What we've got here is a classic case of "repressive tolerance" - a law which, if an attempt were made to rigorously enforce it, it would be uninforceable, so they keep it in reserve and just use it when they want to; but in the meantime it dampens down people doing things without asking permission.

I think that it is a pretty good sumary of the current situation but one which will change for the worse under a supposed reform, as it stands, if the cultre and thinking behind this reform is not challenged.

The reform is clearly and blatantly bogus! If the concerns were the ones stated, the public's safety and interests, then TV and church service music should require the entertainment element of the premises licence.

For the question is now and in the future - Any disturbances with TV watching-crowds on licensed premises and noise from amplified church service music, would have to be dealt with by others legislative means. These means must be thought sufficient by our Government, and if these measures are, why can't they be used if and when required at other music events, liquor licensed or not?

No music event should be placed at risk because the Home Office culture of obtaining council revenue from all commercial music events, is now to be continued under a minisry set up to promote CULTURE.

The difficulty is what is the way forward for those that see this? Accept the cynical nature of the stealth tax on music, recognise its thinking, stems from the origin of the reforms at the Home Office and ask for exemptions (and have to define these), or something far more radical?

I fear just trying for exemptions for folk music or unpaid events, will be a small voice and also not seen as too helpful to non folk music people who are affected and trying to improve things generally. I also fear that we need all the friends we can get, for formidable forces like the LGA are stacked up against future sensible public music making (and dancing).