|
| | |
 |
| 
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 47951 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2017 | Jul 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"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.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ng-gay-men'"
See the David Allen Green article, which I linked to earlier. |
|
Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"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.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ng-gay-men'"
See the David Allen Green article, which I linked to earlier. | |
|
| | | |
| |
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2025 RLFANS.COM
You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.
Please Support RLFANS.COM
|
|
|
|
