LASORS is not written by a single person, nor can it be simply described as opinion. The editorial process will include the CAA lawyers reading through it.
They wouldn't let anything go into print unless it met certain criteria. Lawyers are funny about things like that. Their job is to minimise risk to their clients most of the time (for example, most newspapers have legal eagles on staff to check if stories are actionable) if the CAA published a book which purported to condense and explain the actual law and it wasn't spot on or defensible, then it would get any where near the printers.
They will always say "go and read the ANO" rather than give an opinion. Why? Because you are usually talking to a beauracrat who doesn't want to make a mistake in interpretation. If you could speak to one of the actual policy people who sat down and wrote this stuff, then you will likely get a very different answer.
The CAA are world leaders in ar*e covering. Do you really think they would publish a book like LASORS if it wasn't worth the paper it was written on?
We can argue all we like, but as I've already mentioned, all legislation is open to interpretation unless something is tested and a precedent is set. That's simply the nature of it.
I'm dogged in this, because I don't like being insulted when there is no justification. You may disagree with me and that is your right, but start being rude and you turn a discussion into a fight and I become a vicious little s*d with too much time on my hands.
One piece of advice, never start a row with someone who's currently on 40mg of extremely strong steroids every day. You've seen the "Incredible Hulk", think that without the green body paint (or muscles.......
).