Re: Retrospective pardons : Thu Dec 26, 2013 6:05 pm  

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

I have a hell of a lot more sympathy for the soldiers who were hammered for months on end in the trenches, before cracking, and then having to face the final ignominy of a Firing Squad consisting of soldiers from their own regiment.

They have already received posthumous pardons.

The whole Turing thing is a empty gesture, rather than a pardon (that doesn't change his "guilt"), why not an apology?

Re: Retrospective pardons : Thu Dec 26, 2013 6:55 pm  

Why is he being pardoned? It seems like a decision that, while he was correctly convicted under the law of the land as it stood, nevertheless he did some outstanding work and so is being pardoned in light of his services to the country. That would explain why just he is pardoned and not others convicted under the same law. Is it really what the campaigners wanted though? I get the feeling that what they really want is the impossible, some sort of retrospective setting aside of his conviction so that his criminal record is somehow expunged. That is never going to happen as there are simply no grounds. An apology is inappropriate as this government or any government today would not countenance such a law, and it is futile and pointless apologising for laws duly enacted in the past. Most people TODAY would agree it was a bad law, but it wasn't (and isn't) by any means the only one. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ng-gay-men

Why is he being pardoned? It seems like a decision that, while he was correctly convicted under the law of the land as it stood, nevertheless he did some outstanding work and so is being pardoned in light of his services to the country. That would explain why just he is pardoned and not others convicted under the same law. Is it really what the campaigners wanted though? I get the feeling that what they really want is the impossible, some sort of retrospective setting aside of his conviction so that his criminal record is somehow expunged. That is never going to happen as there are simply no grounds. An apology is inappropriate as this government or any government today would not countenance such a law, and it is futile and pointless apologising for laws duly enacted in the past. Most people TODAY would agree it was a bad law, but it wasn't (and isn't) by any means the only one. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ng-gay-men

Re: Retrospective pardons : Sat Dec 28, 2013 10:52 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Why is he being pardoned? It seems like a decision that, while he was correctly convicted under the law of the land as it stood, nevertheless he did some outstanding work and so is being pardoned in light of his services to the country. That would explain why just he is pardoned and not others convicted under the same law. Is it really what the campaigners wanted though? I get the feeling that what they really want is the impossible, some sort of retrospective setting aside of his conviction so that his criminal record is somehow expunged. That is never going to happen as there are simply no grounds. An apology is inappropriate as this government or any government today would not countenance such a law, and it is futile and pointless apologising for laws duly enacted in the past. Most people TODAY would agree it was a bad law, but it wasn't (and isn't) by any means the only one. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ng-gay-men See the David Allen Green article, which I linked to earlier.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Why is he being pardoned? It seems like a decision that, while he was correctly convicted under the law of the land as it stood, nevertheless he did some outstanding work and so is being pardoned in light of his services to the country. That would explain why just he is pardoned and not others convicted under the same law. Is it really what the campaigners wanted though? I get the feeling that what they really want is the impossible, some sort of retrospective setting aside of his conviction so that his criminal record is somehow expunged. That is never going to happen as there are simply no grounds. An apology is inappropriate as this government or any government today would not countenance such a law, and it is futile and pointless apologising for laws duly enacted in the past. Most people TODAY would agree it was a bad law, but it wasn't (and isn't) by any means the only one. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ng-gay-men See the David Allen Green article, which I linked to earlier.