I've got no objections to requiring a licence (and payment) for commercial provision of music or any other entertainment.

What kills it in England is the 1793 law case which says that members of the public are counted as performers. This kills any inpromptu sessions and singalongs, and regular folkie meetings wehre people meet in a pub and take it in turns to sing for their own enjoyment and no payment.

This is what we must direct all our efforts to overturn.

Under the present "two in a bar" rules dad and two kids singing happy birthday to mum in the pub is illegal, because there are three "Performers", and under the new rules even one person singing would be illegal.

Pubs don't need a licence to provide a widescreen TV to showw a rubgy match, which can broadcast 40,000 people singing "Swing Low", but if 3 of the people in the pub join in then it's illegal.

This is the rule that has got to be abolished. There ought to be a lot of good publicity to be made from the Jubilee - If a publican allows customers to sing "God Save the Queen" he is liable to a £20,000 fine.

The Daily Mail could have a field day about Labour Killjoys preventing the loyal people of Britain expressing their devotion to the monarchy.

If we kill this one, the rest of the rules ain't to onerous, either new or proposed.

I'd be happy for promoters to have to pay £20,000 for an evenings licence to stage an amplified rock or rap gig in a pub, but when it's the ordinary paying customers who are banned from singing, then we are nowhere near living in a democracy.

WassaiL! V