There is a possibilty that the sort of treatment dished out to Mr Ahmed could have been avoided. I don't know enough about this particular case but this is the wider view.

It could have been that he simply did not accept that he required what he was told that he did. In such a situation there is no easy way forward. I have experience of this, for the Cove's (then) licensee did not accept that our session was a licensable Public Entertainment. Licensing employees do not like it when their word is questioned and any licensee brave enough to do this and stand their ground, is likely not to be on the top of the Licensing Dept's popularity list. And anyone else who may be forced to formally complain is not likely to receive any joy from a process that is slanted - to say the least. The focus is then firmly set on ways of dealing with the complainant - rather than ever on addressing the complaint.

This is very complicated legisltion but where there are means contained in and it could be argued, actually encouragment for residents to complain about premises - it is not so simple when the concern may be over specicific interpretations being used by licensing enployeees, especially those about what is or is not licensable.

There really needs to be a process built in where these differences can be taken to and decided by the elected council long before there are threats about possible prosecutions. Even then, the outcome is a 'post code lottery' but the situation where the law becomes in effect, what those who are paid to enforce it, say that is its, is a dangerous route leading only to a police state.