Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Concur


The current fashion for apologising for errors / sins of the past appals me.


A pardon today will have no impact on Alan Turing's. rightly deserved, place in history as a mathematical genius who played a key role in WWII and in developing the logic and philosophy that led to the creation of modern computing.


A related point for consideration - if AT is "pardoned" what does that say about all the others throughout history that were also prosecuted, imprisoned and belittled for their sexual orientation but were not famous? Either all must be pardoned - which is completely foolish (how would we identify them?) or we leave historical convictions alone.

I can't even fathom MM's logic but that's neither here nor there.


A pardon is of course meaningless to Turing, but is a way of saying sorry, and I don't think apologies are bad things for wrongs, they help to fix things.


It's not about values then and now, what happened then was simply wrong, not to say fucking ungrateful. Few men can claim to have contributed as much to winning the war as he did; what he was was known and a blind eye turned, and then they fucked him up after the job was done.


My dad knew a polish lad who killed his wife and was slapped on the wrist because he was a Battle of Britain pilot, but hell, it's not like boffing a bloke is ke murder is it.


This isn't a sop to modern norms, everyone knew it was hypocrisy then, Jesus, half of the House of Commons had boffed blokes, it's trying to say sorry for how fucked up things were.


Part of me wants no pardon so that such atrocious behaviour remains a fresh thorn, so that anyone who claims they are proud of what Britain stands for is forced to realise that, even after empire and before we were complicit in organised torture collaborating with known human rights abusers, we could still be shitty.

I'm broadly in favour.


But I wouldn't start with Alan Turing. It's not as if the decrimininalization of certain sexual acts is the sole bit of unfinished business. Lots of things have been decriminalized, including abortion, blasphemy and libel. Yet thousands suffered the penalties, including death, for having committed them. It is clear that, for the moral good of the nation, we must find out and pardon all those who have been imprisoned, fined, killed, humiliated, tortured or exiled for acts that we, currently, don't consider criminal.


As well as being morally right, a proper, coordinated effort would stimulate the economy through the wholesale employment, at public expense, of tens of thousands of otherwise redundant history graduates and struggling lawyers for decades. In fact, I see no reason why a permanent Royal Commission of National Apology shouldn't be constituted as soon as practically possible, in order to examine, cross-reference and collate the evidence found and devise some suitable National Ceremony of Pardoning to be held on as regular a basis as found necessary in order to bring much-needed comfort to the generations of decendants of those who hadn't, all things considered, really been very naughty at all.


That might, arguably, be taking things a little far. But to do anything less would mean arguing that the concept of all being equal in the eyes of the law is hokum, and justice is only due to people you happen to have heard of - an argument that, I'm afraid, is not just unprincipled, immoral and odious hogwash, but unlikely to succeed even with an unprincipled, immoral and odious legislature.

I would be totally in favour of a pardon, but for everybody who was prosecuted for homosexuality in the UK.


He was of course a brilliant mathematician. His contributions to winning the war were huge, and his influence on modern technology is immeasurable. But I really think this is a separate issue. He shouldn't be pardoned because of what he achieved, he should be pardoned because of a deeply unjust law and inhumane punishment.

alice Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> go to the science museum - huge section dedicated

> to turing and his achievements



Nobody is disputing this Alice. Turing was one of the most brilliant minds of his generation. The fact is the law was the law and Turing fell foul of the law.


Okay, we all question that law now, some 70 odd years later, because ideas have changed.


My problem with the idea of a retrospective pardon is where do you stop?


I'm sure many galley slaves are due a pardon.

  • 2 months later...

People executed in WWI for cowardice in the face of the enemy have been pardoned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4796579.stm


The difference?

Alan Turing happened to be gay. And his prosecution and villeficaiton led to his death. It turns out he was a secret war hero.


To me, more importantly people presecuted of being gay under past laws will still be alive and pardoning them could make a difference to their lives.

There is much merit in what you say James.


It could be argued that if Alan Turing is pardoned now he loses the 'gay martyr' status which could weaken the cause of how unjust such a law was historically.


Further, a distinction has to be made with your example of WW1 cowardice pardons. All those pardoned are now dead. If Turing is pardoned then everyone convicted under laws against homosexuality logically need to be pardoned. While this may be just, those living who were prosecuted will require compensation for the suffering caused.


This brings us back full circle - where do you stop with such pardons? As mentioned previously, many people were transported for what are now seen as trivial offences

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> People executed in WWI for cowardice in the face

> of the enemy have been pardoned.

>

> The difference?


Well, the main difference is that the WWI soldiers have been pardoned because it is believed they suffered from what today would be called Post-Traumatic Stress. It's mitigation, rather than the law being changed.


What you are asking for is a retrospective change. That's very different.

  • 9 months later...
  • 5 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...