Checking the Act, Birchall isn't personally liable to prosecution under the act, because he isn't the person "who carries on a business which involves the use of the premises for the licensable activities to which the application relates" (Section 16 para 1a) - that would be either the charity or the hospital/home - but he could reasonably be expected to check that there was a license in place before organising an event.

I did say that it was complicated and that the debate continues. If the situation is really the simple one that you suggest it is - perhaps the Act could say it more simply?

Thank you for the apology BTW. I am sorry if you were confused but there are many complicated ways that we are prevented by officialdom from the simple right of expressing ourselves. Perhaps you would agree that it is more important that all of these are addressed than this thread confines itself to just a few of them?