Talk:Terrorism Act 2006

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

Article needs serious tidy-up?[edit]

There is a lot of useful material and links in the article. However I think as a article about the Terrorism Act 2006 it is something of a mess, and requires a serious tidy-up. The history of the parliamentary proceedings impinges on the provision of a proper account of the provisions of the Act an enacted, and the 90 day debate material dominates the article too much. Really these merit separate articles of their own. Any views diran 02:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC) .[reply]


Links to TheyWorkForYou[edit]

Can we change the links to parts of the Hansard debate to link to TheyWorkForYou.com rather than parliament.uk? It's much easier to read and navigate. 82.18.44.214 20:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of brainstorming[edit]

Can talk about:

  • Other things in the bill (ie I think there's stuff in there about incitement to terrorism, so public speeches etc)
  • Controversy of bringing police pressure to bear on MPs.
  • Blair defeat in context of increasing backbench antipathy towards him.
  • Public opinion (have their been no polls on the 90 day thing?)

useful links[edit]

Parliamentary sketches[edit]


The police case (notes)[edit]

  • "Andy Hayman, the Scotland Yard assistant commissioner in charge of counter-terrorist operations, said the global nature of modern terrorism required much more police time to obtain the best evidence for convictions." [1].
  • He denied police had proposed a deliberately long period of time and would be content if the government has to compromise on less. "It's not some sort of bartering tool," he said. "We've analysed investigations for the last three or four years and our professional judgment is sitting at 90 days." Ibid
  • "The Security Service, MI5, has not lobbied for 90 days' detention, regarding it as a matter for the police, who are primarily responsible for gathering evidence for court proceedings." Ibid
  • PM quoted: "The chief constable of Manchester, for example, said:
    • "The reality of the terrorism threat that we currently face is so horrendous in terms of the implications that we are having to intervene far earlier in the investigation than we ever would have during IRA campaigns . . . because with mass casualty terrorism we cannot afford to take any chances."
  • Andy Hayman, who is the senior police officer charged with leading anti-terrorist operations in this country, said:
    • "We are not looking for legislation to hold people for up to three months simply because it is an easy option. It is absolutely vital. To prevent further attacks we must have it." - Hansard
  • Primary source! Letter to Home Office from Andy Hayman, great stuff: 2mb file! --bodnotbod 01:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Judicial monitoring[edit]

  • Dr Metcalfe: We are particularly concerned about the idea that the Home Secretary has suggested that there might be judicial control and what he is trying to model it upon is the French, the Italian and the Spanish jurisdictions that he has talked about. In the French system in particular, the French examining magistrate has a much more intimate role in the investigation process. They are in fact in charge of the investigation. They interview the witnesses, they assess the evidence for themselves and they in fact in most cases take the decision whether the person is to be charged and prosecuted in the first place. Now, if you want to import that system into the British model of justice, then you have got to adopt also the French style of training magistrates, giving them the specific background training. You train to be a judge in the way that you train to be a lawyer in France, so the model is very different. What the Home Secretary is talking about is importing a notion of judicial control without any of the background of experience of any of the judges in this country. There has been some suggestion that if you upped the level of seniority of judge in this country, then that might provide a better safeguard, but even the most senior judge in this country does not have the same degree in expertise of conducting an investigation as the most ordinary examining magistrate in France, so I think it is highly inappropriate for the suggestion that the French model should be transplanted into the English adversarial model without also importing the same safeguards that the French enjoy.[2]

I need to work that in somehow. bodnotbod 01:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Direct comment from Law Society about Mets letter to Clarke[edit]

  • Ms Marks: Our paper actually referred to the information available and quoted not only the annex to Charles Clarke's original letter to his opposite numbers in the opposition parties, but actually we have also had the benefit of seeing the information that was supplied by the Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman on 6 October. Some of the case studies he gave in his own evidence were, I found, extremely interesting. For example, he referred to one case where it was the sheer weight of material. In another, in his hypothetical study and this was a hypothetical one, he said that a targeting document was found on the 50th computer to be examined in the seventh week which to me indicates that if there were 50 people looking at 50 computers instead of one, that could have been the first computer on the first day of the first week rather than, as he suggests, looking at them sequentially. If this amount of material is seized, I respectfully suggest that it is almost impossible to know what the sequence is until you start looking at it, so you really need a large number of people to be looking at it. What I thought was particularly striking was one of his early examples where it was a real case study and it was sub judice, so he could not give much detail, but what he could say about it was that if the decision to charge could have been delayed while the investigation developed, things might have turned out differently and went on to say, and this is the final point, that the case is to be heard in January 2006. What that seems to suggest is that once a charge has been placed, that is the end of the investigation. We all know that is not so and we only have to think of some of the more serious criminal offences, serial murders, serious fraud cases and so on, the investigation continues even after charge and we can see no reason why the investigation could not continue after initial charge and if further evidence emerges, further charges can be put. That was something which we suggested in our evidence would be a way of dealing with this particular difficulty. After all, we would stress, in order to arrest an individual, there have to be reasonable grounds in the first place, so if within 14 days it is not possible to substantiate those reasonable grounds sufficient to place a charge, let alone bring them to trial, we suggest there is something seriously awry with the arrest in the first place.

[3] --bodnotbod 01:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notes, arguments / counter-arguments, themes culled from the primary documents[edit]

  • Against: law is too broad

Definitions[edit]

  • Definitions
    • note: definitons based on the 200O Terrorism Act [4]
      • Any acts beneficial for proscribed groups illegal? [5]. Clarke says no. [6].
    • against: definitons of terrorism change, look at Mandela.
    • For: Democracy has swept the world, Clarke argues there is now no excuse for terrorist activity in the 'new' current world climate. Even "popular" terrorist activities were taking place in environments where change was eventually accomplished through democartic/peaceful means. Riots and/or popular movements are not equivalent to terrorism.
      • Against: "the Home Secretary says that there is an ineluctable movement towards world democracy, but that is simply neither true nor real." [7]
    • Cherie Blair would be classed a terrorist. [8]
    • "The definition that will apply to the new offences in the Bill is the one that was agreed by Parliament for the Terrorism Act 2000, with the addition of a small change which will bring threats against international bodies, such as the United Nations, within the scope of the definition." - Clarke [9]
    • A relatively detailed speech from Denham (heavily involved with, and opposed to, the legislation) re defintions: [10]
    • Personal Observation Clarke is often asked about British citizens, supporting relatively easily justifiable terrorist acts, being criminalised. Clarke tends to suggest that such people will not be criminalised, but always fails to address the underlying point of definitions. He says that he believes that the modern world no longer justifies armed force being used against the state (any state!). But fails ever to say that this law will protect someone who takes a different view to his (and his view is highly controversial I would suggest). [11] (and others) --bodnotbod 17:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amnesty International : "Among many others, Amnesty International expressed its concern about the vagueness and breadth of the definition of "terrorism" during the Parliamentary passage of the Terrorism Bill 2000 and has been reiterating its anxiety about it since the enactment of the Terrorism Act 2000. Amnesty International reiterates its concern that the definition of "terrorism", and thereby any offence which is based on it, may violate the principle of legality and legal certainty by being too wide and vague and, therefore, fails to meet the precision and clarity requirements for criminal law." [12]
      • "the organization considers that, if enacted in their current form and implemented, [Clauses 1 -- "encouragement of terrorism" – and Clause 2 -- "dissemination of terrorist publications" – of Part 1 of the Terrorism Bill] would facilitate violations of the right to freedom of expression as they would allow the prosecution and criminalization of persons for the lawful exercise of their right to hold and impart opinions and ideas. As a result, they would also have a chilling effect on society at large in its enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression, as enshrined in international human rights law."


  • Note: need to say something about "intercept evidence" (ie, phone tapping) - currently not admissable in court. Secret services do not like it to be used for fear that doing so reveals their methods/sources.[20]


  • Against: the law would make it illegal to attend a place of training. However there is already a law against receiving traning. Therefore this law is redundant if not dangerous, since one could be "in the wrong place at the wrong time" though not engaging in (nor intending to engage) in any unlawful activity.
    • "It would be nonsense if, for example, journalists who attended a place of training as part of their investigative work fell foul of such an offence." [21]

90 day detention[edit]

    • for: required cos of difficulty/complexity of investigation.
      • Against: White collar fraud can be highly complex and yet 4 days is max period of detention in such cases. [22]
    • Against: suspects could be detained on lesser charges which would enable detention whilst evidence of more serious charges is searched for and, if found, detention could be continued.
    • For: "All detention beyond 48 hours will have to be authorised on at least a weekly basis by a district judge. The judge can permit detention to continue only if he is satisfied that it is necessary and that the investigation is being carried out as expeditiously as possible. If that is not the case, the person must be released." - Clarke [23]
    • Against: long detention (like torture) leads to unsound confessions/accusations-of-accomplices [24]
    • Against: will create terrorists or hatred of Government [25]
      • Less forcefully: will at least damage community relations, esp. since it is likely to be muslims who are likely to be hit the most.
    • Against encryption codes "For example, one argument says that it takes time to crack encryption codes to access evidence on computers. That argument is dealt with by invoking the powers in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which made withholding such codes a criminal offence. Therefore, it would be possible to charge the alleged terrorist with that offence and hold them on that basis. We happily support increasing the penalty for that offence, as clause 15 provides." - David Davis [26]
    • Clash with European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act.[27]
    • Against: "One argument was that suspects needed to be allowed time for religious observance. It is frankly ridiculous to suggest that a person praying five times a day will hold up an inquiry to a great extent. Two of the five prayers take place before sleeping and after waking, when no questioning would take place anyway. This country's questioning system already allows a suspect a 15-minute break every two hours, plus an additional 45-minute break. Surely there is adequate time in the current system to allow for such observance." [28]
    • Against: "The police's second argument related to interpreters. I understand the Home Secretary's point that it might be difficult to track down interpreters for such cases, but surely there are other ways to solve the problem, such as training and finding new interpreters and using interpreters who are already involved in the immigration process. Is the problem with interpreters so real that we should be prepared to break such a strong principle? Surely the answer is no." [29]
    • Against: "A further argument in the police's list of eight was that there could be problems with clarifying a person's identity, but, believe it or not, one does not need a person's correct name before charging them. Indeed, it is an offence for people to withhold their names anyway, so that issue can be overcome." [30]
    • Against time for questioning (interpreters/religious observance) - "Some Members have said that Lord Carlile endorses the proposal. I accept that he does so in his report, but not with any great enthusiasm. He does not endorse all the proposals in Assistant Commissioner Hayman's letter, and dismisses some of them explicitly: "I do not regard extra time for interviews as being a sound basis for the extension of the time period . . . the reality is that most suspects exercise their right to silence". ~ ~ Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Con) The hon. Gentleman will note that the Bill justifies extending the period solely to facilitate further questioning.

[31][32][33]

      • "It is also astonishing that one of the provisions under the detention clause is that detention can take place in order to facilitate continuing questioning and nothing else. One moment's thought must make the Government realise that that is an unacceptable premise. In fact, any confession that is obtained will probably be thrown out by the court. The atmosphere of oppression that will be conveyed—that somebody can be detained specifically for the purpose of questioning and interrogation on its own—is one that is readily curable." [34]
    • For: police sleeping on the floor to get through evidence in time [35]
    • for: "had we had this provision in 2002, the outcome of a recent court case, the so-called ricin trial, might have been very different. Mohamed Meguerba was one of the suspects in that case and it is likely that we would have held him or applied for his detention for sufficient time to find that his fingerprints were on the ricin recipe and he would have stood trial as a main conspirator in that case had he not fled the country. As it was, he was not available to stand trial". Basically, he did a runner and the police had no ability to hold him, although his fingerprints were there. [36]
    • for:Mr. Clarke provided another useful example of a current case in which the police found—by chance on the 13th day of detention—crucial evidence on a computer, which led to the authorisation of charges from the Director of Public Prosecutions. The inference was clear—that if the computer had not been decrypted until the 15th day, the particular individual could have walked and probably done a runner. [37]
    • Against, lesser charge tactic: "I am not convinced by the course proposed by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats—that of charging the person concerned with a lesser charge and then questioning them—because I fail to see just how many of the rights of the accused person would be preserved. The person would definitely face a lesser charge, and may face a more serious charge later. In the meantime the police could continue to question him. All the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) about questioning someone for a long time when they are held in detention not knowing their ultimate fate must apply with as much force to the hon. Gentleman's proposal as they do to the Government's. I recoil from the concept of charging someone with a lesser charge rather than the full charge; they should face the full charge at the earliest possible opportunity. So, there are problems with those provisions.

Problems also arise from the operation of the Bail Act 1976. When a person is charged, they are brought before a court, as is their right, but from the point of view of bail the court will deal with them with the lesser charge in mind, and the decision on bail may well go in the person's favour when the police are still investigating them for very serious matters. So I do not think that the hon. Member for Winchester has the answer; he needs to do more thinking." [38]



  • Against: the legislation as it stands at third reading would outlaw terrorism taking place in other countries that are not even against British targets. That is to say, if al-Qaeda attacks a Russian target (or any other) they would have committed a crime punishable under British law. Bizarre. [39]
  • Intent v negligence (I would need to ask about this)
    • see [40] and [41] which directly follows.
    • Argument appears to be that a person can say something without the intent of encouraging someone to cause an offence; if their words are proven to have been an encouragement then the speaker/publisher/foo has committed an offence even if their intentions had been quite different. Hence loose words, open to interpretation, that inspire someone (who may have been very unstable/unintelligent/bar) can lead to punishment of speaker/publisher/foo.

Stats and controversies surrounding extant terrorist legislation[edit]

  • Notes: "Between April and June 2004, 2,147 searches were carried out under section 44. No arrests were made on the ground of anything to do with terrorism; 30 were made for other reasons. The following year, the figures were similar. Some of us were very concerned when the Terrorism Bill was introduced in 2000."
  • "In 2000–01, there were 8,500 incidents of stop and search under the Terrorism Act 2000. The following year, there were 21,500, and last year there were nearly 29,500. The Home Secretary may say that that is partly as a result of the increased terrorist threat. He may be partly right, but of course Lord Carlile said something different. What security threat was there from the hundreds of people stopped under the Terrorism Act in Brighton during the Labour party conference? What terrorist threat was there from an 82-year-old war hero who dared to disagree with the Government? What danger did Miss Sally Cameron pose when she simply walked along a cycle path beside a port in Dundee? Did Miss Cameron's usual evening stroll really require two police cars to come screaming up, as she put it in the Daily Mail, "like a scene from 'Starsky and Hutch'"?" [42]
  • Walter_Wolfgang - removed under terrorism legislation for heckling at the Labour Party Conference.
  • Arms fair protestors. [43]
  • Cycle path arrest [44]
  • Crickter carrying cricket bat [45]

Encouragement / incitement[edit]

  • Notes:
    • Encouragement:
      • "Part 1 contains several new offences. The first is the offence of encouragement of terrorism, also known as indirect incitement. It is already an offence under our law to incite people directly to commit specific terrorist attacks. We now want to be able to deal with those who incite terrorism more obliquely, but who nevertheless contribute to the creation of a climate in which impressionable people might believe that terrorism was acceptable.The Bill criminalises those who make statements which they believe, or have reasonable grounds for believing, are likely to be understood by their audience as an inducement to commit terrorist acts." - Clarke, second reading
      • "The Bill extends the provisions to those who disseminate terrorist material, including on the internet, but makes clear that those who simply transmit material that does not reflect their views will not be caught. That will, among other things, enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Council of Europe's convention on the prevention of terrorism, which I think is an important step. The encouragement offence also includes glorification, which was a manifesto commitment. After we published our initial proposals, it was clear that there was considerable unease about the proposal for a self-contained offence of glorification of terrorism. In the spirit of consensus, we have now responded to that concern. Accordingly, glorification is now an offence only if the person who glorifies terrorism believes, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that the remarks will be understood as an incitement to terrorist acts.
      • "The offence of encouragement of terrorism is a serious offence, carrying a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment, and has been framed with a number of safeguards. First, the person making the statement must have known, believed or had reasonable grounds for believing that it would have been likely to be understood as an encouragement of terrorism by a member of the audience to whom it was made. Secondly, any prosecution could proceed only with the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who would have to determine whether a prosecution was in the public interest. That is an important safeguard, and not to be taken lightly."
      • "I should perhaps have emphasised more strongly in my responses the fact that all prosecutions for offences in part 1 require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions and that any offences involving the affairs of another country also require the consent of the Attorney-General. There is therefore a serious bar in the process in respect of some of the issues that have been raised." [46]
      • Extraordinary argument claiming redundancy of clause 1 & 2, stating that incitement (with a very broad definition) to murder already carries a life sentence, and was used against a muslim extremist in 2004. [47]
      • Mr Clarke: I am happy to write if my answer is not satisfactory to the question you put, but my understanding is very clear. It is that at the moment the law outlaws incitement to commit a particular terrorist act. If you say, "Please will you go and blow up a tube train on 7 July in London?" I believe the current law deals with that particular situation. If however the law simply says, "We think blowing up tube trains is a good thing" for the sake of argument, or, "We encourage everybody to go and blow up tube trains" or, "We encourage a particular group of people to go and blow up tube trains", that is not of itself currently incitement in terms of the current legislation, as I understand it. The purpose of Clause 1 of the Bill is to outlaw and make illegal that generalised incitement to terrorist acts of that type. I think that is a very reasonable thing to do. Why? Because I think that there are forces that exist who seek to draw people, like some of the people who committed those acts on 7 July, into their web, as it were, by inciting or glorifying terrorism in general rather than by inciting people to commit a particular act. It is that difference between the general incitement and/or glorification rather than the specific act which I believe this clause of the Bill is designed to address. [48]
        • Q9 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Could I then ask how on earth we can secure reasonable legal certainty in the definition? The definition at the moment is, I am sure you will agree, extraordinarily broad because it talks about glorifying the commission or preparation, whether in the past, in the future or generally, of the offences and then glorification includes any form of praise or celebration. If you take the old ANC problem, for example, if I were to make a speech publicly saying, "I admire the ANC for the armed struggle during apartheid and I would now say that there are other situations in the world where democracy has completely failed and where the only alternative is the armed struggle", as I read it, I would be committing a serious criminal offence punishable by seven years' imprisonment. How do we enable the citizen to know with reasonable certainty what statements of that kind are or are not criminal?
      • Mr Clarke: It was put to me by somebody the other day that arguing for change was of itself a breach of the legislation. I do not think that can possibly be the case. There is no intention that that should be the case. I do not believe the current wording allows that to be the case in any respect whatsoever. You then come to what are the means of change which are advanced. I will not bore the Committee with this now but I have a view about how the world has developed in these situations over the past 30 years which means that we can talk about this in a slightly different way than we could 30 years ago, simply because democracy is so much more widespread around the world and because most of the democratic changes which have taken place have taken place as a result of political action rather than any kind of "military" action. If one were to say to me, "Is blowing up a tube train, a bus or whatever in order to achieve this change, whatever it might be, something that is acceptable to advocate?" I would say no.
        • Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am sure we would all agree with that but my question really is narrower than that. Would you agree with me that with serious criminal offences there needs to be reasonable legal certainty about what acts do or do not constitute crimes? Is it not important therefore, if you do agree, to have a definition in Clause 1 read with the other bits of the Bill that gives reasonable legal certainty?
      • Mr Clarke: In principle I certainly agree with you. I do not mean this in a cavilling or a debating way but there are a very wide number of legal opinions even in these Houses of Parliament on what would or would not be a particular offence in a whole variety of types of circumstance. There are a whole range of legal arguments which comes in on all sides of that argument. Would I would acknowledge to you, Lord Lester, is that if the argument is that we can achieve greater legal certainty by amending the legislation in a way which took us towards greater certainty I would look at any proposals of that type. The argument that says we somehow should not bother ourselves if people are inciting terrorism in general and it is not really a matter which we can define clearly enough in law; therefore we had better leave it alone I could not associate myself with. I think it is necessary to try and address that. [49]

Proscription[edit]

    • Proscription
      • "Part 2 makes changes in respect of proscription. I believe that proscription provides an important part of our armoury in the fight against terrorism and I am grateful that the House recently endorsed without a Division the order to proscribe an additional 15 organisations. The Bill widens the criteria for proscription to encompass groups that glorify terrorism, where it is reasonable to expect that such glorification will be seen by others as an inducement to emulate the terrorist acts in question." Clarke


Glorification[edit]

  • Against: We do not think that the offence of glorification should be in the Bill at all. I know that it was even worse in the first draft of the Bill, and I am grateful that the Home Secretary seems to have persuaded the Prime Minister to give way on the matter. One is left with the impression, however, that it has been left in the Bill specifically to save the Prime Minister's face. That is not acceptable either. Either glorification amounts to incitement of its own, or it does not amount to incitement at all. If it does not amount to incitement at all, there is no reason why it should be separately identified within the legislation. The sooner that we have an assurance from the Government that it will be removed, the better progress we will make during the passage of the Bill. [50] Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Con)
  • Need to reference the "chilling effect", ie that the Bill will make people much more cautious in exercising their right to free speech.
  • Against: Since the law is extra-territorial it has been argued that foreign Governments, who have their own agendas to pursue, could use our law to pressure our authorities to arrest individuals those Governments find disagreeable. [51]
  • For: Blears Against the problematising illustrations given by those against "The glorification must take place in such a way that the person making the statement must intend it or be reckless as to its effect. The statement must have an effect on the audience, who must be encouraged to emulate the behaviour. Because the offence includes all those components, it would address all the illustrations bandied around the House to express genuine or, in some cases, not so genuine concern. The offence is complex. It has two limbs: what someone does and what the effect is. That combination should be sufficient to reassure people that we are trying to focus on the mischief of those who make statements to vulnerable young people that could draw them into extremism, without casting our net so wide that we catch people where it is inappropriate. I have genuinely tried to formulate the provisions so that they attack that mischief, which I hope everybody acknowledges is a real threat to us, but without drawing people in too widely." [52]

Merge Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Act 2006 into this article[edit]

The Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Act 2006 has no valid content and goes against what Wikipedia is not. Simply listing the contents of an act is not acceptable. The Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Act 2006 would have much more background and context if it were to be merged into this article. Otherwise, it's an AfD candidate. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The article does have valid content. (2) Listing the contents of the Act is acceptable if they are notable. The fact that Halsbury's Statutes etc is bothered to reprint them conclusively proves that they are. (2) The article can be greatly expanded using the text of the Act, the explanatory notes, the Parliamentary debates in Hansard, and of course the annotations and commentary in Halsbury. (3) It cannot be deleted because it is notable. (4) It cannot be merged into this article because it is a completely different Act that has absolutely nothing to do with the Terrorism Act 2006. James500 (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the merger tags per WP:SNOWBALL, because the two Acts have absolutely nothing to do with each other. James500 (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a request for discussion from an article that you created yourself is a conflict of interest. For that reason, I have replaced the merge discussion templates. If the community decide that no merger is needed that I will graciously accept their opinion. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI, which you have linked to, says no such thing. James500 (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to read WP:INDENT. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it seems pretty clear from reading the articles that James is right about the suggested merge. I am less sure that he is right about it remaining a separate article, rather than merging with the 2000 act, which it modified. It would depend upon the actual amount of available material. I can't tell that from the existing stub article--if fact, I'm only from the US, not the UK, but I cannot understand the actual meaning of the act from the remarkably bureaucratic wording that constitutes the text of that article, and I have marked it for clarification. see the talk p. there. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of material with which to expand the article, starting with the volumous material on the websites that are linked to from the article. James500 (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Terrorism Act 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Terrorism Act 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Terrorism 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Terrorism 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Terrorism 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terrorism_Act_2006&oldid=1210596687"