Ed I think that to answer your questions you really have to had been on the wrong end of these interpretations. See the threads on my local issues to see see how common sense and good intentions mean nothing, if a local authority wishes to interpret them in a way that achieves their end. We really have no protection from this in the Bill.

Howells has already gone back on the assurances he gave on Mike Harding's show, have you forgotten this?

He is not a complete fool, he is a political animal and he will try and get away with what he can and use any tactic to do this. If you have forgotten the above, he seems to have already gotten away with this lie.

These statements are political. Howells has not yet realised that he cannot carry on with these claims if the wording of the Bill does not enable these aims to be achieved. Courts will not have the good intentions of Howells to work with, they will just have the wording of the Bill. He will be long gone, when the first problems will appear in court, so it is vital that the wording is clear.

Do you forget who will be making these thin distnctions? Do you trust those who have misplaced our trust and demonstrated little concern for the things that so much matter to us? If local authorities wish to make an activity licensable, the wording of this Bill will enable them to do so and the only hope then is the courts. This cannot be the way things should be, on the introduction of new legislation.

The argument seems to be, if the legislation is NOT as bad as folk say, then that is OK. This just reflects our lowered expectations. The Bill is being introduced by the DCMS and claimed to be better for everyone........When things are sold as being all things to all people, it usually means it will prove to be no good for anyone.

Where is the justification for licensing a chap singing 'happy birthday' or singing anything else, and not crowds for TV and broadcast music? Or exempting music as part of a service, if the reason is the Bill's stated objectives?

The arguments for this remain totally bogus.

Let us see what new arguments are introduced and justified to enable the 'fudge' for church concerts. Have you also forgotten that Howells has already made a spirited defence of why church concerts SHOULD be licenced on BBC Radio 4 and why this was not a financial burden? He will be soon defending why they should not, or at least why they should not be paying for the licence.

No Howells may not be a fool, but he is prepared to look foolish, to do what he feels he must. To support or to sacrifice anything, to that end.