No exemption under that heading, as it is arguable that sessions attract trade and are therefore presented both for commercial purposes and for gain. Note that I said arguable; there appears to be no definitive judgement on that. All these things have been debated at great length in the past, here and in the newsgroups, of course.

It is important to remember that this only the DCMS 'broad term' definition of public entertainment. Like many of their statements and those of ministers, it is not the words of either the two pieces of legislation currently in place.

If it were to be the words of current legislation - as for it being arguable that unpaid sessions are presented for gain - this is of course arguable as much as anything else. In a legal sense anything is arguable. If you have enough money and are foolish enough - you will always be able to find a lawyer prepared to take your money.

Until a local authority makes the argument in court and wins - i.e. that a session by taking place on commercial premises that it presented for gain - the definitive judgement must remain to be Brearley -v- Moreley 1899.

What is really so staggering for people who believe in the rule of law - is that legal officers of local authorities - many of whom are not aware that B -v- M even exists - until it is thrust under their noses - are even serious considering advising their council's to make such an argument against unpaid sessions.

What is lacking here is any objectivity. What should happen is that an officer should investigate and find out the facts of each session and then see if the activity is covered by the words and precedents of the law. What actually happens is that the decision is made in advance by officers that the activity will be classed as being licensable - and the law is then interpreted (with no legal support) and simply made to fit.

When licensees and participants state the true facts of the session - they are just ignored - assumed by the officers to be lying or to be too stupid know if they are performing or not - the officers are so convinced that the whole thing is just an attempt to avoid paying for a PEL and that they can get away with pretending that the law says what they want it to say and will allow them to prevent whatever activity they want.

If we do not challenge this attitude now - it will not matter what the current law or the new law actually says - as these powerful individuals will just continue to do as they wish.