[still off topic]

"Ian Jelf" wrote :
In an unrelated matter I once asked the (then) Disability Rights
Commission whether or not something was within the scope of the Disability
Discrimination Act. I was told that only a court could answer that
question, ie I would have to risk being prosecuted before finding out
whether it was illegal or not.

That's been a feature of English law since approximately 1066
Laws are usually made for specific purposes, but the phrasing tends to pull
in related items that may require the courts interpretation as to whether or
not the law really applies in that case.

Virtually all new legislation has areas that need 'testing'. A good example
is the business of banks routinely overcharging customers as the mood takes
them - it's been tough to get a ruling because whenever someone tries to sue
under a recent act of parliament, the banks keep settling out of court (I
wonder why? Thieving *******s!).

And it's all cash in hand by the million for squads of lawyers ...
--

Andrew

"She plays the tuba.
It is the only instrument capable
of imitating a distress call."