Below is a quotation from the guidance drawn attention to by Shambles:

In the first instance, the operator of the premises concerned must decide whether or not he considers that he needs a premises licence.

On the face of it his argument that it is nonsense in the specific case he highlights appears to be a strong one. However that is the difference between the law and day to day English.

1)    Think of the alternative - that the Licencing Authority would have to make the first assessment. That would be a free licence for snooping at the Council Tax-payers expense.

2)    Someone has to be the initiator of a licence application. If the Licencing Authority was the initiator - a bootlegger would not be committing an offence under this Act until the Licencing Authority decided that a premises licence was required.

3)    If the Licencing Authority was to be the initiator, it would already have compromised its objectivity prior to considering a marginal application when it was received.

4)    Without maliging the legal professions, it is their job to protect their clients interests by making the maximum use of any loose or wooly wording in legal documents, so the draftsmen have to think like a very competent lawyer and block the routes for weaseling to evade the intention of the law. That statement is nto intended to malign anyone, just to recognise that each must fulfil its proper role in a relationship which is essentially confrontational.

The wider lesson to be dawn from the above is that it is perfectly proper to argue about the objectives of any Bill, Act or Guidance. It is proper to argue about the way in which they seek to meet the objectives. But it is normally a sterile approach to try to base that argument on simple disagreement with the words in which those objectives or actions are described.

Where objectives are wrong - condemn them.

Where the details do not achieve the stated objective - condemn them.

If the words are weird - thats legislators for you.

Richard