"Unlike the old regime, the fee for a premises licence will be no different whether an applicant simply applies for an authorisation to supply alcohol or also decides at the same time for an authorisation to provide regulated entertainment. Furthermore, fee levels have been set centrally to avoid inconsistencies and unfairness, and at a level that accurately reflects the cost of the regime. This is of immense value to premises such as pubs, bars, restaurants, clubs, and hotels which under the old regime would have required separate licenses and fees to allow any live music of more than two musicians."

The same tired, disingenuous, and factually inaccurate claptrap......What a surprise!

I see he is still talking about conferring with musicians, and then spoiling it by naming the "independent" Live Music Forum composed of Feargal Sharkey, and other pop wannabees, and "grass roots music organisations" few of whom have a clue about folk, or any other live music, as most of them mime live appearances. This, I assume, is the "independent" group who have been echoing the inane government line on radio and TV........I thought so. They'll be a big help..NOT!

He is also continuing with the downright unmitigated bloody LIE, that there is no cost involved in opting for live music. Tell that to those who had to pay for architects drawings, and advertising, and to any unfortunate enough to have to apply for a variation.

And when, not if, the adverse effects do become inescapably apparent, they will "consider" making changes.

Considering will do little to help, unless they act upon it. Does anybody still believe that will happen, and if it does, how do they propose to restore all the clubs whose organisers will have decided they've had enough of fighting stupid, ignorant jacks-in-office over petty imposed restrictions and conditions?

And to cap it all off, the dumb sod can't even spell licenCe.

Don T.