Shambles, live music is specifically mentioned in the Schedule 1, which lists what is meant by Regulated Entertainment. Dancing is also specifically mentioned. So far as sport is concerned, the Schedule refers only to "an indoor sporting event" (boxing and wrestling are also specifically mentioned).

All those activities you list are subject to the next requirement, that that they be for or include the purposes of entertaining an audience or spectators. If any form of live music, dancing, indoor sport and the rest in the list are for that purpose, it is a performance of Regulated Entertainment.

It is not a question of treating different forms of regulated entertainment differently. Customers playing pub games among themselves is not an "event" and so is not regulated entertainment. Live music of any description is. So the licensing officers appear to be correct in their interpretation.

Customers playing music for their own entertainment among themselves would also not be the 'event' you refer to would it? The legislation simply cannot support the different treatment that these officers advise for determining what is or is not a performance of Regulated Entertainment.

The legislation can support different treatment for determining what is and is not licensable as Emtertainment Facilities. As these are only to enable music and dancing and not applicable to indoor sports or any of the other activities listed in Schedule 1.

>Hopefully the proposed amendments will remove at least some of this nonsense.<

I'm not so sure, as all the incidental exemption and proposals are exemptions for (performances of) Regulated Entertainment. Sessions are not this but are caught as the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing, so that wherever they take place can be said to be provided for that purpose and be a licensable Entertainment Facility