This is the law as set out in the Dudley website, linked above.

"An entertainments licence is required for any public dancing or music or any other, similar public entertainment. An entertainments licence is also required for an entertainment consisting of and including any public contest, exhibition or display of boxing, wrestling, judo, karate or any similar sport.

The common definition of a public entertainment is one which involves one or more of the above activities, is publicly advertised and where a fee is charged either before the event or on entry.

There are exemptions for these requirements, which broadly speaking are as follows:- If the music is merely incidental at functions such as garden fetes, bazaars and sporting events or in the case of boxing, wrestling and karate, if the event is held in a pleasure fair. Similarly, if the premises are liquor licensed, then under that licence, it is permissible to have up to two performers playing live music or singing but not dancing. In the case of "karaoke" evenings, unless it can be guaranteed that no more than two people will be performing including the D.J. and that there will be no dancing, a public entertainments licence will be necessary".

Does not the section that I have printed in bold specify the common definition of a public entertainment? So if a session is not publicly advertised or no fee is given or charged (and providing of course that nobody dances), by this definition the session is not a public entertainment? Therefore does not need a licence?

Or is that a too simple reading of it?

What would be the process the local council would have to go through, assuming that they wanted to pursue the matter, if a landlord continued with a session without an entertainment licence? Would they have to prove that the session was a public entertainment? Has this definition ever been tested in court?

The question I keep asking myself is what or whose interests and welfare are supposed to be being protected by stretching this interpretation of this law to cover sessions? Maybe Oliver Cromwell would indeed be the one to ask?