Talk:Trade Descriptions Act 1968

Law High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Moved this page here due to incorrect name. Who do I trust more, J. Random Wikipedian, or HMSO? ;-) I've also stuck in a few redirects for common mistakes in naming Chris 01:14, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In referring to the association of alcohol with sex, the article speaks of regulations prohibiting this. This is not a matter normally controlled by the Trade Descriptions Act. The writer may be thinking of controls imposed by the Advertising Standards Authority, an industry voluntary regulatory body.

"looks like scanned images, but is actually text"

I think this is actually just scanned as images.

The original is certainly there, but to check that someone hadn't overlaid some kind of invisible text layer, I opened the file with GVim, and searched for some of the text (for example: '/1968'). It found nothing. Whereas the same searches in the 2nd PDF got results.

This suggests that PDF readers such as Evince, must be automatically recognising and extracting the text, on-the-fly!

Wow, well that's smart! Also very, very useful.

James. 84.92.119.154 (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Act will be in conflict with the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive..."

Precisely how is it in conflict? I've been trying to find a straightforward, non-specialist, summary of this for a while now. Having one here would be very useful.
The section needs updating anyway.

81.158.1.136 (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]