I think that Richard's draft is better but it is a broard policy statement and does not need to go into the kind of detail about the time that music can take place in pub gardenss etc.

It could also stress that the Council can only legally prevent the public's freedom of expression, on certain specified grounds (re Article 10 of the European Commission on Human Rights). That the Council will have to demonstrate these grounds if they ever wish to prevent the public from making live music.

The draft does clearly show the problems presented now to the legislation. It started out as a catch-all to cover any possible live entertainment anywhere, (but not effect recorded music) but now has so many exemptions (and holes) - it is clear that the reasoning for licensing what little remains - is very suspect and difficult to justify. Or indeed to construct the required local policy toward live music around it.

All I expect is that all local authorities uphold and follow the law of the land. The current licensing legislation does not mean or support the view that any LAs should see their role as preventing live music like sessions. It is up to us to ensure that the new legislation is not corrupted and used in the same way.

We must ensure that for the first time live and recorded incidental music will be treated the same by our officers. And that any place where recorded music is exempt as being incidental - that incidental live music (like sessions) is also never bothered by our officers.

It is important to stress to our councillors that the only way that recorded music can now be exempt from the licensing requirement, is by by being considered (locally) as incidental.