h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A203716
Section 16(2)(a) of the 1968 Theft Act.

This was one of the first articles I wrote, and I'd just like to put it through the Peer Review system, mainly out of curiousity.

<BB<

Wow, now that's what I call a comprehensive entry! I have a couple of things to say about it.

Firstly, an entry for the Edited Guide (or any entry really) should look good in both alabaster and the original goo, and I'm afraid the yellow text doesn't show up very well at all in alabaster. Also, I'm not sure but I think you aren't allowed to use coloured text in an entry for the Edited Guide.

Otherwise, though, a fantastically well-written entry, well done!

Yes, I like it! The only bit you might want to put in is an explanation for the Ghosh test. Else I could recommend this is I were a scout.

Wow!

*blinks several times*

Causal Nexus, Ghosh Test - some kind of explanation, or a link to another entry or a URL which explains them, would be handy for the non-lawyers...

On a more general note, you seem to jump in a little over-quickly - a little bit more at the start of the entry giving the background of the act, the date it was passed, whether it replaced a 1958 theft act, or whether it was the first theft act, and what did they do with theives before hand... a little bit of history, in other words. Telling us why we should care, for instance.

Law is infamous for being a complicated and difficult subject, but I think you've explained this particular subsection really well. I do wonder if you might be better covering the whole of section 16, rather than just 16(2)(a), though...

I've started to clarify this article - thanks for your input.
The colour-problem at least should be solved now.

<BB<

Ah, that's better
It's looking good now, matey!

Good article! I like it!
I agree though that perhaps you could footnote 'Ghosh test', etc or add a link to something that explains them.

Touconos (Scout)

How does it read now?

much better...

Myself, I'd try and rework some of the footnotes into the text - I think it'd flow better that way - imo, of course.

Hello,

Wow. I'm impressed at the depth in which this has been explored, although I am afraid of H2G2 analyzing the entire legal code of England, Scotland, and Wales.

My only quibble is with the following sentences:
Essentially, s16(2)(a) means that any debt or advancement in cash you get (including ones not legally engorceable, eg, prostitution, gambling etc.) which you have got, or any discount, or anything much really is bad. This is slightly vague, really. Doesn't actually mean anything - which is why it was repealed and replaced by the

It's got a misspelling and "you get" before the parentheses and "which you have got" afterwards. I also feel that instead of placing the second sentence in front of the 1978 Crime Act you should put inside and explain that the 1978 Crime Act was a meant to repeal the errors of the 1968 one in a whole sentence.

Otherwise, that's all I've got, so you're doing rather well then.

Yours,
Jake

How does it read now?

<BB<

I'm afraid there's still a problem with the colored text. (I'm using the blue goo interface.) I had to highlight some of them to be able to make them out due to low contrast on the blue screen. More importantly, I'm not sure that the colors serve any real purpose in your article.

Also, while I understand that there is a tendency to emulate the structure of text you are commenting on, I would recommend (and this is strange coming from me) that you break some of your mult-clause sentences into shorter more direct structure.

I am highly aware of the fact that legalese is a distinct jargon largely because of the need for precision. For this very reason, you must make sure that when you say that something means, simply, something else, that you have, in fact, explained all the ramifications of your 'ranslation'into ordinary English. The tried and true method is to use examples, which you do do in most cases. However, later in your article there are times when *I* feel that an example or expanded case study might help. I'm sorry not to be more specific, I will re-read it and get back to you with some exact places in your article.

I, also, think that your article might benefit from some illustrations of what actions might be questionable in appearance but would not be covered by this law. For instance, you state that the one section was vague, but you do not explain how the amended text solves this problem. Some before and after examples might work here.

You mention that the law was controversial but you do not present both sides of the argument. I assume that this is because the controversy has been resolved with the ammendment. However, you begin by admitting that this article is historical in nature, so it is appropriate that you present the full history.

Barton

footnotes 3,4,5 could still be reworked into the text...

Under the s16(2)(a) part, you have:

> "That, through Deception,"

as the rewording of

> "for which he makes himself liable or is or may become liable"

Surely this is wrong? I would expect that phrase to mean simply that it must be a debt you'd have to pay normally - you can't get in trouble for obtaining a pecuniary advantage for someone else?

Oh, and finally, you say:
> "Section 16 (2)(a) is one of the most discussed sections of Criminal Law in England and Wales"

I presume that this discussion goes further than simply explaining the history and interpretation of it, as you have described here? Perhaps you could give a brief summary of some of this discussion...

Sorry for going a bit off-topic here,but...

Lucinda, you're the most thorough critic I've ever met

"thorough"... hmm, that means "nitpicky" doesn't it?

Hello,

It depends on how charitable his mood is.

Yours,
Jake

An article on an important piece of legislation which is no longer in force - if that's not what the Guide is for, I don't know what is. I wonder if this qualifies as "definitively inaccurate?"

Although the legislation may no longer law, it seems to me it forced the development of a better law. as such, it should be in the guide.

>Gasp< I hope you lot realise that some of this article has now been written THIS YEAR!

Seriously, I've now chosen a colour scheme that I have found easy to read in both goo and alabaster. I've also included more background history, more on the application of the law, and a few more examples. So, how does it read now?

<BB<

Editorial Note: This thread has been moved out of the Peer Review forum because this entry has now been recommended for the Edited Guide.

If they have not been along already, the Scout who recommended your entry will post here soon, to let you know what happens next. Meanwhile you can find out what will happen to your entry here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/SubEditors-Process

Congratulations!