If you do not enforce rules universally, but only when you feel like it, anarchy entails. By this I mean that once you enforce it for one pub you must enforce it for all.

For the entire period the enforcement was being strictly taken at The Cove, an identical event was taking place, is still taking place and has been taking place for several years, in another pub in the borough. This still has not received any attention from our officers. We hope that it never does.

The Cove session has been running since December 2000. It has only been legally covered by a PEL for six weeks, from 16 May until it expired, without anyone noticing, on the 30 June. The officers have allowed this to continue without a PEL because the licensee had indicated, or was in the process of applying for the PEL. Had the licensee not made the application, the session would have been lost. Had the licensee continued the session without making the application, he would have been prosecuted and faced a six month semtence or £20,000 fine.

Is not the council running a 'blind eye' to some events, strict enforcement to others and a combination of these, all at the same time, exactly the anarchy to which you refer?

Whilst at the same time maintaining that there is no discretion under the law to do this and blaming everyone else?

The level of the revenue gained from PELs here is insignificant. This revenue is only supposed to cover the cost, not reduce the council tax burden anyway. But it may well be doing this here? If so it could explain the situation here, for nothing else makes much sense?

Only the District Auditor will be able to establish how much the ridiculous and long-running saga of the Cove's PEL, with two public hearings and a full committee meeting being required, with the councillor's attendence expenses, has actually cost the local tax payer? For the Licensing Manager will not supply me with that or any other information, she does not wish to anyone to know.

I expect we will now be going to the District Auditor and the Local Government Ombudsman, which will take more time and expense, which we, the local tax payer will be paying for?

Why are we allowing our council to do all this in our name and for our benefit?