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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
@
UnicornSherbert Pinging you as you undid the reversion- a Bill does not become an Act until it recieves royal assent, which is not expected to occur for a couple of days.
Since the Parliament website still says that it's pending royal assent and there is no source saying royal assent has been granted it seems to me premature to call it an Act.
NixCode (
talk)
12:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Royal assent has still not been given. It is given in both Houses of Parliament, and only then is it effective. Leave the change until once it is actually confirmed, rather than imagined - and with a source, as has already been pointed out above.
Mauls (
talk)
08:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, it is totally off to revert unrelated changes that correct errors. You don't 'own' this page, and shouldn't be blocking other editing.
Mauls (
talk)
08:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It says on the Parliament website that Royal Assent has been given today. It should be reverted back to being an Act. Nobody is "blocking other editing" so I have no idea what you are going on about there. And telling another editor to "leave the change" is trying to block them. You have also incorrectly moved the page meaning it now has to be requested to be moved. Why have you done this when Parliament has passed the Act?
UnicornSherbert (
talk) 09:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. Cambial —
foliar❧14:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The act was given royal assent at 11am today. You changed the past last night, and I changed it back, because as of 9am it had still not become an act.
You repeatedly added imagined 'facts' to the page, such as royal assent (on the 23rd April, on the 24th April), and a made up chapter number (c. 7) for the 'act'.
Telling you to not add made-up information to a page is not inappropriate. What was inappropriate was your continued re-addition of these 'facts' when - at the time - they were incorrect.
Mauls (
talk)
11:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Slight correction, royal assent was pronounced at 11:07 in the House of Lords, and 11:47 in the House of Commons. Per the
Royal Assent Act 1967 the bill became an act at 11:47 am today. It certainly hadn't been given royal assent when the changes were reverted for the fourth time.
Mauls (
talk)
11:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No. Royal assent is given by virtue of the second formal pronouncement. You really need to have a look at the Royal Assent Act 1967 - it is quite clear that an act is only enacted by this fact:
An Act of Parliament is duly enacted if Her Majesty’s Assent thereto, being signified by Letters Patent under the Great Seal signed with Her Majesty's own hand,— (a) is pronounced in the presence of both Houses in the House of Lords in the form and manner customary before the passing of this Act;...
The act has not been commenced, it is not in force, and it is not correct to keep changing the status to 'current'.
Mauls (
talk)
11:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Bill during legislative history
A claim has been made that articles retrospectively describe the bill as an 'act'.
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
@
UnicornSherbert Pinging you as you undid the reversion- a Bill does not become an Act until it recieves royal assent, which is not expected to occur for a couple of days.
Since the Parliament website still says that it's pending royal assent and there is no source saying royal assent has been granted it seems to me premature to call it an Act.
NixCode (
talk)
12:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Royal assent has still not been given. It is given in both Houses of Parliament, and only then is it effective. Leave the change until once it is actually confirmed, rather than imagined - and with a source, as has already been pointed out above.
Mauls (
talk)
08:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, it is totally off to revert unrelated changes that correct errors. You don't 'own' this page, and shouldn't be blocking other editing.
Mauls (
talk)
08:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It says on the Parliament website that Royal Assent has been given today. It should be reverted back to being an Act. Nobody is "blocking other editing" so I have no idea what you are going on about there. And telling another editor to "leave the change" is trying to block them. You have also incorrectly moved the page meaning it now has to be requested to be moved. Why have you done this when Parliament has passed the Act?
UnicornSherbert (
talk) 09:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. Cambial —
foliar❧14:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The act was given royal assent at 11am today. You changed the past last night, and I changed it back, because as of 9am it had still not become an act.
You repeatedly added imagined 'facts' to the page, such as royal assent (on the 23rd April, on the 24th April), and a made up chapter number (c. 7) for the 'act'.
Telling you to not add made-up information to a page is not inappropriate. What was inappropriate was your continued re-addition of these 'facts' when - at the time - they were incorrect.
Mauls (
talk)
11:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Slight correction, royal assent was pronounced at 11:07 in the House of Lords, and 11:47 in the House of Commons. Per the
Royal Assent Act 1967 the bill became an act at 11:47 am today. It certainly hadn't been given royal assent when the changes were reverted for the fourth time.
Mauls (
talk)
11:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No. Royal assent is given by virtue of the second formal pronouncement. You really need to have a look at the Royal Assent Act 1967 - it is quite clear that an act is only enacted by this fact:
An Act of Parliament is duly enacted if Her Majesty’s Assent thereto, being signified by Letters Patent under the Great Seal signed with Her Majesty's own hand,— (a) is pronounced in the presence of both Houses in the House of Lords in the form and manner customary before the passing of this Act;...
The act has not been commenced, it is not in force, and it is not correct to keep changing the status to 'current'.
Mauls (
talk)
11:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Bill during legislative history
A claim has been made that articles retrospectively describe the bill as an 'act'.