The proposed changes are eminently sensible in principle. There does need to be a properly established hierarchy based on level of threat.
However. If you think that loose wording in a document that amounts to official government guidance to legislation doesn’t matter then I can only conclude you’ve never had to fight a legal battle based on such guidance. I’ve been to the high court and court of appeal and I can tell you that judges and barristers endlessly interpret and reinterpret everything not explicitly nailed down when it comes to such guidance. Platinumsage is right that this wording is awful. It leaves a space big enough to drive a bus AND bicycle through. And it will serve as the basis for prosecution so this level of ambiguity is really poor. Par for the course, sadly. But poor
However. If you think that loose wording in a document that amounts to official government guidance to legislation doesn’t matter then I can only conclude you’ve never had to fight a legal battle based on such guidance. I’ve been to the high court and court of appeal and I can tell you that judges and barristers endlessly interpret and reinterpret everything not explicitly nailed down when it comes to such guidance. Platinumsage is right that this wording is awful. It leaves a space big enough to drive a bus AND bicycle through. And it will serve as the basis for prosecution so this level of ambiguity is really poor. Par for the course, sadly. But poor