Talk:United Kingdom Law/Great Repeal Bill 2008

This talk page is for discussions about the Great Repeal Bill experiment, To discuss the contents of the Bill please use Debate page.

This page was created on Wikipedia, see Telegraph.co.uk article for background. --SB_Johnny talk 16:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 - Put new contributions at the bottom of the page, not the top - Remember to sign your comment by clicking on the 'signature' icon

Human Rights Act
So just which clauses do people want removed? Most people have never read it. Based on Churchill's ideas, most will say, remove the bit that does X. ie. Allows people to claim asylum in the UK, or allows criminals to gain compensation. It's twaddle. There is nothing in the act that needs revoking.

What is needed is more human rights.

1. Equality for all in the UK when it comes to the law. ie. MPs get tax perks. A new right saying equality for all means we get the same perks as Dan and Douglas.

2. The right not to be born into debt. ie. The government has to balance its books. If its good enough for the third world with kleptocracies, its good enough for the UK citizens with our kleptocracy.


 * That's as maybe; however your views on the desirability or not of repealing the Human Rights Act should be debated here, and you shouldn't have taken it upon yourself simply to delete it from the Great Repeal Bill page. Answering your points:


 * (1) Almost everybody accepts that in the UK we have freedom under the law, which includes equality before it; ie. you cannot buy 'justice' by virtue of wealth or position. If you think that MPs get tax breaks that the rest of us don't, hunt down the relevant legislation and nominate it for repeal.

No. Why should we harm the electorate by repealing a tax perk for MPs. This illustrates the flaw in this repeal bill and why a bill of rights is need. All we need is a simple law that says all are equal under the law. If the MPs want the tax perk fine. However, if it applies to them it applies to all. Very simple. We don't need to have lots of clauses in the repeal bill, and we get the benefit. Far simpler. (NL)


 * (2) You are missing the point; the proposal is about repealing legislation, not enacting it. Whilst I agree with you to a certain extent (we would have lost the Second World War, for example, under your proposed human right), your proposal is obviously outside the scope of what is trying to be achieved here.


 * Please remember to sign your posts: it's the 10h icon in, from the left. --Major Bonkers 19:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've had bits deleted for the rather spurious reason that it should only be a repeal. Replacement isn't repeal, so I take it we can remove repeal of the HRA. Look at the main page and it is two things. Repeal and replacement. That's a new law.

As I've posted, its irelevant. Repeal in most cases is fiddling whilst the rest of society burns.

Take the example of MPs little tax haven. Why should we get that repealed, when with a simple new law, that all are equal, we all have have the perks?

Far simpler to introduce a small bill of rights.

1. Equal treatment under the law for all. 2. Electorate gets to veto via referenda all laws.

Then you put each repeal to the vote. Doesn't take much. Makes politics a bit more exciting.

So the incluse of repatriation for darkies that has appeared on the front list would fail, quite rightly too. Hell, we could even repeal the Bill banning slavery whilst we are at it.

---

The purpose of this Bill is to repeal laws "believed to hamper individual freedoms, society, and businesses in the United Kingdom". It is the HRA that gives people many rights and freedoms - repealing this is not in the scope of the Bill, and would surely just give this Bill a bad name. Rather than rolling back the authoritarian laws passed by Labour, it'll become a Tory law that rolls back all the progress that's been made.

As the poster above says - people need to be specific about which bits are the problems, and how a Bill of Rights would be worded differently? 82.6.108.105 00:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You won't get them saying what rights get removed. You will only get them saying, revoke the right that allowed X to happen. It shows a complete lack of understanding about what is in the HRA.

House of Lords Act 1999
The House of Lords is just a Quango and an expensive one. Why do we want to have an unelected quango of people who've inherited their seats deciding on anything?

Just have a referenda on every act, and you don't need the second house.


 * I'm sympathetic to this view, to an extent. However, it is (or used to be) a trait of the British that we respected and tolerated minorities. So, for example, it's fairly clear to see that we would have, under your proposal, such features as hanging for murderers, withdrawal from the EU, and a comprehensive hunting ban. Expressed in another way, we would simply substitute the tyranny of the majority.


 * It's increasingly clear that the 'old' House of Lords actually worked very well, and far better than the venal and incompetent institution which has succeeded it. Alas, the spirit of the age is against it.


 * Please sign your contributions. --Major Bonkers 19:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The problems with the House of Lords is that its composition is objectionable to many people, not that it fails to carry out its functions; despite the government's meddling, it does an admirable job. Parliamentary reform, in my opinion must fix the problems before making cosmetic changes, that is to say reform the ineffective House of Commons. Ant 11:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason we want this so-called "quango" is that it does its job incredibly well and is an essential part of our ancient constitution. The House of Lords scrutinises as improves countless pieces of government legislation, taking out many poorly thought out measures passed by the Commons, and without it this repeal bill would be a hell of a lot longer! Also, our constitution is based on prescription and traditional institutions; you cannot just tamper with it to suit your ideology or you mess the whole thing up. Just look where devolution has got us! With this in mind, we should definitely repeal the House of Lords Act 1999 - it was based not on practicality or improving the work of the upper chamber, but on plain, spiteful class warfare. The hereditary House of Lords worked perfectly well and it should be restored. --92.14.220.242 18:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Problems
The problem is still that this is a select group of people, MPs, decided what goes and what stays.

It has to be put to a referendum.

Then there are the positive things.

Why post to say that MP's tax perks should be extended to all when you immediately have a politician who benefits from it remove it?

Censorship.

Secondly there is the bulk nature. Very easy. List the bills. Have a referendum. Bill down the left side. Yes or no down the right side.

That way, everyone gets to decide.

It's likely for example, that the ban on smoking would be upheld. The fox hunting ban I suspect would be more marginal. The others would go.

However, what we have going on is people protecting their own privileged tax position by refusing to put in a general principle that no one in the UK gets special tax treatment, and that any privileges get extended to all. If you put that in the negative, by repealing all privileges, then we all suffer.

Then we have the problem that the bill is basically dealing with the small stuff.

Bar axing the ID cards bill, it doesn't address the real problems. For that you need some new laws, and it doesn't take much.

1. Democratic deficit. That needs referenda.

2. All public spending, direct or indirect should have full details published on the web within 30 days, of any transaction over 10K. Needs a new law, so you don't want it in place. However, its just a sentence and can be added.

What does it mean? It means that any public authority or the EU (Indirect) has to publish all details of their transactions. That stops the fraud. Witness over half the MPs stealing expenses or practicing nepotism.

3. No organisation receiving public money that fails to have audited accounts two years running gets no money.

Deals with the fraud

4. Right of recall of public officials.

5. Equality.

Every person of the UK has any perks and prividges afforded to any other. You have to do this with a new law not a recall. Otherwise its bring everyone down, not raising everyone up. ie. Why shouldn't everyone in the UK have the same perks tax wise as Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell?

For example, IHT is solved, allowances are solved, lots of things by this mechanism. Just because one person is exempt IHT, we all would be.

Addressing problems and the nature of this project
Responding to the above, I hope I can help. When I started this project as an experiment, it was in order to see if one could use a wiki forum to draft a Bill in a meaningful way. So far, using two parallel groups (one totally open and the other less so) so good. If all goes well, I'd like the Bill to be presented as a Bill to the House of Commons - either by me or a colleague.

Doing so would not only make the case for deregulation, but for direct democracy and popular initiative.

Your ideas about referenda to make laws are great. I favour referenda. However, in the context of what this project is seeking to do, it is a little off topic. While I can promise to try to present this Bill in the Commons, holding a referenda is not something I'm able to do personally. However much we might want it, at this time, laws in the UK are not enacted via referenda. We could, however, establish popular initative via wiki projects like this.

The point about tax perks is again not something with which I disagree. It's just that it is a proposal for a new law - not the repeal of an existing one.

I hope that you'll respect the context in which this experiment is being undertaken. I'd like to be able to say to old-guard sceptics that wiki politics really can work. Although if you do or not respect the context is itself really part of what this experiment in collaborative thinking is about. I hope that helps address some of your concerns.

Most laws place some constraints on someone - either restricting some behaviour or mandating it. It seems to me that many of the proposals here take that to justify the inclusion of any piece of legislation which they don't like or which disadvantages them. What's noticeable is how many of the justifications are on grounds that have nothing to do with freedom, but on the grounds of effectiveness, although they are almost all offered without justification. Too much trivia, too many grievances, too little examination of freedom.

More background on this project is on my blog site. Douglas Carswell MPDcmp 17:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If anything
Since the government probably has the resources, why didn't they just set up their own MediaWiki installation? ViperSnake151 01:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a proposal of the Conservative Party. They're not in government (yet). 129.67.116.32 11:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * They might not know how to set one up and manage it. We can help them with that :-). --SB_Johnny talk 12:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Lib Dems proposal
It seem the Liberal Democrats have some proposals as well:

http://freedom.libdems.org.uk/the-freedom-bill/full-text-of-the-freedom-bill/

Maybe someone could approach them, asking if any relevant proposals of their bill could be incorporated into this one? Sfan00 IMG 11:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also mentioned in the disscusion for that - http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/publications/pdfs/liberty-human-rights-legislation-audit-1999-to-2009.pdf

62.56.93.102 12:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Introduction and context
Could we have some introduction to what's being discussed here, and the nature of this project? As someone who doesn't know a great deal about UK politics, I'm a bit at sea trying to figure out what the goals are here (outside of the proposals themselves). I understand this was started as an experiment by an MP, but don't know exactly where he/she fits in. --SB_Johnny talk 13:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Scope
It is not entirely clear whether this article falls within the project scope. It is often a problem when content gets deleted from Wikipedia that it gets moved onto one of the smaller Wikimedia projects but isn't properly reformatted to meet that project's scope. It will be necessary for it to be demonstrated that this is going to develop into a proper learning resource, something which I have my doubts can be achieved. Wikiversity isn't simply a host for content deleted from Wikipedia. If it does not become apparent that this will become a learning resource then it will probably find itself nominated for deletion. A campaign to change British laws is unlikely to fall within the project scope in my opinion. Adambro 13:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This comes under the heading 'public policy research', And Wikiversity should IMO be supporting reserach as well 'resources' Sfan00 IMG 14:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikiversity was created as a wiki for "learn by editing projects". Contrary to Adambro's totally inappropriate bluster about deleting this project, it is up to the deletionists to show that learning is not taking place in this project. Until then, this project is welcome at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 15:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is this going though? We seem to have an invitation for anyone to suggest British laws which they wish to be repealed. Over time that is going to become a very long list and eventually list pretty much every law in existence. Is that really a constructive exercise? Adambro 15:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Learning how laws are drafted seems constructive enough. Learning how wikis can be used to have laws written by voter participation is also well within our scope: figuring out what wikis and/or similar systems can be used for would probably be one of our "pillars", if we had pillars. --SB_Johnny talk 17:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this page really needs a forum subpage to engage in debate on the issues here. Having a long list with just one or two lines of reasons per item is not the most educational direction that this project could take.  I agree with the comment by SB_Johnny above: "Could we have some introduction to what's being discussed here, and the nature of this project?" but also think a second page is needed.  It is great to see the activity from participants who are new to wikiversity.  We should try to guide them in getting more active.  As a yank I really don't know enough about the subject matter to choose the questions that might stimulate learning about this topic...  Could someone more familiar take a try at starting something?  --mikeu talk 16:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A forum subpage would be good, but also maybe a bit more fleshing out of the laws (when and why were they passed, why do they need repealing, etc.). This just started yesterday though, so no need to rush to judgement. --SB_Johnny talk 17:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That is very true, there is no rush to judgement. However, the page is currently a hot item with a lot of new people contributing.  It would be nice to get something in place soon to try to encourage them to do more than just add lines to a laundry list.  This has a lot of potential, though it seems to need a little incubation to develop it into the learning resource that it could become.  We should try to get this going while the traffic to the page is still high.  --mikeu talk 17:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I cut out an excerpt and put it on GRB fwiw. WikiLaw? CQ 22:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see why the government is using the resources of the wikimedia foundation to crowd source it's deregulation bill. This is a political stunt and inappropriate for this project. Secretlondon 17:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Debate
Join the Great Repeal Bill/Debate. This is just a stub, so feel free to reformat and refactor. --mikeu talk 18:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I added a column for a debate link - Seems like a good use for subpages and transclusion? Sfan00 IMG 20:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Curbing new regulation
First of all, this is a brilliant idea.

The greatest priority must be the repeal of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act, 2006, which allows civil servants to make legislation, as they did with the Lloyd's Act, 2008, completely bypassing Parliament. It is precisely what Winston Churchill warned against in 1945:

[| A free Parliament - look at that - a free parliament is odious to the socialist doctrinaire. Have we not heard Mr. Herbert Morrison descant upon his plans to curtail Parliamentary procedure and pass laws simply by resolutions of broad principle in the House of Commons, afterwards to be left by Parliament to the Executive and to the bureaucrats to elaborate and enforce by departmental regulation?] --Major Bonkers 20:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you raise that on Debate page mentioned above,

This talk page is more about the drafting project itself, as opposed to what it contains. Sfan00 IMG 22:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Copied over. You may want to check |this edit, made in the interests of clarity, but which may not accord with the scheme of the proposed Bill. --Major Bonkers 07:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Immigration
I see nothing about Immigration which, after the EU, is the single greatest catastrophe facing the British nation. The legislation touching upon this subject and all the subsidiary legislation hidden in things like the Public Order Act is simply offensive and specifically designed to oppress the indigenous population through regulation of their normal and natural rights. It all needs repealing. And at the very least a reversion to the Manifesto promise of the Conservative Party in 1970 that they would HALT immigration and encourage repatriation should be a goal. 81.152.57.106 08:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, find those bits of legislation that you want repealed and make a case for them on the Great Repeal Bill and associated  debate pages. Frankly, as I see it, the general points that you are making are not suited to the aim of this particular project, which is simply a list of what needs to be repealed. You might be better setting up a manifesto project or a project based on which new laws ought to be enacted rather than repealed.


 * There is, almost certainly, a broad public (if not yet political) consensus that immigration needs to be reduced. Perhaps your own measures, for better or worse, go beyond what is now achievable, not least because just as turkeys won't vote for Christmas, so immigrants won't vote to be repatriated. --Major Bonkers 17:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

An unsigned contribution
''Moved here by me, Major Bonkers. By some strange process of editing it appears to have been present but hidden on this page.''

We, the British People have a right to govern ourselves. That right has been subjugated as a consequence of acts of treason having been committed by the collective political establishment, aided and abetted by corrupt segments of the judiciary, the police, the Church and the civil service.

Furthermore, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, whose position has been usurped by a corrupt House of Commons and who has been forced into the destruction of her Kingdom and the breaking of her coronation oath, no longer governs us in accordance with our laws and customs, as was the situation when she was elected by the people as our Sovereign and our Head of State.

Why Her Majesty has failed in her duty is not for us to judge at this point in time - Her Majesty has however been made aware of the situation and is now duty bound to make amends.

A political elite has for some time manipulated the electoral system to deprive the people of true democratic representation by constructing a party political system that has allowed, indeed encouraged, acts of treason to have been committed.

As a direct consequence of the betrayal of the British people by the collective political establishment, and others, the British Constitution Group is calling for Lawful Rebellion, as is our right under article 61 Magna Carta 1215.

Too many politicians pay lip-service to the principles of democracy whilst serving the interests of self and party, which has allowed patronage, greed and corruption to infect our system of governance to levels beyond anything that could be imagined or accepted by the British people. Whereas the British people have expected that the good elements within our system of governance would control and rein in the bad, it is now perfectly clear that rather than expose corruption and greed, the good elements have themselves become infected and corrupt.

Such is the state of our governance today and thus our nation, that we (the people) feel we have no choice but to seek redress by way of lawful rebellion… with which we will continue until such times as our system of governance is put right, our sovereignty is reinstated, our rights respected and the rule of law upheld… and those who have brought about our demise through their criminal activity be brought to justice in an honest court, with harshest treatment for those found guilty of these crimes committed henceforth.

Furthermore, we are aware of dark hands that operate behind the scenes of government, controlling individual politicians and the government itself and we know too well that many decisions have been made to serve these interests, at the expense of the people.

We are no longer prepared to tolerate the subjugation of our rights to satisfy the demands of the shadowy elite of the supranational and criminal banking cartel.

We are no longer prepared to tolerate the lies, deceit and shady practices of politicians that are the hallmarks of corrupt governance around the world.

We are no longer prepared to accept a compliant and colluding media that has been complicit in the aforementioned criminal acts by a lax and pathetic coverage of vital issues.

The collective political establishment has for the past four decades conspired to transfer our national sovereignty into the hands of foreign governance, without our consent and against the rule of law.

We are demanding that our sovereignty be reinstated, our rights be respected and the rule of law upheld.

It is beholden upon every individual, politicians in particular, to now carefully consider their positions and the decisions they make henceforth – because we (the people) will judge them accordingly.

We ask those amongst us who understand the gravity of the situation to stand up and defend our national sovereignty.


 * There is much in what you say. Please sign your contributions. --Major Bonkers 19:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as national sovereignty. It's an awful idea.

Very simple, if one part of the UK forces me to give it money with threats, then I should have an equal say in exactly how that cash is spent. That control should not be delegate to some party hack.

That's why the repeal bill won't address the refereda issue. It's just some Tories who want to have their bite at the cherry and aren't prepared to give up that control to the electorate. Just like NuLabour, they wnat buggins turn.

Referenda solve the problem. With referenda, we can revoke things like the EU, so long as we get a majority. If we don't get a majority, then its clear as a minority we don't have the rights to force others.

You will find quickly that people don't like being told what to do, and start voting for more freedom. The political class on all sides don't like this, because they are redundant.

Resources
This page contains information about House Of Lords judicial business, it may prove a useful source in the debate.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldjudgmt.htm

Sfan00 IMG 13:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hansard
A possible resource : http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/ appears to be an archive of Hansard, a publication which contains records of Parliamentary debates and business. Sfan00 IMG 13:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Gender Recognition Act 2004
Legally you are what you are born as. DanialMurgatreal 10:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Does that make you a bigot from birth then? --Rightswatch 22:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Event planning
Yall really need to set this up as a WiserEarth solution. CQ 15:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying the arguments, giving context, moving towards an NPOV resource
After seeing some discussion on Darklama's talk page, I thought it might help this resource grow if there was more information made available about the particular bills being addressed here. The first part of the project (experimenting with the use of a wiki for the purpose of drafting legislation by citizens) seems to be going rather well, but as an educational resource it really needs to go further.

As mentioned on that talk page, a bit of background about the bills -- including why they were passed, and what problems they have caused -- would be a step in the right direction. It would be simple enough to create a "boilerplate" for each bill with at least minimum background.

I created a fictitious (and rather silly) example here: User:SB Johnny/Bill repeal example/Blue Tomato Act.

The point should be to:
 * 1) Make the project understandable to outsiders (even Yanks like me!), since to a great degree a lot of the resource as it stands now looks like "preaching to the choir". That's probably to be expected at this stage, since I get the impression that most of the participants see the problems with these bills as painfully obvious. To get a bill like this through parliament, the arguments to do so need to be strong and practiced, leading to the second goal:
 * 2) Strengthen the arguments by moving toward NPOV descriptions of the bills. The bills were obviously passed because those who passed them felt they would solve a problem. Understanding the underlying motivation for the bill is one good step towards making the arguments stronger, since it can be contrasted with any negative effects that the bill may have had since (IOW, finding the baby in the bath water).

I would be happy to help set up the boilerplates and links if that would be helpful. --SB_Johnny talk 09:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"The bills were obviously passed because those who passed them felt they would solve a problem." That is not necessarily the case. It is quite possible for legislation to be passed for purely malicious reasons. There may not be a "baby in the bath water". (I do not mean to suggest that is the case with any of the legislation proposed for repeal in this draft bill).

I don't see how you can have NPOV criticism either. I am not desperately interested in whether the description of the legislation is neutral. This isn't Wikipedia and that approach is not necessarily appropriate for original research. I am more concerned with the arguments having what might be termed "academic merit" (ie not being total nonsense). James500 (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

text removed
Please review this edit. A great deal of text has been removed and I do not see any discussion regarding this edit. A note to those who are contributing to this page and might not be familiar with wiki: you can use the watch tab at the top of the page to add this to your watchlist. This will allow you to notice changes that have been made to the page. On a site that allows anonymous editing it frequently happens that someone will make a major change without general agreement from other contributors. --mikeu talk 13:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm also concerned by recent edits. Particularly the edit at 14:32 on Jan 1, 2010 that removed the European Communities Act 1972, the Parliament Act 1911 and the Human Rights Act 1999. Why was this done? There doesn't appear to have been any discussion. 86.153.141.241 17:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Moderated language
"positively thrives - indeed depends - upon interracial malcontent and stirring up suspicions of an omnipresent racism in the shape of the Commission for Racial Equality."

tbh, I signed up here with a heavy heart because the inability of contributors to reign in their transparent political predjucides (The BBC section? Seriously? If it named individals, it would be libellous) is probably going to turn me, and a lot of others, away from active contribution. --Dazzla 16:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Law
Hi Everyone,

I wish to put something in here about Copyright Law. The small part that bothers me is this:

In the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988, renting out software to customers is illegial unless you have permission of the rights holder. For "normal" software (e.g. Windows, Computer Games, Office Software), this is ok. The problem is, is that nearly every electronic device with a plug has software in it. In hardware, the "software" is usually "firmware", however in the EU Computer Programs Directive (91/250/EEC) which our law is based upon, it does say that "the term 'computer program` shall include programs in any form, including those which are incorporated into hardware".

This is really worrying. This makes it illegial to:


 * Buy a Car and Rent it out
 * Rent Computers and Servers out to people, even with correct Microsoft licensing (Computer have a BIOS)
 * Illegial to put TVs in Hotel rooms, unless you have a direct agreement with the manufacturer
 * If you are a landlord, it is illegial to give people a microwave, TV or HiFi when they are living in your building

Does everyone see my point here?

In law, the right the rent out hardware is given to us as we bought the hardware. However, this is undermined as most electronics have software in them

I really do feel that this part of the CDPA should be ammended to exclude software "incoroporated into hardware" --Jtnire 08:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Digital Economy Act
Doesn't something need to go in here about how the Digital Economy Act should be revolked? --Jtnire 08:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The Firearms Act
(1997 Amendments)

Both emotionally driven, knee jerk pieces of legislation that had no effect on firearm use by the criminal minority. In fact, during the years following the handgun ban, crime involving handguns shot up dramatically. The only thing these acts achieved was to force our Olympic pistol shooting team to go and train in France and to strip away a sport enjoyed by many for political show.

The government's own inquiry following the Dunblane killings concluded that failure of Policing and law enforcement was to blame. To that end it was recommended that firearms law required no new restrictions.

However, if gutlessness prevails on the matter, the most important and urgent factor regarding firearm laws would be the following:

Part 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

This rushed in and tabloid fueled piece of legislation requires courts to impose a mandatory minimum jail sentence of five years for possession of an illegal firearm (A victimless crime).

This has produced many notable injustices including the lengthy imprisonment of many non-violent and otherwise law-abiding people who have come into possession or retained firearms after the various recent amendments banning them.

Grandmother jailed for five years for having 80 year old pistol

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/10335003.stm

71 year old licensed gun owner jailed for five years for owning a few technically illegal guns.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6905852/Pensioner-jailed-for-hoarding-Aladdins-cave-of-firearms.html

Man jailed for having forgotten pistol in storage:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/7964280.stm

Collector jailed for five years for having a WWII Luger and antique revolver among many deactivated pieces of weaponry.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082974/Pictured-Incredible-weapons-haul-man-jailed-putting-750-grenades-Soviet-rocket-launcher-eBay.html

Man faced five years and dragged through court for handing in abandoned shotgun:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/5650566/paul-clarke-sentenced-today.thtml

Five years for simply owning a pistol:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1260004/Gunman-jailed-years-posing-picture-automatic-pistol.html

Given the disproportionate use of sentencing considering the 'crime', hopefully everyone agrees that this should be included at the very least.

17:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Liberty121

Clause xlxiii. Building Regulations Part P - Errors
I agree with removing Approved Document P, or weakening it to exempt "not for reward" work (comparable to the way gas work is handled). Unfortunately the description text contains many fundamental errors. Like for like replacement of an accessory plate or changing a plug is not notifiable. These sorts of errors if allowed to persist weaken the case should a government member actually read it.

Question - shall I proceed to edit it or add a supplementary paragraph with suggested alternate wording?

--Timjwatts 20:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not quite correct (though I am not a specialist). The website text states: "Essentially, work falls into two categories: Non-notifiable and Notifiable. For Non-notifiable work, your Building Control Officer may not require any notification but you should establish this for yourself ." For lay-people, any work they may do essentially comes under these regs, they need to check if it's regulated or not, and if the local council has deemed them notifiable or not. One would hope that basic modifications and repairs would be non-notifiable, but for a lay-person the mischief starts when they find they have to check with the council anyway. The definition and effect of being "non-notifiable" is open enough to be an issue regardless.


 * A friend just commented to me that it takes a 3 day course to get registered under section P, so it doesn't even do the intended job of keeping cowboys out. I don't know if that's accurate but if so that's another reason.


 * I agree exact wording may need changing by experts though. Amicus 08:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000
The case of an author of gunsmith publications being arrested for 'making a record on information likely to be of assistance to terrorists' showcases the draconian nature of this legislation. To top it off, over 50 arrests were conducted across the UK on people who simply viewed publications via his website, despite their legality and wide availability on sites including Amazon.com.

http://lpuk.blogspot.com/2010/01/phillip-luty-update-free-speech-in.html

- Spectrum, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change Act 2008
That ' man made climate change is only a hypothesis and not an established fact.' is wrong. It is not an hypotheses because it is supported by experimental evidence and observation and data. It is instead scientific theory because it is widely, near-unanimously, supported by scientific research. Identifying a Scientific Theory as a Theory and not calling it fact is purely a convention to insert humility and to acknowledge that nothing is a 100% certainty. Even if it were merely a hypothesis, even if it were proven to be false, the worst that could happen should the Climate Change Act 2008 stand, is that we'd end up doing something good for the world.

Question about "restrictive."
The following comment I have moved from the resource page as it is a question for discussion about the resource. It was in the lede and refers to usage of the word "restrictive" there. --Abd 14:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Would you mind defining 'restrictive' - to whom? I'm sure the people whose rights have been defended by the Equality Bill(s) wouldn't see them as restrictive, and yet they appear on the list below. Are you talking about white middle class Tories who run large businesses? Unfortunately far from being an 'experiment in direct democracy' your opening paragraphs have set the tone for the contributions and subsequent (non)debate. --Rightswatch 22:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC) And the policy briefing distributed yesterday (12 May 2010) which included information on bills to be repealed by the coalition doesn't mention half of these bills. Does that mean this experiment is over? You might want to include something about that here.
 * item text

Reorganization of this resource
I suggest that the main resource page here, Great Repeal Bill be reorganized to be an NPOV overview of the Great Repeal Bill, with things like new suggestions and arguments by participants being placed on a subpage or subpages, which may be linked from the main resource page. The subpages need not be NPOV unless participants want to tag them as such (and then be bound by NPOV conditions). --Abd 14:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's a bit of a mess at the moment, perhaps there should be a page for each proposal? I don't really think Mediawiki is the best tool for this because it doesn't sufficiently facilitate debate. It would be much better if there was a tool where people could make proposals then other people could rate those proposals and debate the details. Something more similar to digg.com -- Ben Francis 86.26.15.254 08:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the proposals
With more than 120 individual suggestions already (including 35 business deregulation and over 65 civic deregulation), what's interesting is the nature of the proposals.

Many are "red tape" - regulations that are said to leave things worse off than before, or not achieve a valuable goal. But a significant number are items that are seen as unfair restrictions in very narrow specific areas, or have unexpected "edge cases" leading to a risk of unreasonable imprisonment and criminalisation. In a number of these the Government of the day that enacted them was criticized at the time for ignoring its own advisor or experts in favour of unchecked notions that were - unsurprisingly - poorly founded and "kneejerk". In other cases no account was taken of reasonableness nor were the courts or DPP given the ability to form a more nuanced view.

Some of these may seem like fringe cases ("who cares about a few hobbyists or citizens in some uncommon situation?") but for people affected the impact can be very real, affects their life or lifestyle, percieved as unfair or uninformed, and even be grossly harmful.

Maybe there's a few lessons here on good lawmaking and the benefits of a little "devils' advocacy" here. Amicus 09:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Again suggest reorganization
This resource was originally a Wikipedia article, transwikied when the Wikipedia article was deleted. I have contacted the Wikipedia administrator who deleted the article pursuant to the AfD discussion; he agreed that the article could presumably be recreated, based on more extensive sourcing that now exists. I think that it's better to write a new article than to undelete the old, since the old article was moved here and has been modified. I'm suggesting that the main resource page here be made into an NPOV article generally suitable for Wikipedia, which would mean that the individual suggestions and the like would be moved to subpages. When we think it is ready, we could then move it back to Wikipedia (or anyone could do that independently, I'm just thinking that it would be better to cooperate on this). The main resource page here would then become, presumably, a link to the Wikipedia article (so we aren't duplicating content, but we could also link to various versions of that article if some conflict arises), and links to subpages where students of this topic are doing original research or thinking. I did more or less suggest this above, and nobody responded, though there has been much editing of the resource. I do know that there was some objection to the resource here, and if the issues of neutrality are not addressed, there is some risk that this resource could be deleted. Original research is allowed on Wikiversity, but not at the cost of overall neutrality. I don't think that our own internal political debate belongs at the top level, where the study of the Great Repeal Bill is organized, so to speak. --Abd 15:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * But Wikipedia is not the place for this. An encyclopedia would only document what has been mentioned by in notable references and reliable sources about the Great Repeal Bill. But it is not however a place for people to actually write such a bill, or propose which laws should be repealed. 86.26.15.104 02:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is certainly not the place for the kind of original research and discussion and collection of opinion that this is, here, at this point, and there is even some question as to how appropriate this is here, even, but the topic is now notable and there is reliable source on it, and an article on Wikipedia is now appropriate. I believe my comments stand, but I don't have the time to do the writing there and/or the reorganization here, but I will assist if I can. The original article on Wikipedia was clearly improper and an abuse of Wikipedia. I am suggesting that a collaborative project here could be to write a proper article, which could then be taken there. --Abd 11:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Vote of thanks
To those who proposed this and steered it through to a major legislative possibility. To those who saw fit to (finally and neutrally) ask citizens like us, what we knew and felt hurt or impacted by, rather than assume "they knew it all".

Please do it again.

And please, when the bill comes to be drafted and its contents considered, do not shirk. Stay "radical". Be bold, and see what you can do about laws like those listed here which may not be major headline pieces, may sometimes be controversial, but were nonetheless unfair when imposed, and felt disproportionately by those they unjustly impact. This may be for some of us, a rare or only chance to get a swathe of bad laws forcibly imposed, sanely repealed.

Signed:


 * 1) Amicus 00:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Birth, married, death certificate legislation
Is there still time make suggestion of other legislation to repeal? A selfish request for genealogists involves access to birth, marriage and death certicicates. Currently only indices are available, and certificates must be purchased at great expense (£9.25 each). Most genealogist want only the information on the certificate, and do not want, nor need a certified document. However, the General Records Office used to say that:


 * "the current legislative framework impacts on the services we provide you with: Whilst GRO staff can view and produce certificates from the electronic data GRO can only provide information to customers in the form of a certificate." (sent to me via email)

Unfortunately I can not find the actual legislation which dictates this, but there can be no reason why the data can not be made available electronically. This is not a privacy issue, I can already get the information printed on an expensive bit of paper.

Related to this is census data. Legislation requires 100 years to have passed before the data becomes publicly available. I can see no reason why this should not be only 70 years. --Iantresman 21:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This would work really well. There are a lot of genealogists who are frustrated with this and it could be a way of getting a reasonably well organised group of people on board to lobby their MPs for this bill. JASpencer 08:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Reclaiming the right to photograph
Another example is the abuse by some policemen on photographers, taking photos in public. See "Romford coppers try to stopper young snapper" --Iantresman 10:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Devolved Assemblies
Would there be scope for simply devolving some of these acts, and how to implement them to the devolved assemblies and to repeal them in England?

This would be a bit more complex but it could mean that Labour MPs in these places would be very hard placed to oppose these bills as the Lib Dems and Nats attack them for blocking an extension to devolved power and on the other hand they would be under enormous pressure to abstain in order not to be painted as telling the English what to do.

JASpencer 08:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Organisation
The lists of enactments should be re-arranged so that they are in chronological or alphabetical order. At the moment, the page is very difficult to navigate. James500 (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I find this page difficult to edit due to the length of its sections.

I notice that many entries have a footnote containing a link to a copy of the Act in question. Since the short title of an Act is sufficient to identify it, I think that these links are unnecessary as references and should be removed. If there are going to be links, I think they should be internal or point at Wikipedia or Wikisource. James500 (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed some of these. James500 (discuss • contribs) 17:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

In the heading "constitutional deregulation", clause 8 conains a proposal to insert a new section 6A in the Representation of the People Act 2000. The proposal is outside the scope of Great Repeal Bill and merely reproduces material in Great Reform Bill without substantial alterations. It should be removed on grounds that it is pointless duplication. James500 (discuss • contribs) 15:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ with this edit. James500 (discuss • contribs) 15:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

In the heading "civic deregulation", clause 45 proposes to amend section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in a way that does not appear to involve repealing anything. It is therefore outside the scope of this resource and should be moved to another resource, possibly Great Reform Bill. James500 (discuss • contribs) 15:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. The out of scope material has been moved to Great Reform Bill and is now replaced by a proposal to repeal the aforementioned section 139. James500 (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Great Repeal Bill: to be a Brexit Great Repeal Bill or not?
The first sentence does not clarify if this Great Repeal Bill is linked or not to Brexit.

At the opposite, the wikipedia is clearer; it stands that: «The Great Repeal Bill is a proposed law that will repatriate European Union law into British laws as part of British exit from the European Union.»

Please clarify.


 * I have added a few words to clarify but this was intended as a proposed bill long before Brexit. At the moment we are trying to clear up various pages related to law. Ideally we will have a Brexit research project up and running soon, which should include a similar bill proposal. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 17:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)