Talk:Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001

	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 has not yet received a rating 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.

In A (FC) and others (FC) (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) etc., what does "(FC)" mean? – Kaihsu 16:07, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Iceland asset freeze

I've been looking into this act since it was used against Landbanki/icesave and how much of the debate that has ensued has focussed on this being an anti-terror act. I don't think it's fair to say that Sections 1-3 of the act refer to "Terrorist finances". The act itself only makes reference to terrorism in Part 1; the Landsbanki Freezing Order 2008 was drawn up from Part 2 of the Act which makes no refernce to terrorism. See http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/ukpga_20010024_en_1 Alexd (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also done some research and found an interesting extract from the House of Lords Hansard.[1]

"As emergency legislation, that Bill was hardly debated in the Commons, as MPs have subsequently pointed out on several occasions—for example, in the other place on 25 February 2004 at col. 312. David Blunkett’s explanation of the asset-freezing powers at the time, however, was quite clear:"

"The emergency legislation will build on the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Bill to deal specifically with terrorist finance through monitoring and freezing the accounts of suspected terrorists"

As this was the interpretation of the then Home Secretary it may be worth noting in the article. Road Wizard (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the titles of the sections based on the referenced House of Lords debate: it is obvious that the government did not intend Parts 2 and 3 to be limited to terrorist activities. Physchim62 (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, see the comments of Lord Renton at HL Debates 28 November 2001 c. 349:

I say with deep respect to my noble friend that he may not have realised that the words "involving terrorism" are words of limitation. Here, the Government are rightly trying to protect the economy in a broader sense. If the words "involving terrorism" are inserted in the way suggested, on occasions when there could be a detriment to the economy, but not necessarily involving terrorism, the limitation would be regrettable.

or, for the government, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, at the time Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, at HL Debates 28 November 2001 c. 353:

Amendment No. 37 is designed to restrict the power specifically to terrorism. The problem is that the power is intended to provide wide-ranging protection against threats to national security. […] The sanctions have been available for many years to counter actions that threaten UK economic interest, wherever that threat comes from.

When Lord McIntosh says that "The sanctions have been available for many years", he is referring to the fact that they were first introduced in the Defence (General) Regulations 1939. Physchim62 (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]