Give Westminster feedback on its horrible policy

Hey everyone,

Welcome to easily the longest email I've ever written. Make sure you've got 20 minutes to spare, take a deep breath, then continue...

Westminster City Council is proposing changes to its busking licence. It's asking for feedback. I'd like you to let them know what you think.

You might remember that I did a two-month investigation that showed that WCC had lied and distorted data multiple times in its reports. Months later, we're still finding out crazy stuff. For example, they recently admitted—in answer to a Freedom of Information request—that in fact they'd only received less than half of the complaints they'd previously claimed.

Less than half. It's just nuts.

Anyway, they are now requesting feedback, because they still haven't admitted elsewhere that complaints have gone down, and want to make their licence even more restrictive. Here's the page on the council website explaining why.

To let them know what you think, you can go here:

buskingstreetentertainment.commonplace.is

For those of you who might be interested, below are the answers that I gave. Feel free to read my answers before you tell the council your thoughts, but do NOT copy/paste the text below when giving Westminster your own feedback.

Q: Do you endorse the suggested approach allowing individuals aged 14 to 17 to obtain a busking licence?

No. Your document says, "It is illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to busk." That’s false. Nationally, it's illegal only under the age of 14. This is entirely an invention of Westminster City Council (WCC).

Also, you need to make it clear that the rule, "should be accompanied by their parent, legal guardian or appropriate adult whilst performing," is optional, not mandatory, as stated in your license agreement. This is to avoid confusion with your own officers.

Allowing youngsters to busk is important! Here’s an incomplete list of people who started busking at the age of 17 or lower, none of whom, due to family circumstances, would have been able to be accompanied by a parent while they busked: Irving Berlin (who began busking at age 8), Josh White (8), John Lee Hooker (9), Joaquin Phoenix (10), Blind Lemon Jefferson (11), Louis Armstrong (11), Mick Jagger (12), Glen Hansard (13), Lead Belly (13), Edith Piaf (14), Jimmy Page (14), Beck (16), Eric Clapton (16), Brian Jones (17), Dolly Parton (17), KT Tunstall (17), Passenger (17), Paul Bettany (17), Pierce Brosnan (17), Woody Guthrie (17). There are many, many more.

Q: The council proposes prohibiting people under the age of 17 from busking during England's school terms, excluding weekends and national bank holidays. What are your thoughts on this condition?

1. WCC is inserting itself into the personal lives of 14-17 year olds without having gathered evidence first. How do you know whether kids should be doing homework or furthering their skills in their chosen artistic discipline, or that they're even having to choose between them?

2. By asking for feedback on this proposal, you're asking a whole bunch of people that also have no evidence to give their opinions.

3. You are proposing banning kids from busking for 38 out of the 52 weeks of the year—that’s 75% of the weekdays of the year. Even if accompanied by a parent or guardian, those restrictions would still apply. That includes busking after school hours, which means this policy is even more restrictive than the nation’s other anti-truancy laws (which only concern school hours).

4. Limiting the kids to weekends and holidays does two things:

a) It forces them to perform when there are fewer pitches available. Trafalgar Square (TS) and Leicester Square (LS), two of the prime locations for busking, were closed for events for a an average of 106 days per pitch per year between 2021 and 2023. These closures were far more common on weekends and holidays—especially during the summer and winter holidays.

These closures also affect the only two pitches in TS and LS where musicians can busk with amplification. In other words, if 14-17 year olds are restricted to busking only on weekends and holidays, they will be far less likely than other performers to be able to perform with amplification — or to find a space to busk at all!

b) This policy isn’t just bad for children, it’s also bad for the adult professional buskers. Forcing any subset of buskers to only work on weekends and holidays increases demand for pitches at those very profitable times. This needlessly harms all the other buskers who simply want their ‘fair share’ of profitable pitches.

Q: The council proposes preventing the child licensee from performing beyond 8pm and before 8am. What are your thoughts on this condition?

1. No pitch within the licence is available before 10 a.m., so the 8 a.m. limit for children is pointless.

2. As for the evening curfew, you’re saying that a child who is accompanied by a parent or guardian will still be stopped from performing between 8 and 9 p.m., in order to avoid contact with the prevalence of alcohol or crime in Westminster at those times. Has WCC conducted any research into the impact of busking in Westminster on 14-17 year olds during those hours? Has there been a single case of a 14-17 year old being harmed during those hours?

3. Lopping off the last hour of the day (8-9 p.m.) might not seem like much. But you're already banning kids from busking on the 190 week days for school—a reduction of 52%. Taking off the last hour reduces that by another 9%. Add the regular pitch closures in TS and LS on weekends (the only time you’re permitting children to busk), plus the times when they’ll be rained off, and you’re severely limiting the ability of youngsters to earn from their art.

These seem like arbitrary, pointless and harmful restrictions, created without first gathering an evidence base. Isn't the council supposed to react to data?

Q: Do you agree with the proposal to include a new policy section on the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults?

1. I’m obviously not against the general idea of protecting children. However, this policy as written is not enforceable. In order to charge a busker for not safeguarding a child or vulnerable person, the council would have to:

a) prove that the busker knew the person was in danger
b) prove that the busker intentionally did nothing
c) prove that the person was in fact in danger
d) and do so before that person had left the scene

According to WCC, your own city Inspectors and police officers almost never show up on time. Even if they did, how likely is it that they'll have enough evidence for points a, b and c above?

2. This rule would only help in cases where a) a busker would never normally intervene based on their humanity, but b) would intervene if they thought they were legally obliged. Does the council have any evidence that this policy would have helped in a single case previously?

3. You're asking untrained individuals—buskers—to do the jobs of your trained police officers and city inspectors. This is asking for trouble.

Q: Does the proposed policy provide a suitable summary of the key considerations and actions for safeguarding children and vulnerable adults?

No. It doesn't explain a) what "at risk" means, b) say which actions the buskers must take (should they stop their show? get the identifying details of the child and their abuser?), or c) say what will happen to a performer who does not take those specific actions at those specific times. As such, it's entirely unenforceable as written.

Q: Do you agree with the council's stance that it is up to the licensed busker using protected works to pay royalties to the appropriate party?

No. PPL/PRS has a busking tariff for Local Authorities. The busking music licence costs Local Authorities £13.00 per day. PPL/PRS also pay the buskers for performing in public. They have made it clear: local authorities pay for the busking license per pitch, and that money is paid to the buskers.

The logic is clear. By the terms of your license:

a) WCC has demarcated pitches on which buskers must perform,
b) buskers are not allowed to busk elsewhere in the borough,
c) you vet every busker when you hand out licences,
d) you've set rules saying what can be done on each pitch,
e) you patrol these pitches to ensure only permitted activity is taking place

In other words, the council has created managed, licensed busking venues. Like any other venue, this means you are liable for payments to copyright holders. This is a completely backwards reading of a fairly simple law. If councils weren’t liable for royalties on busking pitches, why would PPL/PRS have a tariff for such a thing?

Q: The council is proposing banning threatening, abusive, offensive, and violent behaviour from licensees—and instances where licensees incite the public to engage in the above behaviours—towards authorised officers and police personnel. Do you believe this condition is necessary, reasonable and proportionate?

No. You’ve been a bit sneaky here. Why didn’t you mention in the question above that buskers also won't be allowed to use "offensive language" towards City Inspectors? The House of Lords upheld British Citizens' right to use offensive language towards the police. Are the people who drafted this amendment even less antiestablishment than the noble lords and ladies of this country? Do City Inspectors have thinner skins than the cops?

Furthermore, what exactly do you mean by offensive language? If a busker called a City Inspector a jumped up busybody, would their licence be revoked? Or do they have to use naughty words? What kind of atmosphere are you trying to create here—one where utter deference to power is maintained?

Finally, according to your own reports, "most incidents involving verbal or physical abuse directed at City Inspectors relate to unlicensed buskers." The only thing you claim licensed buskers have exhibited is "poor behaviour". Targeting license holders with this clause is therefore pointless.

Q: The council is proposing that licensees must cooperate with authorised officers and the police in cases of non-compliance or illegal activity. Do you believe these proposed revisions are appropriate?

This part is nuts.

Point (2) in your proposal says that cooperation with any investigation includes that the busker must provide information on the identification of any other busker who is under investigation, or lose their license.

This is a LOSE YOUR LICENSE OR RAT ON YOUR FRIENDS clause. Not even the fine members of the Metropolitan Police can force you to do that without a subpoena.

What mad person is drafting these amendments for you?

Q: Do you have any further comments on this section?

I'm just shocked. Both of the most significant parts of your proposed changes (banning offensive language and your 'rat on your friends' clause) are missing from the above questions. It’s devious to ask for feedback on this section without mentioning them.

Q: Due to the significant volume of complaints and adverse effects on businesses in and around Leicester Square, the council is considering prohibiting the use of amplification. What is your perspective on this proposal?

1. You excused the proposal to tighten restrictions by claiming that 5,070 complaints were made over a 26 month period. But, a Freedom of Information response stated that the real number of complaints was 2,418—less than half your earlier claim. That’s it. That’s your entire argument out the window.

2. There are five amplified pitches in your scheme. The one in Marble Arch is unworkable. An insane council employee put another pitch in the middle of a traffic island, a place so dangerous buskers have to stop performing the moment they gather an audience. The council has also removed the West Piazza pitch from the scheme.

There are two remaining amplified pitches in Westminster, one in Trafalgar Square (TS), the other in Leicester Square (LS). If you ban amplification in LS, the hundreds of buskers who work in Westminster will have to share just 12 shows per day, meaning a busker would be able to get an amplified spot in Westminster roughly once per month.

This makes signing up to your license pointless.

3. 91 million people a year pass through LS. The council is receiving one complaint per tens of thousands of people entertained, but have decided to ban amplification anyway. Considering how good buskers are for local businesses and tourism, and the tiny number of complaints the buskers receive, surely the council should be pursuing the complainants—not the buskers—to fix their situation.

The "Agent of Change" rule for music venues states that any developer or business that sets up near a music venue is responsible for their own soundproofing. Using that same logic here, it becomes self-evident that local businesses that have moved near historical busking pitches should double-glaze their windows. They should also accept that what little sound they are able to hear through two panes of glass is the cost of having created offices directly next to a hugely popular busking pitch, and a mainstay of Westminster's cultural landscape for over 170 years.

Put it another way. You say yourself that the architecture surrounding the square (all the tall buildings) is to blame for the sound from buskers' shows bouncing around it. Is that the fault of the buskers, or the architects?

4. Talking of tourism, the street performers are mentioned on Trip Advisor and Google Maps reviews as the #1 reason to go to Leicester Square. More people mention the buskers than the cinemas. The idea that the local businesses are the rightful occupants, and the buskers are opportunists that need to be controlled, is exactly the opposite way of looking at things.

5. You say that "engagement with buskers has taken place". But, the council did not implement the one communication channel intended to bring local stakeholders and the council together with the street performers: the ‘Forum’. In your policy document and reports, the Forum was called “vital” for communication. The council should make clear that THE COUNCIL has obstructed that communication, rather than enabled it, which has led to a breakdown in relations between the LSSPA, CGSPA and the council. Fix that first, before you ban amplification in LS.

Q: Are there any alternative options that the council could consider other than the removal of amplification?

1. A busker beat. A previous 'busker beat' showed a dramatic reduction in noise complaints. It's the only thing proven to work. Do this again. It's worth the cost: buskers bring in millions in tourism spend per year, which turns into tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of pounds for the council.

2. Double Glazing. Require that all local businesses submitting noise complaints have done so with reasonable concern, having installed double glazing or noise dampeners to their windows first. This is not just a noise concern, as it will also reduce the carbon footprint of these businesses, helping to prevent the climate death of the planet, while making those businesses warmer in winter and cooler in summer. A totally reasonable win-win all round.

3. Decibel readers. Give your Inspectors decibel readers, and have them measure noise levels. Set limits under the format of "X decibels above background noise from Y meters away". Then they can work with the buskers to solve the noise issue, rather than making a judgement call that the busker might not agree with.

4. Have a complaints system set up that notifies SPA members immediately. The buskers are always on pitch, queueing for their next show. They could respond to noise complaints IMMEDIATELY, rather than waiting for the council to take hours or even days to respond, plus saving police time.

5. Implement the forum, to get buskers, businesses and residents to start talking.

Q: The council intends to amend the performer self-regulation and street performers associations section in its licensing policy, emphasising the advantages that SPAs provide and highlight the council's commitment to supporting SPAs in establishing transparent rules, policies, and procedures. Do you support these proposed revisions?

1. Holy shit. The question above misses out the KEY part of your suggested amendments. The council isn't making some banal change to "emphasise advantages" or "highlight commitment". This is a grotesque twist on what you're proposing.

The amendment says that the council should be able to set the terms of membership for the SPAs. The council says it should have veto power over who’s sitting opposite them in negotiations. It’s saying they will only recognise SPAs of whom 100% of their members are licensed. So, if an SPA rep loses their license, they must be expelled from the SPA, or the council will stop recognising that SPA, which will therefore be barred from all future communications.

In what sense is this an ethical policy?

2. The council is claiming that "a need for greater support and information emerged, particularly concerning the establishment of a SPA". What does emerged mean? Did the council take a vote? Or are these the words of a couple of civil servants who've decided they're tired of dealing with the Covent Garden SPA and want to replace them?

3. The council is proposing "templates" of rules that new SPAs must follow. If the council wants to create an organisation headed by people who adhere to the council's strict rules, then the council should create a new department. What you're effectively trying to do is get buskers to work for the council for free. This is not "self regulation", as the council proposes, this is blatant exploitation.

4. You say that you want to see these new SPAs flourish "in specific parts of the city". The only three parts of the city that the council has continually focused their attention on in your reporting to date is Trafalgar Square (TS), Covent Garden (CG) and Leicester Square (LS). That’s exactly where SPAs are currently flourishing. Unless "specific parts of the city" include areas that you've never mentioned in council reports before, this is just a blatant move to replace the currently existing SPAs.

5. There is another thing you're missing from the question above: the council has also proposed excluding the two existing SPAs from attending the Forum. That is, of course, if the council ever bothers to hold one. The reason given is that the current SPAs do not exclude unlicensed buskers. This isn't just insulting, it's hugely counterproductive. Not only are you halting communication with the only organisations in town, you're even trying to usurp them. Shameless.

6. Finally, another important fact that you've missed out here is that you've recently agreed not to enforce your own policy in Covent Garden. There are three reasons: 1) the CGSPA got pages and pages of signatures in support of them from local businesses, 2) they do a frankly incredible job at keeping noise complaints (roughly 1 complaint for every 4,000 shows they do), and 3) the council has never been able to enforce their own policy, because they don't have the time or resources.

The fact that you’re still pursuing this amendment is mind-boggling. This isn't a common sense plan, it just seems vengeful.

Q: Do you believe that additional benefits could be provided to SPA Members who meet a certain level of knowledge, experience or training, which would elevate their commitment to creating a vibrant and safe Westminster? For example, members being able to use amplification on pitches that would normally restrict their use, or use new specific time limited pitches that are in more sensitive locations.

The carrot and stick approach!

1. Forcing organisations to do exactly as the council tells them, without payment, is at best morally dubious.

2. The council must have realised that the only way you're going to get street performers to stab the CGSPA or LSSPA in the back is through bribes.

3. AWho's going to do the "specific training"? Have you budgeted for this? If the council wants to run workshops and training programs, it will have to pay whomever runs those programs, or you're going to have to exploit the SPAs. Remember, the buskers in Westminster are already working for you for free: they're bringing in untold thousands of tourists, and getting millions of people to spend extra time in town (people who'll then be more likely to purchase meals and coffees), without the council or local businesses paying them to do so.

4. Why would buskers who've demonstrated they have experience and training need to be in an SPA? Either they know how to busk well or they don't—there's no reason to force them to also join a 'recognised' SPA. This is yet another tactic meant to undermine the current SPAs that you’re trying to replace.

5. You’re admitting that buskers should be allowed to use amplification if they adhere to certain rules. You're admitting that good buskers aren't a problem. And yet, what you're proposing is collective punishment by limiting licensed buskers to fewer amplified pitches. Why not just prosecute bad buskers by gathering evidence and issuing CPNs—the policy you developed around 2015, which WCC scrapped without explanation?

Q: The council plans to create template documents to aid existing and new SPAs in developing transparent and open membership schemes with a proposed membership association constitution, association rules, governance structure, and membership disciplinary process. Do you think these will be beneficial?

No. If these templates are voluntary, and SPAs are free to follow them or not, then you already have two SPAs that function just fine with such documents that weren't provided by the council. If these templates are NOT voluntary, and SPAs HAVE to follow them, then what you're really doing is setting up new government departments without paying their employees.

During the last council meeting on busking policy, Cllr. Carman rightly pointed out that it was A LIE to say that the CGSPA had refused to hand over their governing documents. She proposed a motion—which was passed—to have that language removed in the document being discussed. Whomever is drafting the council's reports cannot be trusted to inform the councillors (or indeed the public) on how professional, open or transparent the current SPAs are. This proposal is unnecessary at best.

Q: The council intends to reinstate the Forum, specifying meeting frequency, participation expectations, and broader advantages for licensees. Do you support the suggested modifications?

No. In your proposed changes to Code 7, you have this language:

“SPA’s [sic] serve as representatives for licensed buskers and street entertainers, fostering close collaboration and engagement with the council, police, and representatives of local businesses and residents.”

You also write:

“The best way to promote busking and build partnerships with residents and businesses is to keep in frequent contact with us, and engage with your local community.”

This mirrors language the council used back in 2020, that the Forum is:

“a bridge between the busking community and our local residents and businesses...in order to foster good relations and open communication and to promote partnership.”

And yet, your new proposal states that the forum should only be a “communication channel between licensed buskers...and the council’s enforcement team.”

No more businesses. No more residents. No more bridge. This is not a ‘Forum’ by any stretch of the imagination. This is a meeting between an organisation doing exactly what the council says, and members of the council who wield the ability to excommunicate them for dissent. At best that’s a dialogue.

Even during covid, council officials managed to do innumerable in person and virtual meetings with local businesses and residents groups to talk about busking. Why not the Forum? We don't know, because the council has never explained what reasons it had for scrapping the Forum. This means that a) the Forum as previously described was never given a chance to work, and b) the council has a history of scrapping forums. Why should they now be trying to change the terms of the Forum?

Q: Are there any other revisions, amendments, or additions to the licensing policy that the council should contemplate?

1. Management of the Forum must be outsourced to a third party. If the council can't be trusted with this power, others should run it, and they should be paid. Only then could you say that a change to the forum was indeed needed.

2. The council should revise the language around the Forum to say that they won't make any new policies unless it has actually held a regular Forum, and that views from other stakeholders won't be considered unless representatives of those stakeholders have also been present at the Forum.

3. Make the Forum open to any street performers who busk or want to busk in Westminster.

4. Structure the Forum so that at least one policy point is debated in each meeting (preferably two or three). Residents, businesses and buskers could then talk through the issues, and the council will learn whether any specific detail is wanted or needed. They'll also learn which of the many bizarre rules in the policy have been concocted from thin air by council employees, and which are actually desired by locals.

5. Hold votes. Record the forums and/or publish transcripts so that there is evidence of the questions raised and votes made.

Q: Do you have any further comments on this matter?

Machiavellian

Q: Do you have views on other minor or non-consequential revisions that should be made to the policy?

1. Yes. Between 2017 and 2019, the CGSPA pitches received approximately 17 complaints per year from over 4,000 shows in front of millions of people. Incredible work. You should make it clear in the policy documents that your dream result would be to have any new SPAs be as successful as the Covent Garden SPA.

2. Make it clear how many unamplified shows registered buskers are likely to get per day. Only then can a busker determine whether it's worth the price.

3. Make it clear that when you say "light touch", what you really mean is "the police keep refusing to intervene, because they have better things to do, and city inspectors are almost never around on time, otherwise our license would be an absolute nightmare.

4. Add targets for how many complaints the council is willing to receive per million people entertained in Westminster. Set targets or it’s all meaningless.

5. Make it so that if businesses want to close Trafalgar Square and Leicester Square for events, they must do so not just on weekends and holidays (the best busking times), but also on weekdays, which must be split evenly.

6. Set up a notification system to let buskers know about pitch closures. The fact that you don't shows how little regard you have for the professional needs that buskers have.

7. Stop breaking the law by asking for Union Membership Status on your application forms.

8. Make it clear in the policy that previous employees who'd drafted rules such as "lose your licence or rat on your friends" are no longer working on busking policy, and that the council apologises for the way it has treated buskers over the last decade.

Q: Do you feel that any of the conditions provide an unintended barrier to either applying for a licence or performing?

How, exactly, are we supposed to know what the council intended or did not intend? In any case, here's a list.

1. The council never SAID they wanted to ban ¾ of the shows in Covent Garden.

Then you banned so-called 'dangerous' props. If you did that without knowing it would ban ¾ of the shows in Covent Garden, that's a scarily large lack of foresight. If the council DID know and went ahead anyway, then the council would also have known it would be pointless for most Covent Garden buskers to sign up for a licence.

[Note: the council suggested in its 2023 report that reasons why CG buskers might not want to get a licence include that they're tax-cheating criminals who think they're above the law. It would probably be best to apologise for this as well]

2. The council never SAID it wanted to ban all internationally travelling acts from performing in Westminster.

Then you admitted, over 800 days after the license had gone into effect, that you’d accidentally banned internationally touring acts. Either another scary lack of foresight, or an example of the council being duplicitous.

If ‘proof of right to work’ makes a show better, then it would make sense that it's a requirement of the licence. If it doesn't, then what’s the point of having it? Why are you trying to prevent foreigners from entertaining the public for free?

3. The council never SAID it wanted to give buskers too few pitches where amplified, wind, brass, percussion or percussive shows were allowed.

The council gave out 380 licenses per year between 2021-2023. There are an average of 14 hours per day of amplified pitch space available. For all the shows that require amplification to be heard over background noise (like beatboxing, Spanish guitar, harps etc), this means they'll only be able to perform once every couple of weeks at best. Perhaps this is why the licence has an 80% turnover rate, compared with the standard 10-20% turnover in other busking licence schemes.

Q: Do you believe that the standard conditions are reasonable and proportionate?

No. As mentioned above:

1. Banning so-called dangerous props bans ¾ of Covent Garden’s shows.

2. The “right to work” condition of getting a licence bans internationally touring shows.

3. Having so few pitches with amplification means your licence is effectively worthless to a lot of buskers.

4. Stopping buskers from bringing their pets with them doesn't help the pet, especially if they have separation anxiety. What misery are you trying to solve here? Are pets harmed by watching street shows?

5. Busking has been taking place in Westminster for a minimum of 360 years. Westminster City Council was only invented 60 years ago. What right do you have after 3 centuries to demand buskers ask your permission for anything?

Q: Do you believe that any of the standard conditions wording are ambiguous or could generate different interpretations?

Yes. "Each busker and street entertainer must ensure that sound as a result of any performance does not cause nuisance to persons in nearby property."

ANY noise could cause a nuisance. The question is whether the noise could REASONABLY cause a nuisance — a legal definition that excludes the whims of people who simply don't like buskers. This language must be changed.

That's it! Let me know if you made it this far, and I'll build a statue in your honour.

Please use the information above responsibly. Again, don't copy/paste it into the government's feedback forms. But feel free to share it elsewhere.

Thanks, and good luck out there,

Nick