Talk:English law

The meaning of meaning
A sentence in the sub-paragraph "Overseas influences" reads:"The common law inherited from England has in differing ways, but in that context, "common law" is deemed a body of judge-made law enforced and developed by the courts which includes equity and admiralty law, but has always been "unintelligible without reference to statute". ". I'm not sure what this is trying to say. Could someone perhaps make this a bit clearer? Arrivisto (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It now reads: "In this context, "common law" has been described as a body of judge-made law enforced and developed by the courts which includes equity and admiralty law, and which has always been "unintelligible without reference to statute"". Perhaps I'm missing something, but I cannot see what the phrase "and which has always been 'unintelligible without reference to statute'" means; the only sense I can make of it that it is incorrect! Arrivisto (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In the context of "Courts of final appeal", "After Britain's colonial period", when "jurisdictions that had inherited and adopted England's common law developed their courts of final appeal in differing ways": that makes good sense does it not, per the source cited, in respect of countries such as Australia and Zambia? And see that ref.'s source (Mark Leeming), added to External links. Qexigator (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

"English" law is just Norman law
From the article (aside from the funny, bourgeois liberal blurb to make it seem "diverse" by claiming English law is rooted in Islamic law.... LMFAO) we do not get a clear sense of who "English law" was set up to serve and the utility for its creation. "English law" was set up by the criminal Norman invaders as an afterthought to 1066 to keep their greasy little claws in control of land that they stole from other people... that is it. That is the oh so noble and profound "English" law. Then it spread into Wales and Ireland (so-called "Irish" law is "English" law which is Norman law) as the plunderers sought more land to steal and more races to subjugate. There is no continuity between early Anglo-Saxon law and "English"-Norman law, just as there is no continuity between "Irish"-Norman law and the Brehon laws of the Gaels. We need to name the Norman loud and clear in the introduction and especially the land ownership issue, especially as these legal arrangements are still in place to this day. Claíomh Solais (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead section inadequate
The lead section is used in the portal for English law as the introduction. It should summarise the entire article in up to four substantial paragraphs. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The current lead neatly and sufficiently summarises the article's content. What do you say is missing? Qexigator (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What's the reason for removing the short description in the lead? It's used primarily for mobile readers to help disambiguate search results. For desktop readers, it's usually invisible (unless you enable the gadget).
 * Also regarding the length (or lack thereof) of the lead, MOS:LEADLENGTH states The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. (emphasis mine), which would mean at least a paragraph to adequately describe the topic. I realise that brevity is the soul of wit, but what we currently have is better suited as the aforementioned short description than a real article lead. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 13:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Given my comment above, I do not see the problem, and consider the revision of an improvement, in the interest of accuracy and simplicity and avoiding verbosity, and having regard to the inline links. Do you propose adding to the lead a short summary of the section "Principal elements of English law" in the current version? At most it would consist of no more than the first two sentences of that section, but then that would need to be restated in the Section where it now appears. The article as a whole is "a short, but useful "summary of the topic" but to be "complete" would need very much more text, for which the links are given to "main articles" and in the lists in "Main subject areas" and "See also". Qexigator (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Caption for Royal Courts of Justice
The caption states that the Royal Courts of Justice are on The Strand when the road is simply Strand. I know both are commonly accepted but as the road is simply Strand it seems prudent to have it correct. Tomtiger11 (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Monism / dualism
Mere agreement to the final text of a treaty is only the first stage, hence "dualist". For instance, Britain has yet to ratify the terms of the Arrest Convention 1999, so the earlier 1952 treaty is still in place. International treaties also have to be ratified in monist systems. The second step needed in dualist systems is the passage of implementing legislation. A better example would be the European Convention on Human Rights which the UK ratified on 8 March 1951 but only incorporated into municipal law in 1998. LinusHendrik (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)