I have repied as follows.

Dear Mr Grainger

I am pleased to see that WPBC' officers have now at last agreed and accepted that, what they advise the members, as to how they should enforce existing law, is the policy issue in question here.
Up to this point they have maintained that they have no discretion. A little strange whilst at the same time supposedly 'investigating' how other authorities officers advise their members, to enable these councils to make policy on how they should enforce the same existing law?

WPBC's officers may offer "advice" to the council members. Since December 2000, I consider most of what I have received from them and in particular from The Director of Tourism, are their personal opinions.

If "advice" it is considered? My opinion it that is poor "advice" being given to the council members. "Advice" that is designed to prevent embarrassment and inconvenience to council officers, rather than "advice" that is designed for the benefit of the electors of and visitors to Weymouth and Portland.

I note with some horror, Mr Grainger's opinion that preventing the public's freedom of expression is considered "fair and evenhanded" . That this opinion forms "advice" to enable the council members to make policy is even more disturbing.

Would Mr Grainger advise:

1. It is "fair and evenhanded" when, is has taken since December 2000, to grant a request, that a matter of policy questioned by a member of the public directly affected by the council's officer's actions, be discussed by a relevant policy making meeting of the council's members?

2. It is "fair and evenhanded" when, the evidence of this member of the public, both a direct witness and an expert witness to the crucial aspects of the nature of the activity in question, has been prevented since December, from being heard by a relevant policy making meeting of the council's members.

3. It is "fair and evenhanded" when, in glaring contrast to the above treatment, the council's action was taken on behalf of the public, when there was no complaint ever made by the public about the activity in question and where there were no issues of noise or public safety? Where penalties for the licensee could be a £20.000 fine or a six month, prison sentence for allowing a sing-along in a public house?

4. It is "fair and evenhanded" when, the council's officers continue to badly advise the council's members to hide behind an unsound interpretation of a law? When the leading authority in this area of the law, Dr Colin Manchester (author of Entertainment Licensing – Law and Practice, Butterworths) has been consulted on precisely this point and he is adamant that there is "no decided authority to support this interpretation of s 182"?

5. It is "fair and evenhanded" when, the council's officer's "advice" to WPBC's members, is just to follow the "advice" from other council's officers not employed by or responsible to the electors of, or addressing the particular problems of the residents and visitors to Weymouth and Portland.

6. It is "fair and evenhanded" when the requested meeting is further delayed to enable this "advice" to be obtained?