Alan Turing Granted Royal Pardon

TheDesX77 · 27 Dec 2013 at 02:51

Some interesting points in this thread. Personally I think it's a nice gesture but doesn't really have any actual effect.

I must say though, I think all this stuff about him being a criminal is BS. Obviously he broke the law but it was a cruel, unjust law made up in a time where if you weren't a straight white man you might as well be a murderer.

Think of it this way: if I became the leader of this country and told you all that being gay was now mandatory, would you all go and kiss your male neighbours? Or would you head over to the Houses of Parliament and tell me to get the the **** out? Forcing people to be something they're not is wrong, no matter what the law says.

daz.rathbone · 27 Dec 2013 at 07:48

All a bit stupid in my opinion, and setting a dangerous precedent.

Whatever your view on his crimes, and there have been plenty views expressed in this thread, they were crimes of the day. He was not wrongly convicted. All of the calls for pardons to everyone convicted of this law are pretty worrying, I just hope the media and any public opinion swell are ignored.

Maybe, if we want to start rewriting the history books, we should start with completely false/fabricated convictions - witch trials? And maybe give back all the property and estates that the state (incl Royalty) confiscated post "conviction".

Learn from it, pay any respect due, and move on to build a better society.

Actually, whilst rewriting history, we could convict many of our Royals (historic, not current - I have no information on this so make no accusations

) as paedo's!!

leaskovski · 27 Dec 2013 at 09:00

Stupid question time. Was Turing well known before he was discovered as a homosexual? Were there news articles pre incident explaining all the good work during ww2?

RDM · 27 Dec 2013 at 09:13

daz.rathbone said:
All a bit stupid in my opinion, and setting a dangerous precedent.

What is the dangerous precedent?

Frightful Boar · 27 Dec 2013 at 09:22

RDM said:
What is the dangerous precedent?

Pardoning the crimes of the long-time dead.

I would say that's a dangerous precedent.

I have a feeling you already knew that though.

Sliver · 27 Dec 2013 at 11:50

Tefal said:
his arrest was for gross indecency with a rent boy.

You need to go to some obscure parts of the internet in order to harbour that opinion. The general consensus is that Arnold Murray was not a rent boy. But even if he was, I fail to see how this should impact on Alan Turing getting a well deserved pardon.

Woden · 27 Dec 2013 at 11:51

Frightful Boar said:
Pardoning the crimes of the long-time dead.

I would say that's a dangerous precedent.

I have a feeling you already knew that though.

How is it dangerous? What exactly is going to happen?

Frightful Boar · 27 Dec 2013 at 11:56

Woden said:
How is it dangerous? What exactly is going to happen?

More money will be wasted on pardoning dead people.

C'mon man! A little critical thinking could have got you there.

Sliver · 27 Dec 2013 at 12:00

Frightful Boar said:
More money will be wasted on pardoning dead people.

Giving someone a pardon is not about money. It's about the state accepting that they have made a terrible mistake. If you think people should not be pardoned because it costs too much, then your position is immoral and in my opinion abhorrent.

Frightful Boar · 27 Dec 2013 at 12:05

Sliver said:
Giving someone a pardon is not about money. It's about the state accepting that they have made a terrible mistake. If you think people should not be pardoned because it costs too much, then your position is immoral and in my opinion abhorrent.

I think the money pardoning all these corpses could be better spent on helping the living.

In turn I find your opinion abhorrent. Favouring the dead over the living is frankly disgusting.

Sliver · 27 Dec 2013 at 12:07

Dimple said:
That word probably doesn't work but I can't be arsed since you can't read.

Pot kettle black much ?

This was my question:

Does anyone here feel that Alan Turing does not deserve a pardon ?

Yes there were many other gay men convicted during those times who were not geniuses and did not save countless lives by foreshortening the war due to their incredible work and did not take part in giving birth to the age of modern computing.

But the above to one side my question still stands. Does anyone here believe Alan Turing does not deserve a pardon ? If not why not ?

Despite me laying out clearly that I was asking people NOT to take into account the men who were not pardoned, unbelievably you replied with this :

He deserves a pardon if everybody else gets one.

You're ignorance is breath taking. You either didn't read my post or simply decided to provide an answer you knew was wrong but thought you could defend more easily. Pathetic.

Sliver · 27 Dec 2013 at 12:09

Frightful Boar said:
I think the money pardoning all these corpses could be better spent on helping the living.

In turn I find your opinion abhorrent. Favouring the dead over the living is frankly disgusting.

It's not about favouring dead people over living people, it's about righting past wrongs, or at least showing the country that what happened in the past was wrong and will not happen again. It's a simple premise, I'm a little baffled why you find it so hard to grasp. :confused:

Frightful Boar · 27 Dec 2013 at 12:14

Sliver said:
It's not about favouring dead people over living people, it's about righting past wrongs, or at least showing the country that what happened in the past was wrong and will not happen again. It's a simple premise, I'm a little baffled why you find it so hard to grasp.

Just because I don't agree that it's the right thing to do, doesn't mean I find it hard to grasp.

Are you saying that using money to pardon corpses is a better thing to do than helping out living people who are suffering?

Sliver · 27 Dec 2013 at 12:19

Frightful Boar said:
Are you saying that using money to pardon corpses is a better thing to do than helping out living people who are suffering?

Issuing a pardon is not an expensive thing to do. Stop making this issue about money, it's got nothing to do with money. It's about doing the right thing.

Frightful Boar · 27 Dec 2013 at 12:25

Sliver said:
Issuing a pardon is not an expensive thing to do. Stop making this issue about money, it's got nothing to do with money. It's about doing the right thing.

Well all the people it takes to make the decision don't work for free. It's probably more expensive than even I think.

So, back to my question which you keep avoiding...

Even if it's only fifty quid (which of course it wouldn't be), would you say that it's money better spent on pardoning a corpse than feeding a hungry child?

Sliver · 27 Dec 2013 at 12:30

Frightful Boar said:
So, back to my question which you keep avoiding...

Even if it's only fifty quid (which of course it wouldn't be), would you say that it's money better spent on pardoning a corpse than feeding a hungry child?

You're creating a false dichotomy. Your question implies that we can either pardon someone or use that money to feed the starving. This is fallacious. We have a trillion pound economy. Our nations wealth is spread over thousands of different avenues. You seem to think that by giving someone a pardon would mean for example, a starving child in Birmingham dies. This is beyond ridiculous.

Frightful Boar · 27 Dec 2013 at 12:57

Sliver said:
You're creating a false dichotomy. Your question implies that we can either pardon someone or use that money to feed the starving. This is fallacious. We have a trillion pound economy. Our nations wealth is spread over thousands of different avenues. You seem to think that by giving someone a pardon would mean for example, a starving child in Birmingham dies. This is beyond ridiculous.

You sit there in your ivory tower debating about dead scientists. At least you have that luxury.

You don't have to live with the choices that some of these families have.

Believe what you want, I'd rather my tax money goes to some of those children.

SexyGreyFox · 28 Dec 2013 at 01:14

Sliver said:
Giving someone a pardon is not about money. It's about the state accepting that they have made a terrible mistake.

So how long do we go back pardoning and accepting we made mistakes?

daz.rathbone said:
Learn from it, pay any respect due, and move on to build a better society.

RDM · 28 Dec 2013 at 08:00

Dimple said:
So how long do we go back pardoning and accepting we made mistakes?

As this is still within living memory I don't think it is too far in the past.

Dimple said:
daz.rathbone said:
Learn from it, pay any respect due, and move on to build a better society.

Which is where the occasional symbolic pardon comes in handy. It is basically a statement saying "We were wrong in the past to criminalise homosexuality". It is about building that better society by making a gesture towards the past. As the guy is dead it isn't like it will make any difference at all to him.

estebanrey · 28 Dec 2013 at 08:37

Sliver said:
Ancient Greece, ancient China and ancient Rome for starters. Take away the Judeo Christian BS and there really isn't any reason to condemn homosexuality.

I think RunningMan is a taxi driver in London...