Arson in royal dockyards was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 16, 2017. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
arson in royal dockyards was one of the last four crimes in the United Kingdom to carry the death penalty? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created or improved during the " The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help! |
@ The C of E: re this edit, when I click on the link in the citation, it says that the Queen assented to the Ulster Defense Regiment Act. Either the link is wrong, or the Ulster Defense Regiment Act covers more than the name implies; either way, a better link/cite is necessary, no? — Luis ( talk) 00:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Not a huge deal, but the Law Commission's report does not mention the flammability of battleships (or anything of the sort, really) as a reason to repeal the Act. I realize the other citation says this, though, so not immediately obvious how best to deal with it. Leaving here for now. — Luis ( talk) 04:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
The Law Commission's report cites to Archbold to say that there was only one prosecution under the Act, and that prosecution was in 1777, but the case name was R. v. Hill, not Aitken...? I've been trying to find access to a copy of Archbold that actually discusses this, but no luck so far...— Luis ( talk) 04:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I wish we had a more recent source for the discussion of NSW. In an attempt to find one, I came across this 1994 report, which seems to take for granted that the Dockyard Act was not in force as of 1994. I can't find any evidence about when it might have been explicitly repealed, though, nor can I (yet) find the 1967 NSW report that the Victoria report refers to. — Luis ( talk) 05:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Parsing the text of section 1, emphasis added:
A naive reading of the above suggests the terms in red are not specific to the navy and might equally apply to the army. However, sources seem to discuss the act only in terms of the navy. "His Majesty's" suggests the distinction between the Royal Navy and the non-Royal British Army; is this a relevant distinction? As against that there are Royal Arsenal and Royal Gunpowder Mills; would arson there have come under the 1772 act? jnestorius( talk) 01:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Arson in royal dockyards was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 16, 2017. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
arson in royal dockyards was one of the last four crimes in the United Kingdom to carry the death penalty? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created or improved during the " The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help! |
@ The C of E: re this edit, when I click on the link in the citation, it says that the Queen assented to the Ulster Defense Regiment Act. Either the link is wrong, or the Ulster Defense Regiment Act covers more than the name implies; either way, a better link/cite is necessary, no? — Luis ( talk) 00:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Not a huge deal, but the Law Commission's report does not mention the flammability of battleships (or anything of the sort, really) as a reason to repeal the Act. I realize the other citation says this, though, so not immediately obvious how best to deal with it. Leaving here for now. — Luis ( talk) 04:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
The Law Commission's report cites to Archbold to say that there was only one prosecution under the Act, and that prosecution was in 1777, but the case name was R. v. Hill, not Aitken...? I've been trying to find access to a copy of Archbold that actually discusses this, but no luck so far...— Luis ( talk) 04:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I wish we had a more recent source for the discussion of NSW. In an attempt to find one, I came across this 1994 report, which seems to take for granted that the Dockyard Act was not in force as of 1994. I can't find any evidence about when it might have been explicitly repealed, though, nor can I (yet) find the 1967 NSW report that the Victoria report refers to. — Luis ( talk) 05:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Parsing the text of section 1, emphasis added:
A naive reading of the above suggests the terms in red are not specific to the navy and might equally apply to the army. However, sources seem to discuss the act only in terms of the navy. "His Majesty's" suggests the distinction between the Royal Navy and the non-Royal British Army; is this a relevant distinction? As against that there are Royal Arsenal and Royal Gunpowder Mills; would arson there have come under the 1772 act? jnestorius( talk) 01:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)