Notices

Serious Debates & News Debate and discussion about political, moral, philosophical, celebrity and news topics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 20-10-2016, 12:07 PM #1
jaxie's Avatar
jaxie jaxie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 7,038

Favourites:
CBB14: Gary
CBB 13: Ollie Locke
jaxie jaxie is offline
Senior Member
jaxie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 7,038

Favourites:
CBB14: Gary
CBB 13: Ollie Locke
Default 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.
__________________
In ancient times cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this.
Terry Pratchett

“I am thrilled to be alive at time when humanity is pushing against the limits of understanding. Even better, we may eventually discover that there are no limits.”
― Richard Dawkins
jaxie is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 20-10-2016, 12:13 PM #2
Tom4784 Tom4784 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 45,095
Tom4784 Tom4784 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 45,095
Default

A nice gesture but a flawed one. I do agree that some sort of donation would have probably been more welcome.
Tom4784 is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 20-10-2016, 01:20 PM #3
Kizzy's Avatar
Kizzy Kizzy is offline
Likes cars that go boom
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 41,755


Kizzy Kizzy is offline
Likes cars that go boom
Kizzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 41,755


Default

Any deceased should be formally pardoned and those living compensated.
__________________
Kizzy is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 20-10-2016, 01:22 PM #4
UserSince2005's Avatar
UserSince2005 UserSince2005 is offline
User banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 8,653

Favourites (more):
CBB17: Tiffany Pollard
CBB14: Frenchy
UserSince2005 UserSince2005 is offline
User banned
UserSince2005's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 8,653

Favourites (more):
CBB17: Tiffany Pollard
CBB14: Frenchy
Default

As a gay man, how can they be cleared of a crime they knew they were committing?
__________________
TiBB’s World Traveller
Favourite countries I’ve been to: 🇧🇷🇲🇽🇬🇷🇪🇸🇯🇵🇳🇦🇺🇸🇨🇦🇺🇦🇳🇮🇵🇭
Evil countries: 🇻🇳🇲🇦🇷🇺🇮🇪
UserSince2005 is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 20-10-2016, 01:53 PM #5
Jamie89's Avatar
Jamie89 Jamie89 is offline
.
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Jakku
Posts: 9,589


Jamie89 Jamie89 is offline
.
Jamie89's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Jakku
Posts: 9,589


Default

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."
__________________


BBCAN: Erica | Will | Veronica | Johnny | Alejandra | Ryan | Paras

Last edited by Jamie89; 20-10-2016 at 01:57 PM.
Jamie89 is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 20-10-2016, 01:54 PM #6
jaxie's Avatar
jaxie jaxie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 7,038

Favourites:
CBB14: Gary
CBB 13: Ollie Locke
jaxie jaxie is offline
Senior Member
jaxie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 7,038

Favourites:
CBB14: Gary
CBB 13: Ollie Locke
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UserSince2005 View Post
As a gay man, how can they be cleared of a crime they knew they were committing?
Because it never should have been a crime.
__________________
In ancient times cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this.
Terry Pratchett

“I am thrilled to be alive at time when humanity is pushing against the limits of understanding. Even better, we may eventually discover that there are no limits.”
― Richard Dawkins
jaxie is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 20-10-2016, 01:59 PM #7
UserSince2005's Avatar
UserSince2005 UserSince2005 is offline
User banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 8,653

Favourites (more):
CBB17: Tiffany Pollard
CBB14: Frenchy
UserSince2005 UserSince2005 is offline
User banned
UserSince2005's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 8,653

Favourites (more):
CBB17: Tiffany Pollard
CBB14: Frenchy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaxie View Post
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.
__________________
TiBB’s World Traveller
Favourite countries I’ve been to: 🇧🇷🇲🇽🇬🇷🇪🇸🇯🇵🇳🇦🇺🇸🇨🇦🇺🇦🇳🇮🇵🇭
Evil countries: 🇻🇳🇲🇦🇷🇺🇮🇪
UserSince2005 is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 20-10-2016, 02:04 PM #8
jaxie's Avatar
jaxie jaxie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 7,038

Favourites:
CBB14: Gary
CBB 13: Ollie Locke
jaxie jaxie is offline
Senior Member
jaxie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 7,038

Favourites:
CBB14: Gary
CBB 13: Ollie Locke
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie89 View Post
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."
Great post posing lots of interesting questions!
__________________
In ancient times cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this.
Terry Pratchett

“I am thrilled to be alive at time when humanity is pushing against the limits of understanding. Even better, we may eventually discover that there are no limits.”
― Richard Dawkins
jaxie is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 20-10-2016, 02:08 PM #9
Jamie89's Avatar
Jamie89 Jamie89 is offline
.
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Jakku
Posts: 9,589


Jamie89 Jamie89 is offline
.
Jamie89's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Jakku
Posts: 9,589


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UserSince2005 View Post
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.
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.
__________________


BBCAN: Erica | Will | Veronica | Johnny | Alejandra | Ryan | Paras
Jamie89 is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 20-10-2016, 03:11 PM #10
bitontheslide's Avatar
bitontheslide bitontheslide is offline
self-oscillating
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 45,267

Favourites:
BB2023: Noky
BB19: Sian


bitontheslide bitontheslide is offline
self-oscillating
bitontheslide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 45,267

Favourites:
BB2023: Noky
BB19: Sian


Default

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

Last edited by bitontheslide; 20-10-2016 at 03:17 PM.
bitontheslide is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 20-10-2016, 03:21 PM #11
Marsh. Marsh. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 79,984


Marsh. Marsh. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 79,984


Default

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?
Marsh. is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Reply

Bookmark/share this topic

Tags
cleared, crime, gay, men, sexual, thousands

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 

About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

"Big Brother and UK Television Forum. Est. 2001"

 

© 2023
no new posts