I haven't suggested that it does.
Fair point, it is, however, a big talking point on social media with people making that suggestion and as you mentioned it in here it's worth pointing out that it doesn't have much relevance to the case/right to sefl defence.
That's why I said "wording and intention", as in they don't logically work together.
Doens't matter, this is the bit you're struggling with I think - that they might have only intended it to apply to hunting but then drafted it badly so that it provides broad exemptions is on them to correct, the law as it stands currently allows it.
They did. Their fact check is literally saying there is uncertainty (which is why the assertion that it was "perfectly legal") was false.
The fact check itself is saying: "No, that's not right. You can't claim it is "perfectly legal" as it is unproven at the moment and disputed"
They didn't, their truth meter is all the way over to the left and they dismissed the argument in favour (which was far stronger) and put all the emphasis on the argument against - it's clear bias but you can't admit it.
You keep on ignoring that they could and really should update it now it has been clearly resolved in court.
(apologies to everyone else for getting stuck in a Jono-hole here)