 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
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.