@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.
I will happily concede that I believe that Weird Ed Miliband deserves to be the victim of all of the attacks that I and others here fire at him.
As to sex in public toilets, I do think it's tacky (quite literally) but sadly there still many deeply closeted people out there. But if you want stronger action on sex in toilets then a lot of straight nightclubs need to be closed as well.
I'm not in favour of a blanket lifting, but I do think some relatively easy process should be set up for review of such cases, with priority for those still living. A lot of these cases must be fairly simple to sort out. The more difficult cases could be shunted over for more detailed review.
I imagine the cases from entrapment by police for exposure in public spaces or from raids on peoples homes or pubs or nightclubs would be the easiest to tackle.
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.
Wrong again - the convictions ARE spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders act BUT certain occupations require an enhanced CRB that specifically allows for them to be listed.
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.
This is certainly inconvenient when you're desperate for the loo, but have to wait outside while business gets finished (something that has happened to me before). On the other hand, I've heard academic criminal lawyers argue that the criminal law against sex in public toilets should be removed - I think it's currently enshrined in the 2003 Sexual Offences Act - as it's essentially discriminatory on sexual orientation. (Does nothing hetero ever happen in those unisex disabled loos?)
The Spanner Trust would suggest that a whole bunch of our sexual offences laws are still discriminatory. Not sure quite how far I would go along with what they would prefer though I take their basic point - consenting adults and all that - but I can certainly understand why people are keen to have certain convictions, that were blantantly discriminatory, withdrawn.
As to sex in public toilets, I do think it's tacky (quite literally) but sadly there still many deeply closeted people out there. But if you want stronger action on sex in toilets then a lot of straight nightclubs need to be closed as well.
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.
A part of the manifesto. It promised a free vote. Tories were free to vote against. Some did. Its not me saying anyone is 'pissed off'. Only a pure bred bigot would be. Why do you assume that christians are opposed to gay marriage? I have family members with strong christian beliefs and they are not 'pissed off'. There is enough perversion of religious beliefs in the world as it it. I do not think you need to heap even more onto christians.
According to the Casey Report, Rotherham authorities are still in denial. It never happened.
Listening to R5L recently, it appears that offences remain unreported because people still don't believe the people in charge will act.
Who is to blame? The perpetrators obviously, but also the authorities.
If the UK were to announce that burglary was no longer a crime if committed by men between say, thirty and fifty years of age, only a small proportion of that population would take advantage - most would not. But if a householder reported a crime, it would be ignored, it would never have taken place. And the numbers would increase despite the official count being nil.
That's what happened in Rotherham and Oxford and Rochdale etc. Because of PC considerations, a section of the population were allowed to commit a crime and have it ignored. Is it any wonder that it the numbers increased? Yes, only a small section of that group would take advantage, and other groups would carry on as before, but the authorities were guilty of encouraging the increase.
But I'm not sure how this jail term for people looking the other way can work. Wouldn't you have to prove they knew? Proving someone ignored something is bound to be difficult. First they have to acknowledge a crime took place, then they would have to admit they deliberately ignored it.
Documentary evidence can easily disappear from locked offices.
Comments
Miliband will be calling for Piers Morgan to be pardoned.
"Will you be able to fit all the Lib Dem MPs into this after May?"
http://mashupgraphics.co.uk/gallery/libdemsmart.jpg
Though I doubt that's quite what you meant.
I'm not in favour of a blanket lifting, but I do think some relatively easy process should be set up for review of such cases, with priority for those still living. A lot of these cases must be fairly simple to sort out. The more difficult cases could be shunted over for more detailed review.
I imagine the cases from entrapment by police for exposure in public spaces or from raids on peoples homes or pubs or nightclubs would be the easiest to tackle.
**Crossover post** **Crossover post** ** Crossover post**
ELBOW for three polls, Populus, Ashcroft and YG/Sun:
Con 33.4
Lab 32.7
UKIP 14.1
LD 7.7
Grn 6.0
Tory lead 0.7!!
Caesar's wife must be beyond suspicion.
The Spanner Trust would suggest that a whole bunch of our sexual offences laws are still discriminatory. Not sure quite how far I would go along with what they would prefer though I take their basic point - consenting adults and all that - but I can certainly understand why people are keen to have certain convictions, that were blantantly discriminatory, withdrawn.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/exclusive-75-labour-ppcs-oppose-trident-renewal
Its not me saying anyone is 'pissed off'. Only a pure bred bigot would be. Why do you assume that christians are opposed to gay marriage? I have family members with strong christian beliefs and they are not 'pissed off'. There is enough perversion of religious beliefs in the world as it it. I do not think you need to heap even more onto christians.
Listening to R5L recently, it appears that offences remain unreported because people still don't believe the people in charge will act.
Who is to blame? The perpetrators obviously, but also the authorities.
If the UK were to announce that burglary was no longer a crime if committed by men between say, thirty and fifty years of age, only a small proportion of that population would take advantage - most would not. But if a householder reported a crime, it would be ignored, it would never have taken place. And the numbers would increase despite the official count being nil.
That's what happened in Rotherham and Oxford and Rochdale etc. Because of PC considerations, a section of the population were allowed to commit a crime and have it ignored. Is it any wonder that it the numbers increased? Yes, only a small section of that group would take advantage, and other groups would carry on as before, but the authorities were guilty of encouraging the increase.
But I'm not sure how this jail term for people looking the other way can work. Wouldn't you have to prove they knew? Proving someone ignored something is bound to be difficult. First they have to acknowledge a crime took place, then they would have to admit they deliberately ignored it.
Documentary evidence can easily disappear from locked offices.