Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Whistle While You Work!

Dear oh dear, what a penny pinching bunch of old miseries the Performing Right Society are!

Sandra Burt, who works at the A & T Food Store in Clackmannan, found this to her cost recently when the music police banned her from singing behind the counter of the shop.

For why?

Cos she didn't have a licence to "perform".

A "mere" £80 to you guv!


Why was she singing?

Cos the PRS threatened the shop owner with a fine if he didn't buy a licence for playing his radio to his customers, so he turned it off.

Gareth Kelly, music sales advisor for PRS, said:

"Using any copyright material in your store, without paying for it, is illegal.

It doesn't matter whether you're singing a Robbie Williams track, or listening to a Robbie Williams track, you still have to pay for it.

She could be fined for not having a live performance licence, and if the fine isn't paid, then she could potentially be taken to court

The PRS said that Mrs Burt could be judged to be giving daily performances, which would require individual daily licences, taking the annual cost up to "four figures".

Good grief, what sad miserable country we have become!

Has no one in PRS ever heard the word "commonsense"?

Finally, after some hoo hah in the media, the PRS has now learned the word "commonsense" and has backed down and sent her some flowers with a grovelling note of apology.

"We're very sorry we made a big mistake.

We hear you have a lovely singing voice and we wish you good luck

All very well, but it should never have tried it on in the first place.

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store. is brought to you by "The Living Brand"

Celebrate the joy of living with booze. Click and drink!

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries


  1. People with little intelligence or sophistication perceiving they have the right to interfere in people's lives. This type of people should never be given any type of power as they just can't use it sensibly.

    Enjoy taking the mickey out off Nanny responsibly.

  2. Oh dear, another Susan Boyle in the making. Gordon 'Jonah' Brown will be endorsing her next...

    Yes, the PRS are prats - but in these days of instant technological reproduction, copyright piracy is a difficult issue for authors, composers and artists. Maybe we shall have to evolve a new system of remuneration for them, and also for MSM journalists, as the internet is driving a coach and horses - or their 21st century equivalent - through traditional copyright in one's intellectual property.

  3. The PRS are just a big bunch of chancers.

    There are clear laws about what requires a PRS licence and what doesnt.

    Eg. You dont need one to play a radio as the radio stations pay for a licence to play music to the puplic. You only need one if you play cds or similar.
    You certainly dont need any licence to sing in public. You dont even need one in a pub for a single performer.

    The PRS are probably under a lot of pressure to make up for the income lost to internet downloading for the poor impoverished music companies and for that reason, they are just making up bullshit and hoping people will bite.

    Take care with hot pants

  4. Anonymous12:34 PM

    SWMBO actually agreed with the PRS stance on this. I was appalled.

    The pollution of thought is spreading.

    Man the lifeboats! Or should that be "Person" the lifeboats!

  5. Ker-Farking-Ching Indeed!

    Errrm . . . Under what rationale must you pay for a license to play a radio to your customers? The radio station handles copyright and royalties issues from its end, and broadcasts the songs and shows to the general public. So why, exactly, does Nanny have a claim on some of your dough should you play the radio for the benefit of yourself of your customers.

    Similarly, on what grounds does Nanny have the right to extract from you some wad of cash for a license to perform. If you sing to your customers, is this costing Nanny money? If not, then why must you pay her money? The only rationale I could see for such licenses might have to do with large performance venues which demand a larger police presence for traffic and crowd control. Fine, if your business puts an extra burden on the police, then you pay a special fee. But for small clubs, and certainly for shops, such a fee seems an entirely arbitrary tax.

    Why not just charge business owners a fee for putting out a sign, or offering a service, or, what's that . . . Nanny already charges such fees. Methinks Nanny has forgotten that without profitable businesses to generate jobs and pay her wages, Nanny would soon be broke.

  6. archroy5:19 PM

    The PRS is little more than a protection racket. Presumably they have narks and grasses everywhere. (just nticed my word verification is 'monstor'!

  7. microdave8:24 PM

    You're all labouring under the misapprehension that music is something to enjoy. According to these idiots you must pay to USE music - it's just another commodity to be taxed.

    Here's a couple of quotes from their site:

    "PRS for Music is one of the world’s most efficient combined rights collecting operations. Offering its members more money, more often, at less cost and its customers the most efficient means by which they can use music."

    "Money is due to PRS for Music for any public performance of music, whether live or recorded, and from radio and television broadcasts and online."

    I strongly recommend you visit their site, and spend some time looking through the "About Us" & "Essential Information" sections.

    For an organisation which claims to be very efficient, the wording of the "Jobs" section is particularly galling...

  8. Grant8:30 PM

    I'm beginning to see the point of those religions that are averse to any form of musical instrument and accept the 'human' voice only because it offers a means of calling the faithful followers to prayer.

    Whilst I have every sympathy for for composers and 'artistes' at the bottom of the pyramid - whose work is unlikely to be heard often anyway I would guess. I have less empathy for those who have been able to make a decent living out of the 'entertainment' industry during their careers and now wish to continue to extract based simply on their fame (or should that be infamy?)

    There are few who, absent contributory new 'work' or at least new commercial agreements with respect to old 'work', manage to continue to earn from their affluent past.

    Do accountants continue to ask for payment from companies whose accounts they have helped with in the past? Do doctors continue to claim or successful treatment to their patients? Do lawyers .... er, well, maybe not such a good path to consider!

    Do business consultant ho have helped to strengthen a business as part of a short term contract continue to send invoices once the contract is over and they are elsewhere?

    I think not.

    I used to be an avid music buyer and listener when younger, lapsed for new purchases for a while, return to the market and re-bought a lot of stuff as it became available on CD and so on. But now, despite the convenience of MP3 players, I find I rarely listen to anything, even in the car where background music has always been a part of the journey.

    I wonder if the PRS would prefer to work in a Taleban run country? They may be helping things to head in that direction.

    Verification word is "antious".

    Has this blog system got a sense of humour?

  9. Anonymous9:39 PM

    So, do I need one of those licences for my home karaoke system or just if there are other people in the room?

    How has so much gone so wrong in such a short space of time?


  10. Anonymous10:40 AM

    Gareth Kelly, music sales advisor for PRS, said:

    "Using any copyright material in your store, without paying for it, is illegal.

    It doesn't matter whether you're singing a Robbie Williams track, or listening to a Robbie Williams track, you still have to pay for it.

    She could be fined for not having a live performance licence, and if the fine isn't paid, then she could potentially be taken to court."

    Doyou think he just said that to distract attention from the large member growing out his forehead?