 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
?
editNot sure I like the Americanism of '9 April to 15 April' rather than the 9th and 15th, whatever Wiki's preferences. (also 'Act of Parliament' is the normal expresion , not 'of the Parliament' Esthameian 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- The American style would be 'April 9', not '9 April'. I don't know why Wikipedia has settled on this style for dates, but it has. I changed 'Act of Parlaiment' to 'Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom' in order to provide a better link -- the Parliament article is about parliaments in general. The Easter Act was clearly an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and not of parliaments generally. Ground Zero | t 02:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
One Fixed Date
editNow that we have ISO 8601 week dates, it would be better to fix exactly one date, the same each year, yyyy-W15-7. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Spent?
editAn act that has never entered into force cannot be spent. It is perhaps fine to speak of desuetude, but it is not spent. WP:GF. – Kaihsu (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC):
- The words "spent" and "obsolete" (desuetude as a concept, which is considered separate as a concept under English law from obsolesce, is not generally accepted as a concept under English law, under the common law) are really mere synonyms in the United Kingdom, as far as the Statute book (of laws) is concerned, at least as far as the Law Commission (England and Wales) are concerned [1] (at least according to the modern form of the English language as it is used specifically in England and Wales, and in the year 2017). -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea about the technical legal terminology involved, but as a practical matter, if any adjustments to Easter are made in future, they will almost certainly take the form of a completely new law or decree. Also, whoever is introducing HTML into the article ("<i>"), please don't... AnonMoos (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree, but that is a political statement rather than one about statute law. The Act is not yet in force until repealed (or brought into force). Kaihsu (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)