Talk:Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Just reverted some NPOV vandalism:

UPDATED: The bombings in London on July 18th are likely a plot by Blair's government to force through more draconian measures against brown people.

which was placed at the top of the page. RishiAggarwal 14:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel terms and a euphamism?[edit]

From the article: "which in some cases may derogate (opt out) from human rights laws."

Shouldn't that be "which is contrary to human rights laws"? Ojw 21:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. 'derogate' is a legal term, referring in this case to Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which allow a country to derogation from certain human rights in times of emergency (althiugh the decision to derogate is still subject to challenge, as it was successfully in the Belmarsh case). Although no derogation is currently in force, the 2005 Act allows for more restrictive control orders to be made if a derogation is in place. 81.76.121.252 19:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the Bill that Blair was just defeated on called?[edit]

We should have an article and see also it here. --bodnotbod 17:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's called the Terrorism Bill and it already has a seperate article.81.77.146.17 00:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has the time...[edit]

There's a bunch of material that can be included re the annual renewal debates in February 2006:

Lord Carlile's report (available on the Home Office website);
Report of the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights(released 14 February and available on the Committee's home page);
briefings by Liberty and JUSTICE;
link to Hansard for the renewal debates on 15 February 2006;
link to the text of the draft statutory instrument.

Affront to justice?[edit]

"In April 2006, a High Court judge issued a declaration that section 3 of the Act was incompatible with the right to a fair trial under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act was described by Mr Justice Sullivan as an 'affront to justice'"

Can we have some citation for this?

Hypnoticmonkey (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A citation has now been added. Road Wizard (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. 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) 01:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional crisis[edit]

The section describing the remarkable parliamentary ping-pong calls it a "constitutional crisis". This is nonsense. An impasse was avoided and the bill ultimately passed under the ordinary process, albeit in a single, very long day. No source is cited describing it as such and it is not listed at Constitutional crisis. Hairy Dude (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]