If there was such a thing as rationing of food, and somebody was found to be defrauding the rations and over claiming that would be a crime
If years later we found that the need for rationing had been over stated, and therefore the rations were too strict, would we pardon the man who took more than his fair share?
Classy analogy.
If I were a gay man who had been convicted of being gay when it was an offence I would be quite proud and like it to be known that I was the kind of person who was true to himself and proven right
Seems to me it benefits the establishment more than the individual to put the prosecution down the memory hole
An apology and a pardon isn't the same as forgetting about it. Quite the reverse, surely?
If there was such a thing as rationing of food, and somebody was found to be defrauding the rations and over claiming that would be a crime
If years later we found that the need for rationing had been over stated, and therefore the rations were too strict, would we pardon the man who took more than his fair share?
Classy analogy.
If I were a gay man who had been convicted of being gay when it was an offence I would be quite proud and like it to be known that I was the kind of person who was true to himself and proven right
Seems to me it benefits the establishment more than the individual to put the prosecution down the memory hole
An apology and a pardon isn't the same as forgetting about it. Quite the reverse, surely?
Grandstanding to make current politicians feel good, nothing else. Achieves nothing
The fact that it isn't illegal now and no one thinks it should be is the apology. Free market over statism
@Thescreamingeagles I'm not sure if you've done it in your post, but the way alot of the media is banding about the word coalition when they actually mean one of:
Coalition Confidence & supply Bill by bill support
Really ticks me off.
I use coalition in the way that Shadsy will pay out.
IE a formal coalition.
What are your thoughts on potential DUP c&s for both sides ? And on DUP c&s for a Con-Lib Dem coalition. I can honestly see it coming to that.
Gordon Brown offered The DUP a lot of pork and they voted with Labour on some key issues.
I suspect they will enter into a Confidence and Supply arrangement with whichever party offers enough pork.
My other prediction is we won't have a guaranteed five year coalition. Maybe 2/3 years and a possible break clause.
I guess if Con + LD gets to 315 then the DUP doesn't actually have to give c&s even, they could just abstein the budget.
Surely if Clegg,Alexander,Swinson,Webb etc have all been ejected the remaining Lib Dems who include people like Huppert wont necessarily allow the Tories to govern again and may back the Rainbow Coalition as a way of trying to start detoxification in advance of 2020?
Possibly, but these will be people who have just learned that in their particular seats they can survive a Lib/Con coalition. Will they want to roll the dice and find out whether they can survive a Lib/Lab coalition as well?
PS. This is probably moot as the chances of the LibDems being able to choose between rival coalitions get quite slim as their number of seats drops.
If there was such a thing as rationing of food, and somebody was found to be defrauding the rations and over claiming that would be a crime
If years later we found that the need for rationing had been over stated, and therefore the rations were too strict, would we pardon the man who took more than his fair share?
Classy analogy.
If I were a gay man who had been convicted of being gay when it was an offence I would be quite proud and like it to be known that I was the kind of person who was true to himself and proven right
Seems to me it benefits the establishment more than the individual to put the prosecution down the memory hole
Very laudable .... except a criminal conviction for a sex crime does tend to have a less than favourable reception from employers, colleagues, neighbours and to some degree from less enlightened friends and family.
The holy grail of the energy world is to achieve a relatively cheap easy and scalable fusion reaction. It looks very much as if this will be achieved in the not too distant future. And then the Middle East is fucked.
Heard every two yars for the last forty.
There have indeed been many false dawns in the fusion journey. FWIW I work in the energy industry and am hugely interested in all the technological and political issues around it. I read ALOT of stuff about it. The scale and speed of advancement in many areas of high tech from biosciences to AI, from materials science to powergen is amazing. I do believe that mankind will crack fusion power soon enough on the large, industrial scale and not long thereafter on the 'powers your car or your house' scale. It will be gamechanging in many unpredictable ways.
(and as a provocative aside I also think it entirely likely that mankind will soon enough develop the medical capability to overcome ageing and death. Now that will be truly transformative - and probably not in any good ways at all).
The news today is unremittingly horrible with the murder of Becky Watts, the disgraceful report on Furness General Hospital maternity unit and the serious case review in Oxford into sexual abuse. It is all just depressing and in particular in regard to Furness and Oxford reports when are people going to be held account and jailed
@Pulpstar Lack of empathy, and the belief that the victim "deserved" it, is a common occurrence the world over. It is why the news today is full of child abuse stories. How common is this disgusting attitude? All too common, and it even shows itself daily on this site, but no one notices.
If there was such a thing as rationing of food, and somebody was found to be defrauding the rations and over claiming that would be a crime
If years later we found that the need for rationing had been over stated, and therefore the rations were too strict, would we pardon the man who took more than his fair share?
Classy analogy.
If I were a gay man who had been convicted of being gay when it was an offence I would be quite proud and like it to be known that I was the kind of person who was true to himself and proven right
Seems to me it benefits the establishment more than the individual to put the prosecution down the memory hole
Very laudable .... except a criminal conviction for a sex crime does tend to have a less than favourable reception from employers, colleagues, neighbours and to some degree from less enlightened friends and family.
So you think men who were convicted of being gay in the 60s are still shunned and discriminated by society because of it? Doubt it
@Pulpstar Lack of empathy, and the belief that the victim "deserved" it, is a common occurrence the world over. It is why the news today is full of child abuse stories. How common is this disgusting attitude? All too common, and it even shows itself daily on this site, but no one notices.
On topic, the polls are hard to read right now. It may be that the Conservatives are finally getting their much-predicted swingback. But it's far from clear yet, and even believers in the phenomenon will struggle to guess how far the Conservatives might rise in the polls.
Swingback, if it is occurring at all, is modest and late. .
It is hardly late when if has been happening for two years! More pertinent is how much further will it go - or will it be partially reversed in the final month before polling day as was the case in 10 of the last 14 elections?
The holy grail of the energy world is to achieve a relatively cheap easy and scalable fusion reaction. It looks very much as if this will be achieved in the not too distant future. And then the Middle East is fucked.
Heard every two yars for the last forty.
There have indeed been many false dawns in the fusion journey. FWIW I work in the energy industry and am hugely interested in all the technological and political issues around it. I read ALOT of stuff about it. The scale and speed of advancement in many areas of high tech from biosciences to AI, from materials science to powergen is amazing. I do believe that mankind will crack fusion power soon enough on the large, industrial scale and not long thereafter on the 'powers your car or your house' scale. It will be gamechanging in many unpredictable ways.
(and as a provocative aside I also think it entirely likely that mankind will soon enough develop the medical capability to overcome ageing and death. Now that will be truly transformative - and probably not in any good ways at all).
A HUGE plus point to the fusion research you linked to is that it's being done my Lockheed Martin. This is not a lunatic in a garage, or an over-excited researcher at Warwick University, or a bonkers scheme funded by DARPA. This is hard cash from a private business being used by some of the biggest brains on the planet with an excellent support infrastructure. Fingers crossed.
One matching the crime would seem appropriate. Where's Vlad when you need him? (not Putin, the other one)
Why is wanting a painful death for this person ok? I have often said I wanted such an outcome for Lee Rigbys killers, and get dogs abuse from the guardianistas on here
It was not until the early 1990's that the Police stopped raiding gay mens homes. Until recently it was illegal for gay sex to occur in dwellings where more than two adults were in residence.
Some police chief used to organise raids on parties on gay peoples houses with great relish. The Metropolitan police were very keen for example. These raids would by weird co incidence often have tabloid photographers outside and would often make for salacious tabloid fodder about deviant sex parties with lots of nice pictures of those being arrested.
The same would happen with undercover operations against cottaging (meeting places at certain public toilets, layby's or heathlands).
Your chance of being arrested would greatly vary around country depending how important different forces felt about keeping the gays in their place.
It was not that unusual for gays pubs to be still to be raided by the police long after decriminalisation looking for immoral goings on. Gay pubs only started losing their heavy wooden doors and almost anonymous looks in the 1990's.
So yeah there were very real consequences of those arrests and many are still on the sexual offenders list as a result.
On topic, the polls are hard to read right now. It may be that the Conservatives are finally getting their much-predicted swingback. But it's far from clear yet, and even believers in the phenomenon will struggle to guess how far the Conservatives might rise in the polls.
Swingback, if it is occurring at all, is modest and late. .
It is hardly late when if has been happening for two years! More pertinent is how much further will it go - or will it be partially reversed in the final month before polling day as was the case in 10 of the last 14 elections?
Yes, there's quite a handy little graph up there. Some people are so focused on the blue line that they don't look at the black one.
One matching the crime would seem appropriate. Where's Vlad when you need him? (not Putin, the other one)
Why is wanting a painful death for this person ok? I have often said I wanted such an outcome for Lee Rigbys killers, and get dogs abuse from the guardianistas on here
Fair point. With Rigby's killlers it would be seen by some as an elevation to martyrdom, which is one reason against. But still, fair point: the lack of remorse and utter barbarity shown in both cases is comparable.
He had the option to quietly ease in Gay Marriage without a big song and dance, to sell it as some "tidying up", and deprecate it as "not a big deal because most of it was in civil partnerships"
Instead he rubbed his social conservative core's face in it, and show-boated it for all he was worth, and insulted anyone on the right of his party who expressed even qualified reservation to the policy. .
No he didn't. That is pure fantasy. What's more, it was a free vote.
Pffft. It wasn't mentioned the entire campaign, didn't appear in the manifesto, until four days before the election we brought out "Contract for Equalities" which said it would 'consider' recognising civil partnerships as marriage if elected, no wonder the traditionalists were pissed off. If that had been a whipped vote the party would have imploded on the spot, and Cameron knew he didn't have to because it would carry on Labour votes.
No he didn't. That is pure fantasy. What's more, it was a free vote.
Agree entirely. He did the right thing in the right way. In doing so he set a benchmark for what we should consider acceptable behaviour regarding the State's relationship with the citizen.
Maybe, that will be cold comfort on the opposition benches now the traditionalists have moved to join the kippers.
The traditionalists are literally dying off.
It was the conservatives clause 4 moment, that dave stumbled on by chance.
I think the manifesto said it would allow parliament to 'consider' civil marriage. Parliament did and the tories had a free vote. Since then there have been 3 instances, either friends of my wife or family of her friends, where there have been gay marriages. They are decent people... what would 'traditionalists' have me say to them? Quite why any Conservative so called traditionalist should be 'pissed off' by this is a mystery to me. The polling seems to indicate the opposite. Only pure bred bigots would be pissed off.
If there was such a thing as rationing of food, and somebody was found to be defrauding the rations and over claiming that would be a crime
If years later we found that the need for rationing had been over stated, and therefore the rations were too strict, would we pardon the man who took more than his fair share?
Classy analogy.
If I were a gay man who had been convicted of being gay when it was an offence I would be quite proud and like it to be known that I was the kind of person who was true to himself and proven right
Seems to me it benefits the establishment more than the individual to put the prosecution down the memory hole
Very laudable .... except a criminal conviction for a sex crime does tend to have a less than favourable reception from employers, colleagues, neighbours and to some degree from less enlightened friends and family.
So you think men who were convicted of being gay in the 60s are still shunned and discriminated by society because of it? Doubt it
The criminal law changes all the time. It's possible that in the future the use and distribution of cannabis will be decriminalised; or the age of consent to sex may be reduced; but I'm not convinced that people who were correctly convicted under the legislation as it was should therefore qualify for a pardon.
There's a further issue in that some people who were convicted under the old legislation against gross indecency or buggery were guilty of what would be treated as offences under current law (Oscar Wilde, for example).
If there was such a thing as rationing of food, and somebody was found to be defrauding the rations and over claiming that would be a crime
If years later we found that the need for rationing had been over stated, and therefore the rations were too strict, would we pardon the man who took more than his fair share?
Classy analogy.
If I were a gay man who had been convicted of being gay when it was an offence I would be quite proud and like it to be known that I was the kind of person who was true to himself and proven right
Seems to me it benefits the establishment more than the individual to put the prosecution down the memory hole
Very laudable .... except a criminal conviction for a sex crime does tend to have a less than favourable reception from employers, colleagues, neighbours and to some degree from less enlightened friends and family.
So you think men who were convicted of being gay in the 60s are still shunned and discriminated by society because of it? Doubt it
It is not simply a matter of discrimination today and gay men have been prosecuted for consensual sex until the equalisation of the age of consent more recently.
This measure seems a reasonable step that corrects a situation that has blighted the lives of many gay people in the recent past.
It was not until the early 1990's that the Police stopped raiding gay mens homes. Until recently it was illegal for gay sex to occur in dwellings where more than two adults were in residence.
Some police chief used to organise raids on parties on gay peoples houses with great relish. The Metropolitan police were very keen for example. These raids would by weird co incidence often have tabloid photographers outside and would often make for salacious tabloid fodder about deviant sex parties with lots of nice pictures of those being arrested.
The same would happen with undercover operations against cottaging (meeting places at certain public toilets, layby's or heathlands).
Your chance of being arrested would greatly vary around country depending how important different forces felt about keeping the gays in their place.
It was not that unusual for gays pubs to be still to be raided by the police long after decriminalisation looking for immoral goings on. Gay pubs only started losing their heavy wooden doors and almost anonymous looks in the 1990's.
So yeah there were very real consequences of those arrests and many are still on the sexual offenders list as a result.
Don't want to sound homophobic but public loos are for emptying bowels and bladders, not bollocks.
If there was such a thing as rationing of food, and somebody was found to be defrauding the rations and over claiming that would be a crime
If years later we found that the need for rationing had been over stated, and therefore the rations were too strict, would we pardon the man who took more than his fair share?
Classy analogy.
If I were a gay man who had been convicted of being gay when it was an offence I would be quite proud and like it to be known that I was the kind of person who was true to himself and proven right
Seems to me it benefits the establishment more than the individual to put the prosecution down the memory hole
Very laudable .... except a criminal conviction for a sex crime does tend to have a less than favourable reception from employers, colleagues, neighbours and to some degree from less enlightened friends and family.
So you think men who were convicted of being gay in the 60s are still shunned and discriminated by society because of it? Doubt it
It is not simply a matter of discrimination today and gay men have been prosecuted for consensual sex until the equalisation of the age of consent more recently.
This measure seems a reasonable step that corrects a situation that has blighted the lives of many gay people in the recent past.
It gives politicians an excuse to pat themselves on the back, that's the reason it's being done
Achieves nothing. Would only be worth doing if it were the current politicians that enacted or carried out the law under which the men were convicted
But we live in a time where vacuous words and empty platitudes impress people more than ever, so I guess it will get traction
It was not until the early 1990's that the Police stopped raiding gay mens homes. Until recently it was illegal for gay sex to occur in dwellings where more than two adults were in residence.
Some police chief used to organise raids on parties on gay peoples houses with great relish. The Metropolitan police were very keen for example. These raids would by weird co incidence often have tabloid photographers outside and would often make for salacious tabloid fodder about deviant sex parties with lots of nice pictures of those being arrested.
The same would happen with undercover operations against cottaging (meeting places at certain public toilets, layby's or heathlands).
Your chance of being arrested would greatly vary around country depending how important different forces felt about keeping the gays in their place.
It was not that unusual for gays pubs to be still to be raided by the police long after decriminalisation looking for immoral goings on. Gay pubs only started losing their heavy wooden doors and almost anonymous looks in the 1990's.
So yeah there were very real consequences of those arrests and many are still on the sexual offenders list as a result.
Don't want to sound homophobic but public loos are for emptying bowels and bladders, not bollocks.
Pulpstar in "No Mile High Sex For Me" shock revelation.
If there was such a thing as rationing of food, and somebody was found to be defrauding the rations and over claiming that would be a crime
If years later we found that the need for rationing had been over stated, and therefore the rations were too strict, would we pardon the man who took more than his fair share?
Classy analogy.
If I were a gay man who had been convicted of being gay when it was an offence I would be quite proud and like it to be known that I was the kind of person who was true to himself and proven right
Seems to me it benefits the establishment more than the individual to put the prosecution down the memory hole
Very laudable .... except a criminal conviction for a sex crime does tend to have a less than favourable reception from employers, colleagues, neighbours and to some degree from less enlightened friends and family.
So you think men who were convicted of being gay in the 60s are still shunned and discriminated by society because of it? Doubt it
It is not simply a matter of discrimination today and gay men have been prosecuted for consensual sex until the equalisation of the age of consent more recently.
This measure seems a reasonable step that corrects a situation that has blighted the lives of many gay people in the recent past.
It gives politicians an excuse to pat themselves on the back, that's the reason it's being done
Achieves nothing
Says someone who isn't a victim of a prosecution under an unjust law.
It achieves a lot for people who are alive today who did nothing wrong. Or do you think they deserve to be criminals?
If someone was convicted of eg protecting the Jews under Nazi Germany should they be viewed as a criminal today? What we're saying is that these people who are alive today aren't criminals and should be marked as such. There is no just reason whatsoever to treat them as criminals when the law, not them, was wrong. Or do you think the law was right?
@Ishmael_X Complain to OGH. I don't have to dance because you say so.
No, but if you claim something happens "every day" and then can't link to it you look a bit of a blowhard; or, in Auberon Waugh's immortal words, a "thick, self-important, leftie shit".
As you don't want to look like that, I am sure you will now see sense and provide a link.
Achieves nothing. Would only be worth doing if it were the current politicians that enacted or carried out the law under which the men were convicted
But we live in a time where vacuous words and empty platitudes impress people more than ever, so I guess it will get traction
Then if it achieves nothing to the people alive today convicted of these crimes, why are there people alive today who are campaigning to get this fixed? They think it achieves something for them.
If there was such a thing as rationing of food, and somebody was found to be defrauding the rations and over claiming that would be a crime
If years later we found that the need for rationing had been over stated, and therefore the rations were too strict, would we pardon the man who took more than his fair share?
Classy analogy.
If I were a gay man who had been convicted of being gay when it was an offence I would be quite proud and like it to be known that I was the kind of person who was true to himself and proven right
Seems to me it benefits the establishment more than the individual to put the prosecution down the memory hole
Very laudable .... except a criminal conviction for a sex crime does tend to have a less than favourable reception from employers, colleagues, neighbours and to some degree from less enlightened friends and family.
So you think men who were convicted of being gay in the 60s are still shunned and discriminated by society because of it? Doubt it
It is not simply a matter of discrimination today and gay men have been prosecuted for consensual sex until the equalisation of the age of consent more recently.
This measure seems a reasonable step that corrects a situation that has blighted the lives of many gay people in the recent past.
It gives politicians an excuse to pat themselves on the back, that's the reason it's being done
Achieves nothing
Says someone who isn't a victim of a prosecution under an unjust law.
It achieves a lot for people who are alive today who did nothing wrong. Or do you think they deserve to be criminals?
If someone was convicted of eg protecting the Jews under Nazi Germany should they be viewed as a criminal today? What we're saying is that these people who are alive today aren't criminals and should be marked as such. There is no just reason whatsoever to treat them as criminals when the law, not them, was wrong. Or do you think the law was right?
I think the law was wrong and if you read my initial post I said were I a gay man who was prosecuted for being so I would wear it like a badge of honour to show I was true to myself
He had the option to quietly ease in Gay Marriage without a big song and dance, to sell it as some "tidying up", and deprecate it as "not a big deal because most of it was in civil partnerships"
Instead he rubbed his social conservative core's face in it, and show-boated it for all he was worth, and insulted anyone on the right of his party who expressed even qualified reservation to the policy. .
No he didn't. That is pure fantasy. What's more, it was a free vote.
Pffft. It wasn't mentioned the entire campaign, didn't appear in the manifesto, until four days before the election we brought out "Contract for Equalities" which said it would 'consider' recognising civil partnerships as marriage if elected, no wonder the traditionalists were pissed off. If that had been a whipped vote the party would have imploded on the spot, and Cameron knew he didn't have to because it would carry on Labour votes.
No he didn't. That is pure fantasy. What's more, it was a free vote.
Agree entirely. He did the right thing in the right way. In doing so he set a benchmark for what we should consider acceptable behaviour regarding the State's relationship with the citizen.
Maybe, that will be cold comfort on the opposition benches now the traditionalists have moved to join the kippers.
The traditionalists are literally dying off.
It was the conservatives clause 4 moment, that dave stumbled on by chance.
I think the manifesto said it would allow parliament to 'consider' civil marriage. Parliament did and the tories had a free vote. Since then there have been 3 instances, either friends of my wife or family of her friends, where there have been gay marriages. They are decent people... what would 'traditionalists' have me say to them? Quite why any Conservative so called traditionalist should be 'pissed off' by this is a mystery to me. The polling seems to indicate the opposite. Only pure bred bigots would be pissed off.
The manifesto didn't mention it, it was in a document called "Contract for Equalities" launched to no fanfare at all 4 days before the election.
Interesting to see you describe members of your party with strong religious convictions as purebred bigots, just as well you don't want them to vote for you.
@JckW Well a public loo is hardly making love on a windswept moor under the moonlight. It just seems unremittingly tacky and unhygienic to me at least !
If there was such a thing as rationing of food, and somebody was found to be defrauding the rations and over claiming that would be a crime
If years later we found that the need for rationing had been over stated, and therefore the rations were too strict, would we pardon the man who took more than his fair share?
Classy analogy.
If I were a gay man who had been convicted of being gay when it was an offence I would be quite proud and like it to be known that I was the kind of person who was true to himself and proven right
Seems to me it benefits the establishment more than the individual to put the prosecution down the memory hole
Very laudable .... except a criminal conviction for a sex crime does tend to have a less than favourable reception from employers, colleagues, neighbours and to some degree from less enlightened friends and family.
So you think men who were convicted of being gay in the 60s are still shunned and discriminated by society because of it? Doubt it
It is not simply a matter of discrimination today and gay men have been prosecuted for consensual sex until the equalisation of the age of consent more recently.
This measure seems a reasonable step that corrects a situation that has blighted the lives of many gay people in the recent past.
It gives politicians an excuse to pat themselves on the back, that's the reason it's being done
Achieves nothing. Would only be worth doing if it were the current politicians that enacted or carried out the law under which the men were convicted
If politicians do the right thing then they may indeed deserve "to pat themselves on the back"
Your second point is gibberish as it implies no law might be changed or repealed unless those MP's or peers that passed the legislation undertook the change.
Care to further support your view on various EU Acts over the past 40 years ?!?
@JckW Well a public loo is hardly making love on a windswept moor under the moonlight. It just seems unremittingly tacky and unhygienic to me at least !
Do the moorland sheep not have ticks, where you come from?
I would have a little more respect for Ed Miliband if he took a rather more principled stand in expressing his immediate interest in ending industrial-scale rape in Labour's urban fiefdoms and bringing its perpetrators to court - and spent rather less time wibbling on about pardoning historical crimes.
I think the law was wrong and if you read my initial post I said were I a gay man who was prosecuted for being so I would wear it like a badge of honour to shoe I was true to myself
Ease yourself off that moral high ground
No, because I have the moral high ground. You may want to wear that as a badge of honour, some don't. Some view it as a shame that should be expunged. Why do you want to deny them that right?
This isn't some meaningless apology for stuff commited centuries ago like Blair apologising for our role in slavery (when if anything we fought to abolish that). This is affecting the lives of people who are alive now. You write that off and you write them off by denying their wishes as being irrelevant and claiming it is "only" for the establishment.
If there was such a thing as rationing of food, and somebody was found to be defrauding the rations and over claiming that would be a crime
If years later we found that the need for rationing had been over stated, and therefore the rations were too strict, would we pardon the man who took more than his fair share?
Classy analogy.
If I were a gay man who had been convicted of being gay when it was an offence I would be quite proud and like it to be known that I was the kind of person who was true to himself and proven right
Seems to me it benefits the establishment more than the individual to put the prosecution down the memory hole
Very laudable .... except a criminal conviction for a sex crime does tend to have a less than favourable reception from employers, colleagues, neighbours and to some degree from less enlightened friends and family.
So you think men who were convicted of being gay in the 60s are still shunned and discriminated by society because of it? Doubt it
It is not simply a matter of discrimination today and gay men have been prosecuted for consensual sex until the equalisation of the age of consent more recently.
This measure seems a reasonable step that corrects a situation that has blighted the lives of many gay people in the recent past.
It gives politicians an excuse to pat themselves on the back, that's the reason it's being done
Achieves nothing
Says someone who isn't a victim of a prosecution under an unjust law.
It achieves a lot for people who are alive today who did nothing wrong. Or do you think they deserve to be criminals?
If someone was convicted of eg protecting the Jews under Nazi Germany should they be viewed as a criminal today? What we're saying is that these people who are alive today aren't criminals and should be marked as such. There is no just reason whatsoever to treat them as criminals when the law, not them, was wrong. Or do you think the law was right?
Many court records of the circumstances of convictions have been destroyed. How would you distinguish between people guilty of what would be crimes today, and people who were engaged in consensual sex between adults?
Many court records of the circumstances of convictions have been destroyed. How would you distinguish between people guilty of what would be crimes today, and people who were engaged in consensual sex between adults?
Based on the crime they were convicted of. Someone convicted of buggery which is not a crime now - expunge. Someone convicted of rape or child abuse - still a crime.
@JckW Well a public loo is hardly making love on a windswept moor under the moonlight. It just seems unremittingly tacky and unhygienic to me at least !
Do the moorland sheep not have ticks, where you come from?
Now you are straying into a whole different world. That of Welsh Leisure Centres....
If I were a gay man who had been convicted of being gay when it was an offence I would be quite proud and like it to be known that I was the kind of person who was true to himself and proven right
Seems to me it benefits the establishment more than the individual to put the prosecution down the memory hole
Very laudable .... except a criminal conviction for a sex crime does tend to have a less than favourable reception from employers, colleagues, neighbours and to some degree from less enlightened friends and family.
So you think men who were convicted of being gay in the 60s are still shunned and discriminated by society because of it? Doubt it
It is not simply a matter of discrimination today and gay men have been prosecuted for consensual sex until the equalisation of the age of consent more recently.
This measure seems a reasonable step that corrects a situation that has blighted the lives of many gay people in the recent past.
It gives politicians an excuse to pat themselves on the back, that's the reason it's being done
Achieves nothing
Says someone who isn't a victim of a prosecution under an unjust law.
It achieves a lot for people who are alive today who did nothing wrong. Or do you think they deserve to be criminals?
If someone was convicted of eg protecting the Jews under Nazi Germany should they be viewed as a criminal today? What we're saying is that these people who are alive today aren't criminals and should be marked as such. There is no just reason whatsoever to treat them as criminals when the law, not them, was wrong. Or do you think the law was right?
I think the law was wrong and if you read my initial post I said were I a gay man who was prosecuted for being so I would wear it like a badge of honour to show I was true to myself
Ease yourself off that moral high ground
Other people may act differently to you. It's not a case of "everyone who thinks differently to me is wrong".
Many jobs require a declaration of a criminal record. A conviction for cottaging at a time when it was one of the only ways to meet other gay men would lead to the job application being tossed out regardless of the offence. Many would find it deeply humiliating to disclose such an offence and shouldn't have to.
@JckW Well a public loo is hardly making love on a windswept moor under the moonlight. It just seems unremittingly tacky and unhygienic to me at least !
If there was such a thing as rationing of food, and somebody was found to be defrauding the rations and over claiming that would be a crime
If years later we found that the need for rationing had been over stated, and therefore the rations were too strict, would we pardon the man who took more than his fair share?
Classy analogy.
If I were a gay man who had been convicted of being gay when it was an offence I would be quite proud and like it to be known that I was the kind of person who was true to himself and proven right
Seems to me it benefits the establishment more than the individual to put the prosecution down the memory hole
Very laudable .... except a criminal conviction for a sex crime does tend to have a less than favourable reception from employers, colleagues, neighbours and to some degree from less enlightened friends and family.
So you think men who were convicted of being gay in the 60s are still shunned and discriminated by society because of it? Doubt it
It is not simply a matter of discrimination today and gay men have been prosecuted for consensual sex until the equalisation of the age of consent more recently.
This measure seems a reasonable step that corrects a situation that has blighted the lives of many gay people in the recent past.
It gives politicians an excuse to pat themselves on the back, that's the reason it's being done
Achieves nothing
Says someone who isn't a victim of a prosecution under an unjust law.
It achieves a lot for people who are alive today who did nothing wrong. Or do you think they deserve to be criminals?
If someone was convicted of eg protecting the Jews under Nazi Germany should they be viewed as a criminal today? What we're saying is that these people who are alive today aren't criminals and should be marked as such. There is no just reason whatsoever to treat them as criminals when the law, not them, was wrong. Or do you think the law was right?
When the age of consent is lowered do we apologies to all the young men convicted of raping their girlfriend who was then under the age of consent but now isn't ? I am sure we can agree a rape conviction is in the same league as gross indecency.
Many court records of the circumstances of convictions have been destroyed. How would you distinguish between people guilty of what would be crimes today, and people who were engaged in consensual sex between adults?
Based on the crime they were convicted of. Someone convicted of buggery which is not a crime now - expunge. Someone convicted of rape or child abuse - still a crime.
But a man who had sex with a boy would have been convicted of buggery or gross indecency in the past.
I think the law was wrong and if you read my initial post I said were I a gay man who was prosecuted for being so I would wear it like a badge of honour to shoe I was true to myself
Ease yourself off that moral high ground
No, because I have the moral high ground. You may want to wear that as a badge of honour, some don't. Some view it as a shame that should be expunged. Why do you want to deny them that right?
This isn't some meaningless apology for stuff commited centuries ago like Blair apologising for our role in slavery (when if anything we fought to abolish that). This is affecting the lives of people who are alive now. You write that off and you write them off by denying their wishes as being irrelevant and claiming it is "only" for the establishment.
Because times have moved on, the people convicted have been proven correct and everyone accepts the establishment of the time was wrong. It's just politicians trying to win votes by imposing today's values on the past
If there was such a thing as rationing of food, and somebody was found to be defrauding the rations and over claiming that would be a crime
If years later we found that the need for rationing had been over stated, and therefore the rations were too strict, would we pardon the man who took more than his fair share?
Classy analogy.
If I were a gay man who had been convicted of being gay when it was an offence I would be quite proud and like it to be known that I was the kind of person who was true to himself and proven right
Seems to me it benefits the establishment more than the individual to put the prosecution down the memory hole
Very laudable .... except a criminal conviction for a sex crime does tend to have a less than favourable reception from employers, colleagues, neighbours and to some degree from less enlightened friends and family.
So you think men who were convicted of being gay in the 60s are still shunned and discriminated by society because of it? Doubt it
It is not simply a matter of discrimination today and gay men have been prosecuted for consensual sex until the equalisation of the age of consent more recently.
This measure seems a reasonable step that corrects a situation that has blighted the lives of many gay people in the recent past.
It gives politicians an excuse to pat themselves on the back, that's the reason it's being done
Achieves nothing. Would only be worth doing if it were the current politicians that enacted or carried out the law under which the men were convicted
If politicians do the right thing then they may indeed deserve "to pat themselves on the back"
Your second point is gibberish as it implies no law might be changed or repealed unless those MP's or peers that passed the legislation undertook the change.
Care to further support your view on various EU Acts over the past 40 years ?!?
Second isn't gibberish as it implies no such thing
I think the law was wrong and if you read my initial post I said were I a gay man who was prosecuted for being so I would wear it like a badge of honour to shoe I was true to myself
Ease yourself off that moral high ground
No, because I have the moral high ground. You may want to wear that as a badge of honour, some don't. Some view it as a shame that should be expunged. Why do you want to deny them that right?
This isn't some meaningless apology for stuff commited centuries ago like Blair apologising for our role in slavery (when if anything we fought to abolish that). This is affecting the lives of people who are alive now. You write that off and you write them off by denying their wishes as being irrelevant and claiming it is "only" for the establishment.
Sorry, but that is outrageous beyond all belief. Where do you think Liverpool and Bristol got their money from? Do you think cotton was the only thing the rich cotton merchants of Lancashire traded in?
I think the law was wrong and if you read my initial post I said were I a gay man who was prosecuted for being so I would wear it like a badge of honour to shoe I was true to myself
Ease yourself off that moral high ground
No, because I have the moral high ground. You may want to wear that as a badge of honour, some don't. Some view it as a shame that should be expunged. Why do you want to deny them that right?
This isn't some meaningless apology for stuff commited centuries ago like Blair apologising for our role in slavery (when if anything we fought to abolish that). This is affecting the lives of people who are alive now. You write that off and you write them off by denying their wishes as being irrelevant and claiming it is "only" for the establishment.
Because times have moved on, the people convicted have been proven correct and everyone accepts the establishment of the time was wrong. It's just politicians trying to win votes by imposing today's values on the past
I wish that were true. How many footballers come out as gay? How much homophobic abuse do you hear at matches? How do you think an openly gay couple would fare on Tower Hamlets high street? Just 'cos it's legal doesn't mean it's globally accepted.
If I were a gay man who had been convicted of being gay when it was an offence I would be quite proud and like it to be known that I was the kind of person who was true to himself and proven right
Seems to me it benefits the establishment more than the individual to put the prosecution down the memory hole
Very laudable .... except a criminal conviction for a sex crime does tend to have a less than favourable reception from employers, colleagues, neighbours and to some degree from less enlightened friends and family.
So you think men who were convicted of being gay in the 60s are still shunned and discriminated by society because of it? Doubt it
It is not simply a matter of discrimination today and gay men have been prosecuted for consensual sex until the equalisation of the age of consent more recently.
This measure seems a reasonable step that corrects a situation that has blighted the lives of many gay people in the recent past.
If someone was convicted of eg protecting the Jews under Nazi Germany should they be viewed as a criminal today? What we're saying is that these people who are alive today aren't criminals and should be marked as such. There is no just reason whatsoever to treat them as criminals when the law, not them, was wrong. Or do you think the law was right?
I think the law was wrong and if you read my initial post I said were I a gay man who was prosecuted for being so I would wear it like a badge of honour to show I was true to myself
Ease yourself off that moral high ground
Other people may act differently to you. It's not a case of "everyone who thinks differently to me is wrong".
Many jobs require a declaration of a criminal record. A conviction for cottaging at a time when it was one of the only ways to meet other gay men would lead to the job application being tossed out regardless of the offence. Many would find it deeply humiliating to disclose such an offence and shouldn't have to.
I feel dirty. Defending Miliband like that.
OTOH, having sex in a public place, like a public toilet, can be an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Do we say that it remains an offence, if committed after 2003, but merits a pardon if committed before then/
I think the law was wrong and if you read my initial post I said were I a gay man who was prosecuted for being so I would wear it like a badge of honour to shoe I was true to myself
Ease yourself off that moral high ground
No, because I have the moral high ground. You may want to wear that as a badge of honour, some don't. Some view it as a shame that should be expunged. Why do you want to deny them that right?
This isn't some meaningless apology for stuff commited centuries ago like Blair apologising for our role in slavery (when if anything we fought to abolish that). This is affecting the lives of people who are alive now. You write that off and you write them off by denying their wishes as being irrelevant and claiming it is "only" for the establishment.
Because times have moved on, the people convicted have been proven correct and everyone accepts the establishment of the time was wrong. It's just politicians trying to win votes by imposing today's values on the past
You are categorically wrong. Without it being expunged it is STILL on their record. They are still convicted criminals with all that entails. This can affect job applications, visa applications etc for people alive now.
If you think that time has moved on then this should be simple. Clear them of wrongdoing. The political circus will move on but the ones suffering now won't anymore.
I think the law was wrong and if you read my initial post I said were I a gay man who was prosecuted for being so I would wear it like a badge of honour to shoe I was true to myself
Ease yourself off that moral high ground
No, because I have the moral high ground. You may want to wear that as a badge of honour, some don't. Some view it as a shame that should be expunged. Why do you want to deny them that right?
This isn't some meaningless apology for stuff commited centuries ago like Blair apologising for our role in slavery (when if anything we fought to abolish that). This is affecting the lives of people who are alive now. You write that off and you write them off by denying their wishes as being irrelevant and claiming it is "only" for the establishment.
Because times have moved on, the people convicted have been proven correct and everyone accepts the establishment of the time was wrong. It's just politicians trying to win votes by imposing today's values on the past
You are categorically wrong. Without it being expunged it is STILL on their record. They are still convicted criminals with all that entails. This can affect job applications, visa applications etc for people alive now.
If you think that time has moved on then this should be simple. Clear them of wrongdoing. The political circus will move on but the ones suffering now won't anymore.
I think the law was wrong and if you read my initial post I said were I a gay man who was prosecuted for being so I would wear it like a badge of honour to shoe I was true to myself
Ease yourself off that moral high ground
No, because I have the moral high ground. You may want to wear that as a badge of honour, some don't. Some view it as a shame that should be expunged. Why do you want to deny them that right?
This isn't some meaningless apology for stuff commited centuries ago like Blair apologising for our role in slavery (when if anything we fought to abolish that). This is affecting the lives of people who are alive now. You write that off and you write them off by denying their wishes as being irrelevant and claiming it is "only" for the establishment.
Because times have moved on, the people convicted have been proven correct and everyone accepts the establishment of the time was wrong. It's just politicians trying to win votes by imposing today's values on the past
I wish that were true. How many footballers come out as gay? How much homophobic abuse do you hear at matches? How do you think an openly gay couple would fare on Tower Hamlets high street? Just 'cos it's legal doesn't mean it's globally accepted.
Don't hear much homophobic abuse at football matches,... Tower hamlets is a bad example because the reason for homophobia there is the mass immigration of a socially backward society. Maybe ed should apologise for that?
I think the law was wrong and if you read my initial post I said were I a gay man who was prosecuted for being so I would wear it like a badge of honour to shoe I was true to myself
Ease yourself off that moral high ground
No, because I have the moral high ground. You may want to wear that as a badge of honour, some don't. Some view it as a shame that should be expunged. Why do you want to deny them that right?
This isn't some meaningless apology for stuff commited centuries ago like Blair apologising for our role in slavery (when if anything we fought to abolish that). This is affecting the lives of people who are alive now. You write that off and you write them off by denying their wishes as being irrelevant and claiming it is "only" for the establishment.
Sorry, but that is outrageous beyond all belief. Where do you think Liverpool and Bristol got their money from? Do you think cotton was the only thing the rich cotton merchants of Lancashire traded in?
What I said was true. Slavery existed since time immemorial. We were one of the first nations to abolish it and we used our naval power to fight against the triangular trade.
If there was such a thing as rationing of food, and somebody was found to be defrauding the rations and over claiming that would be a crime
If years later we found that the need for rationing had been over stated, and therefore the rations were too strict, would we pardon the man who took more than his fair share?
Classy analogy.
If I were a gay man who had been convicted of being gay when it was an offence I would be quite proud and like it to be known that I was the kind of person who was true to himself and proven right
Seems to me it benefits the establishment more than the individual to put the prosecution down the memory hole
Very laudable .... except a criminal conviction for a sex crime does tend to have a less than favourable reception from employers, colleagues, neighbours and to some degree from less enlightened friends and family.
So you think men who were convicted of being gay in the 60s are still shunned and discriminated by society because of it? Doubt it
It is not simply a matter of discrimination today and gay men have been prosecuted for consensual sex until the equalisation of the age of consent more recently.
This measure seems a reasonable step that corrects a situation that has blighted the lives of many gay people in the recent past.
It gives politicians an excuse to pat themselves on the back, that's the reason it's being done
Achieves nothing
Says someone who isn't a victim of a prosecution under an unjust law.
It achieves a lot for people who are alive today who did nothing wrong. Or do you think they deserve to be criminals?
If someone was convicted of eg protecting the Jews under Nazi Germany should they be viewed as a criminal today? What we're saying is that these people who are alive today aren't criminals and should be marked as such. There is no just reason whatsoever to treat them as criminals when the law, not them, was wrong. Or do you think the law was right?
Many court records of the circumstances of convictions have been destroyed. How would you distinguish between people guilty of what would be crimes today, and people who were engaged in consensual sex between adults?
Perhaps Sean you process the cases that are possible which would likely be the most recent ones and probably those causing most hurt and not use difficult cases as an excuse for inaction ?
I think the law was wrong and if you read my initial post I said were I a gay man who was prosecuted for being so I would wear it like a badge of honour to shoe I was true to myself
Ease yourself off that moral high ground
No, because I have the moral high ground. You may want to wear that as a badge of honour, some don't. Some view it as a shame that should be expunged. Why do you want to deny them that right?
This isn't some meaningless apology for stuff commited centuries ago like Blair apologising for our role in slavery (when if anything we fought to abolish that). This is affecting the lives of people who are alive now. You write that off and you write them off by denying their wishes as being irrelevant and claiming it is "only" for the establishment.
Because times have moved on, the people convicted have been proven correct and everyone accepts the establishment of the time was wrong. It's just politicians trying to win votes by imposing today's values on the past
You are categorically wrong. Without it being expunged it is STILL on their record. They are still convicted criminals with all that entails. This can affect job applications, visa applications etc for people alive now.
If you think that time has moved on then this should be simple. Clear them of wrongdoing. The political circus will move on but the ones suffering now won't anymore.
I think the law was wrong and if you read my initial post I said were I a gay man who was prosecuted for being so I would wear it like a badge of honour to shoe I was true to myself
Ease yourself off that moral high ground
No, because I have the moral high ground. You may want to wear that as a badge of honour, some don't. Some view it as a shame that should be expunged. Why do you want to deny them that right?
This isn't some meaningless apology for stuff commited centuries ago like Blair apologising for our role in slavery (when if anything we fought to abolish that). This is affecting the lives of people who are alive now. You write that off and you write them off by denying their wishes as being irrelevant and claiming it is "only" for the establishment.
Because times have moved on, the people convicted have been proven correct and everyone accepts the establishment of the time was wrong. It's just politicians trying to win votes by imposing today's values on the past
You are categorically wrong. Without it being expunged it is STILL on their record. They are still convicted criminals with all that entails. This can affect job applications, visa applications etc for people alive now.
If you think that time has moved on then this should be simple. Clear them of wrongdoing. The political circus will move on but the ones suffering now won't anymore.
No I'm not get over it
Yes you are. People are alive now who are affected by this: true or false?
I think the law was wrong and if you read my initial post I said were I a gay man who was prosecuted for being so I would wear it like a badge of honour to shoe I was true to myself
Ease yourself off that moral high ground
No, because I have the moral high ground. You may want to wear that as a badge of honour, some don't. Some view it as a shame that should be expunged. Why do you want to deny them that right?
This isn't some meaningless apology for stuff commited centuries ago like Blair apologising for our role in slavery (when if anything we fought to abolish that). This is affecting the lives of people who are alive now. You write that off and you write them off by denying their wishes as being irrelevant and claiming it is "only" for the establishment.
Because times have moved on, the people convicted have been proven correct and everyone accepts the establishment of the time was wrong. It's just politicians trying to win votes by imposing today's values on the past
I wish that were true. How many footballers come out as gay? How much homophobic abuse do you hear at matches? How do you think an openly gay couple would fare on Tower Hamlets high street? Just 'cos it's legal doesn't mean it's globally accepted.
Don't hear much homophobic abuse at football matches,... Tower hamlets is a bad example because the reason for homophobia there is the mass immigration of a socially backward society. Maybe ed should apologise for that?
You must attend different matches. The Tower Hamlets point illustrates there are real reasons (regrettable though they may be) which mean that cleaning up peoples records is a good and just thing to do. You can easily substitute Tower Hamlets for parts of Belfast and countless other places in the UK and come to the same conclusion.
If there was such a thing as rationing of food, and somebody was found to be defrauding the rations and over claiming that would be a crime
If years later we found that the need for rationing had been over stated, and therefore the rations were too strict, would we pardon the man who took more than his fair share?
Classy analogy.
If I were a gay man who had been convicted of being gay when it was an offence I would be quite proud and like it to be known that I was the kind of person who was true to himself and proven right
Seems to me it benefits the establishment more than the individual to put the prosecution down the memory hole
Very laudable .... except a criminal conviction for a sex crime does tend to have a less than favourable reception from employers, colleagues, neighbours and to some degree from less enlightened friends and family.
So you think men who were convicted of being gay in the 60s are still shunned and discriminated by society because of it? Doubt it
It is not simply a matter of discrimination today and gay men have been prosecuted for consensual sex until the equalisation of the age of consent more recently.
This measure seems a reasonable step that corrects a situation that has blighted the lives of many gay people in the recent past.
It gives politicians an excuse to pat themselves on the back, that's the reason it's being done
Achieves nothing
Says someone who isn't a victim of a prosecution under an unjust law.
Many court records of the circumstances of convictions have been destroyed. How would you distinguish between people guilty of what would be crimes today, and people who were engaged in consensual sex between adults?
Perhaps Sean you process the cases that are possible which would likely be the most recent ones and probably those causing most hurt and not use difficult cases as an excuse for inaction ?
The campaign is for a blanket pardon for 49,000 people convicted under the old legislation. I think that would be wrong. It would mean pardoning a substantial number of people who had committed what would be treated as serious offences under modern legislation.
For the same reason, I disliked the blanket pardon that was given to people who were shot for desertion in WWI. A fair number of them were guilty of serious offences.
I think the law was wrong and if you read my initial post I said were I a gay man who was prosecuted for being so I would wear it like a badge of honour to shoe I was true to myself
Ease yourself off that moral high ground
No, because I have the moral high ground. You may want to wear that as a badge of honour, some don't. Some view it as a shame that should be expunged. Why do you want to deny them that right?
This isn't some meaningless apology for stuff commited centuries ago like Blair apologising for our role in slavery (when if anything we fought to abolish that). This is affecting the lives of people who are alive now. You write that off and you write them off by denying their wishes as being irrelevant and claiming it is "only" for the establishment.
Because times have moved on, the people convicted have been proven correct and everyone accepts the establishment of the time was wrong. It's just politicians trying to win votes by imposing today's values on the past
You are categorically wrong. Without it being expunged it is STILL on their record. They are still convicted criminals with all that entails. This can affect job applications, visa applications etc for people alive now.
If you think that time has moved on then this should be simple. Clear them of wrongdoing. The political circus will move on but the ones suffering now won't anymore.
No I'm not get over it
Yes you are. People are alive now who are affected by this: true or false?
Only I they want to be. Their convictions would be spent and they have had over a decade to get themselves removed from the register
And I wouldn't support a party that tells a significant percentage of the population that they have less rights than other citizens simply because of their sexual preferences.
The sentiment is good, but parties that can't tell the difference between "less" and "fewer" will never get a pedant swing vote...
Wherea, of course, a pedant with expertise in the art would appreciate we are talking about a singular right (to form a partnership with the adult of your choice) but in one case it is a circumscribed right.
I will acknowledge that, in my haste, I typed "less rights" rather than "a lesser right" but utterly contest the concept of it being "fewer rights"
I think the law was wrong and if you read my initial post I said were I a gay man who was prosecuted for being so I would wear it like a badge of honour to shoe I was true to myself
Ease yourself off that moral high ground
No, because I have the moral high ground. You may want to wear that as a badge of honour, some don't. Some view it as a shame that should be expunged. Why do you want to deny them that right?
This isn't some meaningless apology for stuff commited centuries ago like Blair apologising for our role in slavery (when if anything we fought to abolish that). This is affecting the lives of people who are alive now. You write that off and you write them off by denying their wishes as being irrelevant and claiming it is "only" for the establishment.
Because times have moved on, the people convicted have been proven correct and everyone accepts the establishment of the time was wrong. It's just politicians trying to win votes by imposing today's values on the past
You are categorically wrong. Without it being expunged it is STILL on their record. They are still convicted criminals with all that entails. This can affect job applications, visa applications etc for people alive now.
If you think that time has moved on then this should be simple. Clear them of wrongdoing. The political circus will move on but the ones suffering now won't anymore.
No I'm not get over it
Yes you are. People are alive now who are affected by this: true or false?
Only I they want to be. Their convictions would be spent and they have had over a decade to get themselves removed from the register
Wrong. Convictions are only spent for some things.
My job requires a CRB check that checks for unspent convictions too.
I think the law was wrong and if you read my initial post I said were I a gay man who was prosecuted for being so I would wear it like a badge of honour to shoe I was true to myself
Ease yourself off that moral high ground
No, because I have the moral high ground. You may want to wear that as a badge of honour, some don't. Some view it as a shame that should be expunged. Why do you want to deny them that right?
This isn't some meaningless apology for stuff commited centuries ago like Blair apologising for our role in slavery (when if anything we fought to abolish that). This is affecting the lives of people who are alive now. You write that off and you write them off by denying their wishes as being irrelevant and claiming it is "only" for the establishment.
Because times have moved on, the people convicted have been proven correct and everyone accepts the establishment of the time was wrong. It's just politicians trying to win votes by imposing today's values on the past
Actually unless "pardon" means doctoring all the old records so that the convictions never happened, I'm pretty sure a pardon is imposing today's values on the present.
And I wouldn't support a party that tells a significant percentage of the population that they have less rights than other citizens simply because of their sexual preferences.
The sentiment is good, but parties that can't tell the difference between "less" and "fewer" will never get a pedant swing vote...
Wherea, of course, a pedant with expertise in the art would appreciate we are talking about a singular right (to form a partnership with the adult of your choice) but in one case it is a circumscribed right.
I will acknowledge that, in my haste, I typed "less rights" rather than "a lesser right" but utterly contest the concept of it being "fewer rights"
I think the law was wrong and if you read my initial post I said were I a gay man who was prosecuted for being so I would wear it like a badge of honour to shoe I was true to myself
Ease yourself off that moral high ground
No, because I have the moral high ground. You may want to wear that as a badge of honour, some don't. Some view it as a shame that should be expunged. Why do you want to deny them that right?
This isn't some meaningless apology for stuff commited centuries ago like Blair apologising for our role in slavery (when if anything we fought to abolish that). This is affecting the lives of people who are alive now. You write that off and you write them off by denying their wishes as being irrelevant and claiming it is "only" for the establishment.
Because times have moved on, the people convicted have been proven correct and everyone accepts the establishment of the time was wrong. It's just politicians trying to win votes by imposing today's values on the past
You are categorically wrong. Without it being expunged it is STILL on their record. They are still convicted criminals with all that entails. This can affect job applications, visa applications etc for people alive now.
If you think that time has moved on then this should be simple. Clear them of wrongdoing. The political circus will move on but the ones suffering now won't anymore.
No I'm not get over it
Yes you are. People are alive now who are affected by this: true or false?
Only I they want to be. Their convictions would be spent and they have had over a decade to get themselves removed from the register
Wrong. Convictions are only spent for some things.
My job requires a CRB check that checks for unspent convictions too.
If there was such a thing as rationing of food, and somebody was found to be defrauding the rations and over claiming that would be a crime
If years later we found that the need for rationing had been over stated, and therefore the rations were too strict, would we pardon the man who took more than his fair share?
Classy analogy.
If I were a gay man who had been convicted of being gay when it was an offence I would be quite proud and like it to be known that I was the kind of person who was true to himself and proven right
Seems to me it benefits the establishment more than the individual to put the prosecution down the memory hole
Very laudable .... except a criminal conviction for a sex crime does tend to have a less than favourable reception from employers, colleagues, neighbours and to some degree from less enlightened friends and family.
So you think men who were convicted of being gay in the 60s are still shunned and discriminated by society because of it? Doubt it
It is not simply a matter of discrimination today and gay men have been prosecuted for consensual sex until the equalisation of the age of consent more recently.
This measure seems a reasonable step that corrects a situation that has blighted the lives of many gay people in the recent past.
It gives politicians an excuse to pat themselves on the back, that's the reason it's being done
Achieves nothing
Says someone who isn't a victim of a prosecution under an unjust law.
Many court records of the circumstances of convictions have been destroyed. How would you distinguish between people guilty of what would be crimes today, and people who were engaged in consensual sex between adults?
Perhaps Sean you process the cases that are possible which would likely be the most recent ones and probably those causing most hurt and not use difficult cases as an excuse for inaction ?
The campaign is for a blanket pardon for 49,000 people convicted under the old legislation. I think that would be wrong. It would mean pardoning a substantial number of people who had committed what would be treated as serious offences under modern legislation.
I agree.
Individuals or relatives of convicted deceased persons should be able to apply.
And I wouldn't support a party that tells a significant percentage of the population that they have less rights than other citizens simply because of their sexual preferences.
The sentiment is good, but parties that can't tell the difference between "less" and "fewer" will never get a pedant swing vote...
Wherea, of course, a pedant with expertise in the art would appreciate we are talking about a singular right (to form a partnership with the adult of your choice) but in one case it is a circumscribed right.
I will acknowledge that, in my haste, I typed "less rights" rather than "a lesser right" but utterly contest the concept of it being "fewer rights"
I think the law was wrong and if you read my initial post I said were I a gay man who was prosecuted for being so I would wear it like a badge of honour to shoe I was true to myself
Ease yourself off that moral high ground
No, because I have the moral high ground. You may want to wear that as a badge of honour, some don't. Some view it as a shame that should be expunged. Why do you want to deny them that right?
This isn't some meaningless apology for stuff commited centuries ago like Blair apologising for our role in slavery (when if anything we fought to abolish that). This is affecting the lives of people who are alive now. You write that off and you write them off by denying their wishes as being irrelevant and claiming it is "only" for the establishment.
Sorry, but that is outrageous beyond all belief. Where do you think Liverpool and Bristol got their money from? Do you think cotton was the only thing the rich cotton merchants of Lancashire traded in?
What I said was true. Slavery existed since time immemorial. We were one of the first nations to abolish it and we used our naval power to fight against the triangular trade.
We took it and turned it into a global industry, and the triangular trade was only there to fight against because we created it. I'm firmly against apologies, but also against the rewriting of history.
And I wouldn't support a party that tells a significant percentage of the population that they have less rights than other citizens simply because of their sexual preferences.
The sentiment is good, but parties that can't tell the difference between "less" and "fewer" will never get a pedant swing vote...
Wherea, of course, a pedant with expertise in the art would appreciate we are talking about a singular right (to form a partnership with the adult of your choice) but in one case it is a circumscribed right.
I will acknowledge that, in my haste, I typed "less rights" rather than "a lesser right" but utterly contest the concept of it being "fewer rights"
I think the law was wrong and if you read my initial post I said were I a gay man who was prosecuted for being so I would wear it like a badge of honour to shoe I was true to myself
Ease yourself off that moral high ground
No, because I have the moral high ground. You may want to wear that as a badge of honour, some don't. Some view it as a shame that should be expunged. Why do you want to deny them that right?
This isn't some meaningless apology for stuff commited centuries ago like Blair apologising for our role in slavery (when if anything we fought to abolish that). This is affecting the lives of people who are alive now. You write that off and you write them off by denying their wishes as being irrelevant and claiming it is "only" for the establishment.
Sorry, but that is outrageous beyond all belief. Where do you think Liverpool and Bristol got their money from? Do you think cotton was the only thing the rich cotton merchants of Lancashire traded in?
What I said was true. Slavery existed since time immemorial. We were one of the first nations to abolish it and we used our naval power to fight against the triangular trade.
We took it and turned it into a global industry, and the triangular trade was only there to fight against because we created it. I'm firmly against apologies, but also against the rewriting of history.
We created it? So Spain and Portugal did nothing before us?
Front page of the BBC has another Asian, grooming gang story coupled with phone hacking rife at the Daily Mirror and then systemic failure at an NHS trust with suppressed investigations "early in 2010".
I think the law was wrong and if you read my initial post I said were I a gay man who was prosecuted for being so I would wear it like a badge of honour to shoe I was true to myself
Ease yourself off that moral high ground
No, because I have the moral high ground. You may want to wear that as a badge of honour, some don't. Some view it as a shame that should be expunged. Why do you want to deny them that right?
This isn't some meaningless apology for stuff commited centuries ago like Blair apologising for our role in slavery (when if anything we fought to abolish that). This is affecting the lives of people who are alive now. You write that off and you write them off by denying their wishes as being irrelevant and claiming it is "only" for the establishment.
Sorry, but that is outrageous beyond all belief. Where do you think Liverpool and Bristol got their money from? Do you think cotton was the only thing the rich cotton merchants of Lancashire traded in?
What I said was true. Slavery existed since time immemorial. We were one of the first nations to abolish it and we used our naval power to fight against the triangular trade.
We took it and turned it into a global industry, and the triangular trade was only there to fight against because we created it. I'm firmly against apologies, but also against the rewriting of history.
We created it? So Spain and Portugal did nothing before us?
Sure, they had a part in it. That doesn't mean we didn't.
I think the law was wrong and if you read my initial post I said were I a gay man who was prosecuted for being so I would wear it like a badge of honour to shoe I was true to myself
Ease yourself off that moral high ground
No, because I have the moral high ground. You may want to wear that as a badge of honour, some don't. Some view it as a shame that should be expunged. Why do you want to deny them that right?
This isn't some meaningless apology for stuff commited centuries ago like Blair apologising for our role in slavery (when if anything we fought to abolish that). This is affecting the lives of people who are alive now. You write that off and you write them off by denying their wishes as being irrelevant and claiming it is "only" for the establishment.
Because times have moved on, the people convicted have been proven correct and everyone accepts the establishment of the time was wrong. It's just politicians trying to win votes by imposing today's values on the past
You are categorically wrong. Without it being expunged it is STILL on their record. They are still convicted criminals with all that entails. This can affect job applications, visa applications etc for people alive now.
If you think that time has moved on then this should be simple. Clear them of wrongdoing. The political circus will move on but the ones suffering now won't anymore.
Comments
Cameron's rating is up on 2010.
That's a repeat of Thatcher in 1983 and Blair in 2001.
Lowest poll rating of any winner in last 40 years is 33%. Miliband is on 18%.
The fact that it isn't illegal now and no one thinks it should be is the apology. Free market over statism
PS. This is probably moot as the chances of the LibDems being able to choose between rival coalitions get quite slim as their number of seats drops.
(and as a provocative aside I also think it entirely likely that mankind will soon enough develop the medical capability to overcome ageing and death. Now that will be truly transformative - and probably not in any good ways at all).
Lack of empathy, and the belief that the victim "deserved" it, is a common occurrence the world over.
It is why the news today is full of child abuse stories.
How common is this disgusting attitude? All too common, and it even shows itself daily on this site, but no one notices.
Will Wales help labour???
Don't bank on it....
Smearing?
Some police chief used to organise raids on parties on gay peoples houses with great relish. The Metropolitan police were very keen for example. These raids would by weird co incidence often have tabloid photographers outside and would often make for salacious tabloid fodder about deviant sex parties with lots of nice pictures of those being arrested.
The same would happen with undercover operations against cottaging (meeting places at certain public toilets, layby's or heathlands).
Your chance of being arrested would greatly vary around country depending how important different forces felt about keeping the gays in their place.
It was not that unusual for gays pubs to be still to be raided by the police long after decriminalisation looking for immoral goings on. Gay pubs only started losing their heavy wooden doors and almost anonymous looks in the 1990's.
So yeah there were very real consequences of those arrests and many are still on the sexual offenders list as a result.
You seem to be suggesting it doesn't happen. I think it does, but you don't notice.
Parliament did and the tories had a free vote.
Since then there have been 3 instances, either friends of my wife or family of her friends, where there have been gay marriages. They are decent people... what would 'traditionalists' have me say to them?
Quite why any Conservative so called traditionalist should be 'pissed off' by this is a mystery to me. The polling seems to indicate the opposite. Only pure bred bigots would be pissed off.
Is labour really going to take its top target in Wales????
There's a further issue in that some people who were convicted under the old legislation against gross indecency or buggery were guilty of what would be treated as offences under current law (Oscar Wilde, for example).
This measure seems a reasonable step that corrects a situation that has blighted the lives of many gay people in the recent past.
Yes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/31713292
"Witchcraft pardon plea rejected"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7278899.stm
Achieves nothing. Would only be worth doing if it were the current politicians that enacted or carried out the law under which the men were convicted
But we live in a time where vacuous words and empty platitudes impress people more than ever, so I guess it will get traction
Complain to OGH. I don't have to dance because you say so.
It achieves a lot for people who are alive today who did nothing wrong. Or do you think they deserve to be criminals?
If someone was convicted of eg protecting the Jews under Nazi Germany should they be viewed as a criminal today? What we're saying is that these people who are alive today aren't criminals and should be marked as such. There is no just reason whatsoever to treat them as criminals when the law, not them, was wrong. Or do you think the law was right?
As you don't want to look like that, I am sure you will now see sense and provide a link.
What is the harm?
Ease yourself off that moral high ground
Interesting to see you describe members of your party with strong religious convictions as purebred bigots, just as well you don't want them to vote for you.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-removal-of-offenders-convicted-of-buggery-and-indecency-between-men-from-the-sex-offender-register-schedule-4-sexual-offences-act-2003
Your second point is gibberish as it implies no law might be changed or repealed unless those MP's or peers that passed the legislation undertook the change.
Care to further support your view on various EU Acts over the past 40 years ?!?
This isn't some meaningless apology for stuff commited centuries ago like Blair apologising for our role in slavery (when if anything we fought to abolish that). This is affecting the lives of people who are alive now. You write that off and you write them off by denying their wishes
as being irrelevant and claiming it is "only" for the establishment.
"There are none so blind as those who refuse to see"
Quotations are fun aren't they?
Many jobs require a declaration of a criminal record. A conviction for cottaging at a time when it was one of the only ways to meet other gay men would lead to the job application being tossed out regardless of the offence. Many would find it deeply humiliating to disclose such an offence and shouldn't have to.
I feel dirty. Defending Miliband like that.
If you think that time has moved on then this should be simple. Clear them of wrongdoing. The political circus will move on but the ones suffering now won't anymore.
Blowhard.
For the same reason, I disliked the blanket pardon that was given to people who were shot for desertion in WWI. A fair number of them were guilty of serious offences.
My job requires a CRB check that checks for unspent convictions too.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/inverness-nairn-badenoch-and-strathspey/winning-party
Wrong.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/05/01/law-to-wipe-gay-sex-convictions-given-royal-assent/
Individuals or relatives of convicted deceased persons should be able to apply.
Not many -- and after what happened to Justin Fashanu (disowned by his own brother among others) I can hardly blame them.
Well, Ed, Labour, the Left - will you condemn Mirror Group in the same unambiguous terms as you condemned NewsCorp for exactly this?
Ed to take the day off?
He has it in his power to save one of Scotland's major industries through North Sea tax cuts
Trouble is, the amount he does is for Scotland is inversely proportional to the good it will do the tories...