Richard if the laws of the land were ever as clear as you maintain this one is, there would be not be a need for lawyers to be paid to argue them in court or be any material for them to argue with.

I am sure that if I had the same amounts of money available as say OJ Simpson, my legal team would have far more material to work with on this issue, than his team ever had in organising his defence.

I feel that there would be enough material provided here to demonstrate that there were enough grounds to at least contest your strict interpretation. All one asks for is for a little attention to be paid to detail and the grey areas. You simply refuse to recognise that any of these exist or even be prepared to address any of your own contradictions, when these are challenged.

This law may not need to be changed, just tested where it is being stretched to cover participatory events in pubs, a purpose for which it was clearly not designed. A blind eye being turned to these as Kevin suggests may enable sessions to take place but there would remain a furtive element and an uncertainty to organising these events, which would not really be helpful. At the very least, there needs to be a uniform approach by our licensing authorities to its interpretation and its enforcement. The fact that there is not, would lead me to think that there may be some hope.

I may indeed be considered to be a "smart arse" and also naïve but I believe that the law is made, by us and for our protection not as a tool to enslave us.