Hacker News Reader

Comment by kenver | Hacker News Reader

The guy can't win! If he hadn't he would have been done for not apologising, and now that he has it's a political gimmick.

When I read it I just thought it was a nice thing to do.

View on HN

Well perhaps 'gimmick' is a loaded word; what I meant was that a full pardon would have been more fitting, and also that he's apologising for something done by someone else long ago - I can't think of a better word, but I do take your point.

A full pardon IMHO is more of a gimmick than an apology. The guy is dead - pardoning him won't do him any good. On the other hand, a heartfelt apology communicates something explicitly, and might do some good for people who are facing similar discrimination today.

Not to split hairs, but a pardon is an action & implies regret - ie communicates something tangible explicitly. Whereas an apology without pardon is 'just words' & implicitly declines the opportunity to pardon. I can't speak for those who are facing similar discrimination, but my guess is that a pardon would be a more tangible comfort.

Either way, due credit for making the statement.

Being a USian I am not an expert on UK law, but I don't think the Prime Minister has the power to pardon. The Queen would have to do it (though presumably at the advice of the government).

Actually, the Secretary of State for Justice has the power to grant a royal pardon, and notably exercised it just the other day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_of_Michael_Shields#R...

I think tesseract was right. Jack Straw's quote:

"... I have recommended to Her Majesty the Queen that he should be granted a free pardon and she has graciously assented."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8245760.stm

Reply on news.ycombinator.com