The following is, in their own words the council officer's move in year, from enforcement of the strict letter of the law and claiming to have no discretion to ignoring the law completely.

19/03/01 Mr Locke to Ian Bruce MP: "Where the provisions apply it is a requirement to have a licence and not something on which we have any discretion".

08/02/01 Mrs Earnshaw to Councillor Booth: "The Council as Licensing Authority has a duty to enforce the law as it stands impartially. I can see no justification for failing to encourage the Licensee of the Cove House Inn to apply for a Public Entertainment Licence and, should it become necessary to take enforcement action in the event that unlicensed performances take place on the premises".

05/06/01 Mrs Earnshaw and the Licensing Manager in their report to the Social/Community Committee: "It is a requirement of the Act that Public Entertainment shall not be provided in any place except in accordance with a PEL issued by the Local Authority".

And from the same document: "By applying the relevant licensing legislation the Council has imposed conditions and restrictions on Mr Gall's rights which are legal necessary and proportionate in the interests of public safety, control of nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder".

 The PEL applied for 01/02/01 was issued on 16/05/01 and expired only 6 weeks later on 30/06/01. The licensee informed the Licensing Manager. Following her advice all the way they paid another fee and made an (incorrect) application for renewal and revision on 26/07/01. As the renewal would have to have been made 28 days before the expiry date, the application should have been for a new grant as there was nothing to renew.

04/09/01From Dorset Fire and Rescue Service, DG Bishop Fire Safety Advisor to Chief Executive (FAO Mrs S Allen. "My inspection of the above premises on 29 August, found that the fire safety conditions were not being maintained as detailed in the Public Entertainment Licence issued on 16 May 2001

".

06/09/01 Peter Gilmour in The Stage. "If an incident occurred in that pub and they had not got a licence and somebody had died everybody would be hounding me, and rightly so". "At the end of the day our concern is public safety".

06/09/0 From Sue Allen Licensing Manager to Mr and Mrs Flynn. "I write further to your recent application for renewal and variation of the Public Entertainment Licence. The Fire Officer inspected your premises on 29th August 2001 and found that the fire safety conditions were not being maintained as detailed in the conditions of the Public Entertainment Licence issued to you on 16th May 2001."
The items of concern are detailed in the attached schedule and until these defects have been rectified I cannot process your application further. I should there fore be grateful if you would let me know as soon as you have dealt with these matters and I can then arrange for a further inspection to be carried out"

10/09/01From: Ian Locke to D Polshaw. In reply to your email I would make the following points: 1. The Cove House Inn has a Public Entertainment Licence granted by the Council and can hold folk sessions without difficulty.

14/09/01 from D Polshaw to Ian 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?

25/09/01 from Mr Grainger to Roger Gall l25/09/01. "In fact, the reply given in an e-mail confirmed that as of 10th September, the Cove House Inn has a Public Entertainment Licence. The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 182 covers this provision and the reply is correct."

05/10/01 from Roger Gall to Mr Grainger. I would be grateful if you could provide a full and satisfactory explanation, under the statues you refer to, as to how you can defend the above statements as being correct?

17/10/01 Peter Gilmour speaking on Carlton West Country Live. If an incident did occur an accident and somebody was injured or hurt or killed whatever, you'd be the first people to say to me, you are responsible for enforcing that legislation, why didn't you do it?

24/10/01 From: Tom Grainger. I am replying to your email of 10th Oct. I am sorry for not responding earlier. The delay is a result of a combination of factors I asked my legal advisor to provide a clear statement on the position of the Cove House Inn, given the facts that you set out in your email. I can confirm that Mr Polshaw's interpretation is correct and that technically the PEL for the Cove House Inn expired. Clearly therefore the phrase 'a valid PEL is held' is not correct. I apologise if you were misled on this matter of law.

I do have to say however that our view remains that it is a technicality, which has no impact on the ability of the Cove House Inn to carry on providing the type of entertainment permitted by the 'old' PEL, pending consideration of the new application.

26/10/01 from D Polshaw to Mr Locke. "Dear Mr Locke. Would you please respond to my letter, sent on September the 14th and detailed below so I can be up to data on the current views of the council. Many thanks in advance." (No reply to Mr Polshaw from Mr Locke has been made to date).

 30/10/01 Social/Community Committee meeting item deferred to January 15th.

08/11/01 From Sue Allen to Roger Gall. "I write in response to your e-mail of 31st October 2001. Matters relating to the Licence, as has already been explained, are a matter between a licensee or proposed licensee and the Authority. I will therefore be writing to the licensee to clarify the current status of the Licence".

08/11/01 from Dorset Fire and Rescue Service, A Nain Sub Officer to Chief Executive (Attn Mrs S Allen). "Resulting from my further inspection of the above premises, the items contained in the schedule of recommendations dated 04 September 2001, have now been satisfactorily implemented".

08/11/01 from Sue Allen to Mr and Mrs Flynn. "As your previous licence expired on 30th June 2001 and you did not make application to renew until 26th July 2001 your Licence effectively lapsed. This means that the advertisement placed in the Dorset Echo on 8th August 2001 for variation and renewal was technically incorrect and should in fact have been for grant of licence. However, this Council as Licensing Authority has the discretion as laid down in Paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 1 to the Act, "in such cases as they see fit" to grant an application for an Entertainment Licence notwithstanding that the applicant has failed to give notice as prescribed under the Act. It is my intention to use this discretion provided that the Police and Fire Authority do not object and in these circumstances you will not be required to advertise a further notice of intention".

I also wish to point out that although your Licence has in fact expired the Licensing Authority does not consider that in this case the public interest has been prejudiced provided the Licence is treated as carrying over on the same terms.

15/11/01 from Sue Allen to Roger Gall. "The Council does not believe that the public interest is served in taking enforcement action provided the premises are operating in accordance with the conditions attached to the grant of the original Licence".

18/11/01 from Roger Gall to Sue Allen. "I formally make this request as a member of the public who has written to comment on an incorrect Public Notice for renewal and revision, that the correct Public Notice be placed and that the correct application for a new grant be made in the usual fashion".

19/11/01 Report for the Licensing Hearing proposed for 05/12/01, prepared by Sue Allen. "In the circumstances the Licensing Authority considers that this lapse should be treated as a technical defect only and provided the premises have continued to be operated in accordance the terms of the previous licence there is no public interest in bringing enforcement action".

 Senior officers making the above statements were aware that from 30/06/01 the PEL had expired and also that from 04/09/01 the Fire and Safety conditions of the original PEL were not being followed and that as a result of this the premises were unsafe. A fact that prevented the new application from continuing but did not, in the officer's view prevent these illegal and unsafe activities from continuing without a PEL or have any impact of the public interest. This advice not being referred to the Committee, who form the Licensing Authority.

Also without advice to the Committee, these same officers were earlier prepared to prosecute the licensee for continuing with these activities without a PEL, when the officers claimed at this time they did not have any discretion. Once the 'protection money' (two lots of fees) has been paid, and the officers have made an administrative error, a somewhat different picture of law, discretion, correct procedure, the public interest and safety seems to emerge. One where the public's safety can be knowingly compromised, seemingly in order only to prevent any possible embarrassment to council officers.