This is going to be the most phenomenally boring blog post you’ve ever seen — UNLESS you’re interested in how councils come to make decisions about busking. Then, it’s fascinating. Sort-of.
——-
Jonathan Walker Deputation
Interesting because:
1. Thinks program will legitimise buskers
2. Residents are a captive audience
3. Buskers still have many places where they can express themselves in Camden, to a willing audience
4. This isn’t providing a “service” to the community: some people will like them, some won’t
5. Her disabled flatmate cannot leave the house, and is therefore forced to hear whatever buskers decide
6. Buskers are impolite (they never turn down when kindly asked to do so)
——-
Resident Deputation
Interesting because:
1. There has to be a genuine consultation process
2. The policy is heavy handed and disproportionate
3. Applying for a license, paying £50, waiting 20 working days and going before a panel does not “add to the spontaneity and vibrancy of the street”
4. 1/2 of the complaints from previous year were from just 9 people
5. Only 55 residents responded to the policy
6. The consultation itself was written in a flawed, leading manner
——-
Resident 2 Deputation
Interesting because:
1. Resident since 1969
2. Buskers must pay their fair share of the cost of maintaining Camden
3. Loud/Amplified sound not acceptable in a highly residential area
4. Free busking denies the right of everyone else not to listen to them
——-
Musicians Union Deputation
Interesting because:
1. Camden is an especially noisy part of London, busking is not a major factor
2. Confiscation of equipment is wrong; the instruments are expensive and how the musicians make their living.
3. Amplification should be allowed in certain circumstances
4. A fee is equivalent to a tax on someone’s ability to earn
5. The MU has worked with other councils on this kind of thing before, why not do it here?
——-
Resident, happy with these terms?
Interesting because:
1. If resident currently complains, nothing is done. What will this legislation change?
——-
Isn’t this tax deductible?
Interesting because:
1. Suggests that buskers can claim license back on their taxes as a business expense
——-
Do you want mutual respect?
Interesting because:
1. Councillor felt threatened by busker
2. That behaviour is already illegal, and has nothing to do with busking
——-
Were you contacted by the council?
Interesting because:
1. They didn’t consult with the buskers or Musicians Union before drafting the policy
——-
What sort of amplification is ok?
Interesting because:
1. No good answer given
——-
Are buskers noisy or criminal?
Interesting because:
1. They obviously are noisy, but this doesn’t mean they’re criminal. Not addressed properly.
——-
If no threat of confiscation…?
Interesting because:
1. There is already legislation that deals with “extreme” cases of buskers
——-
Where should the cost fall?
Interesting because:
1. There are obvious costs associated with dealing with busking.
2. “I don’t think that buskers should have their freedoms and rights restricted and curtailed and then be asked to pay for the privilege. It’s adding insult to injury.”
3. There are other options for funding things like this (sponsorships, for example)
——-
Is a typical busker a professional?
Interesting because:
1. From both camps — some career musicians, some marginalised people
2. Busking is affected by the socioeconomic situation surrounding it (austerity measures are creating more buskers)
——-
Are some pitches better than others?
Interesting because:
1. If a busker is creating a genuine obstruction, the police can already move them on.
——-
What hours are peak busking hours?
Interesting because:
1. You need to work out best hours of practice in consultation with residents.
——-
Why would you live somewhere noisy?
Interesting because:
1. Buskers shouldn’t get to dictate why people live in a neighbourhood. Residents should have their own terms.
——-
What are appropriate hours?
Interesting because:
1. Not addressed very well.
——-
Licensing Officer report
Interesting because:
1. Legislation is there to assist the police who feel they don’t have the power to deal with the situation.
——-
Which laws can officers already use?
Interesting because:
1. Parliament and the police do not feel they have adequate powers currently.
——-
Can residents appeal decisions?
Interesting because:
1. Only buskers could appeal decisions relating to their permits, residents would have no right of appeal, and council would not be involved in the decision making process.
——-
Could the buskers wage legal war?
Interesting because:
1. Yes. This might be a great way of wasting even more public money…
2. Having panels to review decisions would hugely escalate costs of the license program
——-
(Statement) Badly framed legislation
Interesting because:
1. If there is already legislation that can deal with this, new legislation is not required. This could mean it fails a “judicial review”.
2. Once you’ve lost freedom it’s difficult to get it back.
3. Propose a trial period of genuine consultation with different groups (buskers, residents, police). If it fails in 12 months, there’s a good reason for new legislation.
——-
How has busking changed since june?
Interesting because:
1. Self regulation doesn’t work in this instance
2. Problems are better and more easily addressed……but still feel new legislation is necessary.
——-
Why borough wide?
Interesting because:
1. There are other “special licensing areas” that work well
2. Policy is for “simplicity”
3. Would prevent buskers just going elsewhere
——-
This policy is flawed?
Interesting because:
1. Displacement wouldn’t happen because buskers will go where the money is
2. Simplicity is already proving not to be an issue with other policies
3. You’re going to scare away a ton of harmless buskers
4. Need to talk to people to work out what the best policy would be.