Talk:English law

quality and organisation of this article

take a look at the equivalent article for N.ireland. although very little context is given it is far better organised and professional, and critically to an encyclo, its easy to find and understand the info. anyone want to copy some of its features here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.221.233 (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability

This article, as it currently stands, makes almost no effort whatsoever to reliably establish the notability of its topic, as per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS and WP:CITE. This is, quite frankly, astounding, as English law is so central to the history of law worldwide. In fact, it is hard to underestimate the extent of the influence of English law.

The intro is absolutely appalling. It seems like an attempt to grossly downplay the subject, and the whole first half of the article tries to explain what English law is not, rather than what it is!!

I am certain that there are many people out there with profound knowledge of the English legal system. Please could one of you at least write a decent, perhaps 3 paragraph, introduction to the topic, preferably properly cited. And please relegate the long, apologetic bit about "and Wales" to an explanatory subsection - it is not central to grasping the topic.-- Mais oui! 08:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And setting the topic in a solid historical context early in the piece would be nice too. Sorry to be so grumpy, but I really find the condition of this article to be truly lamentable, after Wikipedia has been up and running for many years now. We ought to at least aim to bring it up to WP:GA status, although WP:FA seems a million miles away at present. -- Mais oui! 08:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

i think this has been somewhat addressed now in the introduction (not by me)82.27.221.233 (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

can the name be changed to "The Law of England and Wales"??

this phrase was used from at least 1967 onwards, prior to that there was a law saying any mention of england included wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.221.233 (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

English law as a jurisdiction

this section seems to contain some thing of value ie a couple of refs even if not done correctly although some of the stuff there seems meandering and tangential and vague and shouldnt be this high in the article even if in... but i dont want to remove anything without putting better in place, so i haven't done much to it, you are right it needs a thorough reworking. i have tried to quickly remove some blatant innacuracies ie that stating that there are four jurisdictions in the uk england scotland northern ireland and wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.221.233 (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

English/British

I think that prehaps we should move it to British Law, and have Welsh, Scottish & NI law, if needed, as a subtopic under British Law, keeping the main focus on English law. microchip08 (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense to me at all. Scottish and English legal systems are quite distinct in many ways, what is the practical use of having a single topic about both? English law is closer to the law of Australia/Canada etc and even the USA than it is to that of Scotland, so if we are grouping that woudl be wrong. Very little law is "British" in any useful sense (Employment law is mostly GB wide and Immigration law UK wide, but those are exceptions, EU law is after all EU wide). There is no separate "Welsh" legal system. There are regulations that apply only to Wales (and now most of these are made by the Welsh Ministers) but that doesn't mean its a separate jurisdiction. Can you explain this odd suggestion? Francis Davey 16:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. "British law" is a legal nonsense. Besides, an article encompassing the three jurisdictions comprised within the UK already exists here. Ravenseft (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Francis Davey & Ravenseft, removing move template since there is no consensus --Lox (t,c) 10:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

i can't take that seriously ! removing English law to british!! lets remove it to korean! i agree with you all except the proposer82.27.221.233 (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

English law vs. Roman law

One of the reasons I suspect that England has had a rough relationship with the Roman Catholic Church is the lack of compatibility between English law and Roman law, the latter of which forms the basis for RC canon law. Many of the debates that led to the English Reformation were seemingly related to this issue, such as the canonical refusal to grant a divorce to the king, which many viewed at the time as an encroachment on the much praised Anglo-Saxon codes of law. Similar issues have also come up with American law, which was long invoked to justify a peculiar religious particularism in the United States with regards to its attitude towards Rome. ADM (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Common law

The 1189 date in this section refers specifically to Glanvill's Tractatus; saying so might be more meaningful than a bare mention of the date (or perhaps not). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Court

This article is quite outdated re: the new Supreme Court. For instance, it still references Law Lords and the House of Lords as the highest appeal court. Can someone change this throughout the article (I'm not qualified enough to do so with confidence of retaining accuracy).

References

I am uncertain whether the following issue is covered and therefore brought to attention by the Refimprove template. References numbered 1, 2 and 4 are all invalid links that lead to non existant web pages. Jake (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)