RootsBooster 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? This particular law was (IMO) a bigotted one echoing the days when many laws were based on "christian" values. I can see why some people would compare it to any other laws that are changed, but in this particular instance it left many gay men branded as sex offenders when they were just keeping themselves to themselves with consentual partners. Would 20yr old heterosexuals like to be branded sex offenders if the old law also applied to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel's Mum Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 This particular law was (IMO) a bigotted one echoing the days when many laws were based on "christian" values. I can see why some people would compare it to any other laws that are changed, but in this particular instance it left many gay men branded as sex offenders when they were just keeping themselves to themselves with consentual partners. Would 20yr old heterosexuals like to be branded sex offenders if the old law also applied to them? its unlikely that anyone with a unlawful sexual intercourse conviction will actually be on the Sex Offenders Register due to the age of consent changing in 2000 and the Register not being established until 1997. As USI was a relatively minor offence, anyone put on the Register between 1997 and 2000 would have only been put there for 7 years anyway so they would not be on it now. Therefore gay men with this particular conviction are not actually "branded as sex offenders" they merely have an entry of USI on their criminal record which would only show up as such on an enhanced CRB check. I dont actually see how this is different to someone having a minor public order offence on their record from years ago having it show up on their enhanced CRB check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 11, 2011 Author Share Posted February 11, 2011 I found the reference to CRB checks. I listened to an interesting interview on radio yesterday with a chap who was convicted of buggery in the 60's when it was illegal. He claims that a confession was forced from him but that's a separate issue. But his point was that his conviction shows on his CRB check even though buggery is now legal. Is that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Does the cctv laws mean we wont see the infamous Sunderland clip on you tube, I wouldnt have though it would make any difference ,most criminal offences in that category,obscene behaviour and cffending public decency will be wiped under the 5 year rule,and as stated earlier it was an offence at the time so it should stand,whatever the views on the legality of homosexuality these days the law was broken at that time.Just think of the number of compensation claims looming on the horizon. Those convictions should stand as at the time of the conviction that was the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Those convictions should stand as at the time of the conviction that was the law. But we have decided that the law was wrong, therefore so was the conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Surely a good move for a modern society? Halfway down this link wow, the power of the pc brigade is strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 wow, the power of the pc brigade is strong. What a meaningless thing to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 sounds ok to me, if it WAS a crime but isnt anymore theres no need keeping them as criminals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barny_100 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Sounds like common sense but in typical government (Of any colour) style it's not as advertised. The Register points out the records are not "deleted" they are being changed to include a "disregard" flag. Quite different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 So i guess you will still have to answer the question "do you have a criminal record" with "yes" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.