With Dave's permission this is the letter to which he refers. It has not been replied to......yet.

Dear Mr Locke

Thank you for your reply. However, having re-checked my sources, I believe that the only mis-information being provided is by you.

I would be grateful if you could address the following points before I contact the press.

1. The Cove House Inn has a Public Entertainment Licence granted by the Council and can hold folk sessions without difficulty.

Is it true that the Cove applied for a PEL on 01/02/01, obtained it only on 16/05/01 and that in July the licensee pointed out to your Licensing Manager that this licence had expired on 30/06/01? If so can you confirm and apologise for the misinformation you have supplied?
Would you confirm that as of the date of your communication to me, The Cove House Inn does not have a valid PEL and that given your strict interpretation of the law and the word performer, would be curently illegal there, if more than two people were singing?

3. The issues as to public safety and nuisance suffered by neighbours apply whatever the source of music. We have currently an application from the Cove House Inn to extend hours for music outside and we have 4 or 5 objections from neighbours. They have a legitimate point of view too.

In the light of the above, would you confirm that your Chief Executive Mr Grainger, in a letter to Mr Gall, stated on 31/08/01 that: "I should make it clear that there have never been any allegations, that we know of, that the Thursday sessions that you take part in threaten public safety, or produce obtrusive noise to neighbours".

At the moment you know the nature of the complaints you refer to. I understand that this will soon be public knowledge. Could you please confirm that you have four or five comments on the application all with "a legitimate point of view" but could you please confirm that these are to an application for a Public Entertainment Licence and that all of these are objections to this application, as you stated?

I have subsequently been informed that that you are responsible for public licensing matters. is there any reason that you did not correct my assumption that you were not?

4. Any affect on tourism is not being caused by actions of the Council which have been legally and reasonably correct but by misinformation as to what the real situation is.

Given the "misinformation" that you have supplied in your reply to me, I will make no further comment other than to question whether you are in fact aware of what "the real situation is", or if you are aware, you do not appear to wish to inform others exactly what "the real situation is".

5. Noone has yet been able to point to a local authority which takes a different view. All the ones we have consulted take a similar line to us

Others may have not taken the action or attempted to justify it. Is imposing a bad policy on the people your borough, and blaming it on central Government, just because others may, the action of the enlightened borough your PR, claims to be?

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely