My time being at a premium at the moment, I shall respond to the principles behind the above responses to my initial draft, but postpone a replacement draft to a later time.

1) I completely agree with McGraths first contention. I had tried to address it explicitly slightly later in the draft, but will look at the whole subject again.

2) I agree with McGraths argument that the use of the word "professional" opens up a number of problems and that a better approach is required. I would like to think about an alternative means of including the idea that enthusiatic chorus singing is within what is acceptable without constraints.

3) Shambles statement that I ant to maximise the premises that hold a licence which covers entertaiment - we must as a minimum do that. However there is another (possibly inevitably more subtle) objective - to influence the licencing policy document to recognise that a very large amount of folk music (and other like entertainment) that is automatically legal within the terms of the Act and hence which does not come within the control of the entertainment provisions of any premises licence. In practice the bigger problem is likely to be convincing landlords that the incidental music is outside the proper concern of a licencing officer. Unless they are satisfied the officer will not have an opportunity to be corrected by his employing committee.

4) Shambles point about coffee bars in his second posting is absolutely correct. It is a completely separate point from pubs etc. but needs to be covered. Again I will give it some further thought before posting a revised suggestion.

5) Shambles final point about the equivalence of reorded and live music also needs to be covered, although probably not by a simple affirmation of a small (but important) part of the act.

RichardP