I think we can take it now that as Roger has ignored two opportunities to offer supporting evidence to his assertion that the carols are threatened that there is none.

Now Roger let's test another couple of assertions in this last contribution.

Except seemingly in certain pubs in Yorkshire.

Where are these pubs? There is one which has been discussed elsewhere where the landlord has asked for no publicity. Its circumstances are unique. I have no intention of discussing that one any further.

As far as I am aware no other pub has asked for "no publicity" so come on Roger name names. Or will this second (or more of course) pub go the way of the threat to the carols you so eloquently talked about and then refused to back up with evidence when contradicted?

The fact remains that under this legislation - if premises do not apply for the required licenses - any form of live music making in them will be illegal

And if they do apply for licences it wont.

We all need licences for all sorts of things. I am about to renew my Road Fund Licence. I need that to drive my car legally along the road. If I had a TV I would need a TV licence. I may not like paying for any of them and there are conditions attached to the Road Fund Licence as well, like insurance and MOT certificate. I need it. I may not like it but it makes me legal.

Allow me to make my position clear. I am against this iniquitous bill. I see all sorts of problems with it. I fought it all the way. I would prefer the position to be that of Scotland.

But any alteration of it will come about by presenting facts about its impact - not simple assertions. And it will certainly not come about by trying to translate one unique example into a nationwide precedent.