This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
The article states that this "serves as an amnesty law to retroactively pardon men". But aren't all pardons retroactive? I think the term may be used here because people can sometimes be prosecuted retroactively for things that were not yet crimes when those people committed them. I guess this might count as retroactive if the record were changed to suggest that the people pardoned had never been prosecuted in the first place, or the prosecution were somehow undone in a more substantial way. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. I'm willing to be corrected, however. Is there a useful distinction between a retroactive and a non-retroactive pardon? Garik (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the term is redundant, as a pardon requires a conviction. It also invites confusion with "posthumously". So I think it should be removed (now clarified in the ITN blurb). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you said is right, a pardon requires a conviction indeed. Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση 2001 (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Specific mechanism and sources
Wikipedia's articles are generally better than journalistic texts at providing specifics and technical information in amongst the broad brushstrokes that give the reader an overview of the topic. It is also a great advantage of Wikipedia that it often links to primary sources, where available in these cases, as well as the secondary sources that bring the topic within the ambit of the encyclopaedia. For this article it would be really appreciated if something could be added about where specifically in the P&C Act the relevant provisions are found and how they operate legally, and if this could be sourced to the legislation itself. Thank you to anyone in a position to make this improvement to the article. Human470 (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apology to Turing
Turing himself received a posthumous apology in 2009,[1] but I guess it didn't apply to everyone else affected. The apology should be mentioned in the article. I'm not sure of the best way to work it in, so I'll leave it up to the regulars. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:3AB4 (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
