Ok. Some have stated that the Bill (previous posts) is simply another statute and therefore of little consequence. I’m no expert. I don’t know and can’t advise. However, the following citation concerns me:
Secondly, if, in a particular case, “person” is to include unincorporated bodies, the issue of who to be prosecuted and who is to bear any penalty will need to be spelt out so the responsible individuals are clearly identified.
The question is whether this would automatically include a freeman who might previously have stated that he is not a person. If this Bill allows for the person to be identified as an unicorporated body then this could perhaps affect those who have referred to this apparent ambiguity in the past.
My opinion (permitted under the Human Rights Act remember?) is that this part of the Bill is aimed at Freemen and the person = corporation. I can’t be sure of course but who can? We need to take a closer and well-informed look at what is being proposed.