Not that I am laughing much

Received the following from WPBC's Licensing Manager. 14th February (my only Valentine that day).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) act 1982
PLACES OF ENTERTAINMENT
THE …. ……. … PORTLAND

A copy of your letter to Peter Gilmore dated 7 February 2001 has been passed to me in order for me to respond to two specific points:

The licensee of … …. …. Applied for a Public Entertainment Licence on 5 February 2001. If no objections are received during the 28 day statutory advertisement/consultation period a full licence Will be issued on or shortly after 5 March 2001. This full licence will then enable the licensee to hold music evenings legitimately.

I can confirm that the Public Enforcement Officer is not scheduled to revisit the premises within the next month unless in response to complaint.

This may appear to solve the problem locally but may not do so for traditional folk music events in general?

For example:

1 If the application fails (for example if it is considered as unsuitable for loud amplified bands), the session would not be legal and the principal that participatory folk music events were Public Entertainment and that those involved we performers, would have been established.

2 If the application succeeds, it may turn out that as the licensee can now "hold music evenings legitimately", they may chose to do just that and arrange a more profitable musical event on that evening? One designed to attract customers rather than one that may risk driving them away.

These possible outcomes are good examples of what happens when free participatory musical expression is caught up in legislation designed for paid public entertainment?

Hopefully the new legislation will recognise this? Maybe it is time that those that love traditional folk music demanded that it does?