[Jamie89]

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."