Talk:Law of the United Kingdom

Versions

The new "version" by Wikidea (talk · contribs) had 10 references compared to none before. The old version favoured by mais oui! (talk · contribs) starts off "There is no actual law of the United Kingdom" which is laughable, and deterioates from there. Does any other user prefer the Mais oui version to the wikidea version? Tim! 11:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop being so derisory. There are numerous flaws with the Wikidea version: firstly, and most seriously, it is merely a cut and paste job from our other articles (hence those ten refs) - which basically means that the entire article is just one big fork. Secondly, it must be made crystal clear, right at the start, that there is no such thing as a "UK legal system". There is UK legislation, but we already have (a rather crap) article on that. I have numerous other problems with the rewrite: it contains unsourced editorialising (WP:OR), it confuses "judicial system" with "legal system" (a judicial system is just part of an entire legal system) and it, frankly amazingly, conflates Northern Ireland law with English law.

The pre-Wikidea version may have been bare, but at least it was accurate, and not a massive big misleading fork.

The opning sentence should perhaps be "There is no actual legal system of the United Kingdom", rather than ""There is no actual law of the United Kingdom". Please note that law, legal system and judicial system are not the same things. -- Mais oui! 11:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if this article contains information duplicated in other articles, that in itself is not a reason not to give an overview of those topics in this article per Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It is an oversimplification to there is no UK legal system as there are various courts with UK-wide jurisdiction such as the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords (soon to be Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. I disagree that it conflates NI law, it just does not give an overview in the same it does of English and Scots law. This can be remedied. The pre Wikidea version was barely more than a disambiguation page. Tim! 11:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the House of Lords most certainly does not have "UK-wide jurisdiction". If you are convicted of a crime in Scotland you cannot appeal to the House of Lords: the buck stops in Edinburgh. -- Mais oui! 11:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It does in civil matters, I hope you are aware of that if you wish to continue editing this article. Tim! 11:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The HoL (then) and the UK Supreme Court (now) sit as legally different bodies when dealing with cases from different jurisdictions. The judgments for one jurisdiction have no direct effect on the other jurisdictions. The UKSC's jurisdiction is of multiple character not of a single overall character.MBRZ48 (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course I am aware of that. Why on earth do you think I cited "crime"? Stop being so patronising and derisory. You are not the gatekeeper of who can or cannot edit articles here at Wikipedia, see WP:OWN. -- Mais oui! 11:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE again, just read your own comments about Wikidea. Vandals and POV-pushers are not permitted to edit. Tim! 11:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion you just stepped over the boundary there into a straightforward personal attack. Are you accusing me of being a vandal? And as far as "POV-pushing" is concerned, you are one of the worst offenders around here. Go and read WP:KETTLE yourself. -- Mais oui! 11:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah right, I'm not the person who removes every single reference to United Kingdom I can lay my hands on. Tim! 11:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA makes it crystal clear that you should confine your comments to Wikipedia content: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point." -- Mais oui! 12:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just found another absolute stinker: Wikidea's version had a section on the "Parliament of Northern Ireland"?!?!? C'mon!! - that is just a really worrying sign that the author is making it up as they go along. -- Mais oui! 11:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please both settle down, we can all be friends! For what it's worth, this is my cut and paste job. When I was doing the law page, I put in those templates for legal systems around the world under the jurisdictions section. These are generic templates used for all sorts of subjects, not just law, on Wikipedia. Being a Brit, I thought that the UK law page (which is the only link there) could do a bit better so I cut and pasted, and I personally think that this page is good merely as a redirect, and hopefully to explain what a unique, historically driven system of Parliament and courts we have. It's wrong, I think, to put in exaggerations like "there's no law of the UK" - because Parliament passes laws for us all; also I'm not sure that Northern Ireland doesn't have the same court system as England and Wales, because my understanding was both civil and criminal (unlike Scotland) are appealed to the Lords; I could be wrong. I'm not sure how helpful the new conflict of laws footnote is, and that it says anything relevant about the question. But I can assure you that I don't make things up as I go along, and I don't stink. I'm very glad, Mais oui, you have the presence of mind to change the heading from Parliament to Assembly, and congratulate you for it. Hopefully we can work on the article further without posting inflamatory comments too? Wikidea 07:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness that you are a more friendly chap that Tim!! -- Mais oui! 08:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Law

Yes, it seems that I'm correct about law in Northern Ireland. Mais Oui looks to have made that page himself, composed of a list about the police and Parliaments there; the only addition that Mais Oui didn't make to this page was the link about the Courts of Northern Ireland which explains clearly that the Lords is the final court of appeal within the UK. I'm removing the section on courts on the page - there's already space under the NI Assembly. Wikidea 07:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing the fact that NI shares its highest court of appeal with E&W (and lots of other places) with it having the same legal system. It does not, and to claim that NI comes under the same legal system as E&W is straying deep into WP:OR. -- Mais oui! 08:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine by me; it's always good to be specific. I'm putting your NI page in the see also list, but it's quite a useful collection of links. Wikidea 08:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems we're editting at the same time. The section doesn't belong with Scots and English law, because the courts for NI are unified with E and W - I've changed the header title to reflect that. Wikidea 08:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"the courts for NI are unified with E and W" - Huh?!? You'd better find an awful lot of good references for that, as per WP:CITE and WP:RS, because that is just not true. -- Mais oui! 08:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

UK Laws against Dissertation Writing Services and Academic Cheating Sites

Greetings, everyone. I'm hoping for a bit of help from you experts on UK law. I am a teacher who is trying to convince certain British sites to ban links to dissertation writing "services," term paper mills, and academic cheating sites. Can you please tell me if there are any UK laws against such services that promote cheating? If so, can you please tell me the exact laws and/or where I can find online information about those precise laws? Thank you very much! TeachingAllDay 04:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Not being a legal expert AFAIK the only laws that might be used against such companies selling 'cheating' services would be something like fraud or possibly even The Sale of Goods Act as what the seller is touting is a misrepresentation of the person taking the paper/exam. That would almost certainly make it a fraud, both by the seller of those papers, and by the person commissioning the false paper/results, but whether this would be actionable I don't know. Usually this sort of thing would get referred-to UK Trading Standards, but for abuse of academic qualifications then your local Education Authority might be worth contacting. The web site could also be liable for action as they are, in effect, promoting a criminal activity, so they may well also be breaking the law.

The problem with web sites however is that the web server's geographical location usually determines under what nation's laws the offending web site comes under. So UK law may well not be applicable anyway. This is why so many 'scams' originate on web sites located in other countries. However, if the web site is British and is based on a web server in the UK then you may well be able to interest the organisations mentioned above.

Technically I would think that your problem would come under 'fraud' as it involves a mis-representaion of someone, i.e., the buyer of the false exams/papers, in order to gain at the expense of someone else, i.e., the candidate's future employer. In which case, you could even try informing the police, as AFAIK, fraud is a criminal act, rather than a civil crime, and theoretically they would be bound by law to investigate the matter. Whether they will or not is another matter.

Fair use rationale for Image:Connor painting.jpg

Image:Connor painting.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

what is private law concerned whit..? ₫− — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.83.120.185 (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there any UK law governing ".ie" domains?

Above is the question. I would love to hear Editor's thoughts. This relates to a discussion on Talk: Northern Ireland. In the article ".ie" is listed as an official domain covering Northern Ireland. There is Irish law governing ".ie" but so far I haven't come across any equivalent UK law. This is so even though some Editors seem to think it is under joing UK/IRL administration or UK(NI)/IRL administration. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Law of the United Kingdom. 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/20051203012812/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/education/resources/teachingResources/wordBank.htm to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/education/resources/teachingResources/wordBank.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Sheriff courts and Magistrates Courts

Fantastic article credit to the authors, however I noticed this: "Sheriff courts have no equivalent outside Scotland, as they deal with both criminal and civil caseloads."

While I am in full agreement they have no equivalent outside Scotland, do Magistrates Courts not also handle some civil caseloads such as council tax? 92.233.139.105 (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Council tax non-payment is a criminal matter and that is why enforcement is dealt with by the magistrates court (in England and Wales). Tax demands are dealt with differently from other liabilities, such as rent or business debts, which are civil matters and go through the County Court. FrankP (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

British law

I have removed the term "British law" from the lede, as being incorrect usage. I did tag it as "citation needed" and waited a while before removal. If someone has a good source which uses this phrase perhaps it should come back. In my opinion it would need support from an authoritative legal or governmental source, because maybe the phrase is used sometimes, but strictly incorrectly. It certainly is not a synonym for "UK Law". If it means anything it might be shorthand for something looser like "all things legal connected with Britain". FrankP (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

EU law

The statement "European Union law was actively transposed into the UK legal systems under the UK parliament's law-making power—acts of the European Union Parliament not having direct effect in the dualist UK" seems to be somewhat wrong. EU Regulations had primacy as law from the moment they were passed (by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972) - see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eu-legislation-and-uk-law and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Factortame_Ltd)_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Transport - they only needed transposition into UK law in order to implement Brexit. Galund (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I corrected it. Kaihsu (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical law?

Should Church of England law (e.g. General Synod as a legislature) also be discussed? Kaihsu (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Law of the United Kingdom → ? – British legal system, Legal system of the United Kingdom or British legal systems, Legal systems of the United Kingdom

This article includes discussions of law broader than the 'law of the UK', which refers to the law at a particular point in time. e.g. International law, municipal law, etc. Therefore, I propose these new titles for the article: 'British legal system', 'Legal system of the United Kingdom' in singular or 'British legal systems', 'Legal systems of the United Kingdom' in plural. What do you think of this? Balkovec (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Every other article like this has the form 'Law of X' where X is a country. YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  @YorkshireExpat no, you're wrong, see Legal system of Sudan, Legal system of the United Arab Emirates, Palestinian law, Legal system of Eritrea, Legal system of Armenia, Australian legal system, Chinese law, Israeli law, Legal system of Saudi Arabia etc. Balkovec (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Balkovec well, just the vast majority then. Also 'Chinese law', 'Palestinian law' and 'Israeli law' are grammatically equivalent. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  the majority or not is difficult to say, but the consistency criterion is not applicable in this case. The criterion of precision is more applicable. Balkovec (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Balkovec: In that case I don't think your proposed titles hit the mark, particularly with regard to the international legal systems discussed. These aren't 'British legal systems' but they do derive from 'UK law'. Also, for me, 'UK law' and derivatives appear to fit far better with WP:COMMONNAME. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Title is fine. Better than the alternatives proposed. Walrasiad (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support either British legal systems or Legal systems of the United Kingdom as the article is addressing a country which uses multiple legal systems in its different constituent countries. AusLondonder (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  @AusLondonder but it also has an overarching system. YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose merging Jurisdictions of the United Kingdom into this article as they overlap almost completely and the majority of the Jurisdictions article appears to duplicate content (or at least concepts) in this article. XAM2175 ^(T) 20:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree as the other article doesn't have much substantive content. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Support, total overlap and both are short articles. CMD (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Support, significant overlap which can be easily merged. DankJae 12:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks like strong support for the merge, so I'm going to close the discussion. @XAM2175, Dawkin Verbier, DankJae, and Chipmunkdavis:, feel free to forge ahead. Joyous! Noise! 15:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.