It’s difficult to know which of the elements in this story are the most disturbing.<\/p>\n
We have:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Mr Foulds (and God alone knows what planet he is visiting us from) feels it is “outrageous” and \u00a0that people in the music profession should expect to get paid for having their work aired in public.<\/p>\n
Mr Foulds also feels that the PRS is “a sting”.<\/p>\n
Bless him.<\/p>\n
And then there is Mr Ken Mackaill who, it must be assumed, is also visiting this planet from far, far away.<\/p>\n
Mr Mackaill justifies the taxpayers forking out\u00a0\u00a324,388 to the PRS through this mind-tripping statement:<\/p>\n
“We provide a 24-hour service.\u00a0It is not unreasonable when an officer is having a sandwich and a cup of coffee at three o’clock in the morning to provide equipment for rest and relaxation.”<\/p>\n
Seriously?<\/p>\n
It is not unreasonable for the public to pay \u00a324,388?<\/p>\n
Not unreasonable, by what shred of logic?<\/p>\n
Has Mr Mackaill checked his sense of unreasonableness with the taxpayers?<\/p>\n
I think not.<\/p>\n
This isn’t a contrary piece.<\/p>\n
I firmly believe that musicians should get paid for their work, and royalties are an intrinsic income stream for that payment.<\/p>\n
But seriously, a police force spending \u00a324,388 so the lads in uniform can listen to piped music on their breaks?<\/p>\n
You couldn’t make it up.<\/p>\n
Could you?<\/p>\n