Others may not be aware that you have also pointed out to me that this 'no publicity/advertising' was also one condition imposed by the local authority for seemingly NOT considering the event to be Regulated Entertainment and insisting on the required licensing being obtained

Roger, your obsession with this particular event is becoming tedious and I would prefer to let it rest.

I have said the landlord has asked for no publicity and I took the trouble to point out to you privately that this probably had more to do with his relationship with the brewery who employs him and that publicity could even cost him his livelihood. But by all means tell me which part of "lose" and "livelihood" you are not clear about and I will do my best to explain them more fully.

You do not know the facts of this case Roger - and you are relying on what people have told you - one of those people is me and I have pointed out that what I knew was also hearsay. And that includes any conditions that the authority made and those have included no advertising.

Roger your obsession has led you to refer to this event as a "cockney knees up" which will give people reading this thread an idea how much you respect this traditional and world-famous event; it has led you to refer to the carols in Sheffield as "being threatened" when all the evidence points to exactly the opposite; and you have referred to my description of the circumstances of this event as "unique" as an "assertion", with absolutely no concrete evidence to the contrary.

You have suggested that the council was wrong to allow this event to go ahead in the way they have and I have agreed with you.

You have done all this from 280+ miles away from the event having never visited it.(As far as I am aware).

Having so clearly demonstrated to the readers of this thread that you really don't know what you are talking about in relation to this particular event, please leave it alone now.