The point is that sessions do not NEED a PEL.

If sessions were public entertainment, they would not (usually) be prevented when visited by the officers.

If the licensee viewed it a public entertainment, they would and should be prepared to pay for the PEL.

They don't organise or generally make anything from holding it and understandably tend to stop the session rather than pay to enable it.

Even when the session has been prevented, the licensee has no way of stopping participants (who do not know) from still turning up.

That would not be a problem if these participants were 'performers', as all they need to do is contact them.

Participants are customers, They are not paid, they are under no obligation to turn-up and under no obligation to make any music, if they do. So the licensee has no idea if any music is going to happen in advance.

It up to the local authority to prove that these are (more than two) 'performers' in a public entertainment. Just because the legal depts advise that their officers are following the law, when they use this interpretaion - this does not mean that the law in fact does support this interpretation.

It has just never been challenged in the courts and they are pretty sure that it will never be. So they do whatever they wish and claim that the law we entrust them to enforce, supports this. They get comfort from the fact they can claim that other LAs do the same. They may well do this but it does not means that the law means they HAVE to.

It is clear from those who know what a session is - that at the very least it is a borderline case. It is up to us to try and convince your councillors. Not that their officers are wrong - but that there are others ways of dealing with the situation, that do not just mean that sessions have to be prevented.