Talk:Cancer Act 1939

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles 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.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Marketing & Advertising Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing 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.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the 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.

Promotion of cancer

"...to make further provision for the promotion of cancer". Eh?--Britannicus (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the official summary of the Act, as written here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/2-3/13 - I agree it does look a bit peculiar. It's in support of treating cancer (appropriately) while looking askance at anyone flogging unlikely miracle cures JoBrodie (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not fully in force

In the little box to the right hand side of the page, with the heraldic business, bit highlighted in yellow at the end of that section saying "Not fully in force": I can see that aspects of the Act have been repealed over the years (between 1968 and 2008 as outlined in the annotations here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/2-3/13) but the Act was used a couple of times in 2013/14 and it seems a bit confusing to say that it's not fully in force. Admittedly I don't know the first thing about laws generally but I'd have to assume that the Act was fully in force minus the bits that had been edited out previously (subsumed into other laws). That is, although whatever remains (see elsewhere on the page "As of December 2014") may be a different Act from the one originally created, it is still (surely?) fully in force now. "Not fully in force" suggests a bit of wiggle room, which seems confusing. Also this appears to have been amended fairly recently and it's not obvious to me what happened between 2008 and 2015 to make the Act less in force than it was before the page was amended. My friend Pigsonthewing suggested I fight about it amiably here (he made the recent change but we didn't manage to solve it via Twitter) Thanks :) JoBrodie (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have changed this today to 'In force' JoBrodie (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need a source for new conviction

An 'untrustworthy' article states a guy was convicted(using the Cancer Act) and is due for sentencing on 20th September 2017.

Does anyone have a suggestion of where the official sentencing is published?

Oh fantastic news, thanks for highlighting. I'll keep an eye out for a better reference. From previous experience there may not be that much about it from the Court (it might show up in the Court News Twitter feed (which is by a journalist). The likeliest useful source will probably be from Westminster Trading Standards who usually write these things up in their news / annual reviews, though it may not be an immediate thing. Hopefully other newspapers pick it up sooner. Well done to Westminster Trading Standards anyway, a huge amount of work (and often unpleasantness) goes into getting these to court JoBrodie (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, well that was quicker than expected - here's one from the Metro http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/20/man-who-claimed-to-cure-cancer-with-energy-healing-is-facing-jail-6942128/ JoBrodie (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if we could quote a better source than the Daily Mail: as the extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC concludes, the use of it is problematic. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the end he was fined just short of £5000. There was probably never any chance of him being jailed beyond a few days for ignoring the summons and not turning up at court... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5062961/Quack-claimed-heal-cancer-Skype.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.66.211 (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]