Talk:Labouchere Amendment

Location of this article

Section 11 of the 1885 Act was replaced for England and Wales by section 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Since that provision was neither an amendment to the Bill, nor due to the intervention of Henry Labouchere, I seriously doubt that it could be described as the "Labouchere Amendment". Can I suggest that the material in this article should be moved to gross indecency between men and modified to take into account the 1956 Act.James500 (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirect

I have had to turn the redirect gross indecency into a disambiguation page because the term was used in the definition of at least one other criminal offence (s 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960). There are a lot of links pointing at that page that should be pointing at this article and which need to be altered.James500 (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Author, please at least state in the opening sentence that this is UK law. Rent boys have always been particularly prevalent in the UK and they probably outnumber female prostitutes. All sorts of practices go on in public toilets, and the GI act allows the police to stop these activities. There does not need to be a precise description of every possible act (e.g. "M'Lud, he never got the helmet slipped in so it's not sodomy!"). Generally termed importuning when done for money.27.33.247.220 (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Labouchere Amendment. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120413054502/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/labouchere_amendment.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/labouchere_amendment.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Labouchere Amendment

A nitpick

Technically the "Labouchere Amendment" ought not to refer to section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 but rather to the amendment which inserted the clause (as Clause 10) into the bill (HL Bill 257) which became the act. That of course is not what it has come to mean. Which brings me to...

A question

when was the name "Labouchere Amendment" first used? In olden times it was not unusual for a clause in an act to be informally called by the name of the member who proposed it; the "Bright Clause" in the Irish Land Act 1870 is an example; the name was coined while the bill was still in transit. The earliest cite I Googled is 1965 doi:10.1177/002581726503300104 for "Labouchere clause" and 1958 doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.1958.tb01879.x for "Labouchere Amendment" (excluding his amendment to the 1899 address in answer to the Queen's Speech). So I'm guessing the name "Labouchere Amendment" was promoted by advocates of repealing clause 11; perhaps to present it as the hobby-horse of one man rather than the conventional wisdom of the Victorian establishment?

jnestorius^(talk) 19:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

"One of the Queen's younger sons"?

This article contains a reference to the Cleveland Street Scandal, but explains it as "involving one of the Queen's younger sons." I'm no expert, but I think this is a simple (and understandable) mistake. The only member of the Royal Family that I'm aware of who was implicated in the scandal was the Duke of Clarence (Prince Edward Victor). He was the son of the Prince of Wales (the future Edward VII) and would have become King had death not intervened. At any rate, this should probably say one of the Queen's grandsons -- or, better yet, just name him as most people already know who he is. I could be wrong, but I don't see where any of Victoria's other sons could have been involved in this. Pipingbengoshi (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

That was dumb. Of course, I meant Prince Albert Victor. Duh. Pipingbengoshi (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)