I should probably say right out, politically, I follow a nearly Libertarian stance. I think we should have minimal government (government is meant to serve the needs of the people, in as unobtrusive a fashion as possible - if you ask me) and I absolutely abhor the idea of the government taking people's money because they think they can spend it better than we can.
To start with, there was this story on the Register. As the commenters have pointed out, it's not entirely clear what actually happened, but it's still a scary example of power creep in the hands of unelected busybodies doing their best to impose their own views on everyone else.
UK Music chief Feargal Sharkey told a House of Commons select committee that the policy had already been used to pull the plug on an afternoon charity concert of school bands in a public park organised by a local councillor.
"No alcohol would be sold, tickets were limited to three maximum, and the councillor offered to supply eight registered doormen. Police objected on the grounds that the names, addresses and dates of birth of the young performer could not be provided," said Sharkey, speaking to the Department of Culture Media and Sport's hearing on venue licensing today.
If it were a rap battle between rival bands where the followers could be expected to be violent and trouble was anticipated, then I could see the need for the police to get involved (although surely the limit of that should be to provide additional policing for the event) but this was a case where we're talking about school bands in a public park. Where is the risk? Where is the danger? And why on Earth do the police need the names, addresses and dates of birth of the young performers? How long before they need DNA samples as well, to be added to the ever-growing databases?
