Mel's Mum Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 The law on homosexuality was repealed in 1967. Why should not those offences be wiped after what, now, is forty-three years and not merely five? but I think its the changes in age of consent in homosexuality that have taken place since that are the issue. For instance if someone had been convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a 19 year old when the age of consent was 21, then under the new ruling, this conviction could be overturned. The fact remains that this would be an inverse retrospection of the law which, if it happened the other way around, would cause outrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 The fact remains that this would be an inverse retrospection of the law which, if it happened the other way around, would cause outrage. I don't think it would, it certainly wouldn't outrage me. It seems totally fair. What exactly is the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel's Mum Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I don't think it would, it certainly wouldn't outrage me. It seems totally fair. What exactly is the problem? the problem is parliament acting unconstitutionally. If the law at the time said that sex was unlawful with an under 21 year old then it is right that anybody disobeying that law should have faced the relevant consequences. To use an extreme example, if parliament decided tomorrow that burglary was lawful, would you want to see all burglars released from prison and all former burglars compensated for false imprisonment? Its the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 the problem is parliament acting unconstitutionally. If the law at the time said that sex was unlawful with an under 21 year old then it is right that anybody disobeying that law should have faced the relevant consequences. And so they did. Where is the problem in wiping it from their records now, just as so many other minor offences already do get wiped from records? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 To use an extreme example' date=' if parliament decided tomorrow that burglary was lawful, would you want to see all burglars released from prison and all former burglars compensated for false imprisonment? Its the same thing.[/quote']No, but only because I would vehemently disagree with the change in the law. If I truly believed that burglary shouldn't be against the law then of course I would want burglars released from prison, that kind of goes without saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 11, 2011 Author Share Posted February 11, 2011 There was a story last year of a chap who was prosecuted in the 50's (ISTR) for what having sex with a man. He now can't work in any job requiring a CRB because he has a criminal record for a sex offence. Is that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel's Mum Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 And so they did. Where is the problem in wiping it from their records now, just as so many other minor offences already do get wiped from records? minor offences dont get wiped off, they may in some circumstances become "spent" but nothing ever gets "wiped" off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel's Mum Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 No, but only because I would vehemently disagree with the change in the law. If I truly believed that burglary shouldn't be against the law then of course I would want burglars released from prison, that kind of goes without saying. so you would have differing opinions of how parliament should act depending on whether or not you agree with the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishcake Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 why can't they just invest in a Ronco Record cleaner like I did? Admittedly it chips the edge of albums but the first track always sucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 so you would have differing opinions of how parliament should act depending on whether or not you agree with the law? duh! extra characters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.