When is a performance obscene, and do we have a right to be alerted to something that might offend us? Raymond Whitehead, who fought and lost a civil case relating to a Jérôme Bel dance show, argues that consumers are not protected under the present law

I wish to respond to some of the claims made by Alan Gilsenan, of the International Dance Festival, and Willie White, of the Project Arts Centre, and also make the public aware that their rights under consumer law do not apply when they buy a ticket to a concert or any stage production.

A loophole exists in the law with regards to theatre because when theatre came into existence there never was any question that anyone would perform lewd or obscene acts on stage. It was not considered necessary to draft a law for something that, in the minds of our ancestors, was never going to happen.

Times have changed.

All I am calling for is that something like a trade descriptions act be applied to theatre advertising. I am not calling for censorship.

In the recent civil case I took against the International Dance Festival, the judge on the day agreed that the advertising for the performance in question "fell far short of the advertising standards code of practice" which calls for "honesty, truthfulness, clarity". The loophole in question fundamentally reduces the rights of consumers to make an informed choice as to the suitability of a performance for themselves or for those in their care, most importantly children.

This gap in the advertising requirements of stage productions was highlighted graphically recently when a pop idol went on stage here and performed simulated sex acts on stage in front of children as young as seven years old, to the distress of their parents.

Alan Gilsenan's point that theatres would have to tell people that Godot (in Waiting for Godot) never shows up stretches our credulity. Audience members themselves would be quick to point out that the play is about waiting for Godot, not the arrival of Godot, as its title clearly indicates.

There is also a great difference between something that doesn't happen on stage and someone performing lewd acts just feet in front of the audience. I would ask Gilsenan to keep a sense of proportion and not get carried away with his analogies.

I am sure most people realise how difficult it would be to urinate on stage unless one had a rather full bladder. There is nothing subtle about a man and a woman discharging a full bladder-load of urine close to where you are sitting, and then scooping it up in their hands, as happened in the Jérôme Bel show at the Project in 2002.

Gilsenan's claim that the urination was "subtle" could perhaps be used as an appeal by those hauled before the courts on similar public order offences.

The point that the International Dance Festival and the Project found themselves in court "through no fault of their own" is, I believe, far from the truth. It was precisely because of their arrogant attitude and lack of respect for and acknowledgement of my obvious distress and hurt at the performance, and my concern at having my right to make an informed choice diminished, that I decided to embark on this course of action. I wrote to them and was ignored. It took me seven months to get a reply (on the telephone) to my request for my money back. I was refused and told that I would not be getting this decision in writing (and I never did). Then I was thanked profusely for all the free advertising I had got them, and asked if I had "nothing better to do with my time".

It was at that point, and having given them plenty of time to redeem themselves, that I decided to take them to court. It was obvious to me at this stage that these people had no regard for the sensibilities, religion, age or background of their patrons and fully deserved to be taken to court.

Willie White, of the Project, stated that the theatre cares for its audiences and that, when appropriate, it would warn that children should not see certain productions without a guardian. Was the reason they did not post a sign on this production because they felt that it was suitable for children?

The claim that flagging the "adult" nature of the production with words such as "contemporary" and "challenging" was an adequate warning is, I feel, an insult to the intelligence of the audience.

Challenging for whom? The audience or the performers? And in what way? Intellectually, physically, emotionally, morally? A word left hanging undefined is not enough for a consumer to extrapolate its exact meaning.

This is how the International Dance Festival won its case, because contract law is weighted in favour of the person or organisation who draws up that contract rather than in favour of the person for whom it is meant, namely the consumer. People are not aware of this (that their rights under consumer law are compromised) when they buy a ticket to a concert or a theatre.

I would call on the Government, as a matter of urgency, to close this loophole in the law before it finds itself in the European Court of Human Rights charged with negligence and failing to protect its children and citizens from exposure to obscene material under the current law (or lack of it).