In the letter quoted in a posting above, from Hannah Davis of the Love Music Forum, she states:

There is no cost disincentive to premises in providing live entertainment under the Act - the licence fee will be the same whether or not entertainment is provided. In addition, there are special provisions contained in section 177 of the Act in relation to small scale music events.

To qualify as a small scale musical event, the premises licence must contain provision for "music entertainment" (dance or live amplified or unamplified music) and have a capacity limit not exceeding 200 persons. If the event meets these criteria then any licensing authority imposed conditions relating to the provision of music entertainment will be suspended, subject to the exception of conditions related to public safety or the prevention of
crime and disorder.

I thought we were all still waiting with bated breath to find out if her first statement (no extra cost for an entertainments provision) is really going to be true, or if there could still be hidden charges, ie for a survey to determine the maximum capacity of the premises etc. It would also be grossly unfair if a maximum premises capacity was needed for a pub with live music, but not for a grossly overcrowded on showing live TV.

As far as the scond part goes, it's all fine, but for the fact that you have to have an entertainments provision in the first place and other possibilities can be taken into account before granting that.


JennyO - "Also I was thinking that if in fact the big commercial players ARE getting special treatment, is there some funny business going on, ie money changing hands?"

This is what has been referred to as "The Murdoch Effect". It is generally assumed that the reason why Televised Sport etc is not going to require an entertainments licence is because Murdoch contributes to Labour Party funds, and the government doesn't want to upset him.