To show the futility of law in relation to entertainment I found this
passage in a book which shows the battle has been fought before and won. It is about Clarkson Rose, a number one pantomime dame and music hall artist;
" Clarkie had the courage to strike a blow on behalf of his fellow artistes,when I witnessed a whacking smack in the eye delivered to the ridiculous and antiquated law that bans Sunday performances with artistes in "make-up".
Wilfred Pickles and others had been forced to cancel bookings. Clarkie was booked on Henry Hall's Guest Night and declared he would wear full regalia.
The BBC North region lost its nerve and banned him, but BBC london upheld him and said "Wear the kitchen stove if you like, we will take full legalresponsibility".
I wondered what the morning would bring. But the law could not do a thing about it, as the audience had not paid to come in. Clarkie's resolute action helped to prove the utter fatuity of a law which, while allowing a Marx Bros film at a local cinema on Sunday, debars artists from giving Sunday shows-even for charity- should they dare to wear a hat or a false eyebrow or two"
In the modern context substitute.."the utter fatuity of a law that allows Karioke at any decibel level, but debars artists from giving shows-even for charity- should they dare to perform acoustically in any venue without a PEL."
So Clarkson Rose was the voluntary martyr against this ridiculous
legislation which was still in place in 1948.
Maybe we need a high profile martyr against the present insanity?