What?
BEagle
Why then if the new regulations couldn't be published in time was the whole validation process bit not put on hold. Surely a law shouldn't be changed and only promulgated through pprune. That in itself could be unlawful.
When you say a member of the public was not prepared to abide by the lawful consultation process, do you mean - that a member of the public quite properly, if they so believed, challenged the process being undertaken on legal grounds. Presumably because they didn't believe proper consultations with those that it would effect had taken place.
I do not understand your arguments with regard to the AIC. There was once a day that changes to law were published prior to them becoming effective. An AIC was published, on occasion sometimes afterward, but usually only if necessary, to clarify. An AIC on its own is not the law. Where is it intended to publish the law?
On the point in question. Why is it necessary for a NPPL holder to formerly present themself to an examiner to have their bit of paper signed and dated when, if they don't, they will suddenly become illegal and therefore be breaking the law. They already have the bit of paper and if they are otherwise fully complient (not the 90 day rule which applies to all) why do they not continue to remain lawful until it is absolutely necessary for a signature and an expiry date to be entered.