I have eventually received a reply to this letter

I would like to respond as follows to Mr Locke's points, and request answers from him, to the questions posed in them.

1. The licensee has to deal with the situation as best as they can. They will have to conduct an ongoing relationship with the council's officers and their considerable power. A power that they hold on behalf of the public and which the public has trusted these officers with. The issue is slightly different for those members of the public and performers whose rights are not considered of any importance, in an issue seen to be only between the authority and the licensee. True criminals are only convicted after a trial and an opportunity to speak in their defence, a right denied to those members of the public whose musical activities are involved here. It makes little difference that those members of the public are not the ones under threat of criminal prosecution when it is the activity that is being made illegal.

Would he agree that it is especially so in this case, as their activity is made illegal by virtue of only one individual's unchallenged opinion (no matter how expert they are considered), as to the nature of what has been witnessed?

Given that the House of Lords eloquently expressed this on 11 December 2000. And Lord Bassam of Brighton, speaking there on behalf of HM Government, expressed doubts that there were any councils that would act in the "peculiar and perverse way', against members of the public. Would he not agree that it is plainly absurd that anyone should face a heavy fine or a possible jail sentence for allowing people to join a pub sing-along? If he does not think it absurd, would he please ask the members of the council if they agree with him or the House of Lords?

Would Mr Locke state that the council's legal department has fully considered the full implications to them of taking action to prevent performances and free cultural expression, where there are no noise or safety issues, in the context of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights?

2. My implication may have been that the council's strict interpretation of the legislation belonged to attitudes more in keeping with 1901 rather than 2001. It was the WPBC's Mrs Earnshaw, in her letter of 08/02/01 that quoted 'dusty' legal precedents dating back to 1793 (Clarke v Searle).

However it is ancient legislation: Licensing of public entertainment began with the so-called 'Disorderly Houses' Act of 1752 (or 1753). The reasoning behind the 18th century legislation was to prevent a rising tide of robbery and mugging at entertainment events. However, the reasoning behind the legislation today is to a) maximise public safety and b) minimise disturbance.

Mrs Earnshaw, in her of 22/02/01letter to Mr Burchall also states that: "In the present case the Authority responded to a complaint from the public that the premises were holding unlicensed performances".

In the light of the fact that it has now been established that
There were no such complaints made about our session.
That it has been established that there were no complaints made against our session at all.
That it has been established that there is no evidence that there was ever any complaint made about the establishment staging unlicensed events.
That it is clear that irrespective of the nature of the entertainment, the informal and participatory traditional session in question presents no more risk to public safety in this case, than daily occurs in any other public house or workplace, that the council has a separate statutory duty to ensure public safety in.

Would Mr Locke now agree with Mrs Earnshaw's view stated in her letter of 22/02/01 to Mr Birchall (below), about the council's action. Also her counter to a request, for one basic human right to be exercised, being dismissed, with reference to an absolute right (which was not ever requested)?

"I would argue that the action taken in this case was reasonable, necessary and proportionate. As you will of course be aware the right to freedom of expression contained in article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is not an absolute right. The Authority's decision to insist on a PEL in this case was made in the interests of public safety, control of nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder and is consequently justified."

3. As I am sure that Mr Locke is aware, the council has considerable room for discretion before the provisions apply.

Do not the provisions for a PEL apply only after it is established that an event is staged as Public Entertainment and that there are more than two performers are providing that entertainment?
Do those provisions apply when the council's officers can clearly see that it is organised by the customers as a participatory event for their own entertainment, like a quiz night or a darts match?
As members of the public do not yet need a licence to express themselves, by talking together in a public house. Does Mr Locke consider that they now need one to express themselves by singing together in a public house?

4. Mrs Earnshaw stated in her letter of 22/02/01 to Mr Burchall: "Regular weekly music performances were being held on public premises. (I do not share your doubts that musicians who attend an advertised event and perform to members of the public in a public place can be anything other than performers)"

If no one responded there would be no entertainment.
Would it not be a very strange public entertainment indeed and one unlikely to make much money, if it relied on musicians to attend, in response to an advertisement?
I am surprised that the Public Enforcement Officer would have been able to spare the time to visit our session In December. They should have been far too busy at that time, inspecting all the advertised Christmas Carol Concerts; being staged in public places i.e. churches.
For would not Mrs Earnshaw's definition turn, the choir and all those members of the public who attended to sing carols, into performers, meaning that these events and possibly all church services, would require PELs?

Do church carol services regularly feature in the Public Enforcement Officer's visits and will they do so from now on?

Mrs Earnshaw may have her opinion on musical matters but despite her superior knowledge of the law, cannot change it.
As further in the same letter she wrongly states: "Performances involved at least four musicians there fore the exemption under Section 182 of the licensing Act 1964 did not apply".

This belief that these two words are interchangeable further reduce the strength of the council's case in bringing this action. For does not the Act refer to performers only?

The number of participants being given as "at least four musicians" gives an impression that one could just be describing a band. When the number of participants involved is higher, it begins to give the impression that must be a huge band or may in fact begin to sound like not a band at all?. There have been as many as fifteen to twenty musicians playing depending on the time or the particular evening. If one includes members of the public, clapping (or singing) along as performers, as the council does, many more participants.

Apart from early on in the evening, I can not think of any occasion where there have been as little as four participants. I accept that for the purposes of Section 182, it is only necessary to be able to count past three. However the council's officers have stated the minimum amount of 'performers' witnessed by the Pubic Enforcement Officer. Could I request that Mr Locke obtain and supply the maximum amount of performers witnessed, with both the date and the times of the visit?

Mrs Earnshaw's and I am sure Mr Locke's knowledge on legal matters is far in excess of my own. However, I would suggest that they both but struggle to answer this question because they make certain assumptions and may not have the required knowledge of musical and performance matters? However I consider myself to be the world expert on my own musical activities. I feel quite confident, as one of the musicians described above, that if given the opportunity. I can demonstrate to Mrs Earnshaw's, Mr Locke's and the entire council's satisfaction. The very clear distinction between when I am making music as a customer or member of the public and when I am performing, in the very same establishment.

I would hope that, if not just for my sheer persistence alone I would I have already established at the very least some doubts on the certainty of the council's actions? I feel that I have made a good case for the review of their action and more importantly the policy to future events, resulting from this action.

5. It is widely accepted that such strict enforcement of the kind that WPBC have taken, has resulted in the closure of many live folk sessions across the UK where there have been no noise or safety issues.

Can this really in the public interest?

The reason for these closures is the full costs of a PEL are prohibitive for small-scale events, which do not usually make much money for either the licensee or musicians. And yet this kind of local music-making, which strengthens the community, would seem to be preferable to other kinds of entertainment that are far more likely to contribute to crime and disorder in the neighbourhood.

Unfortunately the action has been taken. Is Mr Locke now saying that this action is now regretted and the council do not now stand by Mrs Earnshaw's statements in her letter 08/02/01? For this letter was received after, I was informed by Councillor Booth, in December 2000 that the council were investigating how other council's were viewing this matter.

If there is now such an investigation, taking place can I suggest that it is conducted more thoroughly than the first one was, that I be informed of its progress and the nature of its outcome?

I have supplied a report on how another council treated this matter. I have supplied this document before. In the absence of any comment on this, from the council's officers, I would be grateful if I could receive comment from Mr Locke on the common-sense way that Oxford City Council have recently found to deal with this issue. After action was taken by its officers and it was brought to the attention of the council members?

None of the responses I have received from the council since December 2000 have given any encouragement about their future treatment of this issue. The council's officers have stated and continue to defend a policy that considers that members of the public are performers. This despite the tangle this places them in, the full implications of adopting such a policy and the very little benefit to anyone of such a policy.

There have been and there are other such sessions taking place in the borough on a regular basis in (the usually smaller), premises without PELs. Is Mr Locke now saying that the council would treat these in exactly the same way? If I were now to issue a complaint against these premises? Or in light of the fact that a complaint does not appear to be a requirement for action to be taken, if they should be unwise enough to place an advertisement, for participants in the Dorset Evening Echo?

As the council's officers have not given any indication that any of my written approaches have cause them any doubts at all about their actions. More importantly that they have not given any firm indication that they intend to treat future such events any differently than they have this one. Until they can do this, I would be most grateful if I could finally receive an answer to my repeated request to the council, made via its officers, its members, and my MP? It is that I am given the opportunity to address the council to inform them as to the true nature and value to the community of this and other traditional folk music events?

If a horse expert should classify a zebra as a horse, largely because they have the equipment to deal with a horse, the effects could well be dangerous and the zebra would always know it was not a horse.

Just yesterday (which was my 50th birthday), I saw a advert on the 'tube'. It contained a quote "backward thinking has now met its Waterloo". The most significant part was that this was written over a series of huge photographs of a zebra!….. I hope that it will turn out to be true, a good omen and a very welcome birthday present?

Roger Gall.