are not asking for permission just telling them, as the only people who can object is the police authority. A private person can apply for 5 of these a year or if the person holds a personal license then they can apply for 12 a year.
The licensing legislation is so screwed up, even the councils do not apply it consistantly. Cross border differences are not uncommon. This is one piece of legislation that was brought in with so many loopholes that it is nearly unenforceable........and thankfully it is under review to be changed.
Dave_Notts

29 Sep 2010

just a thought i suppose the powers that be thought this act was fair and just to everyone so why do they allow the "postcode lottery" of nhs medicines being dispensed to some people but not all people who may need it, that don't seem fair and equal to everyone.