Government rejects Alan Turing appeal

[Hamann Pineapple]

Whilst I have the utmost respect for Turning's work and contribution to computing, I have to say I agree with the lords on this. He chose to disregard the law and as such was prosecuted and convicted.
The specific law is not relevant to the discussion, only that it was law at the time and he knowingly chose to break it.
If you disagree with a law, campaign to change it. Don't just ignore it. Society evolves and so do it's laws but the principle must remain.

I reckon you used to burn witches in a previous life.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Whilst I have the utmost respect for Turning's work and contribution to computing, I have to say I agree with the lords on this. He chose to disregard the law and as such was prosecuted and convicted.
The specific law is not relevant to the discussion, only that it was law at the time and he knowingly chose to break it.
If you disagree with a law, campaign to change it. Don't just ignore it. Society evolves and so do it's laws but the principle must remain.

I reckon you used to burn witches in a previous life.

How else can you tell if there a witch???

 

[Gelsons Dad]

Whilst I have the utmost respect for Turning's work and contribution to computing, I have to say I agree with the lords on this. He chose to disregard the law and as such was prosecuted and convicted.
The specific law is not relevant to the discussion, only that it was law at the time and he knowingly chose to break it.
If you disagree with a law, campaign to change it. Don't just ignore it. Society evolves and so do it's laws but the principle must remain.

I reckon you used to burn witches in a previous life.

Only if convicted!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Whilst I have the utmost respect for Turning's work and contribution to computing, I have to say I agree with the lords on this. He chose to disregard the law and as such was prosecuted and convicted.
The specific law is not relevant to the discussion, only that it was law at the time and he knowingly chose to break it.
If you disagree with a law, campaign to change it. Don't just ignore it. Society evolves and so do it's laws but the principle must remain.

It may have been the law of the land..... but that law did not allow two consenting adults the right to have a sexual relationship in private. If being in love was deemed as a crime then something was very wrong with it and needs addressing today.

You are missing the point entirely. Should we apply todays laws retrospectively to everyone who lived before us?

Do we need to go back throughout the archives and convict almost everyone of historical note for falling foul of todays laws?

You can't do it one way and not the other.

I imagine he wants pick and mix according to his current moral code, which is why it is such a bad idea - not a in relation to your moral code in particular, MES - but in general terms.

What would you do? Retrospectively prosecute Charles I for failing to provide a safe working environment for his soldiers in the Civil War? Or prosecute Enid Blighton for inciting race hate crimes in her Noddy books? Perhaps we could charge Scott of the Antarctic with animal cruelty while we're at it.

The past is the past. Don't try and change it - no matter how wrong the law was at the time.

 

[cockneycarparkm32]

Think the Govt. is more afraid of the consequences stemming from the use of Chemical castration , lobotomies ect.. that were being put forward as an " Alternative therapy" at the time . Inquiries are still ongoing about the rehabilitation homes from back in the day ,our book shelves are full of stories of the time . Yes things have changed for the better in some consequences ,but the laws at the time were next to Draconian , I`ve read manuscipts from court sessions that would amaze and baffle people when people were banged up for minor misdemeaners and offered the same therapies ,which inturn made them suicidal. The treatment of mentally ill folk, pregnancies out of wedlock , Deaf and mute people , Activist`s , just bang them up . Out of sight out of mind, not long ago we had the Commonwealth games here in our city, funny how they rounded up the people who lived on the streets P.I.L. (public image limited) the shame is on them . Not some gay man having his personality disected by outdated laws as they were even back then.

Not forgetting it was a very intollerant time ,WW2 not long gone , but no excuse.

 

[Skashion]

What nonsense!

Without law we cannot have society. That in no way means it shouldn't be challenged. Challenging the law in order to change it is not the same as ignoring it.

and what on earth does your quote have to do with democratic law?

Sieg heil. Unity is necessary for a strong reich mein Fuhrer.

I like to think I would have ignored Nazi law and harboured Jews and on my head be it rather than be a moral coward.

The Nazis were democratically elected. Have you never heard of tyranny of the majority? I don't abide by it. Never have. I follow laws if I can derive them from as much liberty as is compatible with equal liberty for another. If I can't, fuck 'em. I'd rather be imprisoned, fined or whatever than abide by bullshit I don't believe in.

-- Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:16 pm --

Wow, that is strong censorship. Only the word image remains.

 

[SWP's back]

Whilst I have the utmost respect for Turning's work and contribution to computing, I have to say I agree with the lords on this. He chose to disregard the law and as such was prosecuted and convicted.
The specific law is not relevant to the discussion, only that it was law at the time and he knowingly chose to break it.
If you disagree with a law, campaign to change it. Don't just ignore it. Society evolves and so do it's laws but the principle must remain.

Bollocks. He chose no such thing. In the same way that you don't choose to need a drink or eat food.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

Whilst I have the utmost respect for Turning's work and contribution to computing, I have to say I agree with the lords on this. He chose to disregard the law and as such was prosecuted and convicted.
The specific law is not relevant to the discussion, only that it was law at the time and he knowingly chose to break it.
If you disagree with a law, campaign to change it. Don't just ignore it. Society evolves and so do it's laws but the principle must remain.

Bollocks. He chose no such thing. In the same way that you don't choose to need a drink or eat food.

Many people have taken vows of chastity over the years. The idea that the need for sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual is akin to the need to eat and drink is just not true.

This isn't a debate about homosexuality. Nor is it akin to the Nazi's. It is simply a matter of not imposing todays moral standards retrospectively. And the appropriate way to challenge and change law. The latter most definitely not by ignoring those laws that don't suit you.

 

[SWP's back]

Whilst I have the utmost respect for Turning's work and contribution to computing, I have to say I agree with the lords on this. He chose to disregard the law and as such was prosecuted and convicted.
The specific law is not relevant to the discussion, only that it was law at the time and he knowingly chose to break it.
If you disagree with a law, campaign to change it. Don't just ignore it. Society evolves and so do it's laws but the principle must remain.

Bollocks. He chose no such thing. In the same way that you don't choose to need a drink or eat food.

Many people have taken vows of chastity over the years. The idea that the need for sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual is akin to the need to eat and drink is just not true.

This isn't a debate about homosexuality. Nor is it akin to the Nazi's. It is simply a matter of not imposing todays moral standards retrospectively. And the appropriate way to challenge and change law. The latter most definitely not by ignoring those laws that don't suit you.

I repeat. Absolute bollocks.

He chose nothing. He was born gay and attracted to men. I don't care how many priests (pretend to be) chaste (whist fucking small boys), it is not natural to live a life of chastity and to say someone "chose" anything shows naivety bordering on stupidity.

Whether he should have a pardon is one thing but your comment smacked of a bygone time. I also agreed with Skashion that anyone that follows laws/rules for the reason that they are there should be chemically castrated.

 

[Skashion]

I'd rather be chemically castrated myself than dare tell a consenting adult they shouldn't have sex with another consenting adult because it's the law.