Although, the practical impact may be the same; surely Richard is incorrect in everything that hs ways in item b above.

a) Actions under the Human Rights Act cannot change the meaning of "incidental", they can only establish that the legal meaning of the word results in an unlawful contraint on Human Rights.

b) Whilst litigation may establish that "incidental" has a wider meaning than the DCMS think, but that would not alter what is legal, it will just establish that people who assumed that it was illegal because of a ministerial statement were wrong and that it was legal all along.

Essentially the courts do not change the law, they eradicate incorrect assumptions about its meaning.

That brings us to the crunch question. Does Richard think that the Act makes singarounds illegal or does he think that they are actually legal but that people will be too lacking in confidence to take advantage of the legality?

Richard