Advertising alone DOES NOT, and certainly does not make this activity a public performance. If it did other publicly advertised pub events would also automatically become a public entertainment, just by being advertised. Live TV football matches for example.

It does however mean that officers cannot continue to pretend not to notice it. In that sense it is not a good idea. But what is advertising? Word of mouth is still advertising.

But finding it is only the first step, they then have to decide if it is to be licensable. Unfortunately for activities like these they will so decide and then start counting heads to see if the two in a bar exemption applies.

But for these type of events they do not have to declare it licensable. For if they do not count the unpaid participants as 'performers, it simply would not be a performance of public entertainment.

Mummers are not (generally) paid or booked, they ask if they can use the pub to entertain (themselves mainly). if they decide not in fact to turn up, or not to 'act' if they should turn up, there is no contract or penalty clause.

Are they 'performers'? You could argue that they were, if you were a Council that wished to prevent them, equally you could argue that they were not, if you were a Council that wished to enable them?

There is still no case law that determines what a 'performer' is and the Government spokesman in the Lords has stated in 2000, that this definition is for the individual Licensing Authority i.e. a policy decision for your local Councillors.

I would suggsest that is the loophole, for these events in particular and other participatory musical activities.