Please note that this is not at all welcome. I consider it grossly discourteous for people to take these sorts of actions without bothering to find out whether they are welcome. I was intending to raise the matter of the two-in-a-bar rule at the AGM, and get the ICA to sign up to the idea of doing a little campaigning on the subject, but right now I am feeling very pissed off about the whole thing.



I understand Chris that you are upset and I am sorry for my part in this but perhaps you can acccept this response is a little unfair and that the responsibilty is largely your own? For I have consulted and informed you at every step and folk can be forgiven for thinking that your free choice to publicly post these details, was asking for help.

Perhaps you could explain why you freely provided the information publicly, both of the name of the pub and that the session was not going to take place? Having provided folk with this you must surely accept that subsequent events will be out of your control?

You did not request or stipulate that folk should check with you first or state that the council concerned may not have even been aware of the pub and the activity, or that there was any possibility that the session may still take place.

I did ask you for more information, largely to prevent any problems resulting to the licensee, but you claimed you had supplied all that you knew. As you can see I posted your request that you were not speaking on behalf ot the ICA.

It would appear, if the information is correct, that the session may now be able to take place and if so, this must be good news? Even if the Council will not allow it without a (temporary) PEL.

Perhaps a lesson can be learnt from this before any more enforcements are posted here?

To check all the angles have been covered before making enforcements public, whether you are involved or if you are posting someone else's difficulties. For it is too late, after this point.

We live and learn.