Insisting that the riders of motor-bikes wear crash helmets and pay for their road fund licence is lawful and it makes sense. Insisting that the rider of a bicycle requires these by pretending that the bicycle is a motor bike - is not lawful and does not make sense.


But, Insisting that the rider of a bicycle requires these because statistics show that if they're in an accident they'll suffer brain damage and because they use the roads they should pay along with other road users could make sense (I'll ignore the fact that road tax was originally paid to the CTC to reimburse cyclist for building "modern" roads).

I am just trying to ensure that where the licensee is willing - the public can exercise their right of freedom of expression through non-amplified music without the local authority preventing it by classing it as Regulated Entertainment.

and why should amplification make any difference?