We really need to avoid trying to suggest that the licensing authorities are requiring things when they're not. It makes our case less than believable if we're accusing them of doing things they aren't.

Point taken but:

A licensee cannot use the excuse that they supplied alcohol to an under-age customer because that is what they requested.

The licensing authority know that even when the applicant asks for something, that it is NOT a condition that should appear in the final licence. They use this as an excuse that in such occasions as this, that it was not them imposing the condition but this will not wash.

The licensing authority is responsible for the legally binding conditions of this and every licence. There is no justification for allowing a condition limiting the number of performers and the licensing authority are perfectly aware of this.

A licensee has no need for conditions such as those in this case which specifically prevent them holding karaoke. They should be able to make such choices as and when, but this choice has been taken away from them. The licensee will face serious penalties should they stray from these.

The idea that the licensing authority have freed up anything is also not really supported. We know why licensees (or the owners) put in such limited applications. It is done only in the hope that the process will proceed quickly. This is by no means an uncommon situation and it should not be defended.