Talk:Poor Relief Act 1601

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Social Work Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Social Work 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.Social WorkWikipedia:WikiProject Social WorkTemplate:WikiProject Social WorkSocial work articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Poor Relief Act 1601 be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in England may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

wiki is not real facts i wrote this to prove that you can write absolute untrue rubbish on here so never use wiki!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.194.173 (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. While it is true that random editors can add nonsense to articles they are often spotted and removed within a few minutes. You may note the time difference between your comment and mine. Road Wizard (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This paritcular section reads oddly at the moment. It appears to relate to a short time-span (1819-20 or possibly the period c. 1810-early 1830s) in the period when the Old Poor Law was in operation, but doesn't say so explicitly and thus creates the impression that fear of unrest was the driving force behind changes in the Old Poor Law. Norvo (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Act for the Relief of the Poor 1601. 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/20100725021509/http://www.workhouses.org.uk/index.html?poorlaws%2Fpoorlaws.shtml to http://www.workhouses.org.uk/index.html?poorlaws%2Fpoorlaws.shtml
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5QZWT5l8U?url=http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/historyf.htm to http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/historyf.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504111530/http://institutions.org.uk/poor_law_unions/the_poor_law1.htm to http://www.institutions.org.uk/poor_law_unions/the_poor_law1.htm
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5QZWT5l8U?url=http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/historyf.htm to http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/historyf.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be mentioned that the first English poor law is often regarded as Statute of Cambridge 1388 (12 Rich.II c.7) for within it each county "Hundred" was made responsible for relieving its own "impotent poor" who because of age or infirmity were incapable of work. It was made necessary by the destabilising effect on the workforce by the Black Death (1348-9) ^[1] Kildwyke (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains this phrase: "Mechanisation meant that unemployment was increasing." That is a clear reference to the Luddite Fallacy. The Luddite Fallacy is a staple of Marxist ideology, but it has no basis in facts or logic. The notion is that improving technology/industrialization/mechanization leads to the obsolescence of labor and, therefore, to rising employment/ declining real wages. In fact, improving technology increases the value of labor, leading to rising demand for labor, higher real wages and lower long-term unemployment in observed real economies. Still, the Luddite Fallacy keeps showing up. It is important to understand that it finds its basis in Marxist ideology, not logic or facts. 2603:6080:5340:AB:79E7:270:7076:EDB7 (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]