Labour Backs 'turing Law' To Quash Historical Gay Convictions

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31707197

What do we all think about this ?

I for one, think that all previous convictions should be pardoned. If it can be done for a nationally important figure such as Alan Turing, I can't see any reason to let all other convictions stand.

[Jackdaw33]

Worth noting that homosexual activity, apart from sodomy, was only illegal from 1885 till 1967.

[ludwig]

// Aren't the two different? //

Yep, but it makes no difference to my point, which is that whatever you do - whether it's pardon or wipe from records - for one law or person, you really have to do it for all laws and people.

[woofgang]

so if we are going to pardon people whose behaviour nowadays would not be illegal, should we be criminalising people whose behaviour nowadays would be illegal? All those very young elizabethan mothers? witch burners? parents who beat their children? Husbands who beat their wives?

[Jackdaw33]

I agree with Ludwig. The law is/was the law and that's that. It was a capital offence in 18C England to go out after nightfall with your face blacked up. No wonder chimney sweeps were in a hell of a hurry to get home before dusk.

[anotheoldgit]

mikey4444

/// as it would show that the persecution of gay people is now completely unacceptable to the minority of bigots that we still have in Britain. ///

as it would show to the minority of bigots that we still have in Britain.that the persecution of gay people is now completely unacceptable

Sorry but it just did not sound right,

[mikey4444]

Sorry aog...not sure what you mean. Are you questioning my grammar or the point I was making ? My grammar isn't always perfect.

[andy-hughes]

My stance is to leave well alone on this.

I am uncomfortable about anyone being pardoned for an offence because of their role in society because the law is straightforward, perceptions of someone's worth in being exempted from it are not.

This has nothing to do with the fact that the homosexuality laws are the issue here.

If Mr Turing had been a breeder of fighting cocks in his spare time, would we have decided that this was ok because of his contribution to society as a whole?

You cannot step down the road of 'everyone is guilty ... unless they are nice to old ladies ...' because it is simply not a fair and reasonable system of justice.

The law must apply as it stands at the time, and posthumous feel-good factors should not be an issue.

[naomi24]

If people are tried and found guilty under an existing law there can be no pardon. They broke the law. This is nothing more than lip service.

[Peter Pedant]

// PP...so do you agree that Turing should not have been pardoned then ?//

agree is an odd use of the word since everyone else thinks he should have


Historically he was convicted of an offence ( not like in the film: I think he wandered into a nick and said he had been robbed by his boyfriend. And I think the gallant police said 'you are banged to rights mate, one conviction for sexxual offences coming up' - and Turing said what about my things ? and they said O you wont need them for a while.....
retrocop can tell us if things really worked like that 50 y ago )

and so you dont pardon someone for a lawful conviction according to the rules

[ altho' I am aware that part of a Royal Pardon is .... you say you have done it ]

So Baldric had made a valid point

and also - when you have made a bad mistake in say French you dont have your old headmaster running up to you and saying - ha! I am taking your French O level off you!

and that is because the O level shows you reached a standard at a certain time and not how you speak later

Turing conviction shows he was lawfully convicted in 1952 - the pardon basically says he wasnt

( this argument follows the argument inn Edwards v Edwards aka April Ashley Case )

[Peter Pedant]

// My stance is to leave well alone on this. // AH

good argument for - no change ever ! ( Titus Groan )

[andy-hughes]

Peter Pedant - // My stance is to leave well alone on this. // AH

good argument for - no change ever ! ( Titus Groan )//

That is patently not what I said.

Making an observation about a specific instance does not equate with never changing anything, ever.

That is in your imagination - which is where it should remain.

[Peter Pedant]

// Worth noting that homosexual activity, apart from sodomy, was only illegal from 1885 till 1967.//

not quite jay-dee

It was unlawful at common law. The Prime Minister Castereagh being depressed to hell, accused himself of "the sins of the Bishop of Clodagh" ( 1822) who had er been found in compromising circumstances with an enlisted man....

The great reforms of 1861 (!!) Offences against the person act and Offences against property Act - they "forgot" to include buggery and sodomy, and so it became lawful.....

gap was filled in by Henry Labourchere 1883