Friday, 21 October 2016

Squash Refusenik Gays

I don't get it. If Trump loses the election he's not President. If he refuses to accept the result he's still not President. Does it matter one jot if he refuses to acknowledge the result if Clinton wins?

Talking of Trump, apparently that gorilla that escaped from London zoo managed to glug 5 litres of undiluted blackcurrant squash while on the loose. That's him headed for Type II diabetes then. Wonder if he used it to wash down a battered, deep-fried Mars Bar? He'll be asking for a Costa hazelnut syrup frappuccino next. I suspect he'll have a dicky botty for a few days. I wonder if Ribena will use his as a mascot?

Gay men being pardoned for having been found guilty of homosexual acts committed before 1967, when homosexual activity was on the staute book as an offence. Rather than applauding the fact that this government has done something about it, some are demanding an apology from the very same government.

Until the Sexual Offences Act came about it was a criminal offence, so a pardon is apt - I don't know what could be 'more than a pardon'. A government apology for something that happened more than 50 years ago, when the act was illegal, makes me feel uneasy and it doesn't sit well with me that governments are held responsible for the actions of previous governments. Governments could be apologising for every conceivable offence caused by previous governments since time immemorial. What about the women who were denied their right to vote? They'd have to set up a special department - the Department of Silly Apologies, apologising for things they were never involved with in the first place. I certainly wouldn't dream of apologising for something my parents did (unless I personally benefited from it) - it was nothing to do with me (and I have a problem with apologies anyway - at least Hay believes that). This presupposes that responsibility is not only institutional, but that the sins of the father are visited on the children forever. The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.

Now compensation is possibly another matter and something I could feasibly agree with. But that could spawn a host of associated problems, and offering compensation could, in itself, be interpreted as an admission of liability. That said, compensation has been paid to people without admission of liability. A thorny issue.

Take for example Nazi loot from WWII. You'd expect a child of a Nazi looter having some art treasure in his or her possession to hand it back to the original owner. However, theft was and still remains a crime. Possession of stolen goods was and remains a crime.

Wrongful conviction is precisely that - a miscarriage of justice. But prior to '67 homosexual acts were illegal, like it or not, so because the law was subsequently changed you can't simply claim wrongful conviction by retrospectively applying the laws of today to the past.

I'm not entirely clear in my own thoughts on this one. Any opinions?


  1. Replies
    1. Not anymore. Even when it was illegal, you could only be prosecuted if you survived - which logically wasn't suicide...

  2. Sounds a bit like if you sink, and drown, you are not a witch.