Talk:Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

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.

Recent amendments

I have now twice tried to make the following improvements to this article:

1. Clarifying the 'who' tag, by specifying two notable groups.

2. Expanding on the High Court ruling.

This has been reverted on the grounds that I did not provide a source. Edit (1) is already supported by citation 5, at the end of that clause; both groups are specifically mentioned in that reliable source, ie all I did was include a bit of extra information from it to improve the article and get rid of the annoying tag. Edit (2) is supported by the citation to the sentence immediately prior. Surely every single sentence does not need a citation these days, if it contains uncontroversial information expanding upon the cited sentence immediately prior, and which is contained in the same source. And putting citations after every 5 words is clunky and ugly.

I am not going to get into an edit war over this. If a third party happens upon this, please look at it. This is a reminder why I no longer contribute to Wikipedia regularly. --104.238.169.54 (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repeal by CJEU

The lead section currently reads: The purpose of the legislation was to allow security services to continue to have access to phone and internet records of individuals following a previous repeal of these rights by the Court of Justice of the European Union. First, no source is given for the judgement in question so that the accuracy of this statement can be verified against its actual content. Second, this is legal nonsense: no court, not even the Supreme Court, has the power to repeal UK legislation; only Parliament has that power, unless it specifically delegates the power. (Removing statutory instruments is called revocation, not repeal.) Courts can rule secondary legislation to be invalid and void, or disapply Acts of Parliament only if they are incompatible with superior EU legislation. They cannot repeal anything. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]