Nup.
It's simple and hell will freeze over first, we don't support its blanket use.
I don't know where you got the "caving in, or legitimising" bit from either.
If you are talking about the CAR1988 Regs disallowance withdrawal we have a deal that gives all the parties the time to get it right properly.
Perhaps you may be able to assemble a dangerous selection of the facts here to promote an agenda, but the simple fact remains we dont and never will, except where the court rules that an offence is so.
AOPA are doing business with the Government and Regulator in a professional and business like manner and if that doesn't produce sensationalist, "they done us in" headlines I'm sorry to have to disappoint you.
We would much rather "we worked it out together and we all won, isn't it great" headlines
Pray tell which one would you rather.
It gets a bit complicated from here, in that if you want to have the new demerit points system and enlightened enforcement regime that has just been passd into law and supported by most including us, then you have to have, as far as I understand it, those demerit offences the subject of strict liability.
The question is on what criterion and which ones, we are working closely with Government on that.
You always have the right to law if you want.
Thank God I have not been afflicted by a law degree, so I'm sure there will be someone out there who will instruct me about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin, however lets just make sure we get the facts right first.
Yes, but officer I was only doing 160 in a 100 zone I hadn't intend to and anyway there wasn't any body else about and no one got hurt............................
So there is your answer, or do we want to continue this thread just for the fun of it.
Next!