121–130 of 163 posts
> He said the research Turing carried out during the war at Bletchley Park undoubtedly shortened the conflict and saved thousands of lives.
Clear example of "history is written by the victors". The Allies were as guilty in the war as the other side. Neither side's goal was to "shorten the conflict and save lives" but to "defeat the other side" with no regards to human life.
75,000 men were convicted under the same law, of whom 26,000 are still alive. [1] Only Turing has been "pardoned". My understanding [2] is that the "pardon" implies there was nothing wrong with the law as such, just that Turing is forgiven for having broken it. So while I guess this is better than nothing, I don't know if it's really the way to go about it. [1] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhans…
So much this. It drives me nuts that the narrative on this issue always seems to boil down to the idea that Turing somehow earned not being persecuted for being gay through his efforts in the war and the injustice was that the government didn't live up to its end of the bargain, not the fact that he and many others were driven to suicide or horrible lives by this terrible law.
Scumbag Hacker News: Admires spies only after they're dead.
This is politically motivated nonsense. At right wing government trying to prove its not homophobic. Yes the Queen issued the pardon, but it wont have been done without the government being consulted. Pardoning one person like this when thousands suffered is an insult. They should have either pardoned everyone who was convicted under these laws, or none of them. Favouring one man because of his historical significanc…
It's insane to pardon a dead person in the first place but, for the currently convicted, why would that be insane? Seems like a massive reduction in sentencing should at least be considered. Sure, they broke a law, but most of us do that everyday. Maybe the reverse wouldn't be so bad either. Could stop a lot of stupid laws from passing in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I don't, because where does it end? IMHO, it's nothing more than a token gesture. Financial compensation won't change the wrong that has been done. It's superficial and ever so slightly patronising. It's symptomatic of the vile litigious happy culture that we find ourselves in.
It presumably includes us getting compensation from the modern day descendants of the Normans, Vikings and Romans.
Copyright and patent laws, and laws used against Snowden's whistle blowing are some obvious ones that are due for changes, but what's more interesting is if history continues to repeat itself it seems likely that some things we consider wrong now will become acceptable in the near future and the reverse is also true. This is much harder to predict.
(Humans driving cars is a reverse example. I think in the next 50 years it will become illegal for humans to drive cars manually except on private racing circuits)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're misunderstanding the power that the Queen has. Just because it's a 'Royal pardon', it doesn't mean that she actually pushed for it. The opposite is true, in fact (the Queen is a symbolic head of state, and does not interfere politically - anything you hear the Queen doing is almost certainly at the request of the UK government).
Granted. But still, symbolically, that's how it sounds, so maybe there's a problem with this system? What I mean is that even if it's done at the request of the government, that's only a description of the political backstage, but in public it is expressed as the monarchy's doing ("royal" pardon).
There are many problems. When you find a better system to replace it with, then let us know. Until then throwing away a millenia of history so we can have President Cameron sounds like hell to me.
Should this not have been an "apology" instead of a "pardon"?