My thanks to Kevin for giving part two a new name. As a result of all this I do now know how to spell licensing, and it was a source of much irritation to keep seeing my spelling of it as licencing in the thread title.

This is a short account of the effect, in personal terms of the existing legislation.

In December 2000 I obtained the licensee's permission to hold an informal tradition tune session at my local pub. The local authority's enforcement officer visited one of these nights, and issued a letter stating that they had counted five performers and threatened prosecution under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 1964.

The interpretation was that, they had witnessed more than two performers providing a public entertainment, requiring that the premises hold an additional Public Entertainment Licence. Two or less would not require such a licence.

The issues of noise or of public safety are already covered by existing licenses and other legislation and HM Government have indicated that they do not wish local authorities to threaten prosecution, under these circumstances and they have indicated that these Section 182 requirements are to go anyway.

I have made my local authority aware of HM Government's comments (full text from The House of Lords, can be found in the first thread), and we await their decision.

It is no small thing for me when a friend (the licensee), is being threatened with prosecution and a possible large fine for providing a place to make traditional music, and that largely as a favour to me.

The musicians involved are the ones most effected by this decision, but are pretty powerless and unable to do much without making the situation more difficult for the licensee.