Talk:Riot Act

Queen
Now, presumably when a Queen is in office... the wording changes?

--65.2.113.102 01:36, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * No idea, but I would guess so. Meanwhile, does the US have the Riot Act (in some form) on the books?
 * [-- 134.198.64.18 16:08, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)]


 * I would think so. Read the stuff about unlawful assembly etc in the main article here, also search for "Riot" in just about any state criminal code. - knoodelhed 17:09, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Could someone provide a cite for the claim that a prosecution was thrown out due to lack of "GOD SAVE THE KING!"? The Canadian version and the original version from the UK both have a saving clause ('or like in effect') that would seem to preclude that.

Death or imprisonment
There are a number of references elsewhere to "The pains or penalties were penal servitude for life or not less than three years, or imprisonment with or without hard labour for up to two years". Can anyone confirm the claim in this article that clouds had to disperse "under pain of death".

NGB


 * Section I: "...such continuing together to the number of twelve or more, after such command or request made by proclamation, shall be adjudged felony without benefit of clergy, and the offenders therein shall be adjudged felons, and shall suffer death as in a case of felony without benefit of clergy.", and various other sections have similar rules.
 * Section III also has a handy clause which basically says "once the Act is ignored, then any injury or death that happens whilst the crowd is being dispersed is entirely their own fault - which is, in effect, a license to be killed. But there's certainly explicit reference to execution in the Act. Shimgray | talk | 18:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Revision of the article
I've completely rewritten and expanded the article, and so have removed the Cleanup tag. However, I claim no expertise on this topic, so it would certainly be useful if someone who knows about it can verify it and improve it where necessary. But I think that it's overall a much better article, now. Silverhelm 22:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC).

Treason??
I am sure I read somewhere that those deemed in breach of the Riot Act were thus also deemed to be guilty of treason for disobeying the monarch - hence the death penalty. Can anyone confirm this? Abertyllgoed 16:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds rather spurious to me; and by that logic, every criminal offence would deserve the death penalty! Anyway, the text of the Act itself is quite clear: "the offenders [...] shall be adjudged felons, and shall suffer death as in a case of felony, without benefit of clergy".  Silverhelm 21:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

Reading the Riot Act
To severely reprimand? The way I've always seen it used, it's pretty much "verbal open season, all out, all guns blazing." Severly reprimand seems a bit tame.

Canada
Can this be used in terms of the situation with canada's government recently? Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (Sorry, not a response to the question above) I'm not sure what events in Prince Rupert the article refers to in the Canada section and it looks like the link is dead. Another high profile Canadian event where the Riot Act was read occurred during the Winnipeg General Strike when Mayor Gray read the Act to about 25,000 strikers.  This would make a good addition to the article, I think. --Robthepiper (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Ireland
What about the Riot Act With regards to the Government in The Republic of Ireland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.97.47 (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that when the Riot Act was passed, Ireland still had its own parliament. Some Westminster legislation did nevertheless apply to Ireland; but my comments below relating to the British colonies are equally valid for Ireland.  So far as I can see, the Riot Act never extended to Ireland, and the Act was included in the Attorney General's Pre-Independence Project's British statutes (1707-1800) which have been assessed as not applying to Ireland listing.  Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

Riot Act read at Chiddingfold Bonfire?
This seems to be an urban myth. I propose we remove it, unless someone can find a citation. (The citation at the end of the sentence refers to the police strike, not this incident). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.136.118 (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I’ve removed it. The link was outdated and the latest link makes it clear that the that act was not read https://chiddingfoldbonfire.org.uk/history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.115.73 (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Extent
At present the article states: "'The Riot Act passed into the law of those countries that were then colonies of Great Britain, including the North American colonies that would become the United States and Canada.'" I have tagged this as needing a citation. Acts passed at the Westminster parliament did not extend to the colonies unless:
 * the Act explicitly stated that it did; or
 * the Act's subject matter required that it did; or
 * the Act was "received" into a colony's law at the date of initial settlement; or
 * by being extended to a conquered or ceded colony under an express declaration under the prerogative; or
 * by being adopted into law by the colony's legislature.

So far as I can see from the Project Gutenberg's text of the Act (as found via archive.org), neither the first nor the second of those apply in the case of the Riot Act.

As "Quebec" was a conquered/ceded colony, it's entirely possible that the Riot Act was extended there under the prerogative; a citation would still be needed to verify this, though. But it seems highly improbable that each (or even most) of the Thirteen Colonies would have felt the necessity to adopt the Riot Act into law; they would all have had their own well-established criminal law legislation in place, after all.

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Riot Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160102150033/http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubLawToday.nsf/a12f6f60fbd56800ca256de500201e54/D16833E3F4514F2ACA25734C000D1A47/$FILE/58-6406a024.pdf to http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubLawToday.nsf/a12f6f60fbd56800ca256de500201e54/D16833E3F4514F2ACA25734C000D1A47/$FILE/58-6406a024.pdf#10
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160102150033/http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubLawToday.nsf/a12f6f60fbd56800ca256de500201e54/D16833E3F4514F2ACA25734C000D1A47/$FILE/58-6406a024.pdf to http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubLawToday.nsf/a12f6f60fbd56800ca256de500201e54/D16833E3F4514F2ACA25734C000D1A47/$FILE/58-6406a024.pdf#10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)