Talk:Terrorism Act 2000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For some reason, the headings in this article are not being put in a Table of Contents. Anyone know why? -- Cabalamat 14:26, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to put the quote from the Act (where it defines terrorism) in a box. I've seen this elsewhere on wikipedia but can't find code to do it; can someone help? -- Cabalamat 14:26, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


[edit] List of groups

I've added the main list of groups from [1] and some details about what it takes to get on the list. I was unsure if the 14 groups of Northern Ireland should be listed here as well (see link). Also, the legislation says that the "Secretary of State" may modify the list. I was unsure if this meant the Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary. Forgive an ignorant Yank. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 00:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is Hizb ut-Tahrir now also a proscribed group is there a process that has yet to be completed? --81.178.90.216 13:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Proscribed Groups

The BBC are reporting here that 15 more groups are to be added:

I've dug around and linked them to the relevant articles on Wiki where I think they tally. It's not immediately obvious, so corrections welcome! When the Home Secretary confirms it we can just cut and paste to the main article. Sapient 18:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Subtle Non-NPOVing?

"Under this giving training in the construction of explosives is an offence thus making showing the chemical data avaible on this page [a link to the page on C-4, the explosive] illegal."

This seems like a wholely political statement that infers an opinion on the badness (for lack of a better term of this law. Anyone else concur? --cuiusquemodi 08:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Anyway, it is not, strictly speaking, legally accurate, since there is a defence which arguably might excuse the provision of the chemical data linked to. I have included reference to the defence and removed the pt linking to the chemical data. There are loads of things which might be caught by the Act on wikipedia, and elsewhere on the internet. It makes little point in the context of the this article to link to one, and to state as a fact that it is illegal, since it may not be. --Diranh 28 March 2006