Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Gay men should be pardoned for historic sex crimes, Peter Tatchell says

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. ok but no comment about the no gays posters?

  2. I think he means “expunged”. A “pardon” indicates that the person was guilty is being shown leniency and grace. To “pardon” these men would seem to add insult to injury. Their records should be expunged; wiped clean; removed as if they never happened. They were convicted under an unjust and discriminatory law. It’s the COURT and the GOVERNMENT that should be pardoned, not the wrongfully and shamefully targeted victims.

  3. Tatchell’s nonsense, again!!!

  4. I can’t wait to see if he will comment about the stabbing in Camden

  5. The bottom line in all this is that gay people are still discriminated against, and that a lot of people still see little wrong with that.
    We are from time to time granted some little freedom, a few crumbs thrown.
    If Mr Tatchell can exert influence, put on pressure, to have historic wrongs ‘expunged’ then all well and good.

  6. TheBrutalKremlin 16 Feb 2011, 3:51pm

    Tatchell, Activist without a cause, please: SHUT UP. To suggest revisionism as a way of rectifying past woes is an insult to us all.

    This would undermine the bravery of Quentin Crisp, and the legacy of Oscar Wilde, and many, many others. I’d be willing to bet P.T. hasn’t even read the new trial transcripts of Wilde. If he had, he would know that his suggestions are preposterous.

    Beware the activists in Pink clothing: revisionists with similar agendas as Sarah Palin and Rupert Murdoch, who’ll do or write anything to keep their names in the news.

  7. Dan Filson 1 Mar 2011, 8:20pm

    The Protection of Freedoms Bill 2011 is having its Commons second reading today and doesn’t expunge of itself a single conviction, let alone of those now dead. A person “may apply to the Secretary of State for the conviction or caution to become a disregarded conviction or caution” but, as I expected, the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that the other party consented to the act and was a person over the age of 16; and any such conduct now would not be an offence under section 71 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual activity in a public lavatory). I can see the latter being a problem in some cases, where loitering was in effect the offence; perhaps records no longer show exactly where the loitering occurred.
    Given the need to make application rather than for offences to be expunged by executive action, I suspect few will apply. Moreover I suspect some may believe their convictions expunged and commit a further offence of failing to disclose or find their visas to the USA etc barred.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all