CYCC - S. 1003 - Technical Correction Possible?
Hi Michael:
You raise a valid point - ( d ) does not describe a class of player. I think it should stay in the Handbook though, for the interpretation I gave it above.
Is it technical in nature - I think so - it is a good statement of burdent of proof , but in the wrong place. It could for instance become s. 1004, referring back to s. 1003, with some technical wording surrounding it.
I will take this up with Kerry and Bob G, to see whether they think we can avoid a motion to make this correction.
Thanks for raising it. If anyone feels this would be a " substantial " amendment, and requires a " Motion ", please let me know.
Bob