Government rejects Alan Turing appeal

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

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.

Understand the point you make, I think the difference between this case (and others in the same boat) is they didn't do ''anything'' against another person - they didn't steal, they didn't break health and safety guidelines or incite race hate etc.
Look at Nelson Mandela, will he be remembered for being a terrorist or one of the greatest leaders of civil rights? Because he was in the eyes of the law a terrorist at the time the law of South Africa dictated it. But he isn't a terrorist today.
Turing will always 'officially' be classed as a criminal for merely being gay.

I equally take your point and it isn't without a deal of merit, but one problem is where do you start and end?

If you're going to retrospectively amend Turing's verdict then what about Oscar Wilde? Someone else that brought joy to millions who was punished by the state because of his sexuality.

But hang on, those two were famous. Why should they be different from anyone else? Ok let's reverse any convictions whatsoever for anyone who was convicted of similar offences in the last 200 years. I could go on.

The fact that Nelson Mandela was a convicted terrorist is a reminder of why apartheid was such an evil system and hopefully a lesson to us all.

Glad you mentioned Oscar Wilde (as I did a few pages ago but no one grabbed the bait!) - his case brings up different issues because of the ages of some of the ''boys'' he was publicly hanging around with - of course today those ''boys'' wouldn't be considered minors, but at the time Wilde would have been aware of the law around minors (and there may have been payments involved with some of them - correct me if I'm wrong - to which was also a crime)
Of course there are many, many others in the same circumstances as Turing as you say, so I can understand the government not wanting to open up a can of worms and leaving themselves open to any forms of counter claims against them. I think some kind of official ''gesture'' towards one high profile case would speak volumes for families / relatives of those treated similarly decades ago. But I appreciate the sensitivity around such cases.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

No, he reckons the power of law is so strong that if it instructs you to be chaste then you must be chaste. For some reason this guy thinks a comparison to the Nazis is over the top. No, it is bang on, they believed the strength of Germany allowed them to trample on individual rights. Whereas this guy just quoted society's needs lets them trample on an individual rights. I see no difference.

Take a deep breath and think about what you are saying. You have just excused everyone convicted of a crime which doesn't suit their moral code. The whole point is not one of homosexuality it is of law and order. You believe that everyone should be free to act in a manner that they consider acceptable. Do I need to list people who of sound mind, acted in a manner that they thought was acceptable despite it being against the law? There are many more monsters than martyrs.

I do not for one minute believe that the law in 1950 was correct. Just as I don't believe that all law today is correct. The law does however reflect the society of the day in a functional democracy.

I feel you are missing the point here.
Nobody is calling for non-compliance with the legal framework.
But Turing's 'crime' was to fall in love with someone of the same sex,and express that love physically.
Just as black South Africans considered it a 'crime' to be banned from beaches/buses/restaurants/schools for their colour.
Just as women in this country considered it a 'crime' to be banned from the electoral roll for their gender.
Do you think that these groups should just have sat back,shrugged their shoulders and said 'well,we are getting a bad deal here,and this is grossly unfair,but hey ho - the law says we are second class citizens,so there's fuck all we can do about it'.?
Turing was a genius and a hero,yet he was hounded to his death for being true to himself.
He broke no law worthy of the name.
To treat him in this way is shabby and mean.

To us today it seems absurd that the law was as it was. However you have to examine it in it's time. The same act of parliament that oppressed and convicted not just Turning but many others was borne of the same moral conscience that did all this:

It raised the age of consent from 13 to 16 years of age;
It made it a criminal offence to procure girls for prostitution by administering drugs, intimidation or fraud;
It punished householders who would permit under-age sex on their premises;
It made it a criminal offence to abduct a girl under 18 for purposes of carnal knowledge;
It gave magistrates the power to issue search warrants to find missing females;
It gave power to the court to remove a girl from her legal guardians if they condoned her seduction;
It provided for summary proceedings to be taken against brothels; and
It raised the age of felonious assaults to 13 and misdemeanor assault between 13 and 16 as well as imbecile women and girls.

That it also extended the buggery laws to criminalise any penetration is simply a reflection of the times.

Without those laws we wouldn't be where we are now.

 

[Skashion]

Take a deep breath and think about what you are saying. You have just excused everyone convicted of a crime which doesn't suit their moral code. The whole point is not one of homosexuality it is of law and order. You believe that everyone should be free to act in a manner that they consider acceptable. Do I need to list people who of sound mind, acted in a manner that they thought was acceptable despite it being against the law? There are many more monsters than martyrs.

I do not for one minute believe that the law in 1950 was correct. Just as I don't believe that all law today is correct. The law does however reflect the society of the day in a functional democracy.

No I haven't. Take a deep breath and pay attention. The principle of all law should be as much liberty as is compatible with equal liberty for another. That's for the past, present and all time. It is an immutable principle which allows individuals to do what they want as long as they do not harm another individual's liberty to do the same.

No, it doesn't. Right now, for example, there are still legal restraints against the individual in all kinds of forms. We've got equal rights for women, almost for homosexuals but drug takers, dealers and prostitutes, no. That's why this principle stands and to which democracy is subordinate. Violence of majority faction does not trump the individual. We should not be able to vote to kill all gingers for instance.

None of this of course has any effect on the state's use of violence as a threat. However, I'd rather be a victim of the violence than adhere to law with which I disagree,

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Take a deep breath and think about what you are saying. You have just excused everyone convicted of a crime which doesn't suit their moral code. The whole point is not one of homosexuality it is of law and order. You believe that everyone should be free to act in a manner that they consider acceptable. Do I need to list people who of sound mind, acted in a manner that they thought was acceptable despite it being against the law? There are many more monsters than martyrs.

I do not for one minute believe that the law in 1950 was correct. Just as I don't believe that all law today is correct. The law does however reflect the society of the day in a functional democracy.

I feel you are missing the point here.
Nobody is calling for non-compliance with the legal framework.
But Turing's 'crime' was to fall in love with someone of the same sex,and express that love physically.
Just as black South Africans considered it a 'crime' to be banned from beaches/buses/restaurants/schools for their colour.
Just as women in this country considered it a 'crime' to be banned from the electoral roll for their gender.
Do you think that these groups should just have sat back,shrugged their shoulders and said 'well,we are getting a bad deal here,and this is grossly unfair,but hey ho - the law says we are second class citizens,so there's fuck all we can do about it'.?
Turing was a genius and a hero,yet he was hounded to his death for being true to himself.
He broke no law worthy of the name.
To treat him in this way is shabby and mean.

To us today it seems absurd that the law was as it was. However you have to examine it in it's time. The same act of parliament that oppressed and convicted not just Turning but many others was borne of the same moral conscience that did all this:

It raised the age of consent from 13 to 16 years of age;
It made it a criminal offence to procure girls for prostitution by administering drugs, intimidation or fraud;
It punished householders who would permit under-age sex on their premises;
It made it a criminal offence to abduct a girl under 18 for purposes of carnal knowledge;
It gave magistrates the power to issue search warrants to find missing females;
It gave power to the court to remove a girl from her legal guardians if they condoned her seduction;
It provided for summary proceedings to be taken against brothels; and
It raised the age of felonious assaults to 13 and misdemeanor assault between 13 and 16 as well as imbecile women and girls.

That it also extended the buggery laws to criminalise any penetration is simply a reflection of the times.

Without those laws we wouldn't be where we are now.

But those laws were rightly introduced - and many still exist - to protect children / developing young adults.
Turing was an adult engaging in a consensual relationship with another adult.

 

[Skashion]

NF, I was calling for non-compliance with the law actually. If homosexuality was still illegal and I was gay I'd be bumming for England.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

I feel you are missing the point here.
Nobody is calling for non-compliance with the legal framework.
But Turing's 'crime' was to fall in love with someone of the same sex,and express that love physically.
Just as black South Africans considered it a 'crime' to be banned from beaches/buses/restaurants/schools for their colour.
Just as women in this country considered it a 'crime' to be banned from the electoral roll for their gender.
Do you think that these groups should just have sat back,shrugged their shoulders and said 'well,we are getting a bad deal here,and this is grossly unfair,but hey ho - the law says we are second class citizens,so there's fuck all we can do about it'.?
Turing was a genius and a hero,yet he was hounded to his death for being true to himself.
He broke no law worthy of the name.
To treat him in this way is shabby and mean.

To us today it seems absurd that the law was as it was. However you have to examine it in it's time. The same act of parliament that oppressed and convicted not just Turning but many others was borne of the same moral conscience that did all this:

It raised the age of consent from 13 to 16 years of age;
It made it a criminal offence to procure girls for prostitution by administering drugs, intimidation or fraud;
It punished householders who would permit under-age sex on their premises;
It made it a criminal offence to abduct a girl under 18 for purposes of carnal knowledge;
It gave magistrates the power to issue search warrants to find missing females;
It gave power to the court to remove a girl from her legal guardians if they condoned her seduction;
It provided for summary proceedings to be taken against brothels; and
It raised the age of felonious assaults to 13 and misdemeanor assault between 13 and 16 as well as imbecile women and girls.

That it also extended the buggery laws to criminalise any penetration is simply a reflection of the times.

Without those laws we wouldn't be where we are now.

But those laws were rightly introduced - and many still exist - to protect children / developing young adults.
Turing was an adult engaging in a consensual relationship with another adult.

Why are those laws right? Should they be applied the world over?

 

[SWP's back]

Frankly,neither do I.
His 'argument' has more holes than his countrymans legendary cheese.
The logic that dictates we follow the statutes set,regardless of morality,fairness and equality,is a very dangerous rationale indeed.

Would that be Cheddar or Lancashire?

Who's morality? Who's measure of equality or fairness?

Exactly. The only answer to this is contemporary ones. But what if, heaven forbid, liberal values were reversed at all. Would they then be calling for Julian Clarey to be arrested for crimes he committed (and not just the crimes against comedy) in the past? Of course they wouldn't and quite right too.

It is totally wrong and faintly absurd to impose your views and beliefs today on the past.

I hear this guy abused some of his wives. Anyone up for charging him?

Point missed somewhat mate<br /><br />-- Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:48 pm --<br /><br />Hence people now being pardoned for "cowardice" from the wars (which is enow seen as PTSD)

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

[

Why are those laws right? Should they be applied the world over?

You know why they are right! The name 'Gary Glitter' says they are right to have those laws in place.
And I can see where you are leading me down the world of different cultures path which is a fair point too.

 

[cockneycarparkm32]

I think the only can of worms this will open up is the use of "Alternative therapies" . The medical profession is still not prepared to admit that the chemical castration ,lobotomies , use of electrodes , ect... ect.. that we were taught were experiments by the Nazi`s on Jews ,Immigrants, Mentally impaired , and Gay people . Actually went on in this country after the war , why ? because they thought the Nazi`s were on to something . And Gayness could be exorcised from the human body .

This is not about changing the law , this is about pardoning A person whether justly or not was convicted of a perceived crime of the 50`s . Remember he was given the choice of prison which he was too scared to do ,so the alternative was chemical castration which causes mood swings ,depression, and suicidal thoughts . The judge didnt have this information at the time , so he isnt to blame . Nobody is asking to find anyone accountable for anything more than to take a good look at his case and reverse the findings, that is all . A moral , and not an immoral thing to do in a modern age . If the Government felt so strongly that they were right they should strip him of his OBE .
I think he will get a pardon just not this year of the anniversary of the Queens inaugeration 1952 . Colonial times when they shot people in the streets for protesting over being hungry , just makes you proud .