(no subject)

This is a weird news story (or at least weirdly reported):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4289930.stm

If someone's actions are de facto illegal for the next five years, how can it possibly be a valid response to "ban" the person from carrying them out for 1 year?

Surely, that just makes it look like there are different pegs within the definition of "illegal"? Unless I'm missing something, it's counterproductive to both the purposes of the law, justice and certainty - ands makes the law look silly...