The guidance does not, as you know (having read it), make any change in relation to “marginal risk”. I haven’t read the article (£), but that quote doesn’t in any way support, or suggest any support for, your - indeed - thoroughly bad paper.
Found a copy: it’s lobby correspondent gossip. Impossible to know without details whether suggestions of delay or overstating risk have any merit at all. Pretty desperate to clutch at that gossip as support for your inconsistent, overwrought, and often plain wrong, claims about the new guidance.
Those are not your finest submissions, as I'm sure you know deep down. And I do hope you're not accusing the very good journalists at The Times of lying.
As anyone with actual experience of advising government knows, there can be problems with the way modest levels of legal risk are understood by policy officials and ministers. But the right response to that isn’t to stop warning about legal risk but to ensure that decision-makers understand it.
Few tramline thinkers can live or manage uncertainty. Risk appetite is a fact of life when converting theory into action. Doing is everything if directed by sufficient cogitation. It is the ability to be nuanced & flexible in the process that allows for a better envelope of response. Model & measure
Comments
I usually access articles via https://archive.ph but the hit ratio of decent articles dwindles.