If you wanted to know why so many Black-led nights in London never get off the ground, or get closed within a few months, there is now two years of research to read. The REMEL report (Race Equality in Music Event Licensing), published on 14 October 2026 by Black Lives in Music, finds that Black and South Asian-led events are cancelled, restricted or blocked far more often than white-led events of a similar size, often with little explanation and no clear way to appeal.
It is the most thorough investigation yet into how licensing and policing shape who gets to put on a night in the capital. The research drew on surveys, interviews, focus groups, industry workshops, Freedom of Information requests and licensing data. The steering group included the Greater London Authority, the Metropolitan Police, UK Music, LIVE and the Musicians’ Union, so this is not a report the system can wave away as outside criticism.
The clearest pattern is how risk gets assigned. According to the report, Afrobeats, hip hop, R&B and dancehall are flagged as “high risk”, while indie, pop and rock face little scrutiny. A single incident at one event can leave a whole genre with a reputation problem for years.
Some respondents described informal pressure from police, with off-the-record briefings hinting at future licence reviews. Licensing authorities were felt to misuse area-wide crime statistics, blaming individual venues for crime across an entire neighbourhood even where the venue had a clean safety record. Unverified intelligence, including superficial online searches, is routinely used to justify heightened scrutiny. Temporary Event Notices are more likely to be refused in London’s most diverse boroughs.
The report says the legacy of Form 696 persists, with current risk assessments singling out Black and South Asian events and imposing heavy conditions without credible evidence of increased safety risk.
Costs pile up on the promoter’s side too. Licensing authorities insist on more security or medical staff than at comparable events elsewhere, which pushes costs to unsustainable levels. One promoter was reportedly charged £10,000 for police attendance at a show with no history of trouble. Media coverage adds to it, with Black events framed as “mobs” or “chaos”, shifting blame from institutions onto communities.
The Colour Factory had ID scanners, a dedicated welfare team and a medic at all late-night events. After a tragic incident outside the venue, after operating hours, police suspended its licence and posted warning signs at the entrance, even though no weapon was ever inside. The venue appealed and won. It still lost over £55,000 and made staff redundant.
Compare Blue Note. When the New York jazz institution applied to open in Soho, the Met objected on “crime and disorder” grounds, citing late-night gang activity in the area. Westminster initially granted hours as early as 10.30pm on Sundays, against a requested 1am close. A 3,000-signature petition, a hotel-group backer and legal representation followed. Within three months the licence was close to its original request, and the venue opened in September 2026.
REMEL’s term for the difference is “financial racism”: the same objections, overturned in months by a brand with the capital and profile to fight back. It is a route rarely open to independent promoters. The report also finds that many white-owned venues are supported back into business after incidents, while Black venues are forced to close.
The cost
Black and South Asian live music in London was worth an estimated £1.1bn in spend in 2024. The report puts the annual loss from licensing bias at £127m to £141m, with more than £650m lost over five years. Events are also being pushed out of central London by restrictive licensing, gentrification and planning policy, and the report links the relentless cancellations, surveillance and financial strain to burnout among Black and South Asian entrepreneurs.
The wider picture makes the loss starker. UK Music’s Black Music Means Business report (2026) attributes roughly £24.5bn of the UK’s £30bn recorded music market over the past 30 years to Black music genres, and the live sector generates £6.1bn according to the LIVE Music Report (2024).
What happens next
The report makes 19 recommendations across five areas. The headline ones include an independent review of the licensing system, equality and human rights duties written into licensing law, clear evidence standards for risk, annual publication of licensing data monitored by an independent panel, and a dedicated Cultural Events Relief Fund.
The response so far has been supportive. The Mayor of London and the Met are among those that have welcomed the findings [1]. Deputy Mayor for Culture Justine Simons called the challenges “deeply concerning” and pointed to the Mayor’s new licensing powers [1]. Mark Davyd of the Music Venue Trust described it as the most important piece of research on barriers to culture the live music sector has been handed in years.
Black Lives in Music CEO Charisse Beaumont says it is now time “to move from recommendation to action”, and wants the independent London Nightlife Taskforce to enforce the recommendations. She also notes that a business rates cut does nothing for a promoter who cannot get a licence in the first place.
The measure of REMEL, as the NTIA’s Michael Kill put it, will be whether in the years ahead there is real change and talent, creativity and opportunity are no longer determined by “your colour, background, community or the music you champion”.
For anyone who puts on nights in this city, that is the test. Beaumont’s line sums up the argument: “Culture is not a risk. Culture is an economic asset.”
Sources
Black Lives in Music, REMEL press release, 14 October 2026. Full report and enquiries: blim.org.uk
