We seem to be getting a breakout of realism at last in this thread. Let's have a bit more. A few posts ago Don suggested that the "organiser" is the person at risk - this is not an original suggestion - Don is mentioned only because he is the latest to introduce it.

The organiser is only mentioned in one small part of the Act. This is exclusively concerned with entertainment that is closed to members of the (general) public and is not organised for a "qualifying club" such as a working men's club. It then says that no licence is required provided the premises owner and the organiser are not taking a personal profit out of the admission fees. There is nothing in the act related to an organiser of anything in a publicly accessible location.

The phrase "personal Profit" is not used. The phrases are "with a view to profit" and "by or on behalf ofany person concerned in the organisation or management of that entertainment". It is clear that the organiser (or premises provider) must be receiving the income as an individual for the entertainment to be regulated entertainment.

To spike another previous red herring it is explicitly stated that selection of the program content or control of the manner of performance and the provision of personal equipment does not make one an organiser.