Apologising for them. How far should this be taken and how far back should we go ? Should we be apologising for hanging, drawing and quartering people in the 17th Century as it is now deemed barbaric.

Not forgeting the Pendle witches..

Is anyone else getting the distinct impression Blackrod might be a repressed homosexual?

For context, he's talking about this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41891397" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Always feels like "from the very beginning" in my house.

Considering the people Sturgeon is talking about are probably still alive, along with their relatives and/or friends, I'd say it's still fairly relevant news.

conyoviejo wrote:Not forgeting the Pendle witches..

Agree - the Pendle Witches were treated horribly....

Serious answer would be, is there a legacy from norms previously held but now considered unacceptable which impacts upon a person's life today? If not, no apology needed. If so, an apology is a means to reconciliation. It's also harmless. In the USA, slavery, for instance, has a legacy which can be felt today. Not so much the case in Pendle and our attitudes to witchery.

The peddler was treated horribly for not giving pins. In the understanding of the day...

WW1 solders that were shot for desertion were pardoned but they probably had relatives of some sort still alive. How many generations do you go back ? Different eras had different standards and it is difficult applying the modern approach to this.

Each situation has to be handled and dealt with accordingly.

Which one are you currently concerned about?
Is it the one in Scotland?
If so, what's the issue?

Chris Waddle and Owen Coyle should apologise.

Jack Walker had a lot to answer for.....

To be perfectly honest, if something was clearly wrong, it doesn't really matter how long ago it was, an apology can't do any harm can it?
It's basically an acknowledgement that it was wrong and would no longer be acceptable. (Can't really see why people would have an issue with this, especially if - as in this case - many of the victims and / or close relatives are still alive).

Blackrod wrote:Apologising for them. How far should this be taken and how far back should we go ? Should we be apologising for hanging, drawing and quartering people in the 17th Century as it is now deemed barbaric.

Apologies benefit the perpetrator as well as the victim. It’s about righting a wrong and taking a relationship forward as equals.

The apology is just grandstanding. The pardon, on the other hand, is very relevant, because these convictions impact on people still living.

I understand the pardon bit.
Apologising for something you didnt do though is really, really weird.
I know some people like that kind of thing, and it might win her some votes but I just can't get my head around it.
I wonder if in the future, the tables will be turned, and people will be encouraged to apologise for making people feel like they need to apologise for something they didn't do

Bin Ont Turf wrote:Chris Waddle and Owen Coyle should apologise.

And Arsene Wenger too, there remain thousands of people in Burnley still affected by the injustice from arsenal's actions.

The sturgeon thing is purely on the basis of winning votes nothing more.

No need to apologise at all. It was wrong with hindsight, but at the time it was perceived the proper way to go.
If government apologised for every mistake it made there wouldn't be time to deal with current issues.

To those getting offended by this, how does it affect you in any way?

Can't understand anyone being offended by this. If she'd been apologising out of the blue it would be a bit weird and would smack of looking for votes, but as she's announcing a bill directly related to it I think it would be remiss if she didn't at least say the previous situation was wrong.

Struggling to see where anyone has expressed offence or implied it affects them personally. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed as with many issues.

Sidney1st wrote:Considering the people Sturgeon is talking about are probably still alive, along with their relatives and/or friends, I'd say it's still fairly relevant news.

Absolutely no need for the apology though. Sturgeon nor any of the other SNPs had anything to do with the legislation (unless at any time during their time in office they actively sought to maintain the legislation in question).

I might think differently of course if I had been directly affected.

deanothedino wrote:Can't understand anyone being offended by this. If she'd been apologising out of the blue it would be a bit weird and would smack of looking for votes, but as she's announcing a bill directly related to it I think it would be remiss if she didn't at least say the previous situation was wrong.

I don't know if anyone's particularly offended, just that they see it as pointless politicking. (Or self interested politicking, but then politicking by definition is self-interested.) It's a bit like if you apologised for my roof leaking - it would be a pointless apology because it's not your fault.

She's not apologizing for herself but for her AND past governments whom she represents. It's statesmanlike.

Hipper wrote:She's not apologizing for herself but for her AND past governments whom she represents. It's statesmanlike.

She doesn't represent the UK government, though.

Has anyone apologised for the lack of healthcare during the Black Death?

dsr wrote:...

Has anyone apologised for the lack of healthcare during the Black Death?

Oh wait, you're serious.

dsr wrote:I don't know if anyone's particularly offended, just that they see it as pointless politicking. (Or self interested politicking, but then politicking by definition is self-interested.) It's a bit like if you apologised for my roof leaking - it would be a pointless apology because it's not your fault.

It's nothing like that though, unless you got a criminal record for having a leaking roof, and the law has since changed so that having a leaking roof isn't an offence, and I'm pardoning those who were convicted for having a leaking roof.

She is introducing legislation in her country (Scotland) that pardons those who were convicted of some former crimes. As part of her speech introducing it she has apologised, on behalf of the Scottish government, for the fact that pardoning those people is even necessary. In true political fashion she has stretched the apology to be much bigger than it needs to be but ignoring that there's a reason to introduce the new legislation would be weird.

If I was gay I'd certainly be offended and upset if I had a criminal record for doing something which I didn't think was wrong. Anyone alive who got arrested and convicted at the time for simply being gay should have all records removed regarding those convictions.

HiroshimaClaret wrote:Absolutely no need for the apology though. Sturgeon nor any of the other SNPs had anything to do with the legislation (unless at any time during their time in office they actively sought to maintain the legislation in question).

I might think differently of course if I had been directly affected.

Was there a need for the apology?

Ask the people that moronic law affected and see what they say about it.

Being given a pardon is great, an apology though also helps in some cases.
Means a line can be drawn under it.

Sidney1st wrote:Was there a need for the apology?

Ask the people that moronic law affected and see what they say about it.

Being given a pardon is great, an apology though also helps in some cases.
Means a line can be drawn under it.

If anyone who was involved with the drafting of the law at the time is still around then, ok, let them apologise.

I think belated apologies are a bigger insult than no apology. It's almost as insulting (I imagine) as getting a lifetime achievement Oscar or an honorary degree.

More importance seems to be placed on being seen to say the right things and making sure people are not offended than dealing with real issues.

Real issues such as giving citizens convicted under despicable laws a formal pardon and a legal route to having that criminal record expunged, perhaps?

I wonder if the OP questioned the necessity of this at the time.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... o-abe.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Damo wrote:I understand the pardon bit.
Apologising for something you didnt do though is really, really weird.
I know some people like that kind of thing, and it might win her some votes but I just can't get my head around it.
I wonder if in the future, the tables will be turned, and people will be encouraged to apologise for making people feel like they need to apologise for something they didn't do

I agree with this. I don't think anyone alive today should apologise for historic wrongs. Why should I, for instance, apologise for our shocking treatment of people in India for example? Why should anyone apologise for this? This is just one example of course. Any historical outrage is the responsibility of those who were making decisions at the time, not anyone current, even politicians. Once the perpetrators are dead and gone any blame dies with them, in my opinion.
Of course 'sorry' doesn't cost anything and some would argue, they have on this thread, that it doesn't do any harm, but if you apologise for something then you are by default admitting some sort of guilt, why would anyone do this?

I wasn't aware of the Japanese apology. I think it is appropriate to acknowledge what a previous regime did was wrong. It is history though and difficult to apologise on their behalf when you weren't involved with that regime. As mentioned above the English have been involved in poor treatment of people throughout history as with most nations. As an example should the current government apologise for our treatment of people in the Easter Uprising in Ireland and how the Irish were treated generally ? Sometimes history should be left, accepted for what it was then and learned from. Not sure shallow apologies help with this.

HiroshimaClaret wrote:If anyone who was involved with the drafting of the law at the time is still around then, ok, let them apologise.

Considering most of those laws were hundreds of years old...

Blackrod wrote:I wasn't aware of the Japanese apology. I think it is appropriate to acknowledge what a previous regime did was wrong. It is history though and difficult to apologise on their behalf when you weren't involved with that regime. As mentioned above the English have been involved in poor treatment of people throughout history as with most nations. As an example should the current government apologise for our treatment of people in the Easter Uprising in Ireland and how the Irish were treated generally ? Sometimes history should be left, accepted for what it was then and learned from. Not sure shallow apologies help with this.

That's the thing. If you shouldn't apologise for this then some would argue that it's wrong for Germany to keep apologising for the Holocaust, which I think is wrong.

Instead of apologising I think the Scottish Government should commission a series of plays by LGBT theatre groups where the historical figures are all re-cast as members of the LGBT community. Oh, hang on, I'm still on last week's thread.

Trying to be serious for a change I wondered how an apology from Nicola Sturgeon would make me feel if I had been the victim of unjust laws relating to homosexuality. I can't imagine it would mean a great deal to me because she has done nothing wrong herself and I'm not sure she can really apologise for the actions of others. However, the article on BBC news last night showed an elderly gay couple and one of them was in tears when he heard the apology so it clearly meant a lot to him. So there's no real harm in it, even if it might seem a bit sentimental to some, including me.

She's isn't personally apologising for historic laws, she's apologising in her capacity as First Minister of Scotland on behalf of the current and previous Scottish governments. A government is as abstract bureaucratic body and it needs a human to front it. How have grown adults managed to thus far navigate their entire lives with such a tenuous grasp on logic?

Whether it is her as an individual or the current body of individuals that makes up the Scottish Government is irrelevant to the point being made. Her or they were not responsible for the laws of the past so the point in her/ they apologising for the actions of others is all a bit meaningless.

welsbyswife wrote:However, the article on BBC news last night showed an elderly gay couple and one of them was in tears when he heard the apology so it clearly meant a lot to him.

52 minutes later.

welsbyswife wrote: Her or they were not responsible for the laws of the past so the point in her/ they apologising for the actions of others is all a bit meaningless.

What made you change your mind?

Selective quoting there. Perhaps I should have clarified that I think it is meaningless or pointless. An apology from a current politician or government for an historic wrong would mean nothing to me personally. Others, such as the chap in question clearly take a different view.

arabs and africans need to pay for the atrocities of the barbary pirates and slaves they took from europe and the UK.

For over 300 years, the coastlines of the south west of England were at the mercy of Barbary pirates (corsairs) from the coast of North Africa, based mainly in the ports of Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli. Their aim was to capture slaves for the Arab slave markets in North Africa.

The Barbary pirates attacked and plundered not only those countries bordering the Mediterranean but as far north as the English Channel, Ireland, Scotland and Iceland, with the western coast of England almost being raided at will.

Barbary pirates raided on land as well as at sea. In August 1625 corsairs raided Mount’s Bay, Cornwall, capturing 60 men, women and children and taking them into slavery. In 1626 St Keverne was repeatedly attacked, and boats out of Looe, Penzance, Mousehole and other Cornish ports were boarded, their crews taken captive and the empty ships left to drift. It was feared that there were around 60 Barbary men-of-war prowling the Devon and Cornish coasts and attacks were now occurring almost daily.

Sir John Eliot, Vice Admiral of Devon, declared that the seas around England “seem’d theirs.”

The situation was so bad that in December 1640 a Committee for Algiers was set up by Parliament to oversee the ransoming of captives. At that time it was reported that there were some 3,000 to 5,000 English people in captivity in Algiers. Charities were also set up to help ransom the captives and local fishing communities clubbed together to raise money to liberate their own.

In 1645, another raid by Barbary pirates on the Cornish coast saw 240 men, women and children kidnapped. The following year Parliament sent Edmund Cason to Algiers to negotiate the ransom and release of English captives. He paid on average £30 per man (women were more expensive to ransom) and managed to free some 250 people before he ran out of money. Cason spent the last 8 years of his life trying to arrange the release of a further 400.

By the 1650s the attacks were so frequent that they threatened England’s fishing industry with fishermen reluctant to put to sea, leaving their families unprotected ashore.

It is estimated that up to 1.25 million Europeans were enslaved by the so-called Barbary corsairs, and their lives were just as pitiful as their African counterparts. They have come to be known as the white slaves of Barbary.

Interesting post Goalposts. When you say they "need to pay" did you have an apology in mind or something more sinister?

nah just being provocative, these sort of paying for historic wrongs are an annoyance of mine, Its where do you draw the line , how far back do you seek recompence

welsbyswife wrote:Selective quoting there. Perhaps I should have clarified that I think it is meaningless or pointless. An apology from a current politician or government for an historic wrong would mean nothing to me personally. Others, such as the chap in question clearly take a different view.

Not being gay or a convicted criminal, I couldn't possibly know how I would feel were a govt to criminalise then apologise for criminalising my sexuality, which is why I'm happy to delegate to gay people whose sexuality actually was criminalised and have actually lived this experience as to the worth of this apology, and more importantly, the legal mechanisms being put in place to have these convictions expunged. It seems the only people taking exception to this apology are straight people never directly or indirectly affected by the laws. Perhaps those having difficulty resolving this apology need to take a moment to reflect and ask themselves why they are vexed.

Goalposts wrote:nah just being provocative, these sort of paying for historic wrongs are an annoyance of mine, Its where do you draw the line , how far back do you seek recompence

This isn’t that long ago..

Just because someone can't see the point in something doesn't mean they are vexed or outraged.