It also seems strange that a supposed ambiguity in a subsequent act should somehow overpower a clear statement in a previous one.
Replies
And the SC ties itself in knots to try and make that point but it’s nevertheless what the judgement does. It argues that the drafters of the Equality Act implicitly triggered (3) so that (1) did not apply. There’s no ambiguity because (they argue) the EA uses a provision of the GRA to ignore (1).
aug 9, 2025, 8:43 pm • 0 0 • view
Back to Danny Kaye "The poison's in the vessel with the pessle & etc"
aug 9, 2025, 11:12 pm • 0 0 • view