Comments on: Peer convicted of gay sex offences could be expelled from Lords under new rules

By: David Griff

David Griff — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 03:09:23 +0000

He should lose his seat because he inherited it not because he wasn't elected Simon. An Elected House of Lords is pointless it would just become a second House of Commons, an appointed House of Lords is far more useful to the country. He should not however lose his seat in this way, bit useless him losing his seat at all, I'm quite sure his heir doesn't get the seat when he dies. xoxo

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Simon Murphy

Simon Murphy — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:17:26 +0000

The case in question is interesting as the whole thing was a witch-hunt against homosexuals. It was the 2 peers and the journalist who were jailed. The other 2 less prominent parties – the nurse and soldier were not even charged as the only reason for the case was to make an 'example' of high profile people. For that reason he should not lose his seat.

He SHOULD however lose his seat for a different reason – the fact that he is unelected. I have a problem with the House of Lords not being elected.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Sister Mary Clarence

Sister Mary Clarence — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:40:24 +0000

There exists a rehabilitation of offenders act in the UK and anyone convicted of a minor sexual offense in the 50s, for doing something that isn't considered illegal any longer would probably have a good case for redress under the Human Rights Act, as the conviction must be long since 'spent'.

Would it surely not be better to cut the hands of the corrupt little shits that have sought to pervert our democratic systems.

Smacks very much of Labour's introduction of new rules around party donations that either didn't address the fiddles that they already had in place, or were completely circumvented by Ministers and their lackies that 'did understand' the regulations.

Corrupt, corrupt, corrupt ……

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Grrr

Grrr — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:05:55 +0000

Shouldn't all people who have been found guilty of offences for crimes that we now consider to be founded in bigotry and ignorance be pardoned?
This includes anyone found guilty of a crime based on an unequal age of consent, various cottaging offences, or indeed anything for which there was no crime if the same behaviour was done by heterosexuals.
Now I think about it, a pardon alone isn’t enough. What about an apology.

(Report comment to the moderator)