I am responding to Richard P's posting of 25 July about hitherto private and exempt hospital gigs now needing licenses, and the related issue of the potential culpability of bandleaders.

I am glad you do not think it reasonable that the hospital gigs I do should be licensable. You imply that if the local authority could interpret the Act such that relatives and friends who may attend do not count as the public, then perhaps such gigs could be exempt. That may or may not be possible. But in this context, that possibility is irrelevant. Even if friends or relatives were prevented from attending, and the event was as private as it is possible to be in a hospital, it would still be caught.

This is because I make a charge with a view to profit, and my charge is paid (mostly by the hospital) on behalf of at least some of those for whom the entertainment is provided. Look again at paras 1(4) and 1(5) of Schedule 1. I fall within these provisions because I am a person concerned in the organisation and management of the entertainment under 1(4)(a)(i), and my charge is for the provision of a service under 1(5).

As for the potential culpability of band organisers/managers who also perform, something about your tone and language still suggests that you feel musicians should be grateful that 'all members of both houses' offered them some protection if all they do is turn up and play. You forget, or deliberately ignore, that this 'concession' was forced out of the government. The Bill as published rendered ALL musicians open to possible criminal prosecution if they didn't check first that gig venue was appropriately licensed.

Why are you still an apologist for this stupid legislation?