Gay Men Convicted Of Now-Abolished Sex Offences To Be Pardoned

[mikey4444]

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

And not before time, in my humble opinion !

[mikey4444]

Ummmm....( at 08:10 ).....this isn't just a pardon. This new measure will effectively wipe any convictions from a persons criminal record. At present, when a CRB check is applied for by an Employer, any conviction for the nature of what we are debating will show up. Any Employers that may be bigoted towards gay men, may decide that they don't want to employ them.

As I understand this new move, all references to crimes committed under the old regime will be removed from criminal records....ie a clean record.

So....far from completely pointless I would have thought.

[naomi24]

Mikey, that's what a pardon does. I posted this earlier in the thread.

//This from Wiki: A pardon is a government decision to allow a person who has been convicted of a crime, to be free and absolved of that conviction, as if never convicted.//

[mikey4444]

I posted this very early this morning and I haven't able to reply until now.

As usual, the same sort of irrelevant guff is being spouted ....mill owners, speeding drivers, etc.

I'm not sure why people can't keep to the point on issues like this.

For the reason I gave above at 13:31, these changes will make a very significant difference to some gay men at least, whose lives have been blighted for many years. Attitudes to homosexuality have changed greatly in my lifetime, but by leaving the old convictions on a criminal record, for anyone to peruse, is tantamount to allowing bigotry to continue and thrive.

[naomi24]

Mikey, //As usual, the same sort of irrelevant guff is being spouted ....mill owners, speeding drivers, etc.

I'm not sure why people can't keep to the point on issues like this. //

I suggest you ask andy-hughes about all of that. He introduced those subjects to this thread.

[andy-hughes]

mikey - //As usual, the same sort of irrelevant guff is being spouted ....mill owners, speeding drivers, etc.

I'm not sure why people can't keep to the point on issues like this. //

I simply constructed two parallel scenarios - the second more appropriate than the first - sorry if you feel it was 'guff', I'll try to do better.

[joeluke]

In the eyes of the law at the time it was a crime when the men committed their offences

[andy-hughes]

joeluke - //In the eyes of the law at the time it was a crime when the men committed their offences //

That is the entire crux of my argument.

[zebo]

Does this open the door for others convicted of what is now not a crime seeking a pardon? Surely, whatever one's opinion of homosexuality, we can't have a situation in which 'crimes' are re-assessed every fifty years or so in line with current law?

[andy-hughes]

zebo - //Does this open the door for others convicted of what is now not a crime seeking a pardon? Surely, whatever one's opinion of homosexuality, we can't have a situation in which 'crimes' are re-assessed every fifty years or so in line with current law? //

Another point I have made at some length.

Given the fuss that erupted when African-American activists started the notion that the UK should 'apologise' for the slave trade, I pondered that this opens dubious time-wasting, expensive and futile doors and that is why it is not valid.

[jno]

zebo - yes, I think it does. I have my doubts about apologies to those who broke duly enacted laws (or old common law ones) but we can at least clear their names, which may of some help to those still alive.

[mikey4444]

Andy....this has nothing to do with the slave trade !

[mikey4444]

jno.....good to hear someone else make that point !

[Mamyalynne]

I think George Montague summed it up quite well, though as he said some who are in his position may disagree.

[andy-hughes]

mikey - //Andy....this has nothing to do with the slave trade ! //

The connection is the notion of apologising for historical behaviour on the basis that is not considered to be appropriate by current measures of what is acceptable.

It is the wider concept I am referring to - and my point does explain that.

But so did my point about speeding, so maybe it's just more 'guff' as far as you are concerned.

[mikey4444]

I agree Mamy....he made a very impassioned speech. I tend to agree with him on the difference between a pardon and an apology.

But the issue of criminal records won't go away. Its essential that these records are amended, so that they no longer show any offence of the nature that are being discussed.

[mikey4444]

Andy...ordinarily I don't mind debates from being widened....it can make for interesting reading !

But in this case its clouding discussion of the threads main purpose.

[andy-hughes]

mikey - //But the issue of criminal records won't go away. Its essential that these records are amended, so that they no longer show any offence of the nature that are being discussed. //

Why is it essential?

These men were convicted under the laws of the times in which their offences were committed.

Those laws no longer apply - but that does not entitle records to pretend that they did not commit a crime, and they were not convicted of it.

They did, and they were.

[andy-hughes]

mikey - //Andy...ordinarily I don't mind debates from being widened....it can make for interesting reading !

But in this case its clouding discussion of the threads main purpose. //

'Clouding' is a matter of perception - in this instance we disagree.

I hope you find my post at 14:33 to be less clouded.

[mikey4444]

Andy.....It is less clouded but I whole heatedly disagree with it ! Men were not just caught in the act, so to speak.....they were lured into committing acts, by Policemen, acting as agent provocateurs.

As others have said, heterosexuals were having it away all over the place, especially in the blackout, with complete impunity, but men were deliberately targeted, and their lives were ruined by these proceedings.

Those men still alive deserve to be treated differently, and I for one, welcome this new move.

[andy-hughes]

mikey - //Andy.....It is less clouded but I whole heatedly disagree with it ! Men were not just caught in the act, so to speak.....they were lured into committing acts, by Policemen, acting as agent provocateurs.

As others have said, heterosexuals were having it away all over the place, especially in the blackout, with complete impunity, but men were deliberately targeted, and their lives were ruined by these proceedings.

Those men still alive deserve to be treated differently, and I for one, welcome this new move. //

I would not disagree for one moment with what you say.

But mitigation is not the essence of the question is it?

Footballers are busy having sex with women they have just met in hotel rooms as I write.

Ched Evans put up mitigation in his first trial - but he was still convicted and sentenced.

The peripheral details around any perceived injustice are always there, and sometimes they carry the day, and sometimes they don't.

But the fact remains - these men were charged and convicted under the law at the time.

The changes of the law does not suddenly mean their offences didn't happen, or that they were not tried and convicted under due process.

They were.