Talk:Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Law Start‑class

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

What categories does this belong in? Josh Parris#: 12:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 It is possible that it also has some historical significance if we reimport some of the repealed offences and enlarge upon their contemporary relevance to the Victorians.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)[reply]

Help please

I think I have correctly identified which sections are still in force and which are repealed but I am without all my reference books of old so can someone please consult Halsbury to verify my attributions.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 The repealed sections are all at Offences Against The Person Act 1861 (repealed) David91 05:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sections that have been repealed/changed/added may, however, not correspond in the UK and in Ireland, the other successor state to the then United Kingdom.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)[reply]

Spelling

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)[reply]

Homosexual offences

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)[reply]

Quotes from the Act

I have moved the text of section 47 here for the time being. I think that it should either go into the article assault occaisioning actual bodily harm, or be ditched altogether since it is available on SLD and is not accurate for Northern Ireland:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by James500 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now moved the quote to the page actual bodily harm. James500 (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual offences

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)[reply]

This is explained in the section relating to sexual offences. Details of repeals and the replacement of provisions by other Acts (chiefly the 1956 Act) are given if you look closely. This article is suppossed to be a description of the 1861 Act, not the present law on sexual offences. It would help me if you could tell me what you think is wrong with the section. James500 (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query about conversion to in line citation

Why "retrieved on the 5th December 2008"? What does that mean and why is it mentioned? I just want to know why you've done this so that I know what its purpose is and if it is something that I ought to do routinely. James500 (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is used to trace which version of a web page was used for a reference. It can be used with the Internet archive's WayBackMachine to find a version of the page that existed around the time of your retrieval. Unfortunately the internet archive doesn't have a copy of that google books page at the moment so it isn't a very good example.

However, using one of the External links as an example, this link provides the current version of the page, while this other link shows what it looked like in August 2004. This is especially useful when an important reference link goes dead as you can retrieve an archived copy of the page instead. Road Wizard (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Child stealing

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)[reply]