In uk.transport.london message , Sun, 2 Dec
2012 07:26:58, Robin posted:

In one case, it is both certain and obvious that either a faulty
amendment was legislated into an Annex to a perfectly good original
Act, or that the minions who provided Webmaster with material had
been at best incompetent at cut'n'paste (either with paper and glue,
or in the modern manner).

The process is not automatic so it should not be surprising if there are
occasional errors, especially in the "keeled text". IMLE those
responsible welcome reports of such errors to


They are polite, and (they say) have checked their Web page against the
(unspecified) source material with which they have been provided. They
will do no more. They are, after all, lower-grade administrative civil
servants. However, they have not denied or doubted the error. They
have in fact been asked twice.

PS
Acts usually have "Schedules" rather than Annexes. Was this an ancient
one?

That depends on when Ancient ended. The material is not labelled as
Schedule or Annex or Annexe in the current version, nor in Statutes at
Large 1765, but in the text it is described as annexed material.

So, for the double-quoted Annex read annex.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. E-mail, see Home Page. Turnpike v6.05.
Website http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc. : http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ - see in 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.