CAMPAIGN REACHS BBC NEWS!
GROD HAS INTERVIEW "UNDER CAUTION"
The 25th of August 1999 was a pretty hectic day. The BBC South West News decided to come down and follow events, having previously covered the story in the initial stages. They filmed my "Public Protest" in the Abbey Square, where I gave details of the ban. I then sang to the gathered crowd (Thanks for all coming and showing your support.) un-amplified to show how difficult it was to hear the quieter material I sing. Though singing "Wonderful Tonight" at 10:30am was a little strange!
NEW UPDATE!!!
CLICK ON FIRST PIC TO SEE A REAL MEDIA (RM) VIDEO OF THE BBC SW NEWS BROADCAST OF MY PROTEST!
The BBC crew then interviewed the crowd for comments, good and bad, to give the story a balance. The problem was, they couldn't find a bad comment! Eventually, (About five minutes later) they stopped this guy who'd just come around the corner with his kids and knew nothing about the protest. He mentioned in an otherwise positive manner that he was against it if it stopped people walking through.
That was about as bad as they could get! With me in the middle of a large square I don't think I can be accused of that… otherwise you can bring into question the queues waiting to get into the Pump Rooms blocking access to the square!
The interview then went ahead and lasted around 40 mins. The details of which remain confidential in case of any further legal action. What I can say is that at the end Mr. Carter said that if I'd admitted the offence, breaking the Abatement Notice by using my amp again, he could have just cautioned me.
However, I used the "reasonable excuse" clause
I pointed out that my performances on these days were extremely well received and that I had received no complaints, only a lot of very nice compliments.
He though had some complaints and showed me a few letters. I have no reason to believe these complaints are not genuine. But I believe them to be a small minority who had complained not just about me but all buskers.
Because I admitted using the amp, but not having broken the Abatement Order, he told me that he couldn't now just caution me and have given him few options.
Because I basically disagree with Mr. Carter issuing the original Abatement Order in the first place, there were other remedies at his disposal, one can imagine that he may now well want to flex the authority he has. As a sign to anyone who challenges his decisions, whatever the merits of the case.
I can imagine he has a difficult job. He gets the complaints, it's his task to find a balance between nuisance and entertainment. If he does nothing, people complain about him. If he does something and is seen to act, someone has to be his victim.
Someone walks into town with a big amp, sets up, starts playing quiet love songs and ballads and people enjoy it. The performer using a 70 watt output amp, but using it at below halfway settings, because he is looking for quality of sound, not pure volume. He plays at about 30 watts, and it all sounds very nice.
Someone else walks into town with a small amplifier, it's maximum output is 30 watt. They turn it up full belt causing lots of distortion, pop in pre-recorded backing music and start playing an instrument over the top of it.
A band walks into town, sets up a drum kit, three amps for guitar, bass guitar and microphone and plays a stomping Irish Set.
The first guy for some reason is Mr. Carter's chosen victim. Why? (Not that I dislike either of the other acts nor want them banned alongside me.)
Possibly because the other acts are "regulars" and accepted and know each other. Ban one and you get a fight on your hands with all the others. The first guy is fairly new and works alongside the others, but works mainly alone.
Mr. Carter is now filing his report and the council will be deciding what to do, whether to throw the book at me for making such a fuss over my basic legal rights or whether to find some kind of resolution.
I offered to Mr. Carter that I stopped performing completely as soon as he informed me that I "MAY" be breaking the Abatement Notice. While the BBC report said I "Used my amp throughout the summer", they forgot to mention that was last summer, before the ban. This year I have used an amp on only six days. I am not trying to criminalise myself nor deliberately break the law.
The BBC report mentioned also that most buskers abide by the Busker Code. The code I obtained before I started busking and also abide to. It is something I also explain to new acts in the City and I see it as a good way of regulation. The Code does not forbid amplifiers. It states that you should not be distinctly heard at 50 meters and cause annoyance. (Of course what "distinctly heard" and "causing annoyance" means, becomes the sole opinion of Mr. Carter's ears.)
What I am looking for is "Resolution" not "Prosecution." I have even offered to play at pre-arranged times just a few times a week and to again try and find a suitable volume that is fair to the people who obviously enjoy my music and songs, and fair to the residents who don't like me or any other buskers.
My hope is that some common sense prevails. Busking is done by many different people who do it for a whole different bunch of reasons. I was trying to rebuild my life, save my business and try out a new act that might help me earn more in my performing career. I dared to use an amplifier because I knew it would enhance my performance. I wasn't using it just to blast out everybody.
While I accept there have been complaints, the view I have is that the vast, vast majority of my audiences enjoyed thoroughly my performances. The visitors took my concert away as one of their special memories of their stay in Bath. And I gained a lot of confidence in my performance and belief that I had a future.
I would hate the legacy of all this is deter someone with talent, but wanting to try out their material by "Busking" first, from using an amplifier if it really is essential to them giving their best performance. As long as the amp is used with great integrity of the surroundings. And I firmly believe I used my integrity as regards to the amp I used. I just think some people hate amplifiers, or feel they should be hidden.
The simple problem though, is volume. The answer with an amp, is that you have a control switch. You cannot turn down a drum, cymbal, viola, flute, saxophone, steel drum or harp.
Imagine if Pavarotti strolled into town and decided to do some busking for the sheer fun of it. While un-amplified, I bet he'd still have drowned me out. What would Mr. Carter do here?
My hope is that some kind of resolution can be found. However, I have already missed most of the main season and the decision of the council could be weeks away. I have virtually given up hope of performing in Bath this year. Which is a great shame not only for me but for the vast number of people who enjoyed my concerts.
After the interview I had to give another one, this time live on BBC Radio Bristol as soon as I'd got home from the interview. It was put to me that surely after receiving the notice and losing the court case, surely I knew I was breaking the law by using the amp again? I gave the other side of the coin, that I didn't deliberately break the law, because of the "Reasonable excuse" clause and the advice and support I have had been given.
Then later in the afternoon I was rung by a reporter from the Bath Chronicle on the days events. She fielded the question "And what for the future while the decisions being decided by the Council?"
The answer is that I will not be performing in Bath with, or without an amplifier. I gave two last performances in the square un-amplified, which gathered a good crowd of well-wishers, then went off to watch how the BBC South West News team presented the story.
Personally I thought it was a good piece of television. Even Mr. Carter appeared on it to explain that if there are complaints he has a duty to investigate them.
My hope is that he notices that while the complaints he has received are very real, so also is the fact that a large number of other people who like my act and support me are real, including residents and businesses of the Square.
Banning my amplifier, and thus my entire act, and further persecuting me, simply discriminates against the majority and victimizes me. It also puts off other good acts coming to perform in Bath because they happen to use an amp. It also allows the "Regulars" to monopolize and monotonize the square. Thus further annoying the few complaining residents about hearing the same stuff over and over again 7 days a week, as they do already.
I have offered negotiation to try and resolve the problem. It is for Mr. Carter and the Council to decide "Resolution or Prosecution." Personally I'd like to see us working together and promoting Bath and the quality of it's busking acts. Not a place of farce, mis-justice and unfair discrimination.
But can I end by thanking all those who have shown me support in so many ways, from letters, emails, signing my petitions, contacting my website, appearing on a rainy morning to support my protest and those who have given me their good wishes. Thankyou too for the BBC for their coverage.
My best wishes to you all
Grod Groddler
"Well… that really is a one man banned!"
"What does Grod mean? Answers on a postcard please!"
(The answer… simply is it's an old school nickname!)
Click here to return to the previous page
Disclaimer
(I have used the pictures above because it is my belief that they are in the public domain. If the material is copyrighted in any way and the proven copyright owner feels they are being mis-used, please email me and they will be removed with immediate effect.) [email protected]