It was a bit of a shambles.

Why they decided to sandwich it between music is a mystery. Hamish's bit was OK and MH was not trying to be impartial and came over as concerned. Less good in the good Dr's bit, which was strange. Dr Howells did not know the subject at all but MH did not make the most of this.

Dr Howells agreed that the enforcements were not good news but made no suggestion as to what could be done now or why he had just watched them for so long.

He gave two incorrect answers to the same question. Were unpaid sessons to be prevented? Yes (when he has earler stated they should not be used to prevent ordinary folk making music) - until MH repeated unpaid and then No under the proposed reforms, "as long as money does not change hands."

As we know the DCMS are stressing that reward can be indirect, to the licensee, so you pay your money and take your choice. Or you don't pay your money.............!

The question MH put was supposed to have been my question, MH said "and I quote! The only other question (from the listeners), he did not put as he considered the Dr had already answered.

I don't know if anyone else was as confused as I was, at the end?