Howard you have not answered the points I made with reference to the words of the Act.

I have come to the conclusion that the S 182 Guidance and the consultation document must be intentionally misleading in the examples being provided, this is not helping you trying to find logic where there simply is none.

There can be no doubt that Entertainment Facilties have some intent, otherwise the Act would not have been drafted the way it is.

The view that it is just a plan B to be used to catch again activities that are already licensable Regulated Entertainment is a possible explanation but not a likely one. So it must be to catch activities which are not licensable Regulated Entertainment. The DCMS explain the intention here.   

Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Proposal to clarify the definition of "entertainment facilities"

1.5 The definition of regulated entertainment contains two elements: the provision of 'entertainment' and the provision of 'entertainment facilities'.

The separate 'entertainment facilities' element is intended to address situations where people take part in entertainment that may not be provided solely for the purpose of entertaining an audience, but which may nevertheless present risks to the promotion of the licensing objectives.

Examples may include the use of a dance floor, or some karaoke performances. As part of this, the provision of musical instruments (such as 'pub pianos') can be licensable (separate from a performance of live music) if they are to be used by customers to entertain themselves.

The DCMS do not specify what performances of karaoke would require it to be caught as the provision of Entertainment Facilities. This is already licensable Regulated Entertainment as 'any playing of recorded music'. Despite what is implied in the consultation document, there is no further requirement in the words of the Act for Entertainment Facilities to be seen to present risks to the licensing objectives - they are automaticaly licensable if they are provided for the public to entertain themselves.

However, the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing is not a activity which is licensable Regulated Entertainment. So the only way our legislators could catch this is by making anything provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in (music and) dancing a licensable Entertainment Facility.

I think that the DMCS are being a little sly here. It seems pretty obvious that all the other things that are tangled-up and caught as Entertainment Facilities are simply a result of a clumsy attempt to ensure that the public could no longer be provided with premises or land on which they could quite legally entertain themselves in non amplified music made by themselves to enable themselves to dance.

Which most of would think that the public had every right right to do. There is nothing proposed in the consultation that will change this effect of the Act.

Entertainment Facilities discriminates against music and dancing. This is step too far and should be removed.