Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)

3. He failed to quote a precedent, there is none,

Reply to Jesus Malverde (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 26, 2013, 03:41 PM

Dec 2013

and the only other solution would've been to back date the subsequent change in the law such that an offense didn't occur - never been done.

The significance of the use of the Royal Perjorative in this instance may be measured by it being only one of four since WW2 - Bentley, Evans, one whose name escapes me and now Turing.

I'm pleased Turing has finally been pardoned.

btw - it was the last para I referred to.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Alan Turing's Body [View all] Jesus Malverde Dec 2013 OP

The author of the article demonstrates a lack of understanding of UK law dipsydoodle Dec 2013 #1

What part is incorrect, it described some interesting concepts...nt Jesus Malverde Dec 2013 #2

He failed to quote a precedent, there is none, dipsydoodle Dec 2013 #3

How about the royal body concepts.. Jesus Malverde Dec 2013 #4

Happy Boxing Day to you too. dipsydoodle Dec 2013 #5