Suffragettes pardon plan

“Recently I had the misfortune to contract biliary sepsis; my transplanted kidney was close to complete failure. I’m only able to write this because the staff at Ninewells quickly diagnosed what was going on and spent the next 10 days treating and caring for me

Sir, – Is Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s plan to pardon all suffragettes convicted of criminal offences practical or justifiable (The Courier February 7)?

I’m sure no one doubts his sincerity over the question of honouring those trying to get equality for women.

However, he should think about a number of points.

The first is that securing votes for women was not achieved simply because of the actions of Emmeline Pankhurst and her Women’s Social and Political Union’s militancy before the First World War.

The suffragettes’ leader was the first to urge the suspension of campaigning when the war began in 1914.

By 1917 the efforts of nearly all men and women of all social classes and all skills were essential to help thwart the threat from Germany.

It was understandable that, in the course of that year, Prime Minister Lloyd George was anxious to reward the commitment and sacrifice.

He did so by enacting an extension of the franchise for men, and the introduction of votes for some women.

The pre-war sacrifices of the suffragettes is only part of the story.

For that reason I think a blanket pardon of all women convicted of offence in that period would not just be wrong; it would also set a potentially bad precedent.

Those convicted of arson or violence against individuals can hardly be entitled to a pardon in the name of equality.

What message would that send to those today who are hellbent on destruction in pursuit of a case?

The centenary of women’s suffrage should be seen as a cause for celebration, and not an excuse for antidemocratic behaviour. Bob Taylor. 24 Shiel Court, Glenrothes.