FOLLOWING the heroic efforts of a Harrow lady, Gertrude Harris, 93, to clear her father's name, is the Government really proposing to instigate a group pardon for all 306 World War I soldiers shot for 'cowardice'?

If so I am outraged.

My understanding of the word pardon is that it retains connotations of guilt, the commission of an act that the transgressor requires pardon for.

A pardon does not clear anyone's name. It merely forgives them and relieves them of any consequences of wrong doing; and while this might have crucially important implications (perhaps pension rights) for a tiny number of relatives still living, I am at a loss to see how it removes the all-important stigma that has been the understandable focus of the families concerned.

Is the media, Local London included, talking of pardons when in fact the Armed Forces Bill will be amended with entirely different wording? I await developments intrigued.

One thing the granting of a pardon does not do is concede any wrong doing on the part of the State.

Fraught with difficulties though any legal action would doubtless be for families at this remove, it is hardly surprising that the State is prepared to speak only in terms of pardons... if indeed this turns out to be the case when the amendment to the Bill is drafted.

The judgement the families should surely be after is one of unlawful killing... or if the killing was at the time technically lawful, perhaps a judgement of gross negligence.

What is not required in every case, perhaps even in the majority of cases, is a pardon.

Of course any judgement of unlawful killing or State negligence would need to be established on a case by case basis. Perhaps there were instances of genuine cowardice among the 306 men executed, and though today the punishment seems brutal to the point of grotesque for any civilised society to be meting out, we cannot judge our forbears by our moral codes.

Any direct indictment of the State, however, must surely open the gates to a flood of law suits, even at such a remove as 90 years.

While immediate family, wives and children, might be few in number now, personal estates have been financially deprived and the stigma of shame has caused demonstrable pain and suffering to succeeding generations.

What are the options? That the bill might be drafted to include an admission of wrong doing on the part of State-sanctioned military authorities in the early 20th century, while also denying any right of restitution now? Possible, but the caveat would surely be tested in the courts and worse, for any treasury, in the courtroom of public opinion... and the public forms juries.

Perhaps the State might concede responsibility while squirming out of the consequences by creating a verdict of Executed Without Benefit of Medical Hindsight, which might preclude, or at least limit, any financial liability to the estates of those executed.

I cannot but return to the main theme, however: Private Harry Farr left a 21-year-old wife and a baby girl at home and went over the top on the Somme. I cannot see that he has done anything to be pardoned for.

Not to mention that there is simply no one in any branch of Government today morally capable of sitting in judgement upon him: to pardon him or not.

"It's okay, Mate, we pardon you."

Are we serious?

And I'd love to know how pardon translates into the languages of the other 14 countries that had soldiers executed for cowardice in the service of the British Empire.

If any amendment to the Armed Services Bill talks of pardons, I hope Gertrude Harris of Harrow tells them where to stick it.

Because talk of pardons leaves no room for ambiguity. If a pardon is on their lips, what she's wanting to hear and what they're actually saying are two very different things.

It is posterity, surely, that should be begging Harry's pardon.