Surely though music is an absulutely integral part of Circus?

This Act has us all strggling to define many words (which helpfully the Act itself does not define). However, I think that we could at least agree that whatever its use of music, (and dance) the circus IS distinct from a gig, dance or other performance of music.

I would suggest that is why we call this form of entertainment a circus and not a gig or any of other words. As Richard points out the word circus does not appear in the Act as a regulated entertainment. It is for those reasons, I would take issue with the following concept, from the latest draft guidance, which appears to be trying to get it in as a regulated entertainment, via the backdoor.

However, in the case of a circus, music and dancing are likely to be main attractions themselves (and would be regulated entertainment) amidst a range of other activities which are not all regulated entertainment.

If you wished to see music and dancing as the main attraction - there would be far better places so I would maintain that the circus is never a place where music and dancing are the main attractions. If they did decide to stage Robbie Williams and the Royal Ballet in their tents, this may indeed become regulated entertainment - but then they could hardly still be described as a circus. You could introduce a tiger into an opera - but this would hardly turn opera into a circus. Unless it escaped and ate Pavarotti......


No the fair I refer to is not in Pinner but these two examples do suggest that fairs like this may not be an uncommon situtation. I never really like to see music just as background but it is even worse, (and counter-productive) when it is used against the public, as it is here, like an offensive weapon. This is one of the reasons for the popularity of pub chains like Witherspoons - where there is no music being inflicted upon you.

It seems even more ironic then, that the Act is seen to encourge incidental (background) music.