Jump to content

Talk:Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I note that this page does NOT give a summary of the legislation as passed. Someone who does not know about the law will have to piece together several passages to understand what the law currently says.

05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Kitplane01


The following passages have been put on the discussion page from AllPeopleUnite and ALoan's talk pages for posterity and the discussion will continue here:

Thanks for your edits to the above article.
Your edit summary said that the article was "overwhelmingly anti-Bill 111". Please feel free to add any additional comments commending the Bill that you can find - I had to look quite hard to find the few statements supporting the bill that are already included (one from the government minister, and another from a senior barrister).
The fact is that the weight of opinion in the British press, in professional legal circles, and in most political circles (other than the government) was strongly against the bill. All of the negative comments were properly cited to original sources. I did not add (and can live without) the links to various blogs, but your edits also removed:
  • the reference to the very strongly worded letter from six law professors on 16 February that was cited several times in the press and in Parliament;
  • Marcel Berlin's comparison to legislation that could have been passed by Stalin;
  • Clifford Chance's opinion that the bill would usurp the power of Parliament;
  • David Pannick's more measured comment about the bill conferring "astonishingly broad powers on ministers to make the law of the land".
  • the comparision with the similarly-controversial Civil Contingencies Act 2004
(A couple of these are redlinked, but they are well-known and respected legal commentators.)
I think these should go back, but think we should discuss first. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I put back in everything except for the Stalin reference, that was just seeming to me stupid and inlammatory. There are already numerous references to the eroding of civil liberties and democracy, without bringing Stalin into it. Also I removed the Hitler reference for the same reasons. Shall we continue this discussion on the Discussion page of the article? UserAllPeopleUnite 17:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The fact is that was compared to the Enabling Act and Stalin by respected commentators... Yes, I guess we should copy the exchange to the talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It's just that there is so much negative references, almost all of the 20-something of them are anti-Bill 111, and I just can't see how adding these inflammatory remarks helps give a better picture of the debate surrounding it.
AllPeopleUnite 03:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enabling act

[edit]

Shouldn't there be a note about the similarities between this and an Enabling act? The Enabling act article references this, and while it may be undeserved to label this outright as such, there are evidently properties of this act that are in the same vein as an enabling act.

zoney ♣ talk 14:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion about this point above. A reference to it (and another to Stalin) was removed on the grounds that it was "inflamatory" - look back in the edit history for a citation. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as regards the Stalin reference, it's quite reasonable to take out such diversionary comparisons. I'm making the point that as regards referring to the "enabling act" article (NOTE: NOT Enabling Act), it is a sensible reference to include in an encyclopaedic entry. I would not suggest that it is not controversial - but that is no reason not to include such a reference (it may indeed be a reason to be careful as regards phrasing, and what parallels or links are drawn, if any). zoney ♣ talk 00:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see - I hadn't appreciated the difference between an enabling act and the (archetypal) Enabling Act. The passing references to Stalin and the Enabling Act at least had the benefit of verifiable citations in broadsheet newspapers - do you have a reference calling the bill an enabling act? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the enabling act article - there are obvious parallels. While a high quality citation would almost certainly be necessary to definitively call this an enabling act, I think it would be fair enough to make reference to it (although I haven't added one, as it would need to be suitably worded). zoney ♣ talk 13:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been characterized as an attack on civil liberties and an 'enabling act' in the media. So it would only be encyclopedic to include such language. [1], [2], [3], [4] Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 16:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also here [5], [6].

Stalin reference

[edit]

Is there a wikipedia guideline about not including things like the Stalin reference? I see that the comment was made by an MP which suggests to me that it is notable. Does anyone object to the inclusion of a quote from the relevant MP? Eiler7 16:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead. The views of MPs on this bill are certainly notable, after all, it is they who will be responsible for its eventual fate. 86.136.0.145 00:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which MP referred to Stalin? An old version of the article included a reference to a comment by Marcel Berlins in a piece in The Guardian.[7] The comparison to Hitler's Enabling Act in a letter in The Times.[8] -- ALoan (Talk) 13:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060209/debtext/60209-28.htm#60209-28_spnew0 LaFoiblesse (talk) 2010-05-04 11:56 (BST)

Use

[edit]

Has there been any use of this act yet that could be mentioned?Joevsimp 17:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To date, no. Makes you wonder why the government needed it so badly. Francis Davey (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legislative_and_Regulatory_Reform_Act_2006&oldid=1205328281"