Thank you very much.
I fully support the sentiment behind this. My problem is, with my legal training, I don't know if we've quite understood what the word “could” means.
I'll read from “britannica.com”, as it were, a definition, “to say an action or event is possible”. For example, there's a difference between “I have cancer” and “I could have cancer”. It really means if it's at all possible. That's the difference. Is it possible for you to pose a threat? That's a very broad term. Is it possible that I could become prime minister? It's possible, but perhaps not likely.
So “possible” includes unlikely, as well as likely. “Poses” means I have it. It means I have cancer.
I'm a bit troubled that we don't have a basic understanding of the English language with the officials.
Do you not understand the difference between “could” and having something? It means “possible”. Do you not understand that?