Talk:Theft Act 1968

This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles

Law Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fulltext[edit]

Does anyone have a link to the fulltext of the act itself?

As amended http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=Act+%28UK+Public+General%29&title=theft+act&Year=1968&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&TYPE=QS&NavFrom=0&activeTextDocId=1204238

Original (PDF) http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1968/pdf/ukpga_19680060_en.pdf

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status: Repealed?[edit]

The infobox says the status is repealed.

However, judging by the entry on the Statute Law database, only certain sections have been repealed. Other parts are amended. Would a status of "heavily amended" be better?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the infobox documentation only permits five values, so I chose "Amended". --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cut[edit]

The opening passage said this is an Act "governing most of the general property offences". It is not clear to me what a general property offence is, or that there is a source to support the statement that it creates most of them. I have rewritten the passage. James500 (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads "a number of greatly simplified – or at least less complicated – offences were created which all incorporate the element of dishonesty" (my emphasis). That is not true. Section 23 is an offence of strict liability. See (1983) 77 Cr App R 210. I am going to delete the words in italics. James500 (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have cut the following from the list of offences repealed by the Fraud Act 2006 as they are not part of this Act:

*Obtaining services by deception (Theft Act 1978, section 1)
Securing the remission of an existing liability to make a payment (Theft Act 1978, section 2 (1) (a))

Dishonestly inducing a creditor to wait for payment or to forgo payment with the intention of permanently defaulting on all or part of an existing liability (Theft Act 1978, section 2 (1) (b))

Obtaining an exemption from or abatement of liability to make a payment (Theft Act 1978, section 2 (1) (c))

James500 (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to delete the words in italics below for now. I am not sure what "active falsification" is and it is not sourced, the selection seems random (why not mention the possibility of a view to gain or the furnishing of information?) and is redundant to the main article.

This section creates an offence of false accounting which includes both active falsification and physical destruction of records with intent to cause loss to another.

James500 (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy[edit]

This article seriously needs tidying up. Wikipedia is not a textbook. Far too many sections and so on for what is a fairly straightforward article. Thoreux said "Simplify, Simplify". Si Trew (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Straightforward? Many books have been written on this subject. This article barely scratches the surface.

I can't see what application NOTTEXTBOOK has to this. It isn't a licence to dumb down articles. Wikipedia is not a children's encyclopedia for dummies. Nor is it for people with short attention spans.

If there are lots of short sections, it is because some of them require massive expansion. Many require their own articles. In all probability, each section of this Act is independently notable. James500 (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]