And here is an email I have just sent to the correction editor at The Guardian, pointing out the mistake they made in their story a few days ago. Maybe a few more letters making the same request might get through to them:

On 3rd July I sent an email asking pointing out a serious error in a
Guardian story, and asking for it to be corrected. I haven't seen a
correction yet, either in the corrections column, or in the rest of the
paper. So I thought I'd have another go.

Here is the quote I was complaining about, in a story by Sarah Hall about
the Licensing Bill in the Lords
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,991269,00.html)

"...unamplified ensembles such as string quartets will not have to overcome
this bureaucratic hurdle."

That is, they will not have to apply for entertainment licences in order to
be able to to permit unamplified music.

Well, it's a pretty confusing piece of legislation, with last minute
amendments, and highly misleading Government press statements   at various
times - but Sarah Hall (or possibly whoever subbed her copy) has got it
completely wrong on this point, and I think the Guardian needs to correct
it.

The Guardian is not alone in this mistake - it seems highly likely that
Peers and MPs actually thought that the last-minute Government amendment did
mean that there will be no need for any kind of music licence to allow
unamplified music in sessions in pubs and so forth. I presume that there
may well have been Government briefings to that effect.

BUT IT IS NOT TRUE What the amendment allows is that, where there is a
licence permitting music, and this contains various requirements - such as
bouncers on the door etc. - these additional conditions will not apply to
events where the music is unamplified and stops by midnight. But if there
is no licence covering music, as is the case at present in 95% of pubs, any
performance of unamplified music will be illegal. And that also applies in
cafes, restaurants and in any other public place, apart from churches.

It's complicated and confusing. But the version the Guardian printed was
misleading, and that needs to be set right.