Medieval theologians were divided over just how many angels could dance on a pin-head. Just who counts as a performer under s 182 of the Licensing Act 1964 is an equally spurious debate.

The fundamental principles are: everyone's right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, [and] to enjoy the arts... (Article 27.1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights); and freedom of expression (Article 10.1, European Convention etc).

Public authorities may only interfere if there is a genuine risk to public safety. Establishing whether this is the case is a statutory duty shared by the licensee and the Environmental Health department of the local authority.

Public disorder issues are dealt with by the police under separate legislation. Noise issues are dealt with under the Environmental Protection Act, and Noise at Work Regulations.

Local authorities, as emanations of the state, share the duty under Article 27 of the UDHR to promote access to every form of cultural life, including sing-alongs in pubs. But the primary legislation itself (s 182), excessive fees and conditions, and a strangulation grip of enforcement together constitutes a grave violation of this right.

It is a national scandal that folk clubs in England are actually being forced into hiding in order to put on performances (in Norwich at least). There really is more than a suggestion of Fascistic oppression about this, and that is what gave rise to the formulation of fundamental human rights in the first place.

The Government's licensing reforms, published in a White Paper last April, mentioned musicians only twice, and both references were negative. The first announced that the reason for doing away with s 182 was because two musicians with amplifiers can make more noise than three without; the second was that musicians could face reduced opportunities for work when s 182 is scrapped.

You are right to say, therefore, that we could be in a worse position if local authorities then fall on all entertainment with the same ravening intensity.

There has to be a profound shift in public opinion in order to bring an end to the present oppressive regulatory regime. This will only be accomplished by persistent lobbying: of local authorities (arts departments particularly), MPs, the Arts Council, the Home Office, the Local Government Association, and lastly, but almost more important, the media.

ham.drum@virgin.net