Good point - but cooks can describe their dish as being the finest dairy farm ingredients, heated slowly of a bed of the finest organic stonground produce. Up to the point where it is placed on the table, and you see that it is cheese on toast................

I mean to say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The words of the Bill are just as they are, no matter how cunningly presented the intentions of the Bill may be stated.

And they are cunningly presented. Perhaps those who may be so easliy swayed should question why The Times leader described Howells and his Bill as an illogical wet blanket?

Or why the JCHR are questioning the legality of the Bill?

Or why the Bill is going to be re-drafted because the church objects?

Or why satellite TV is exempt because the 'Leisure Industry' ie, big money, objects?

Or why the Association of Chief Police Officers object to this exemption on crime and disorder grounds but are ignored?

The following from The Portsmouth Evening News 30/01/03

On the day England sent Denmark packing in their second-round World
Cup tie police were called to 24 football related incidents.
Within hours of the June 15 win a brawl spilled out of the White
Hart pub and a series of disturbances broke out across Havant and
Waterlooville - despite a voluntary two hour pub closure.
The violence came eight days after 50 fans fought in North Street
outside the Five Bells following Englands win over Argentina.

Or why The Performing Lawyers query the wording of the Bill as being open to legal misinterpretation?

Or why The Lords criticize because the Bill is so badly worded and the Government bleats "That's not what we meant"?

Or why we're expected to simply trust local authorities who already treat existing legislation as 'a nice little earner' and have prosecuted for allowing people to 'sway'etc? http://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/articles/two_in_a_bar16.shtml