THe new guidance should be available tomorrow, I think.

THen it's time to read it very carefully and to put sensible practical measures to Hamish, for the MU to follow, to Marc, for the EFDSS to follow.

I am hoping to find time to do a Performer-Lawyer group response but it is time consuming.

You can all send your own points to Caborn, Estelle Morris (who might listen) your MPs (they still need to know how badly this is affecting thier support). You may as well copy the so-called civil so-called servants, but all you will get back will be half-truths (at best) evasiveness and spin.

I don't want to be thought of as undermining Roger. As I said, he has the main principles right. I also feel I should point out that the accusations of a "pernicious lying campaign" came from HOwells, whose department also wrote that at least the musicians' union could conduct the debate in civil terms "unlike Mr Bridge" after an outburst of mine at insolent and peurile debating tricks from the civil servants. But if you actually line-by line the act, you will see that most often the erroneous or misleading statements came from govrenment.

However, Local authorities do have powers of instant closure under teh Environmental Protection Act, and under health and safety legislation. But they don't bother, adn if my own experience is anything to go by they even deny that their statutory duties exist. THat does not make it the job of the police to use the new act, and by and large claims that the regulations introduced under this act are necessary are rather suspect. In some places they are iffy. For example I suggested that it should only be an offence to obstruct an authorised person if it were knowing and if he had produced evidence of his authority. Rejected. Why does that remind me of the miners' strike? WHy should an authorised person be authorised to effect entry to inspect for a breach or likely breach of the licensing law unless he had reasonable cause to believe?

Given the way some local authorities have enforced the existing law, there can be little doubt that prosecutions will be mounted to test the new law - the limits of the words, not the limits of common sense.

But even more, remember what the alternatives to the present government may be. It may have no respect for the truth, but THatcher had no respect for jobs or lives either. We need teh labour party, but can it be in some way accountable to us please?