Richard, I did not misquote you. You made a sweeping statement that is not true.

In certain fairly common gig situations, performance itself can leave musicians open to a potential prosecution. The solo performer who knowingly organises and performs his/her own gigs in a pub that is not authorised for the provision of live music could be open to prosecution. But if there is no performance at all, what offence has been committed? There would be no provision of a regulated entertainment. Are you saying that such musicians could be prosecuted for not performing?

I discussed the incidental exemption in depth in my posting of 13 August. Briefly, I argued that the exemption could be of limited benefit because it is disapplied if 'entertainment facilities' are also provided. This is based on careful analysis of the entertainment facilities provision, and the way it works with the rest of Schedule 1.

If you doubt my analysis why don't you discuss it with expert licensing lawyers?

To spare Mudcatters from tedious sparring, I am happy to continue this debate if you wish to write directly to me at drum.pro@virgin.net