As reported by some press.
Well no, "granted posthumous conditional pardon" "A conditional pardon does not affect the conviction itself but substitutes the sentence imposed by the court with a lesser penalty. For Ellis, it replaces the death penalty with a sentence of life imprisonment"
What are they going to do, dig her up and put her in a cell? Rediculous, either leave it alone or grant a full pardon.
|
It is a completely absurd disgrace that any time of public servants or politicians should have been wasted on such a meaningless pointless exercise.
The MP who wasted parliamentary time in bringing the case and requesting the pardon was Labour MP Pam Cox. David Lammy the deputy PM saw through the formalities in getting royal assent. I won't add the predictable "the country is going to the dogs" (even if it is true).
She was guilty of murder. The sentence imposed was appropriate at the time. That standards have changed in the intervening 70 years is irrelevant. Howeveer well intentioned those who bought the case may have been, she died 70 years ago and remains dead.
|
|
Exactly the same argument applies to the anti-slavery grovelling of a few years ago. Can't change anything in any useful way, but it makes a few agitators feel they have achieved something, and may make some members of the public feel a bit ashamed.
|
>> It is a completely absurd disgrace that any time of public servants or politicians should
>> have been wasted on such a meaningless pointless exercise.
Ellis's family have campaigned for this for years.
When there's a campaign of that type public servants and politicians are obliged to engage even if they do no more than stick to their guns in the 'guilty of murder/sentence OK at time sense.
In reality the sentence was harsh at the time and, like Christopher Craig and Derek Bentley is an example of why the death sentence was an immoral aberration.
Accepting the sentence was wrong actually removes the waste of time money spent in a futile assertion that it was fine.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 8 Jul 26 at 17:42
|
>> Accepting the sentence was wrong actually removes the waste of time money spent in a
>> futile assertion that it was fine.
What futile assertion it was fine? Dont think anyones been agitating to say it was appropriate, so would be no expense.
|
>> It is a completely absurd disgrace that any time of public servants or politicians should
>> have been wasted on such a meaningless pointless exercise.
>>
>>
>>
Fully agree, it was my first thought when I heard it.
Just one of those pointless and insincere hand wringing exercises politicians often indulge in to appear compassionate and caring.
|
>>She was guilty of murder. The sentence imposed was appropriate at the time. That standards have changed in the intervening 70 years is irrelevant. However well intentioned those who bought the case may have been, she died 70 years ago and remains dead.
Quite a lot of people at the time thought she should have been reprieved - reprieve was not uncommon by then as I understand it. What happened strengthened the case for abolition 10 years later.
She had a terrible life including being abused by her father. It's still in question whether her alcoholic dentist friend supplied the weapon and drove her to the murder scene.
I'm glad she has been pardoned. You might say and I couldn't disagree that what happened was what obtained at the time, but it does say something about us that we can confirm now that things are different, and we are better, in the matter of capital punishment at least.
The Home Secretary gave as one of his reasons for not reprieving her the fact that a bystander was injured by a ricochet.
|
|
Is it because her rellies are seeking compo?
|
>>
>>
>> I'm glad she has been pardoned.
>>
Done her a lot of good, didn't it? She ceased to exist seventy one years ago.
|
|
At the end of the day, It was her, and bently's execution that were the catalysts for ending the death penalty. I think that is testimony enough TBH. Commuting an already happened execution to a jail sentance (life at that) just defies common sense.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 8 Jul 26 at 21:09
|
|
If the commutation of the sentence gives her grandchildren a feeling that a degree of justice has albeit far too late, has been done then surely that is a good thing. Not sure why anyone would object really.
|
>> If the commutation of the sentence gives her grandchildren a feeling that a degree of
>> justice has albeit far too late, has been done then surely that is a good
>> thing. Not sure why anyone would object really.
What along the lines of "Sorry we killed her but still think she is a danger to society murderess??"
|
Given the fact the measure would be welcomed by those campaigning for such a change why do you object? It might be meaningless to you but it isn’t to her grandchildren. I don’t see the problem . If something does some good and no harm what is there to object to?
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Wed 8 Jul 26 at 23:39
|
Because government should have more important and pressing things on its agenda rather than soothing the fevered brow of people who are troubled because their grandmother was executed for shooting dead her boyfriend.
If you don't want to get executed, then don't kill people. It really isn't difficult.
|
>> Because government should have more important and pressing things on its agenda rather than soothing
>> the fevered brow of people who are troubled because their grandmother was executed for shooting
>> dead her boyfriend.
There was a long running and well supported campaign for this by Ellis's family. Government cannot ignore such campaigns and constant rounds of engagement and rebuttal also come at a cost.
There may once have been an immovable principle against such actions but if there was it's long gone with Bentley and Evans together with deserters from WW1 being reprieved or pardoned.
If Ellis's families aspersions are now met then resource is freed up for those more important and pressing things.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 9 Jul 26 at 09:05
|
|
Yet another example of the insidious parasitic disease that is slowly but surely dragging our country down; legalosis. Each day it seems my newspaper 'The Times' has a fresh example; today's offering is a six figure legal bill for a boundary disagreement. On a different level, it's not the Chinese we should fear, it's the ICJ.
|
>> Each day it seems my newspaper 'The Times' has a fresh example;
>> today's offering is a six figure legal bill for a boundary disagreement.
I assume those costs will be met by the parties to the dispute.
Too many people with more money then sense.
|
>> Too many people with more money then sense. <<
There may be an inverse relationship there. If you had insufficient money, you needed sense to get by. Now, many have more money than they really need, so the sense gets forgotten ?
Last edited by: Andrew-T on Thu 9 Jul 26 at 13:01
|
>> There may be an inverse relationship there. If you had insufficient money, you needed sense
>> to get by. Now, many have more money than they really need, so the sense
>> gets forgotten ?
Boundary disputes are the courts' nightmare.
It must be nearly 30 years ago I was on a training course where another attendee worked in the County Court in a well heeled outer London suburb. She complained at length about the time/resource these things needed as both parties 'went to the wire' and demanded a trial.
Most normal court cases settle even if only at the door of the court.
|
Some obviously feel that as her family now have "justice" that all is well and no reason to object.
I disagree - RR had it right when he wrote "just one of those pointless and insincere hand wringing exercises politicians often indulge in to appear compassionate and caring".
I want those I elect to address issues that urgently need solving, and will benefit those now and in the future - take your pick from unemployment, welfare costs, house building, immigration, shoplifting, cost of living etc etc etc.
the subject
|
>> I want those I elect to address issues that urgently need solving, and will benefit
>> those now and in the future - take your pick from unemployment, welfare costs, house
>> building, immigration, shoplifting, cost of living etc etc etc.
>> the subject
The idea that the time/energy dedicated to responding to the Ellis families concerns reduced the energy in unemployment, welfare costs, house building, immigration, shoplifting, cost of living etc etc etc is beyond ludicrous.
|
>> The idea that the time/energy dedicated to responding to the Ellis families concerns reduced the
>> energy in unemployment, welfare costs, house building, immigration, shoplifting, cost of living etc etc etc
>> is beyond ludicrous.
Ruth Ellis alone is inconsequential in her posthumous pardon - right or wrong. The cumulative effort on issues that are long past, about which nothing can be done, the result of which will inform neither now or the future is not.
Where governent getsit seriously wrong they should address shortcomings rapidly - unlike infected blood, post office, Hillsborough (35 years).
There are over 2600 open petitions on:
petition.parliament.uk/petitions?page=95&state=recent
Many have only a handful of signatures and should be binned, some are plain fatuous and should be binned. A few have 100k+ signatures - scarcely a large expression of public opinion.
Of those that have been debated the stand out in September 2025 was for a general election supported by over 3m - about 20 times 2nd place. Lip service to a democratic process - and a complete waste of time.
It is symptomatic of the modern political imperative not to upset anyone. We seem to have forgotten that "no" is a key component of unambiguous effective leadership.
|
>> >> I want those I elect to address issues that urgently need solving, and will
>> benefit
>> >> those now and in the future - take your pick from unemployment, welfare costs,
>> house
>> >> building, immigration, shoplifting, cost of living etc etc etc.
>> >> the subject
>>
>> The idea that the time/energy dedicated to responding to the Ellis families concerns reduced the
>> energy in unemployment, welfare costs, house building, immigration, shoplifting, cost of living etc etc etc
>> is beyond ludicrous.
>>
Written like a true civil servant ;)
I have no view on the case in question, but from a process perspective while the marginal effort is inconsequential the cumulative effort is not, in terms of absolute resource or dilution of focus.
|
>> I want those I elect to address issues that urgently need solving, and will benefit
>> those now and in the future - take your pick from unemployment, welfare costs, house
>> building, immigration, shoplifting, cost of living etc etc etc.
>> the subject
It's not either, or.
And they don't just represent you.
|
> It's not either, or
No-one has claimed that it is either/or..
But it IS a question of priorities.
|
'Some obviously feel that as her family now have "justice"'
They've already had a good movie and series on ITVX...
|
I would put it around the ate 90's I was with a group of colleagues on an evening out in a local town. I was at the bar and approached by a lady who I would describe as 'very friendly'.
We had a brief chat and she moved elsewhere in the pub.
I'm not sure how I came to discover that it had been Georgia Ellis (Ruth Ellis's daughter). Bit of research indeed corroborated she did indeed live locally.
She seems to have had a troubled life and sadly died in 2001 at the age of 50.
She was appeared in November 1995 on Micheal Barrymore's show.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5icDLZXxN4
|
>> She seems to have had a troubled life and sadly died in 2001 at the
>> age of 50.
Your Mother having a chaotic lifestyle, relationship(s) with violent men and being hung by the neck until dead can't have been an ideal start in life?
|
Ruth Ellis pardoned? - Terry
