Talk:Offences Against the Person Act 1861

message: What categories does this belong in? Josh Parris#: 12:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to put it into Criminal law when it is finished since its only significance is as a listing of the offences on a single page to support separate pages describing the substantive offences. It is possible that it also has some historical significance if we reimport some of the repealed offences and enlarge upon their contemporary relevance to the Victorians. David91 15:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think I have correctly identified which sections are still in force and which are repealed but I am without all my reference books of old so can someone please consult Halsbury to verify my attributions. I have moved the text of the abortion provision into the UK abortion page but hesitated to transfer the bigamy provision because that would put it on the polygamy page. Anyway, I am now bored with this task and leave it to all of you to finish it off. The repealed sections are all at Offences Against The Person Act 1861 (repealed)  David91 05:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sections that have been repealed/changed/added may, however, not correspond in the UK and in Ireland, the other successor state to the then United Kingdom. Do we need another article on "Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (Republic of Ireland)" to reflect the divergence after 1922? It is still a "big" act in Ireland (and our favourite hot potato) because it is the current abortion legislation.--Dub8lad1 00:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help please

message: Why does an article about a British Law contain American spellings in the text, i.e. "misdemeanor"?
Is the suggestion that those the wrote the document in Victorian Britain used American-English? Or (more plausibly) has this text been deliberately mangled from it's original form into illiterate Americanese?!
Clearly, Americans would be pretty quick to leap on any Brit correcting any of the "English" on articles pertaining to America; therefore it's reasonable to demand the same treatment of British articles.
More to the point, it's a fraud to quote a text and change the spelling.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.89.214 (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: I have moved the following material to this page because it is outside of the scope of this article:
Buggery between heterosexuals ceased to be an offence in 1994. The age of consent to homosexual buggery and to certain other homosexual acts was reduced by the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 from 18 to 16 years in England and Wales. Almost all sexual offences are today contained in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by James500 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexual offences 

message: The Sexual Offences section needs to be reviewed as much of it has been superseded by the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Malcolm.boura (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexual offences

message: Just watched a repeat of an old Upstairs, Downstairs episode where Mrs Bridges was charged under the Offences against young persons act 1861 - so it seems they got the year right, having come here to check if this was accurate. I assume it's under the 'Child stealing' section as in the article. Probably too trivial to mention in the article proper however.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Child stealing 

message: This Act was adopted in New Zealand in 1866, according to Abortion in New Zealand. James500 (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: List of repeals and amendments in the Republic of Ireland  James500 (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Offences against the Person Act 1861. 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/20090201151414/http://criminallawonline.com/artassaults.php to http://www.criminallawonline.com/artassaults.php
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) 16:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: *Oppose. The rationale above completely misses the point. The correct article title is the one that satisfies the article title policy. The legally correct name is just another official name, and the legislation cited is not binding on Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) Actually that website has been known to contain errors. In the past they have got the short titles of Acts wrong by including the year when that was not part of the short title, and by failing to apply repeals and other amendments to Acts. And when members of the public have written to them and pointed out that there was an error, they have agreed there was a mistake and corrected the error. I recall one instance where they got the year of a statutory instrument wrong in a way that made it look like the instrument had been made in the twenty-second or twenty-third century. I'm not sure if that was ever corrected. The point is that they may not have chosen to capitalise the word "against" on purpose. They might have done that by accident. The database is very large and there are many other Acts. If someone were to point out the error, they might actually fix it, assuming their attitude is the same as it was a number of years ago. (2) I don't see why "if its good enough for legislation.gov.uk" is a better argument than "if its good enough for command papers issued by other goverment departments, for Butterworths, for Sweet and Maxwell, for other Acts of Parliament etc". The present page name isn't stable, it is the result of a recent move, and if neither capitalisation is better, things should go back to the status quo. James500 (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the omission of the comma before the year? Again, if the article title was to strictly follow the Short Titles Act (which it shouldn't) then correct title would be 'The Offences against the Person Act, 1861'. Anyway, this argument is somewhat irrelevant, all the matters is what the most commonly used name is (WP:COMMONNAME) and ability to reach a consensus here on what the article title should be. ToastButterToast (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: *(1) In answer to the question posed above, there is case law to the effect that punctuation is not part of an Act of Parliament, namely, Duke of Devonshire v O'Connor (1890) 24 QBD 468 at 478, where Lord Esher says "in an Act of Parliament there are no such things as brackets any more than there are such things as stops". Noel Hutton QC, First Parliamentary Counsel, said, with respect to commas in Acts of Parliament generally, and in short titles in particular, the correct interpretation is to ignore them: "The Citation of Statutes" 82 Law Quarterly Review 24-24. In the Republic of Ireland, to which this Act extends, section 14(3)(a) of the Interpretation Act 2005 expressly authorises the omission of the comma. (2) I have been informed that capitalisation is not considered a form of punctuation. James500 (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Just leave it, nobody cares. ToastButterToast (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Commas