01/10/01

Dear Mr Grainger

Re your letter 25/09/01. We have made a little progress, which I shall detail later. Rather than respond in one letter, I propose to take it one step at a time.

The fact that you use other licensing authorities for your defence and support, demonstrates at least that every one of these authorities can and do develop their own public entertainment licensing policy.

Will you write and confirm that the Council could hold a different interpretation of the now endorsed local policy (that considers members of the public are performers), if the Council members decided to do so?

04/10/01

Dear Mr Gall

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 1st October 2001.

As I said in my last letter, I do not propose to keep corresponding on the matter of interpretation of the law. You know from my earlier correspondence that I believe our (and other council's) approach is a reflection of the law as it stands, and is not a policy decision.

Yours sincerely

Tom Grainger
Chief Executive.

Can anyone explain this reply?

My question was not on interpretation of the law, but one of basic local democracy. Is he saying that the elected members could not decide the council would hold a different interpretation of the word performer?

There is no case law determinative of the word performer.

The (elected) Chairman of the Committee is of a different view and is under the impression that the committee could decide which interpretation they wished. They would be guided by the employees advice but did not have to accept it………..Watch this space.