UKC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25495315

About time...A great man with a great contribution, not just to the war effort but to future computer technology!

Though I can't help but think about all the others that were persecuted but yet won't get a pardon because they weren't famous!

In reply to phja:

Absolutely. Either you believe he was wrongly convicted because he didn't commit the 'crime', or you believe the law was wrong, in which case you should pardon everybody convicted under it. I think that what happened to Turing was a tragedy, but that doesn't make what happened to other gay people back then any less tragic.

In reply to phja:

Well said. Can't see many more pardons though and maybe this shows some useful lessons: on law not being the same as morality; just how much commonly held views on morals have changed for the better; and that establishment hypocrisy, although under more pressure these days, is still alive and well.

In reply to phja:

Seconded.

I wonder if he'd ever be a contender for appearing on the back of a five pound note?

In reply to victim of mathematics:

Or himself!

In reply to victim of mathematics:


On that basis you'd be pardoning hundreds of thousands of people for all sorts of"crimes"going back centuries and would be doing so for ever. A huge cost. Better and easier to highlight a few high profile cases In acknowledgement the old law doesn't reflect contemporary morality and move on?

In reply to victim of mathematics:


Yeah I'm a bit uneasy about it to be honest. Don't like the monarch being able to pardon people with no legal basis.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I think the fact that this is such a safe pr stunt for the government shows that we had moved on.

In reply to Papillon:

The queen has every legal right to do this as the Head of State.

In reply to Papillon:


The problem with this is that it assumes that Turing recieved the same sentence as another convicted gay man - I highly doubt any of those other people took their lives with a poisoned apple. He was instrumental in ending the war earlier than it could have and that's even before you take the number of lives saved because of it.

I welcome the pardon - he's not just another gay man convicted of a historical crime.

In reply to splashscuba:


That is a complex constitutional question, one that cannot be answered as simply as you think.

In reply to splashscuba:


Obviously, it's archaic. I used the word 'legal' to mean a consistent set of laws applying to all citizens.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


I think it's most probable other gay people committed suicide on the back of convictions


He was considered a security risk in the the Cold War era, around the same time as Burgess ect.... but that's history, I don't think we should tinker with it.

I'm not a big fan of Gordon Brown in general but thought his a apology was spot on, and should have drawn a line under it.

Mitch Benn on twitter: "So remember, children - homosexuality is acceptable, but only if you also invent the computer and single-handedly defeat the Nazis."

In reply to ThunderCat:



Nine bob note, surely?

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


OOohhhh....too soon.....

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


He is though, the fact that he was one of the gret geniuses of the twentieth century doesnt make him any different from the thousands of other men treated in a similarly poor way by the state, we are all equal under the law, or it doesn't count for much.

In reply to SteveRi:

There are so many things wrong with that quote.

In reply to phja:

"Pardon" is a very strange word, but how can you "pardon" someone unless they have done something wrong? Turing did nothing wrong. Surely if anything it is the State which should be seeking a "pardon" for being so utterly wrong with it's doctrine of abusing homosexuals even to the extent of chemically castrating them? But hold on the Queen is the Head of State, so who pardons the State?. Maybe a formal Royal Apology, on behalf of the State, to all people who have been abused because of their sexual orientation is what is really required.

In reply to The New NickB:

I tend to agree.

He was a great man who did great things; he was treated abysmally by the establishment, in accordance with the laws and morality of the time. I presume, but don't know, that he was treated similarly unfairly to many other people.

We can look back and vehemently disagree with what was done, but it seems strange to "pardon" one man among many, when for one thing, most of us know he did nothing wrong anyway, and for another, "crimes" being set against what else has been done in a person's life is a slippery slope. What next? Giving Harold Shipman a gong for services to treating childrens' ear infections?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Go on, explain.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Agreed. I don't know who Mitch Benn is, but he's a tw*t.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


Seems harsh given that he is making exactly the same point as you and I.

In reply to The New NickB:


Yes, but in a way that was extremely disrespectful to millions of other brave men and women. Turing played a significant part, as did many others.

I don't know, but I'm also guessing he didn't invent the computer either.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:



Well not exactly, but he's considered to be the father of computing / computer science / artificial intelligence

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

Correct, and he didn't defeat all the Nazis either nor was his efforts single handed.

In reply to ThunderCat:

Can he be blamed for Windows 8?

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


He was, but he'll probably get pardoned for that as well.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


It's exaggeration for effect, totally justified, especially as it is not supposed to be taken seriously. You would have to take it totally at face value for it to be disrespectful.


Well he sort of did. Again there is a bit more to it.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


I've not got the foggiest idea what you are trying to say here.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Are comedians allowed no artistic license anymore? His point sill stands.

In reply to The New NickB:

I understand the principle, I just don't agree. Anyway, let's not argue on Christmas Eve, especially on a subject on which we agree)))

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


It's an extension of the principle that one can "pardon" someone based on what else they have done in their life. Their "crime" is the important factor. (I know that good character mitigates in sentencing).

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

I agree with the pardon and I agree that all the other men (and women) convicted of the same crime should also be pardoned but someone has to be first to set a precedent and what better person than Alan Turing?

Peace to all

Merry Christmas.

In reply to phja:

Listening to radio. At same Time as Turing and Chemical castration, this country also strapped gay men to tables, showed them porn films with gay sex and gave them electric shocks to coincide with the sex scenes.

Some hidden history we have. Like a clockwork Orange.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Well, we're all within a cigarette paper of agreement.

Merry Christmas!

In reply to Choss:


Tory MPs would pay good money for that!

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

What do you mean 'would' - they probably do...with our money! dirty barstewards!

In reply to SteveRi:

(but only if you also invent the computer and single-handedly defeat the Nazis.")

That will be bad news for the deputy speaker Nigel Evans then .

In reply to ThunderCat:



The nine bob note more like.

Seriously though, it's a shame that this was not do 20 years ago.

In reply to SteveRi:

Very reminiscent of the Simpsons episode Homer's Phobia where the "heartening" ending of Homer learning not to be homophobic is somewhat caustically treated:

John: Homer, I won your respect, and all I had to do was save your life. Now, if every gay man could just do the same, you'd be set.

In reply to phja:

I was glad to hear this but do wonder why it took so long.

Though frankly anyone charged for that in the era should be pardoned if you are going to pardon one person, no matter how great he was.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:



I still don't understand how you can "pardon" someone if they have done nothing wrong, isn't a State apology more appropriate? See my previous post on this subject.

In reply to crayefish:

Information on Bletchley Park {Station X} only became fully available in the 1990s so Turing's contribution could not be fully acknowledged publically until then. This may have had a bearing on the fact that a pardon would also need to acknowledge his full contribution to this country and was thus delayed. On his conviction, he never broke the Official Secret's Act nor stated his contribution to mitigate his sentence, a man of extreme integrity, as were all Bletchley Park cryptographers who never told even family members what they did. I should know that, as my father was at Bletchley Park in these years and they kept silent ... I had to research it later in my life {Yes he was an older father}.... However it is 2013-14 and I can't understand the delay after the 1990s. His was a story of fighting for freedoms that Academia accepted but society in general had not progressed to. By the way Flowers did the technical work on computers with his revolutionary system of valves { whatever that is!]

In reply to MargieB:

I don't know whether this is the best taste but if ever there was a case for a conspiracy theory it was the 'suicide' of Turing. According to his biography he was not at all ashamed of his homosexuality; and he found all the nonsense surrounding his prosecution ridiculous. He was a bright bloke, after all, and knew his worth. But the generally incompetent British secret services (who after all managed to miss the clues about Philby and the rest) might have only been too quick to exercise their 'skills' on someone with a proven 'flaw'.

In reply to phja:

Turing is the poster boy for his generation, it would be great to see a ge eral pardon but this is a start

In reply to 3leggeddog:
It's quite a good way of drawing a line in the sand, of saying that society has changed, and that people should have a bit of a think about why, if they're homophobic, rather than taking it out on anybody who happens to be gay.

Which includes telling other people that you think gay pride marches shouldn't happen, and how people should keep it to themselves if they're different...

In reply to submit to gravity and high climber: if you go by the morality of this time, you both would be considered bad people.

Seb

In reply to MargieB:

Good point. I forgot that it took until then before info was released. But you are right... shouldn't have taken 20 years since then.

In reply to Donnie:

Care to elaborate. As you've not quoted what we said that could be construed as bad, we can't defend ourselves.