Of course, if Sam's are being honest about their true reasons for this, it is the cost of the licences which they object to. Whatever 'dodge' we can conjure up won't apply if they say 'no music on our premises.

They seem to be clear that this was a protest over the increased PRS/PPL charge due for 2006. I for one would support them in objecting to this. However, I question the wisdom of an approach that risks setting their customers against Sam Smiths and deprives pubs like Nellies and all of their other pubs of live music. A more selective method may be better.

As far as I can see - if there was no increase in this licence fee due for 2006 - they would be happy. So it is not Sam Smiths who are the problem in saying 'no music on our premises' - but PRS/PPL for increasing the fee.

Perhaps our efforts would be better designed to support Sam Smiths protest against the increased charges - whilst pointing out the counter-productive aspects of their approach - rather than concentrate on cricising Sams. Any 'dodge' should be one that is done in concert with their protest action - rather than against it and them.

The fact is that Sam's not paying the fee (now or in 2006) does not prevent ALL music from being played in their pubs. Their refusal to apply for Premises Licence entertainment permission for all their pubs (from February 2005) - would effectively mean this.