I'm interested in this too. My guess is that the intention was to be more generous to voluntary associations by permitting them to organise around PCs without needing to show that it's proportionate to exclude someone without the PC. The thinking seems to be that it shouldn't be presumptively illegitimate to discriminate in the context o…
I'm interested in this too. My guess is that the intention was to be more generous to voluntary associations by permitting them to organise around PCs without needing to show that it's proportionate to exclude someone without the PC. The thinking seems to be that it shouldn't be presumptively illegitimate to discriminate in the context of a private voluntary association in the same way as it would for a more public facing service provider. And it just wasn't envisaged that determining whether or not someone has a particular PC would ever be seriously contentious.
I'm interested in this too. My guess is that the intention was to be more generous to voluntary associations by permitting them to organise around PCs without needing to show that it's proportionate to exclude someone without the PC. The thinking seems to be that it shouldn't be presumptively illegitimate to discriminate in the context of a private voluntary association in the same way as it would for a more public facing service provider. And it just wasn't envisaged that determining whether or not someone has a particular PC would ever be seriously contentious.