It's probably more important to write to the papers than it is to the politicians. And of course any time you write to a politicians or an official of any kind (tourists board etc), it i s best to send a copy to the press, and let the recipient know you are doing that.

"Is the blunted letter the only weapon available?" - well the crafty thing here is that it's not the musicians or singers who are threatened, so direct action and civil disobedience isn't a readily available option.

I suppose if some people were to get their act together and have a session in the lobby of a British Embassy or Tourist board office as a protest it might be a way of getting some people in the media interested.

In the big scheme of things it's not a big issue - but it's an irritating state of affairs, and it's one of the things that degrades the structure of social interaction. I'm sure that it has all kinds of unremarked effects - it contributes to a kind of social alienation. (Good sociological-babble there.)

And of course it's not just what might count as folk musi that is held in check, it's all kind of spontaneoud music. The law just gets in the way of people being free and feeling free , and that does matter.

People go on about the distinction between being a subject and being a citizen. Personally I think labels like that don't mean a thing, and they could change it tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. The real difference is between a society where this kind of arbitrary law is accepted and one where it is laughed out of existence.

The Engllish tradition, of course, is to shrug off the existence of daft laws, while ignoring them much of the time, which I suppose is a lot better than those places where people complain, but then obey the law. But I think this is a daft law too far.