Ed,

For reasons best known to yourself, you've decided that rather than deregulation, televised sport needs to have more regulation, now.

Your logic is difficult to follow (unless you mean that everyone should agree with you).

I've no problems with Shambles' logic. My own logic is that if as we have been informed that a folk session in a pub needs regulation and have had had to accept that, surely events which in this case led to 83 arrests (and is likely to be noisier than accoutic folk) also should be regulated.

We still do not know how the PEL regulations will work out but all I would ask for is at least a level playing field and that a reasonable risk factor in terms of both noise and safety is taken into account accross the board rather than exemptions being made for (strangely enough) big commercial players such as tv companies.

You may think it unimportant but if you were the landlord of a pub and were faced with this: "I can include the ability to include a session for free on my licence but in order to do so, I'm going to have to spend a few grand on sound proofing but I could be showing football to draw in customers or have a juke box without this hassle" would your choices not be at least slightly influenced by that?

You may argue that common sense may be applied. I'd like to think that it will be but we have both the letter of the law and history to go by. That history under the current system has taught us that while some areas have had no problems (and I've played in countless sessions in pubs that I knew full well had no PEL), other areas have suffered badly witnessing pettiness and definitions taken as strictly as possible.

Overall, I think the PEL issus have become a wait and see job but if an oppertunity crops up to question what is law that has not been equaly applied in terms of risks, I firmly believe we should take it.

Jon