Pardon?

[DaveHerns]

What other crimes might people be pardoned for in years to come when the act becomes legal ? Mercy killing?

 

[Doggit]

We're getting close on that already. A lot of assisted suicides aren't being prosecuted nowadays, and they're looking to change the law on it already. Try for another one.

 

[EFLImpudence]

They'd rather the politicians admitted they were wrong to stigmatise them in the first place, but that's society for you I'm afraid.

More like a legacy from (the supposed) god's law which is gradually being repealed when more and more realise it has no foundation.

Who knows - one day it may spread to all religions.

I therefore assume Roger is against it - or should I say does not approve?



Could someone please explain what benefit a posthumous pardon has?

 

[Doggit]

Could someone please explain what benefit a posthumous pardon has

Tricky here, there are those who think their wronged relatives deserve one, but in general, I'd say none whatsoever, but it makes those that give out the pardon feel magnanimous. But then society going topsy turvey, is like the Rohdes must fall agitators that are trying to apply todays standards to a time when their actions were normal.

 

[Ihavenojob]

Another "pardon" or rather more understanding of the issue is the number of people in WW1 who at the time were judged to be deserters , are now being diagnosed ( if thats the right description ) as having PTSD.

 

[blightymam]

No offense taken Blighty, and no, I'm not out of date, and I recognise the changes in society, but I'm not sure they are all good ones. I should have added that having aspergers, I always struggled to make sense of peoples actions. In my case, if I fancied someone, regrettably, I expressed it in a simplistic and straightforward manner, and because I never got rebuffed, didn't realise that it wasn't the way to do things - that's all it was. I never had to schmooze a girl into bed, and I always perplexed at the guys who did it that way, as I looked at them and thought to myself, why not just come right out and ask them, they'll either say yes or no. I handle the world a lot better nowadays, but I'm still learning new rules I have to incorporate all the time.

Doggit, to ask em is spot on imo... some blokes, in my experience, didn't ask and that's when trouble starts.

 

[blightymam]

,for something they did when, at the time they did it, it was illegal.
.

I guess the whole point is it shouldn't have been illegal and the laws were wrong?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Is that why they won't raise the maximum speed limit on motorways?

 

[Doggit]

With the current controversy over diesel car pollution, I wouldn't be surprised if they lower it. Westminster is about to charge 50% extra for diesel owners to park their cars in London, even though modern diesels are very efficient, and put out less CO2 than petrol cars. Is this just a revenue raising exercise methinks.

 

[^woody^]

View attachment 113321
https://www.pressreader.com/

Why do people not include the reference to their presented material? It is a basic tenet of intelligent writing. You provide the references for two reasons: to allow the reader to check on your interpretation, and to recognise that it is someone else's work.
To fail to provide a reference is tantamount to claiming the words as your own. That is plagiarism. Obviously, it is not plagiarism on this occasion because woody disagrees with the words. But if it had been a comment with which woody had agreed and he had failed to recognise the author of the words it would be plagiarism!

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/ld/resources/writing/writing-resources/ref-bib

Now that I have referenced the article it becomes apparent that the author, the law, and campaigners were not arguing for the pardon for sexual abusers, merely for consenting gay men who had been convicted under discriminatory anti-gay laws!

OMG - The Academia Strikes Back.
Would you like the Harvard or Oxford system?

As it's a DIY forum, I thought you could do your own looking. It's only all over the news, papers and internet after all.

 

[^woody^]

o they're just being pardoned for societies prejudices

If you were found guilty of a crime and were punished, but it was later found that you were innocent and wrongly convicted, then that's a pardon as the person was innocent.

If you broke the law of the day, that was not prejudice, but breaking the law, and you were guilty of breaking the law, and that's not something to be pardoned.

 

[EFLImpudence]

even though modern diesels are very efficient, and put out less CO2 than petrol cars.

Ah, but there are new poisons now - NOx and particulates.

The buses ?

Is this just a revenue raising exercise methinks.

It obviously is.

The solution to pollution is to allow people to add to it as long as they pay more.


As Michael Winner used to say - "Did you know you can drive in the bus lanes for just sixty quid? Bargain".

 

[transam]

well I would pardon that soldier who shot some Talban bloke & is currently in prison

 

[DaveHerns]

You can't be convicted for something you did before it became illegal so why the other way round?

 

[vinty]

In Germany they brought in ex post facto laws to prosecute"war criminals" who were not actually war criminals until they changed the law to make them war criminals.
As due to passage of time real war criminals were becoming a bit thin on the ground they had the bright idea of manufacturing some more by making it a crime of actions which were not actually crimes at the time they were carried out.
A bit like prosecuting some one for smoking in a pub years ago when it was not a crime to smoke in pubs.