Not many M/cat posters appear to disagree with the principle of paying writers&arrangers where their work is performed for gain,so we don't need to keep repeating it.Make a return of such works at concerts-sure,why not?

The issue raised in the original post is oppressive imposition of an annual fee by the PRS,to wit: at informal gatherings of funsters(IGF's).

The postings generally confirm the odium:
PRS adopt the legally questionable position that all music performance venues have to pay this'licence fee'regardless of origin to intimidate promoters,while straining to define the profit on a few exra pints (or coffees)as reward.
An intolerably large proportion of such annual fees finds its way by default into the pockets of those unconnected with and possibly hostile to,IGF's.
The arrival of a PRS rep hinting at litigation may well shape a landlords opinion that it would be less bother to entertain the few punters prepared to brave the smoking ban,driving,price of beer etc. with Murdoch's output(as loud as he likes,of course)than to permit freedom of expression in a few beardies.

Juxtapose the realisation(for me)that they actually turn down people proffering £100(ok,one-off,but plus a percentage)with their zeal re.venues and they really do look dubious.It certainly vitiates any claim to represent writers as well as their assertion that 'it is your organisation'(see previous threads).