TimR

It doesn't work on any level. If a judge finds in favour of the image being child pornography; everyone who owns a copy of the CD gets put on the sex offenders register. Who knows what happens to any company that published or hosted the image...

I think we have discussed this already lots of times. The Pubs have entertainment budgets directly from the breweries. It seems to be a standard fee. £250-300. The pub doesn't have to cover your fee by selling more drinks, it's a separate payment. However, the landlord, if he's got any sense, will put on the bands that will draw a crowd and buy drinks, because he makes his money selling drinks. Unless, he's a massive Elvis fan and just keeps hiring an Elvis impersonator knowing his locals will be there anyway. I guess anything you negotiate over that fee, the landlord makes up himself. Now that it's mostly electronic payments it's going to be difficult for that to happen.

Weird. The deepest discussion I ever had was naming a few of the typical songs from the list. In fact the only time I've had discussions about what songs to play have been wedding or function sets. But even then usually the client had already seen us and knew what they were getting. The worst gig I ever played was a Royal British Legion gig where the 'Entertainments Officer' kept coming up during songs asking the band to play Beatles, rock and roll and Elvis. Despite us having the dance floor full all night playing our standard disco sets. Again, afterwards, people came up and said what a great night it was compared to the usual bands who just played Beatles, Rock n Roll and Elvis...

Other cheaper delivery food is available...

I've never had a landlord specify the songs in a set. In fact most pubs and audiences have commented on us not playing the tired 'old favourites' and like it that we play songs from the last 10 years that appeal to younger audiences. I suspect they just don't want a 70s Glam Rock band. That's a pretty specialist niche audience.

I'd argue its the creative endeavour that's increasingly missing in pub bands. People are paying big sums to watch bands play in Stadiums and for West End productions. Not so for pub bands and am-dram local productions. That's mainly the fault of the idiot-box cheap deliveroo food, which appeals to the lazy, but also a lot of pub bands have lazy set lists.

It's not really about how much the band gets paid, it's about how much the band are paying a dep. If you're desperate to play that gig, then you'll have to pay the going rate for a dep. Which if you're a 4 piece band getting paid £250, it may mean established members getting paid less than 1/4 each to make up the shortfall. Unless you're getting someone 'adequate' to fill in. The best course of action for regular pub gig band is to get a regular set of musicians that can cover your set. I used to have this argument all the time when we were pricing wedding gigs. What happens when half your band go down sick the day before, and you've agreed to do a wedding for £500 as a favour to a mate...

In the UK, the only discussions I remember at the time were over whether a baby should be allowed underwater like that. No one said anything about it being naked. But that may be a European thing. Lots of baby and swimming experts concluded it was fine. Anyone who has taken their baby swimming will attest to the fact that they naturally hold their breath underwater like all mamals. I suspect it would have caused a huge Twitter storm though if Twitter had existed and the few Millennials around had been old enough to type.

Maybe the difference is; in the UK the solicitors have several duties towards the court as well as the client. Taking a case that's clearly frivolous wouldn't be acceptable. So the case probably wouldn't have made court.

Ah. So people are offended because they think other people are offended. Think that's my original point... No one is actually offended, it's just people letting their imagination run away with them.

You seem to think @paul_5 was outraged and offended...

As I said: people read too much into the written word. You don't have to be offended or outraged to highlight shortcomings.

I think the lack of face to communication means people read too much into what is written here. As is evidenced by people writing about outrage and offense. No one has actually said they're offended or outraged but a few seem to think someone somewhere has been offended or outraged, some have even concluded that others are offended on someone else's behalf. Assuming they're being serious of course.

Context is everything. In the context of this thread someone suggested that the title could be considered racist and we should think about how we word things. No one was outraged, offended, or triggered. It was just a statement.

It's not just a US thing. Some band leaders can be control freaks, it's best not to play in a band that requires you to be attached to that one band. Especially as someone like that will eventually decide that it's one rule for you and a different one for them. Depends how often you're rehearsing. If there's only one day a week that all the members in one band can get together regularly then that leaves 3 days to rehearse with other bands. If you're not rehearsing then the gig schedules of all the bands you're in will dictate if it's practical. If you're having to get deps in to regularly cover you, then you'd have to ask why you're in more than one band. The best alternative is to be in one band and dep for a few others. It's key to be upfront though and make a statement either one band gets priority over the others, which may mean letting people down after you've said you can do a gig. That's a bad thing. Or first come first served. Which can cause problems when you're not available to play in the band that depends on last minute bookings. It works when bands are not giging very often, but gets complicated if all the bands start getting very busy. It'll also cause grief if you're out gigging while one band is stuck at home and not gigging because their bass player is out with a different band.

It's the law. I didn't write it. Maybe complain to the government? Discriminating someone over their nationality is covered under race laws, in the eyes of the law, its racist. As I've posted several times. Nationality, ethnicity, race, fall under the umbrella of racism. Deal with it. You're not going to change it. I'm sorry if it doesn't align with everyone's strict dictionary definition of racism but I suspect if you stand up in a tribunal and try to argue that its not your definition of racism, you'll not get very far.

"(1)For the purposes of this Act a person discriminates against another if on the ground of colour, race or ethnic or national origins..."

Who is offended? Who is being morally superior? Who is playing the victim? Can't see any of that on this thread. I can see a few apparently defensive posts that may be trying to justify something that's been hastily written and poking fun at the Americans. Certainly a few posters who seem unaware of the legislation around race discrimination. Even someone who claimed they're not going to believe a few words written on some website and they'll stick to the dictionary. For anyone who still thinks being xenophobic isn't being racist, here's the legislation (from some random website): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/71/enacted I really don't have any truck with any of this, other than when someone asks why it's racist and then when told, argues it isn't. That seems odd behaviour to me. Anyway. I think we have all learned something about the American legal system, which I guess was the original intention, before the thread was derailed. It similar to the UK system in that cases and outcomes that seem odd or frivolous, are often quite straightforward when the details are examined properly.

Maybe put the discussion in context then. Someone pointed out that the thread title was racist. Other people still can't see why. It's an opportunity to educate them on what is considered racist and how its not limited to race. Some people still can't understand, despite it being explained several times very clearly with examples. If you want to discuss the rainforest then you can start a thread about the rainforest. It's not a one topic forum.

It's a discussion isn't it? That's what forums are for...

Because your nationality is part of you ethnicity. White British is an ethnicity. White American is also an ethnicity. Legal and scientific definitions don't always follow dictionary definitions.

I'd guess if you actually looked up xenophobic and racist they'd have different definitions...

Now look who is getting offended. 😆🤦‍♂️

No. It's racial discrimination to discriminate anyone according to their race or natationality. If you discriminate according to nationality you are still discriminating under the racial discrimination umbrella. Regardless of what you want to call it in layman's terms, or hide by pretending it's xenophobia and not illegal, the law says it is racial discrimination and is illegal.

We can do if you like. American is a nationality not a race. However, discriminating on someone's Nationality is covered under race discrimination laws. Where it is illegal to discriminate someone according to race OR nationality. As it says in the link.