I have today sent the following.

Thank you for your email (19/04/01) and apology for not replying to email (12/04/01) (copy of a letter 29/03/01)! As you say the matter has been discussed. The quality of that discussion, from the council's officers, has resulted in the quantity of it from me. The discussion will continue, as this member of the public will not be prevented from adequately informing the council members of the facts, to enable them to make the correct policy for the borough.

You are indeed entitled to express your personal opinion that you see "little point in arguing the matter back and forth".
 However I am equally entitled to expect answers to the questions I politely asked you, in reply to the 5 points you made in your letter to Mr Ian Bruce MP. As you are confident of the legal support for your officer's actions, it should present no difficulty for you to convince me of that support, by answering those questions.
Are you not employed and obliged to continue to try to satisfy this member of the public, certainly after selecting those 5 points in reply to Mr Bruce?
After I have received these answers I have no intention of entering into any further exchanges with The Director of Tourism.
Can you please advise when I will be receiving those answers and what stage under WPBC's complaint's procedure you would consider us to be at, should these answers not be forthcoming?

You are also entitled to your personal opinion that "the law is clear".
 However I am equally entitled to my opinion that the particular law that you refer to, is not clear, does not apply in these circumstances and is not required to ensure the public's safety and interests. There are other laws, rights guidelines and regulations relevant to this issue that I have been advised are clear. The Director of Tourism has not selected these to address. Simply to keep repeating that "the law is clear", will not make it so, or make it apply in these circumstances.

You are entitled to your personal opinion that "the Council are enforcing it as fairly and even-handedly as it can".
 I am entitled, as a council tax payer and an expert witness with first hand experience of the effects of this enforcement, to strongly maintain that it is not. For the any of council's officers to advise their members to enforce a law that prevents the public's right of freedom of expression, where there are no issues of noise or public safety and then to claim this policy can be fair and even-handed is laughable. Or would be if the implications of such actions and statements were not so dangerous. This "fair and even handed" policy is described as "peculiar and perverse" by Lord Bassam of Brighton speaking on behalf of HM Government in the House of Lords.

You are entitled to your personal opinion that, my arguments "would be better addressed to Government" and that "a change of law would seem to be required by you?"
 I am entitled to my opinion that my arguments are best addressed to those that have wrongly enforced this law (despite HM Government's direction that they should not) and who then choose to hide behind this law. Insisting on wrongly advising council members that they have to take this action. This law is to be changed. But no change to the present law has been requested by me here, or is required to bring about a satisfactory conclusion to this matter of council policy.

However unlike The Director of Tourism, the onus is not on me to legally prove my opinions. My opinions are not resulting in legal action being threatened or the right of freedom of expression being prevented.
 I am a musician. I am not a campaigner a professional letter-writer nor a constant complainer. I object to The Director of Tourism's insinuations, especially in letters to Mr Bruce MP, remarking on the amount of correspondence from me on this subject.
The need to attempt to sideline a difficult problem by implying that the problem is in the nature of the individual raising the issue is I feel, yet another example of the weakness of The Director of Tourism's case.

Regretfully this volume and variety of correspondence has only been necessary because, of the various unhelpful attitudes of some of the officers in The Director of Tourism's department. Who have appeared to follow The Director of Tourism's example of not recognising their responsibility to acknowledge and to reply to, polite and considered correspondence from concerned members of the public, to enable a timely and satisfactory outcome to all parties.

 They have gone to great lengths to find reasons or excuses to demonstrate why they cannot help.  The investigation, a little late in the day, in to how other councils act, is a perfect example of this.  I requested, in December 2000 that the issue be taken to a meeting of council members.

My wish is to see a satisfactory outcome for the case in question and for WPBC to hold a sensible future policy on how, these participatory events can be encouraged and certainly a policy that will be decided democratically.

It may well be considered that, the council's officers give advice to the council members. However what they may give to members of the public, I would consider to be the council's officer's opinion. I do not need to know The Director of Tourism's personal opinions, unfortunately that is just about all I have received, in one form or another, since December 2000. Unfortunately little of these opinions have actually been addressed to the problems of, and intended to help these small-scale participatory folk events. That was the ONLY issue in December 2000.

 My opinion, for what that is worth? Is that I have found the Director of Tourism's views to be unhelpful, inflexible and have become the main problem These views are totally at odds with the spirit expressed (as follows) by those I find whose views I can respect.

"I believe that the quality of our arts and cultural industries, our creative talents are central to the task of recreating the sense of community.. I value too the folk group in the local pub in Trimdon Village." Tony Blair, Mansion House speech, 03 February 1997.

"If the arts were more widely appreciated among the masses - is that a phrase one is allowed to use in our classless society? - I would say there would be less crime, more understanding between various parts of the community and perhaps more national pride." Lord Renton, House of Lords debate on the arts, 18 March 1998.

"Live music - particularly in pubs and clubs - is at the heart of Britain's thriving music industry... we hope [licensing reform] will provide many more opportunities for people to experience live music." Janet Anderson, Culture Minister, Dept Culture Press Release, 5 July 2000.

How any other local authorities may view this issue has very little direct effect on those members of the public unfortunate enough to be living under this current policy in this borough.
Are WPBC's officers to advise the members to adopt a bad policy based on the fact that other authorities may also adopt a similar bad policy?
 Whatever these views, may turn out to be, I hope this will not influence or prevent WPBC from holding the right policy for both the residents and visitors to Weymouth and Portland?
 For what is preventing WBPC from taking the lead and setting an example that other authorities would follow?  Could it possible be the resulting unpopularity of WPBC's officers, with officers from other authorities, if they should be seen to advise the council members to set the only good and sensible example?
 Other councils were referred to by me mainly to demonstrate that, members do decide their own PEL policy.
 WPBC's members to do not have to take their own officers bad advice. I hope that they do not think they have to accept other authority's officer's bad advice and turn that in to policy for Weymouth and Portland.

The only opinions that really matter on this issue are those of the elected members of the council. They will hopefully deliver a sensible decision on future policy after receiving advice from their officers and after hearing a first–hand account from an expert witness, as to the nature of the event in question.

For I have continued to pursue this matter as a witness. In order to present evidence, to enable the council members to decide the nature of the event and decide if this law should apply. I will then accept that whatever they decide, will then be the council's policy. Rather than having to accept that the council's officer's opinions are forming this policy.

After asking for this since December 2000, Via Councillor ……., more helpfully with other councillors and our MP, I am pleased to note the first written reference to this matter going to a meeting of council members and look forward to future notification and details of this. I would like my thanks to be conveyed, in advance to the Chair and also my request that if possible, for my presence at any further meetings on this subject, should resolution not be possible at this one. I trust that these meeting will enable all aspects of this issue to be discussed openly? Not a meeting just to 'rubber-stamp' The Director of Tourism's often expressed personal opinions, as WPBC's policy.