Thousands of gay men to be cleared of sexual crime
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37711518

I think it's a great move but you can't help the feeling that it's too little too late. It would be nice to see a gesture from the state where they perhaps made a donation to the gay community for projects/education/enhancement. Just an apology and clearing of crime to many people probably deceased doesn't really seem to be enough for the anguish and pain caused.

A nice gesture but a flawed one. I do agree that some sort of donation would have probably been more welcome.

Any deceased should be formally pardoned and those living compensated.

As a gay man, how can they be cleared of a crime they knew they were committing?

I didn't realise before reading the article that those convicted needed to apply to be pardoned before this, I would have just assumed that if the law changes, people who were found guilty under it would automatically have that status changed.
My first thoughts were that it's a great thing, but reading what George Montague says, it's really interesting his take on it and that he doesn't want a pardon because apparently being pardoned technically means that you're still considered guilty (which I don't really get but looking into a bit it does look like that's the case), and instead he just wants an apology. Why if the government are prepared to call something like this "momentous" are they not able to offer an apology? (I know it wasn't them who set out the original laws but they're representing the establishment that did so they can make the gesture), and why if the laws were changed in the 60's did it take this long?

Reading a bit further down there's a bill at the moment going through parliament that's similar to this and the government are planning not to support it, and it's being debated tomorrow. Their reason for not wanting to support it is because they say it could mean people are pardoned for acts that are still considered illegal, however the bill "explicitly excluded pardoning anyone convicted of offences that would still be illegal today"... so that's really confusing. Am I being really cynical or is there some reason they don't want this bill to be passed, and by passing this amendment instead there's a smokescreen/distraction... "we don't need to pass this bill because we've just updated the law in this area already". I dunno maybe I'm reading too much into it but the timing of it, the lack of an apology/sincerity, the subject matter being so close to what's in this other bill that the government don't want to pass for some reason, and it being tomorrow that it's being discussed... I don't get it.


Edit: The other bill...

Government saying: "such a move could see people claiming pardons for acts that are still illegal."
Point 1 of the bill: "Nothing in this Act is to be interpreted as pardoning, disregarding or in any other way affecting cautions, convictions, sentences or any other consequences of convictions or cautions for conduct or behaviour that is unlawful on the date that the Act comes into force."

Because it never should have been a crime.

I just think this makes a mockery of our justice system.
Of course times have changed and thats great but the past is the past.

Great post posing lots of interesting questions!

It's no more making a mockery of it than changing a law in the first place. The pardoning is simply acting on the fact that a law has changed. The mockery is the fact that the law was changed in the 60's and it's taken this long to take any kind of action for those that should have been exonerated. And the past may be the past but for people who currently live as convicted criminals because of a law that has since been abolished, I'm sure they'd see it differently.

I completely agree with the pardon, its a necessary formal annulling of a wrong. However, it should be accompanied by a formal apology too.

That being said, the legal system is not being applied consistently. If you are tried for a crime and found guilty, you are given the sentence as it applied at the time the offense was committed. This is how Stuart Hall got away with a light sentence. It all needs to be cleared up

Why has it taken so long for this to happen?

If it's been 40+ years since homosexuality was decriminalised why should anybody have still had that on their record? :umm2: