This is a response mainly to Stallion's comment:
'If we are going to make any real sense of this legislation we have go with it and not rail against it and carp.'

Experts have spent the best part of three years trying to make sense of this legislation - and still they say it is complex and obscure. Isn't it time we agreed that this law is literally 'nonsense'?

Consider these quotes provided to me by licensing lawyers about the Coldplay gig:

'The regulation of entertainment is a particularly obscure area of a very complex statute. As a lawyer I applaud such lack of clarity; as a citizen I abhor it.'
Simon Mehigan QC, co-author 'Patersons Licensing Acts'

'Those parts of The Licensing Act 2003 which deal with the need for a licence in order to provide entertainment or entertainment facilities are probably the hardest part of the Act to understand. Even amongst lawyers specialising in licensing work there is still disagreement and uncertainty as to precisely what some of the provisions really mean and agreement and certainty will only be reached once the High Court is asked to interpret them as part of a Judicial Review application.'
Chris Hepher, licensing lawyer with over 20 years experience, Steeles, London

Finally, on the question of licensing and safety: Coldplay's gig at Abbey Road would have been legal if a Temporary Event Notice for a performance of live music had been in force (cost: £21).

Local authorities cannot impose public safety or noise conditions on a Temporary Event Notice.