I'm sorry David el Gnomo but you mangling of what I said was so transparent that I assumed it was deliberate and needed no explanation so, if you insist -

There is no suggestion or even any justification in Jim's argument, or my earlier ones for that matter, for excluding anyone based on not having seen them or fear that they would be a 'bad egg'.

If we haven't seen someone before, all we know about them is that they want to perform. According to Jim, to give them a floorspot on that basis would be crass. We have to be sure that they have put in the necessary practice and achieved the right standard. How we are supposed to know that remains unclear.

What we are saying is that there are certain performers who, for the sake of the 'wider picture' should be restricted to singers nights etc. until such a time as they get to this very easily achieved minimum standard.

Are you including Jim in that "we"? It is not what he is saying. What he actually said was -

The only concession to standards seems to be that the 'practicers' are hidden away in the cupboard when the guests arrive and are only allowed to strut their stuff on residents nights - how ******* patronising can you get!

I don't think he approves of your policy. I think he's telling you that you are ******* patronising.

Back to you -
You are very lucky at your club in that, somehow, you manage to get everyone on all the time, even on guest nights.

Never said anything of the sort. Here is an example of what I have said -

What actually tends to happen on busy guest nights when we can't get everybody on is that residents and regulars hold back and priority goes to visitors some of whom we may never have heard before.

I have said similar things on previous threads.

You again -

As I said earlier - You seem to be particularly well blessed at your club and seem to be able to get it right all the time.

If I have to explain what is obnoxious about that remark, I don't think I'll ever get through to you.