Originally Posted by
corporate-wage-slave
Again, it isn't so much the wording of assorted SI, it's the intent, it's the desire to do the right thing.
In a perfect world, I would agree that it should be the intent, not the SI that matters. However, legally, it's the SI not the intent that matters. And the two are contradictory. Last Friday Mrs LHRSFO and I just finished two weeks self-isolation so that we could visit our elderly relatives in the South West - our self-isolation wasn't legally required, it was something we did so that we could be 100% sure that our visit was safe. Then London went into Tier 2 making the visit illegal. Being law abiding, we cancelled the visit, which caused a huge amount of heartbreak as, realistically, we won't now see them until March I should imagine. However, if the intent mattered, we would have carried on and seen them.
The point is that, the way English justice works, is that laws are developed slowly and carefully, and the courts generally try to interpret the law according to its intent. These laws have been developed quickly and clumsily and there are many instances where the intent and the letter are polar opposites. The longer this carries on, the more either a) the law will be disregarded or b) it will be enforced in a draconian way. Either outcome is very bad for society generally.