The reason why all forms of over-regulation are implemented in the name of the public's safety and are generally supported by those of who would take such proposals at face value, is that we and especially our politicians in particular, do not always delve as deeply as we might into the real reasons behind why such proposals are made.

Politicians are understandably very sensitive to how they are seen by the voting public. Even the most obvious proposed over-regulation, which is unlikely to actually achieve anything to protect the public in reality but will limit their freedoms even further, will be seen as political suicide for them to be seen to oppose.

The real fear is that should they be seen to be making a stand against the imposition of yet more needless red-tape, they will be accused of placing the public at risk.

There is a big danger here and we have to wake up to the fact that there are powerful organisations and lobby groups which appear to see and value regulation for its own sake, in pretty much the same way that many of us value music making and the basic rights associated with this. Let us not make it too easy for them.

The key is to ensure that a balanced view is taken. One which recognises and values the activity firstly and only secondly addresses any real public safety issues but does not simply use these issues to further the distorted view that regulation is the primary object in itself.