Turing law

[Nearly Sane]

Good for John Nicolson


http://www.scottishlegal.com/2016/09/23/snp-mp-to-push-ahead-with-turing-law/

[Owlswing]

ood for John Nicolson

http://www.scottishlegal.com/2016/09/23/snp-mp-to-push-ahead-with-turing-law/

Yes, good man, a move long, long overdue!

[Brownie]

Quite agree, about time.

[L.A.]

At first glance it seems quite reasonable - but the law was changed in 1967!

It's not possible to hop into a time machine and 'right the wrongs' of the past, so I wonder about the motive of people who propose these kinds of laws. It's not as if the government has nothing else on it's plate.

[Nearly Sane]

At first glance it seems quite reasonable - but the law was changed in 1967!

It's not possible to hop into a time machine and 'right the wrongs' of the past, so I wonder about the motive of people who propose these kinds of laws. It's not as if the government has nothing else on it's plate.

The law changed in England and Wales in 1967, in Scotland in 1980, in Northern Ireland in 1982.

It's a Private Members Bill so is not distracting the govt. Private Members bills have no chance of getting passed if they were to seek to change govt policy, say to abolish the bedroom tax, as it will be voted down. It has a much better chance if it is something that can gain cross party support.

As to John's motives, growing up in Scotland in the 60s and 70s, as a gay man, I think they are fairly obvious. Will it right all the wrongs of the past, no, but it will mean that we recognise that people should not have this as a criminal record. It's a small step along the road in treating homosexuality as normal part of life, but it is a step.

[L.A.]

The law changed in England and Wales in 1967, in Scotland in 1980, in Northern Ireland in 1982.

It's a Private Members Bill so is not distracting the govt. Private Members bills have no chance of getting passed if they were to seek to change govt policy, say to abolish the bedroom tax, as it will be voted down. It has a much better chance if it is something that can gain cross party support.

As to John's motives, growing up in Scotland in the 60s and 70s, as a gay man, I think they are fairly obvious. Will it right all the wrongs of the past, no, but it will mean that we recognise that people should not have this as a criminal record. It's a small step along the road in treating homosexuality as normal part of life, but it is a step.

No doubt it will give the Bills sponsor a 'nice warm feeling' of having done something worthy but will it actually make the slightest difference to the lives of anyone?

[Nearly Sane]

No doubt it will give the Bills sponsor a 'nice warm feeling' of having done something worthy but will it actually make the slightest difference to the lives of anyone?

in the great scheme of things, it may be a very small step but I still think a good one for society to make clear its attitude to homosexuality.


On a smaller level, I can only say from talking to people with such criminal records, and their families, and having read many other statements from others in the same position, that they feel it will make a difference to them.

[jeremyp]

At first glance it seems quite reasonable - but the law was changed in 1967!

It's not possible to hop into a time machine and 'right the wrongs' of the past, so I wonder about the motive of people who propose these kinds of laws. It's not as if the government has nothing else on it's plate.

There are some people still alive who were convicted under the law that was repealed in 1967. It might mean something to them to be finally pardoned.

[L.A.]

There are some people still alive who were convicted under the law that was repealed in 1967. It might mean something to them to be finally pardoned.

I don't know, I suspect that some might regard such a conviction as a 'badge of honour' but I don't think any of them will currently be suffering discrimination because of it.

[SteveH]

A bit of a pointless gesture, it seems to me, and changing the law retrospectively may be a dangerous precedent.  Would any men who were convicted then and are still alive be entitled to compensation, I wonder.

[Nearly Sane]

It's not a precedent. It has happened previously.and no, there will be no compensation

[Aruntraveller]

I don't know, I suspect that some might regard such a conviction as a 'badge of honour' but I don't think any of them will currently be suffering discrimination because of it.

You suspect this how?

I suspect that a lot of them feel shame because of what happened to them.

I suspect this because I have talked to a few men who were convicted under this law. None of them referred to it with any pride.

[jeremyp]

I don't know, I suspect that some might regard such a conviction as a 'badge of honour' but I don't think any of them will currently be suffering discrimination because of it.

But you could be wrong. And even if you are not wrong, this new law will do no harm.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

This is an attempt to rewrite history, in effect a Disneyfication of a real life pathos.

[jeremyp]

This is an attempt to rewrite history, in effect a Disneyfication of a real life pathos.

No it isn't. It's an attempt to acknowledge that mistakes were made in the past and to try to rectify them as far as possible.

[L.A.]

But you could be wrong. And even if you are not wrong, this new law will do no harm.

I don't really have any very strong feelings on the subject Jeremy, but it seems that there must be higher priorities at the moment and this is just 'gesture politics'.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't really have any very strong feelings on the subject Jeremy, but it seems that there must be higher priorities at the moment and this is just 'gesture politics'.

and which of these is higher priorities will be addressed by a Private Members Bill that has a chance of passing?

[L.A.]

and which of these is higher priorities will be addressed by a Private Members Bill that has a chance of passing?

Obviously, it will only really start to take up parliamentary time if it gets past the first reading. I don't know if it stands a 'cat in hell's' chance but if it did, I would suggest that the time might be better spent - if it fails it would be a particularly pointless piece of gesture politics.

[Nearly Sane]

Obviously, it will only really start to take up parliamentary time if it gets past the first reading. I don't know if it stands a 'cat in hell's' chance but if it did, I would suggest that the time might be better spent - if it fails it would be a particularly pointless piece of gesture politics.

the parliamentary time for such bills are already set aside. I note you didn't answer the question.


As to its chances, better than average, it has cross party support, and is something the govt has said they won't oppose. As to a gesture, sometimes that's what politics is about.

[L.A.]

the parliamentary time for such bills are already set aside. I note you didn't answer the question.


As to its chances, better than average, it has cross party support, and is something the govt has said they won't oppose. As to a gesture, sometimes that's what politics is about.

I don't have a list of forthcoming private members bills, but I think it is highly likely that there would be at least one more worthy of parliamentary time.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't have a list of forthcoming private members bills, but I think it is highly likely that there would be at least one more worthy of parliamentary time.

And are they likely to pass as was the question?

[L.A.]

And are they likely to pass as was the question?

I'm afraid NS. that try as I may, there are times when I just can't figure-out what the hell you are on about.

[Sebastian Toe]

I'm afraid NS. that try as I may, there are times when I just can't figure-out what the hell you are on about.

I think he meant that if the other, more worthy, bills are not likely to pass then the time used on them is wasted.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm afraid NS. that try as I may, there are times when I just can't figure-out what the hell you are on about.

I asked what other Private Members Bills that might be worthwhile had a chance of getting passed. I was merely reiterating the 'getting passed' part of the question which you half responded to.

[L.A.]

I asked what other Private Members Bills that might be worthwhile had a chance of getting passed. I was merely reiterating the 'getting passed' part of the question which you half responded to.

I would consider it would be 'better' if a more worthy bill failed rather than a lot of time be wasted on a pointless bill.