Talk:Terrorism Act 2000

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)

Is it worth pointing out that this definition of terrorism does not specify that the terrorist be a non-state actor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.90.208 (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

• Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
• Groupe Islamique Combattant Marocain
• Ansar Al-Islam
• Al Ittihad Al Islamia
• Islamic Jihad Union
• Ansar Al Sunna
• Hezb-e Islamia Gulbuddin
• Harakat ul Muhajideen/Alami
• Jundallah
• Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan
• Lashkar-e Jhangvi
• Khuddam u-Islam
• Jamaat ul Furquan
• Harakat ul Jihad ul Islami
• Harakat ul Islami (Bangladesh)

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)Reply

"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)Reply

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

I've replaced the 11/08/06 stats with some released today. Previous paragraph is below if anyone wants to put it back; but I didn't think it added anything to have both sets of data, since one is included in the other.

"The police said in a statement dated 11 August 2006 that, by 30 June 2006, a total of 1,047 people had been arrested under the Act, of which 158 had been charged under the Terrorism Act and 174 had been charged with other offences." ArzelaAscoli 14:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

In the Terrorism Act 2000, it says,

Section 41 of the Act provided the police with the power to arrest and detain a person without charge for up to 48 hours if they were suspected of being a terrorist.[4] This period of detention could be extended to up to seven days if the police can persuade a judge that it is necessary for further questioning.[5]

This was a break from ordinary criminal law where suspects had to be charged within 24 hours of detention or be released. This period was later extended to 14 days by the Criminal Justice Act 2003[6], and to 28 days by the Terrorism Act 2006.

On the other hand, in the Terrorism Act 2006, it says,

A government amendment to the bill, proposed on November 9 but rejected by the Commons, would have meant that suspects arrested under suspicion of having conducted, or being engaged in planning, terrorist crimes could be held for a period of 90 days before being charged with a crime. This was a considerable increase over the existing term permitted by the Terrorism Act 2000, which allowed for a maximum 14 days detention before charges were laid; contrast also to the maximum of four days detention without charge allowed in cases of murder, rape and complex fraud [3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALJAY88 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I removed this section for various reasons, which I list below. Possibly this is notable and should be included in WP here or elsewhere, however not as it stands.

1. The text is substantially a copyvio of the quoted source, which is probably a copy-vio of [2].
2. The source given is not an RS. I was going to swap to the banthebomb but since that has the article twice on the same page I'm not convinced it's the bes source either.
3. Catt was not "some random pensioner who happened to get caught on a camera" as the initial text suggests. He was an active peace protester. (This of course might be considered worse! However we should not promulgate disingenuous propaganda.)

Rich Farmbrough, 12:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC).Reply

a source Smartse (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Now moved to the national archives 78.86.171.33 (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Terrorism Act 2000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929123528/http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9781841741833 to http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9781841741833
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080511160628/http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/6-free-speech/s44-terrorism-act/index.shtml to http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/6-free-speech/s44-terrorism-act/index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Terrorism Act 2000. 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/20100329112945/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/publications/home-office-circulars/circulars-2009/012-2009/ to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/publications/home-office-circulars/circulars-2009/012-2009/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/Coaker_reportresponse200409.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130161651/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23776068-bbc-man-in-terror-quiz-for-photographing-st-pauls-sunset.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23776068-bbc-man-in-terror-quiz-for-photographing-st-pauls-sunset.do
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090315200444/http://www.legislation.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/en/ukpgaen_20000011_en_1 to http://www.legislation.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/en/ukpgaen_20000011_en_1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909002234/http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications1/publication-search/independent-reviews/ to http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications1/publication-search/independent-reviews/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061008110343/http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications1/publication-search/independent-reviews/tact-2005-review to http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications1/publication-search/independent-reviews/tact-2005-review
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070428115653/http://www.counter-terrorism-law.org/Carliledefterror1.htm to http://www.counter-terrorism-law.org/Carliledefterror1.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) 00:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply