> I look forward to someone trying to get things like that tested in court. Tough it'd be tricky, given that the Crown Prosecution Service would presumably not want to push a case like that and end up looking like idiots, and while the UK allows for private prosecutions I'm not sure if there'd be a viable avenue to use this act for that (trying to find a way of giving you standing to e.g. sue a florist sounds like inviting contempt of court).
Of course, he's pointing out the absurdity of the law.
> This is a big problem - the law is so broad that it'll be incredibly easy to abuse if government wants to charge someone, or add additional charges.
This highlights a more sinister side to government—rather than incompetence. One could deny this until it happens. I'm sure state apologists will (& continue once it does happen).
Of course, he's pointing out the absurdity of the law.
> This is a big problem - the law is so broad that it'll be incredibly easy to abuse if government wants to charge someone, or add additional charges.
This highlights a more sinister side to government—rather than incompetence. One could deny this until it happens. I'm sure state apologists will (& continue once it does happen).