Talk:Terrorism Act 2006

message: 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)
thread_title: Article needs serious tidy-up?

message: 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)
thread_title: Links to TheyWorkForYou

message: *"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." .
*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)
thread_title: The police case (notes)

message: *  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.
I need to work that in somehow. bodnotbod 01:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Judicial monitoring

message: * 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.
 --bodnotbod 01:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Direct comment from Law Society about Mets letter to Clarke

message: *Against: law is too broad
===Definitions===
*Definitions
**note: definitons based on the 200O Terrorism Act 
***Any acts beneficial for proscribed groups illegal? . Clarke says no. .
**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." 
**Cherie Blair would be classed a terrorist. 
**"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 
**A relatively detailed speech from Denham (heavily involved with, and opposed to, the legislation) re defintions: 
**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).  (and others) --bodnotbod 17:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes, arguments / counter-arguments, themes culled from the primary documents

message: *Definitions
**note: definitons based on the 200O Terrorism Act 
***Any acts beneficial for proscribed groups illegal? . Clarke says no. .
**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." 
**Cherie Blair would be classed a terrorist. 
**"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 
**A relatively detailed speech from Denham (heavily involved with, and opposed to, the legislation) re defintions: 
**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).  (and others) --bodnotbod 17:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: You might like to read WP:INDENT. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge [[Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Act 2006]] into this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Terrorism Act 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071222222022/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/24/nblair24.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/24/nblair24.xml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Terrorism Act 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080210145019/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1860635,00.html to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1860635,00.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080102182840/http://news.scotsman.com:80/latest.cfm?id=2218892005 to http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2218892005
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060515224743/http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/l01.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/l01.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061017081240/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/newsroom_and_speeches/press/2006/press_72_06.cfm to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/newsroom_and_speeches/press/2006/press_72_06.cfm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C59-1860635%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2005%2F10%2F24%2Fnblair24.xml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071005210554/http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2005/terrorism-bill-rushed.shtml to http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2005/terrorism-bill-rushed.shtml
*Added  tag to http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications1/publication-search/legislation-publications/met-letter?view=Binary
*Added  tag to http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications1/publication-search/legislation-publications/223513?view=Binary
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929213405/http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/cc270705.pdf to http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/cc270705.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051201092304/http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page8041.asp to http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page8041.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051110054554/http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/resources/policy-papers/2005/draft-terrorism-bill.PDF to http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/resources/policy-papers/2005/draft-terrorism-bill.PDF
*Added  tag to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450382005?open&of=ENG-GBR
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060211025524/http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/joint_committee_on_human_rights/jchrfm101005.cfm to http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/joint_committee_on_human_rights/jchrfm101005.cfm
*Added  tag to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450502005?open&of=ENG-GBR
*Added  tag to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450472005?open&of=ENG-GBR
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051124163439/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051109/debtext/51109-09.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051109/debtext/51109-09.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051124163503/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051109/debtext/51109-13.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051109/debtext/51109-13.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051124164214/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051109/debtext/51109-15.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051109/debtext/51109-15.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051124164419/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051109/debtext/51109-26.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051109/debtext/51109-26.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060211043012/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051109/debtext/51109-27.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051109/debtext/51109-27.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060211043018/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051109/debtext/51109-28.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051109/debtext/51109-28.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929220028/http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/terrorismbilllords2Rbriefingnov05.pdf to http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/terrorismbilllords2Rbriefingnov05.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified