The problem all along with this legislation are the claims that were made for it - in order to get it through. All sorts of assurances were given and still are, (especially for the music aspects) which the words of the Act could not support. The Lords did make an effort to address these aspect but our MPs in the Commons did a very poor job. I suspect that they understood it even less than you and I do any many of them were reassured by the claims rather than really examining if the claims could be supported in the words of the Act.

Things that are lauded as being all things to all people often turn out in practice to be of no real use to anyone.

The sh** has now hit the fan. The DCMS now have to explain to ministers and MPs what the real situation is but are not really prepare to admit the true scale of the situation. It was always going to be the case that the activities exempt under incidental exemption would have problems with the facilities provided to enable any entertainment consisting of music and dancing. Thus the playing of the piano is said to be exempt from being licensable Regulated Entertainment, as a performance of incidental live music but the provision of the piano is caught as an Entertainment Facility

The proposal to address this and change the words of the Act in this consultation cannot achieve the stated aim, unless the words of the Act which state that licensable Entertainment Facilities consist of the provision of premises to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing.

The DCMS rubbished claims that the Act would require Entertainment Permission to enable a postman whistling on their rounds to entertain themselves, however I'm not sure who was making such claims. But that would currently be the case - if they were provided with a whistle or if they were provided with a van or bike to enable them to do this......these are Entertainment Facilities?

The Act has introduced (under cover) in legislation that was thought to be about ensuring the public's concerns for conventional performances of paid entertainment, a means to prevent the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing. Which many of us would consider to be an essential human right of free expression, which other legislation should have ensured for us.

It was bad enough when the requirement for additional Entertainment Permission applied only to conventional performances of paid entertainment. Its extension to catch anything provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing, as Entertainment Facilities introduced for the first time in the Licensing Act 2003 is a step too far.

You could perhaps argue that the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing does present the same type of risks to the licensing objectives but the main problem with additional Entertainment Licensing is that those who enforce it tend only to concentrate on this side of things and not on the effect of this approach.

It has the effect of a aquarist who provided the same water conditions to all the fish in their collection - and who did this regardless of the consequences on the health of the fish. They may be able to present statistics to show a few very healthy fish - but this would not reflect the true situation.

In the past, Licensing Athorities could probably place pressure to pay and obtain the required licence, on a licensee who intended to profit from providing conventional paid entertainment, safe in the knowledge that they would comply.

The same approach taken where the premises were provided to enable customers to entertain themselves in music and dancing - would probably result in the licensee calling a halt to an activity, which has been part of our pubs for at least as long as the public entertaining themselves in darts and skittles.

But the provision of pool tables and (the few remaining) skittle alleys are not caught as Entertainment Facilities and are are not thought to be presenting any risk to the licensing objectives.

How many sessions and singarounds have been needlessly lost as result of this approach to additional Entertainment Licensing?