http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25495315
Nice Christmas present for his family![]()
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25495315
Nice Christmas present for his family![]()
If Wisdom is the coordination of "knowledge and experience" and its deliberate use to improve well being then how come "Ignorance is bliss"
Zak33 (25-12-2013)
Ok, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here: -
Whilst it is good to see him get pardoned (if someone deserves it, he is one), what about all the others? We have been crappy to a lot of people in the past for what was "legal and proper" back then but seems atrocious now. There was a formal apology to recognise this fact, but I'm not sure overturning a conviction for someone that was "properly convicted" is necessary right. Of course, if someone was still being punished at a time when the law was changed, by all means stop at that time.
I just think if we start to pardon one person because of outstanding services to our country, why not the others and where do we draw the line if not?
ik9000 (24-12-2013)
Agree, its one thing to apologise for actions that, whilst perfectly legal at the time, are now less acceptable and another to start issuing pardons.
And if were pardoning people for valid convictions, shouldn't we also start charging people too? Plenty of people descended from slavers about, probably still living off the earnings.
I get the sentiment, but there does come a point at which you have to draw a line and say what's done is done. I note we still hunt Nazi war criminals however, so where that line falls isn't clear to me. The tragedy is he never really recovered mentally and took his life. That is tragic.
Pardon isn't enough, there should be a full apology for anyone in that time that was unfairly treated
Steve (26-12-2013)
I disagree. The law was different then. Just because perceptions/opinions/whatever have changed doesn't mean that we have the right to impose them retrospectively. If we went back in time and asked people then what law they wanted it would be their opinion that counts, not ours. Like I said, at some point, lines in sand and cut-off dates are required. Otherwise, where do we stop? Compensation for people who were hung? Compensation for victims who got maimed in unsafe mills? Compensation for press-ganged soldiers who got maimed/killed in action? Land requisition from anyone with a Viking surname?
Came here to post something similar to Gerrard - I've been expecting this to happen for a while, but I totally disagree with it.
The message is effectively: we're sorry for prosecuting you for homosexuality, because you were such a special person. Either we want to make amends, and we pardon everybody, or we accept that's the way things were and move on. His contribution to the country, on this occasion, is neither here nor there - even if it's admirable and in other situations incredibly relevant.
Now, if we are going to start pardoning people for crimes that are no longer considered crimes, then this government has a lot of work to do. We've got thousands of people executed for cowardice/desertion, many people executed when they were not of sound mind... and on that note, they were executed, and we no longer agree with execution. So should some people be pardoned on the basis that their crimes were very minor? At one point, you could theoretically be executed for stealing a loaf of bread IIRC.
Point is, that was what we did back then. It's dramatically different to what we do now. And it's admirable for people to go back, look at the case, and decide whether or not that killing was legitimate - I've done it myself, and it was very gratifying. However, it's a tremendous amount of work, even with just a single person, to decide whether it was justified or not, and it's still hard to gain a consensus because many cases are more contentious than you might imagine.
So one option is just to blanket pardon massive numbers of people, which would be an empty gesture because it's meaningless.
A second is to blanket pardon certain groups, such as the 2006 pardon of WWI soldiers shot for cowardice. But then that's also a bit meaningless, because why only WWI? Why not the Boer? Crimean? War of Jenkin's Ear? Can we leave the Battle of Hastings out? We could pardon everyone found guilty of homosexuality, but then we'd also need to pardon everyone found guilty of attempting suicide. And at some point we'd have to draw the line, which would doubtlessly satisfy no-one.
A third would be to go back and look at each individual case, and decide whether it was justified or not. Plenty of historians do this on occasion, but given that it could take three months work to look at a single case, and as I said, even then you would probably need to gather a consensus, you'd effectively be re-running the trials/courts-martial. Do I want the government to re-run thousands of trials? No thanks, I think we can spend our money more effectively.
A fourth would be to accept that the past was the past, and that the government cannot make restitution for the actions of a previous incarnation, one whose participants are virtually dead. We can accept that we did many bad things in the past, and we've learned from them and moved on.
And then the fifth and final option would be to cherry pick the odd case and issue a hollow pardon as a PR move. Oh look.
I'm not sure the prosecution was as bad... as the chemical castration ......
Serious Sam.. as you well know... I'm with you bud
It's long over due and I salute the final result
Alan Turing saved counless thousands of lives.. possibly millions.... and just becasue he fancied other men, and the law was against him... doesan't mean we should take his brain.. use him while we need him as a country and then not just imprison him but chemically change his body after we're done with his intellect.
Alan... RIP at last.
Originally Posted by Advice Trinity by Knoxville
the problem is it now is being used as the basis to request annulment and apology for 50,000 cases. See evening standard 24th December 2013. They should leave alone. By pandering to one case it creates a wider problem. And it won't take long until someone starts going legal for compensation on behalf of someone long dead and fairly tried according to the laws of their time.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)