Alan Turing Gets an Apology From Prime Minister Brown

99luftballon writes "The British government has officially apologized for the treatment of Alan Turing in the post war era. An online petition got more than enough signatures to force an official statement and Prime Minister Gordon Brown has issued a lengthy apology. 'Thousands of people have come together to demand justice for Alan Turing and recognition of the appalling way he was treated. While Turing was dealt with under the law of the time and we can't put the clock back, his treatment was of course utterly unfair and I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him. So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan's work I am very proud to say: we're sorry, you deserved so much better.'"

Comments

It's about damn time.

[bezking]

If only Alan was alive today...

Re:It's about damn time.

[Hatta]

As they say, justice delayed is justice denied.

Re:It's about damn time.

[Beardo the Bearded]

Yep. Good apology, politically safe to make it, he's still dead.

Re:It's about damn time.

[postbigbang]

It also apologizes for the discrimination he faced. A small, but meaningful token is this.

Consider that today, you can be gay and a programmer, and nobody cares except the bigots. That's as it should be-- except we need fewer bigots.

Re:It's about damn time.

[Aliotroph]

It doesn't benefit him, but it potentially benefits thousands like him who would suffer similar fates. It helps provide in some small way a defense against more of the same towards others. It's just the correct thing to do, even if it took them too damn long to do it!

I find it extremely offensive that any state would worry about that type of morality over the scientific/technological progress offered by such a man. Of course, in my world view, even if it was wrong or evil to be gay, I'd keep him around and happy just for the potential contributions towards turning humanity into an all-powerful machine society!

Re:It's about damn time.

[palegray.net]

Here's an "Uncomfortable Truth" for you: probably a hell of a lot less than the number of lives saved worldwide because of his works.

Re:It's about damn time.

[calmofthestorm]

Britain was involved in the settlement and creation of modern-day Israel. Israelis and Palestinians often kill each other. It's not a real connection but I think this is what he's going for.

Re:It's about damn time.

[novakreo]

As they say, justice delayed is justice denied.

They also say, "better late than never".

Re:It's about damn time.

[Brian Gordon]

I find it extremely offensive that any state would worry about that type of morality over the scientific/technological progress offered by such a man

Sounds good but on the other hand living in a world where our deepest-held moral convictions are set aside for technological progress sounds like a nightmare scenario.

Yes their convictions were way off the mark (our mark, not theirs) but it makes the world sane in a way to know that society's mores and taboos will be enforced. It's not a part of ourselves that we like, but nevertheless that instinct is a very important part of how we interact as social creatures. Like, probably the most important.

Re:It's about damn time.

[johncadengo]

See, but my questions is this. How come the apology is only extended to Alan Turing? Surely many more homosexuals were mistreated and subject to injustice during the laws of this period of time. Alan Turing gets a special apology, but did the rest? Do we only apologize to those of our society who 'contribute' or who are unique and special? Even the least of people deserve fair treatment, do they not?

Re:It's about damn time.

[tverbeek]

It doesn't help Turing.

But it helps me, just a bit.

I genuinely appreciate it.

Re:It's about damn time.

[Keen Anthony]

The formal apology actually does extend to the many other homosexuals who suffered liked Turing. From the actual statement:

I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him. Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted under homophobic laws were treated terribly. Over the years millions more lived in fear of conviction.

I am proud that those days are gone and that in the last 12 years this government has done so much to make life fairer and more equal for our LGBT community. This recognition of Alanâ(TM)s status as one of Britainâ(TM)s most famous victims of homophobia is another step towards equality and long overdue.,

But yes, we do tend to only apologize for the most famous examples of society's cruelty to its own members. I think we have a basic need as humans to create symbolic icons. In Britain, Turing was just that. It was in no way a suggestion that his suffering was worst, or that his story alone was regrettable. Oscar Wilde is another example, though I don't think he was castrated. In America, Americans use Rosa Parks as an icon of the civil rights struggle, though she obviously did not endure the worst simply for the fact that she survived.

Re:It's about damn time.

[Fael]

There's a Turing machine for that.

Re:It's about damn time.

[st0nes]

How significant is it for people to apologise for acts for which they bear no guilt? On the face of it, it is a meaningless political gesture and I see it as a gross act of cynicism. A decade ago we saw the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa where people who were guilty of horrific acts in the name of apartheid apologised and attempted to atone for what they had done (I know that in some cases, but not all, the motive may have been to avoid prosecution), but at least the people doing the apologising were the guilty parties. Now we have the absurd spectacle of George Bush apologising for slavery, for example. He had nothing to do with slavery and does not have a mandate to apologise for his ancestors. Should I demand that the Italian government apologise to me because, when he invaded Britain, Julius Caesar did bad things to my ancestors?

Re:It's about damn time.

[some_guy_88]

You're completely right. Who modded this flamebait?

Why are so many victimless crimes still illegal in this day and age? Surely we can learn lessons from the past and fix up the laws today.

Re:It's about damn time.

[Kratisto]

Yeah, Hitler was more the case where, the enemy of my enemy is FUCK IT INVADE RUSSIA WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

Re:It's about damn time.

[EdIII]

And yet when you have consenting sex with your sister you will still get thrown into jail for up to two years, as it still seems accepted to punish people for whom they chose as partner. I would prefer it when they would clean up the other unjust laws that are still left, instead of just apologizing for those that already got fixed.

I see your point, but there are strong biological reasons to keep that illegal. It's not a small possibility that the children could end up deformed or with other severe disabilities.

If we have scientific evidence that is highly probable that sex between siblings can result in terribly disadvantaged offspring, does society not have a motivation to prevent such a tragedy from happening?

To put it another way, do you support two people having children if there is a 90-100% chance of having a "flipper" baby? 80%? There is a difference between an "act of God" creating a mentally challenged child, and deliberately creating one.

I don't support euthanasia, but I don't support the deliberate creation of Down Syndrome children either.

You have a valid point to make, but your choice of example seems to be a bit of histrionics and is being modded as such.

That being said, I would too would prefer the governments to remove unjust laws with a higher priority than publicity stunts such as this. Not that Alan Turing did not deserve an apology, he sure as hell did. It just does not help the people being denied justice today.

Re:It's about damn time.

[Don_dumb]

It's not so much about making the past right as much as a full official acknowledgement that the behaviours displayed and actions taken were wrong and they are no longer acceptable.

If apologies are not significant, they wouldn't be so difficult to give. - That is as true for us on a personal level as they are on a national level.

Re:It's about damn time.

[grumbel]

To put it another way, do you support two people having children if there is a 90-100% chance of having a "flipper" baby?

Yes, because its their choice to make, not mine. We don't disallow people with gene defects having children either and those can have an even higher chance of the children having the same defect. On top of that its not even the 'having children' part that its outlawed, its only the 'having sex' part, so making babies without sex (not really a problem with todays tech) would actually be ok with the law.

This really is just a mix of bigotry and eugenics at work and its quite disgusting that this is enforced by the law.

Re:It's about damn time.

[fatalwall]

I think it would have been better if they had apologized to the hole community for the law ever being on the books and the effect it had on those involved.

Re:It's about damn time.

[Thomas M Hughes]

Plato said that there is no true measure of justice, but it is important for a government to give the appearance of justice to society. This is a textbook example of that in action.

What? Plato didn't say that. That's completely wrong. Plato explicitly defined justice in the Republic. I quote:

we affirmed Justice was doing one's own business, and not being a busybody

Citation: http://books.google.com/books?id=50SqFuH-4jQC&lpg=PA126&ots=O96UUppWV1&dq=justice%20not%20being%20a%20busybody%20republic&pg=PA126#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Don't just make up quotes and attribute them to Plato. It makes philosophers really angry.

Re:It's about damn time.

[EdIII]

You have to be kidding right? According to your position you are endorsing the Island of Dr. Moreau.

It is not bigotry and eugenics to prevent brothers and sisters from having children. You are taking those definitions WAY to far to support a position, which is essentially, endorsing the *deliberate* creation of genetically damaged children.

We are not talking about little defects either. Serious genetic abnormalities are known to occur with offspring from siblings.

The kind of freedom you support, is not freedom at all. It's absolute anarchy. Can I create a mentally challenged person with great strength but nearly guaranteed to die of congenital defects before he hits the age of 25? Sure why not.

Puhleeze. There are limits in an advanced society and those limits don't imply the lack of freedom at all.

By your logic you would support yelling "fire" in a movie theater. Yes. It is the same logic.

Re:It's about damn time.

[afaik_ianal]

And while it doesn't help me directly, it helps a number of my friends just a bit.

I genuinely appreciate it too.

Re:It's about damn time.

[EdIII]

You might want to do some research yourself.

Ummmm, right back at you.

I was asking a hypothetical question and the percentage was not meant to be accurate. Once again, hypothetical. You can see that I asked if it was 80% percent right after which implied that the 90% was not a statement of fact.

That being said, the chance for genetic abnormalities in 1st cousin offspring is 6-8% which is double that of the average 3-4%. However, brother and sister offspring already result in DOUBLE the chance of autosomal recessive defects being present in the offspring's DNA.

1st cousins may have probabilities twice as large as the normal population, but the discussion was really about brother/sister offspring. That is not "twice as large". Not nearly. You seem to imply single digit probabilities, yet with a little research we can see you are off by a whole order of magnitude.

I have always understood the chances of incestuous offspring from nuclear family member pairings to be QUITE HIGH. Not single digits as you seem to suggest. I can cite three sources after just a few minutes of research which seem to indicate anywhere from a 25% to 65% chance of severe defects in father/daughter-brother/sister offspring. So yes, the devil is in the details.

So I will ask the question again, "What if the chance of having a "flipper baby" is 65%?"

J Pediatr. 1982 Nov;101(5):854-7.Links
        Children of incest.
        Baird PA, McGillivray B.

        Twenty-nine children of brother-sister or father-daughter matings were studied. Twenty-one were ascertained because of the history of incest, eight because of signs or symptoms in the child. In the first group of 21 children, 12 had abnormalities, which were severe in nine (43%). In one of these the disorder was autosomal recessive. All eight of the group referred with signs or symptoms had abnormalities, three from recessive disorders. The high empiric risk for severe problems in the children of such close consanguineous matings should be borne in mind, as most of these infants are relinquished for adoption.

Int J Legal Med. 2009 Mar 13. [Epub ahead of print]Click here to read Links
        Psychomotor developmental delay and epilepsy in an offspring of father-daughter incest: quantification of the causality probability.
        Schmidtke J, Krawczak M.

        Institut für Humangenetik, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany, schmidtke.joerg@mh-hannover.de.

        A 20-year-old offspring of father-daughter incest, who has been suffering from serious psychomotoric health problems since early childhood, is seeking financial compensation under the German federal act of victim indemnification. For her appeal to be valid, the probability X that the incest was causal for her disorder must exceed 50%. Based upon the available medical records, we show that this is indeed the case and that X is even likely to exceed 65%, thereby rendering the victim's claim scientifically and legally justified.

J Ment Defic Res. 1990 Dec;34 ( Pt 6):483-90.Links
        Incest and mental handicap.
        Jancar J, Johnston SJ.

        Stoke Park Hospital, Stapleton, Bristol, England.

        This is probably the first retrospective study of an adult mentally handicapped population of incestuous parentage. Eleven known incestuous unions were identified with 38 offspring, of whom 15 were admitted to the Stoke Park group of hospitals. Incest and its legal definition in different societies are considered. The effects of close inbreeding on mortality, morbidity, mental function and adoption are examined. The study also reaffirms that incest is one of the causes of mental handicap in a high percentage of offspring.

Re:It's about damn time.

[siloko]

It makes philosophers really angry.

. . . and angry philosophers are waaay scary . . . especially dead greeks. Sorry, I mean, Greeks. You can't be too careful . . .

Re:It's about damn time.

[Maso]

You do *not* want to make philosophers angry...I did it once and I think I got away with it, others, not so lucky.

Re:It's about damn time.

[Xest]

Indeed, and whilst many may think you only have reason to be thankful if you're gay because justice has been done, that's not the case.

My reasons to be thankful to Turing are because he was one of the founders of the field I work in and love so much, one of the most important contributors along with the likes of Godel to what I find one of the most fascinating and enjoyable fields of math, and because, most importantly, his work allowed my grandfather to cross the channel back to England safely for his wedding to my grandmother and if it were not for this, I might never have even come to be.

As odd as it sounds being not born until nearly 30 years after his death, I almost certainly owe my existence and livelihood to Turing and of course, there's always an argument that if Turing hadn't done it someone else would have, but the point is, someone else didn't, Turing did so he is the man I have to thank. To me, it was unacceptable that a man to which I and many owe so much be treated like this and often ignored in recounts of great moments and people of British history.

So I also genuinely appreciate it.

Re:It's about damn time.

[Stephan Schulz]

Your references 2 and 3 are irrelevant, as they deal with the a-posteriori probability, i.e. they look at known offspring with problems and the possible causes for their problems. All of the studies are very small.

Re:It's about damn time.

[grumbel]

I can cite three sources after just a few minutes of research which seem to indicate anywhere from a 25% to 65% chance of severe defects in father/daughter-brother/sister offspring.

So in other words a 35%-75% chance of having a normal baby, thats more then good enough for me, especially since we have the tech to screen for defects pre-birth. But if you look at the law (64,65), thats not even what is outlawed, there is no mention of making babies, what is outlawed is having sex, even if its the oral or anal or two brothers or two sisters that have no chance of ever making a baby.

Re:It's about damn time.

[EdIII]

All of the studies are very small.

All of the studies are going to be very small by their very nature. That is not surprising, and I don't think it completely invalidates the study. Such incestuous relationships are rare for both biological and social reasons.

Conceptually, it is not that hard to understand why offspring from such incestuous pairings have much higher probabilities for severe abnormalities. We may be arguing about the exact percentage, but I think we both know, it is not less than 10%. Quite a bit higher.

Brother-sister/father-daughter offspring is pretty much the closest you can get and it is not surprising (nor should it be) that the probabilities of severe defects are an order higher than 1st cousin pairings.

But if we are getting down to percentages here, just what percentage are you comfortable with? Do you support the creation of such offspring?

The whole reason to prevent such pairings is the public interest is not deliberately creating children that will suffer so horribly. Do you think even if the chances are greater than 50% we should let them roll the dice?

Re:It's about damn time.

[damburger]

Indeed, they have a potent weapon called 'postmodernism'. They say a bunch of words and sentences to you, and even though these sentences parse correctly and sound like they are dripping with meaning, they are actually void of any meaning whatever. They are the memetic equivalent of mangled packets, which needlessly tie up your mental facilities, and any brain that hasn't received the postmodernism-is-bullshit patch is susceptible to attack.

Re:It's about damn time.

[Chrisje]

How exactly does

we affirmed Justice was doing one's own business, and not being a busybody

*define justice explicitly*??

All they say in this dialogue is that allowing people to go about their business is doing them justice, and interfering in people's business is an injustice, but it doesn't claim to give an ultimate definition justice. The whole dialogue tries to come up with a definition of justice, but mires down into a debate about self interest versus acting just and the quality of rulers. Having said that, I guess the original poster's comment is not a quote from Plato, so you're right. But the original poster did stay closer to the meaning of the Republic in my view.

But for some reason, and correct me if I'm wrong, the phrase "There is no true measure of justice, but it is important for a government to give the appearens of justice to society" sounds like a Machiavellian thing to say and reminds me of the Cardassian justice system. :-D

Re:It's about damn time.

[Chrisje]

You bet your sweet ass I'm bigoted against bigots. And I can tell you why. Bigots and Zealots won't let other people go about their business. If I like taking it up the tail pipe, I don't see how this should be anyone's business.

And you bet your sweet ass I hate Christians. But then I don't admire other religions, because anyone who tends to believe in imaginary friends also thinks they're the coolest and only friends *anyone* should *ever* admire, so at the end of the day religion serves as a petri dish for growing whole cultures of bigots.

Five will definitely get you ten if you say I'm pro choice but against the death penalty. If I have to explain the morals of that one to you, this post would take more bandwidth than a Stevie Wonder discography so I won't bother. Suffice it to say that while I do think abortion is a question that deserves serious thought and shouldn't be considered trivial, the effects of legalize it on society are measurable (Crime rate, New York pre-Guiliani). Furthermore it is a statement about how far women's rights have progressed in any given society. The Death penalty on the other hand is barbaric, and cannot safely be executed (no pun intended). Just the other day, two men that were in the slammer for 10 years for a murder were acquitted in Holland because an error was made and the guilty party was found. In Texas, you couldn't release those innocent men, you'd have to send a posthumous apology note to their families. That possibility alone should prevent anyone from such a penalty.

With the whole brown good, white bad, men bad, women good you're just being silly. No "liberal" will say that, that's just bone-headed.

Stupid Southerners. They exist. As do oppressed blacks. And criminals. There is a correlation between stupidity, oppression, a lack of education and crime. Maybe y'all should legalize abortion, so that women (who are generally not that stupid, given the choice) can make some decisions that would curb that trend.

Now don't start about rural folk. The first thing I ever learned to drive was a Massey Fergusson from the 1950's, followed by a fork lift. I harvested potatoes on my knees on my uncle's acre and I cleaned tulip bulbs when I was 12 while listening to Tom T. Hall. So you may call me a flaming liberal, but you can't call me a city slicker.

Having said that, clinging to guns and religion is plainly unintelligent, whether you're from a city or a farm, the North or the South, black or white. By the sounds of it, you're a somewhat unintelligent gun lover with a homophobic streak and a chip on his shoulder because the US doesn't consist of only your kind right now, looking at the balance of power. "Him liking it up the butt would have been puzzling to me" already gives it away. It's a good demonstration of how one sentence transforms you from a liberal into a bigot if you repeat it at a 50 year interval.

Turing died, and people then were obviously not enlightened enough to distinguish jack shit, because otherwise they wouldn't tell a war hero and a brilliant scientist to choose between chemical castration and hard time for having a boyfriend.

Re:It's about damn time.

[Hognoxious]

If only Alan was alive today...

He'd be screaming "Get me out of this box!!!"

Re:It's about damn time.

[jackchance]

Britain was involved in the settlement and creation of modern-day Israel. Israelis and Palestinians often kill each other. It's not a real connection but I think this is what he's going for.

How do you define "often"? The total death toll of the israeli-palestinian conflict since the beginning of the first intefada in 1987 is about 8000 people. That's less than 365 per year (8000/22). (This figure includes both civilian and military casualties on both sides). There are about 10 million people living in Israel and the West Bank and Gaza. So the death toll from the conflict is 3.65 deaths per 100000 people per year. In the United States, the death toll from car accidents is 14.7 death per 100000 people per year. Maybe that's "often" but I just wanted to put it in perspective.

If you wanted to pick a conflict that the British were involved with a high death toll, the israeli-palestinian conflict is a pretty poor choice.

Re:It's about damn time.

[terjeber]

To put it another way, do you support two people having children if there is a 90-100% chance of having a "flipper" baby?

The problem with your argument is that we are drawing an arbitrary line that is squiggly as all hell, in other words, it hits some people randomly but equally problematic situations are allowed. Lines must be straight (no pun intended) and they must not be arbitrary.

Examplification
What is "disadvantaged"? We know that a lot of people will, based on their current life-style, statistically (within 80% chance or so) have disadvantaged children one way or another. This includes, but is not limited to, people living in specific locations (some rural places have statistically terrible results), people with certain levels (or lack of) income, people in certain locations with certain cultural or racial backgrounds (for example there is a high chance that inner-city African-American children will be disadvantaged due to their parents actions or lack of such. Is it OK to make a law that says they need their tubes tied, at least until they're 25?

Where do we draw the line? Can a woman past 40 be allowed to produce children? It is far more likely that she has a downs-syndrome child than that a brother-sister relationship ends up with a disabled child. Do you want to tie the tubes on large numbers of inner-city Hispanic girls (and perhaps untie those tubes once they are past 25 or so)? What standards do we follow and why? Oh, and if you think I sound racist, please go and get your tubes tied before answering, you're already severely mentally deficient.

Consenting adults is a nice, straight line. It doesn't hit randomly. It doesn't hit some people who have "bad" children and not hit others with a similar profile. It allows for stuff that most people can not easily swallow today, but so what. Law isn't about morality and the government should not be in the business of enforcing any particular moral code.

You want to marry your sister - and she agrees, fine with me. Daughter? Ah, I'd like to see a competency test on her first. You want to marry a very young person? Well, not until we are sure that "consenting" is something that individual can actually properly do "informed" is an important part of "consent". Today we mostly say that consenting is something you are unable to do until your're 18. Fine by me. 16 is OK to, which is the case in other places. 13? Nah, nobody would agree that that is an age of informed consent.

You want to marry a same-gender person? Fine. You want to marry two or three people. No problem. As long as everybody is capable of "informed consent". You want to marry your dog? Sure, when he can prove he is capable of informed consent.

Re:It's about damn time.

[Xiph]

And while it doesn't help me directly, it seems this phrase will get modded up.

I genuinly appriciate it too.

ps. i prefer insightful over funny, i'm not just a joker, i'm a karmawhore too!

Re:It's about damn time.

[terjeber]

living in a world where our deepest-held moral convictions are set aside for technological progress sounds like a nightmare scenario.

Sounds like paradise to me. A society governed by reason rather than moronic superstitions.

it makes the world sane in a way to know that society's mores and taboos will be enforced.

Quite the opposite. Societies taboos should be shunned on principle. Mob-mentality instituted into law. Moronic superstitions codified and enforced by people in uniform. What makes the world insane is that our morals (which I assume is what you meant) and taboos are enforced.

that instinct is a very important part of how we interact as social creatures.

Instincts are what makes us animals. Reason is what makes us human.

Re:It's about damn time.

[EdIII]

you're already severely mentally deficient.

Alright, if you want to be an asshole about it.....

What is "disadvantaged"?

You can keep the racist shit to yourself. Your histrionics and strawmen make poor arguments and are not worthy of this discussion.

I was being nice by using the word disadvantaged. I really meant severely fucking retarded with severe physical abnormalities like missing limbs, ah screw it. Why don't you go watch a documentary on Chernobyl and you will get the idea.

You don't understand, or care to understand, that offspring from brother/sister-father/daughter pairings have non-trivial probabilities of having really fucked up children. 1st cousins are double the average for normal couples. Once you get close than that, the probabilities pick up fucking dramatically. Not a few percent. Try a WHOLE ORDER.

That's fine, you can argue the point about statistics. Go do your own research for 10 minutes. You will find out what everyone knows by common sense. You fuck your sister, mother, or daughter and you will more than likely end up with a "flipper" baby.

You want the law to be fair and perfect. Fine. Informed consent? That's perfectly fine with me. Scientifically proven chance that is 1/4 to 1/2 chance of having some poor fucked up "kill me... kill me..." child? Not OK.

You want to drag this all over the board, bringing eugenics and racism in as a strawmen argument. Well it ain't gonna work. This about one thing, and one thing only. Incest producing severely damaged children that will require enormous resources to care for. I mean we have to right? Euthanasia? Does not sound like you support that either.

Law isn't about morality and the government should not be in the business of enforcing any particular moral code.

No fucking shit. Your kidding. This is not about morality. I totally agree on that. I could give two shits about some holy books talking about "laying downeth why thy sister and slipping her the salami is a sin".

It is about having a high probability of creating a child that society will have to take care of for the rest of that child's life.

Since I certainly don't support killing the child, I must obviously support using my taxes to take care of the child. Well then it stands to reason that I don't want brother's and sister's fucking each other creating these children deliberately that I have to take care of with my tax dollars and have my heart broken every time I see one of those poor souls.

It can all be prevented by simply keeping your dick out of your family members. So yeah, I support laws to keep your dick out of your family members. That makes me a mentally deficient, Nazi Loving, racist, eugenic supporting, totalitarian fascist.

Heil Hitler!

Re:It's about damn time.

[terjeber]

Don't even try that BS. Women past 40 don't have 1/4 to 1/2 chances of having severely genetically damaged children.

Neither does children of consanguinuous parents. Where do you get your numbers? If your parents are siblings and they have a genetic defect, you have a 50% chance of getting it. Tat doesn't mean that there is a 50% chance that the child will have a severe defect. This applies obviously to recessively inherited defects, which are most. This is incidentally the same chance as if non-related parents of which one has a dominantly inherited genetic defect will have a child with genetic defects.

When you are so fucked up, you are confined to a hospital for the time that you survive it makes Down Syndrome look like a rash

What are you babbling about? There are a huge number of diseases that result from genetic defects and the vast majority have no such properties. Get a grip. Stop emoting so much. Engage your brain before you spout nonsense.

Oh, and if you have Huntington's, which is one of the few dominantly inherited genetic defects, there is a 50% chance your offspring will have it too. This is more than an order of magnitude higher than the chance that offspring from random consanguinuous (we do not know if they are carriers of a genetic defect or not, if they are not, there is nothing to inherit and no damage done) parents having genetically "defect" children. Maybe we should test kids in school and do a snip-snip on the ones who are Huntington's carriers.

Re:It's about damn time.

[BoneFlower]

Gordon Brown bears no personal responsibility for Alan Turings treatment.

However, he leads an organization which does bear responsibility for it. That organization owed an apology, and due to his leadership position, Gordon Brown was the correct one to deliver it on behalf of that organization.

Re:It's about damn time.

[Reservoir Penguin]

Interesting opionion. What if one of the close relatives is infertile or agrees to sterilization? Would you then drop your opposition to their marriage? What if threy are rich and set-up a 10 million dollar trust fund for their child? Id yoou position really well thoughtout?

Re:It's about damn time.

[terjeber]

Five minutes of fucking Google. Try it. Now where did you get your numbers?

Five minutes of Google, and I didn't even have to fuck her. I think the "official" number of defects in brother-sister relationships is about 30%. Still a little more than half of what is the case if one parent has a dominant genetic defect (such as Huntington's).

Re:It's about damn time.

[halcyon1234]

Don't just make up quotes and attribute them to Plato. It makes philosophers really angry.

- Aristotle, "On Memory and Reminiscence" (BC 350)

Re:It's about damn time.

[Maximum Prophet]

Sounds good but on the other hand living in a world where our deepest-held moral convictions are set aside for technological progress sounds like a nightmare scenario.

Welcome the the real world then. Wernher von Braun and his crew had their crimes overlooked so that we could win the space race vs. the Soviets. After 9/11, Dick Cheney said in an interview that we would have to make deals with some very bad people to stop the terrorists. In the real world, countries often overlook their morality to get ahead.

Re:It's about damn time.

[Rogerborg]

Oh, just call him a Nazi and be done with it.

Re:It's about damn time.

[amplt1337]

...so... humanities departments are basically a botnet executing a DDoS on the brains of unsuspecting undergraduates?

Re:It's about damn time.

[dwpro]

Lot's of what you say makes a lot of sense, so I don't mean to belittle that when I ask, how is "clinging to guns" unintelligent?

Also, you have a point on capital punishment (they could be innocent) but I wonder, what is the number of murders that would have faced capital punishment who are released (pardoned, good behavior, prisons too full, etc) or escape that go on to kill more innocents, and how does that compare to the number of wrongfully executed criminals? I think we should strive for the greater good, as a perfect justice systems is unrealistic.

Your self-righteous hate of Christians really, really undermines your moral high ground.

Re:It's about damn time.

[RivenAleem]

Some people will never be happy with any outcome. If Gordon Brown made a statement along the lines of "Any apology now would be too late to make any difference, so we won't bother" There would be public outcry. The petition arose and was taken notice of because So Many People Wanted It. I label anyone saying that the apology is worthless as trolling.

That the current government is taking responsibility and manning up enough to apologize is a good sign that we have reached a point where we can accept of people's lifestyle choices.

Re:It's about damn time.

[snspdaarf]

This girl I knew in high school was a Thespian. Got a flat top with fenders, drank whiskey, and ran a bike shop...
What?
Oh. Never mind

Re:It's about damn time.

[FatalTourist]

Plato said that there is no true measure of justice, but it is important for a government to give the appearance of justice to society. This is a textbook example of that in action.

Don't just make up quotes and attribute them to Plato. It makes philosophers really angry.

"I really said that" - Plato

Re:It's about damn time.

[Bigjeff5]

The people giving the apology were not the people guilty of the crime. There is nothing to be absolved of. This is a government recognizing a man for his contributions to the country, and stating that what their predacessors did to him was wrong.

If you find fault with that, you are sick. That is the same mentality that allows senseless generational conflicts to continue for millenia on end. Just look to the Middle East, they are charged with racial tension for reasons nobody remembers. Most of the people leading the ideologies of hatred think exactly like you do.

Hmmm!

[resistant]

It's nice to see a politician who can actually pass the Turing test.

Re:Hmmm!

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so I fat-fingered FOOLED, but the word you're looking for is FOWL.

Re:Hmmm!

[eclectro]

I'm sure the apology caused Alan Turing to halt for a moment.

Re:Hmmm!

[russotto]

I'm sure the apology caused Alan Turing to halt for a moment.

You'll never prove it.

Re:Hmmm!

[canajin56]

Actually, it's doesn't work both ways. You can easily prove that something halts (given an unbounded amount of time to do so in). It's only proving that it doesn't halt that's an issue ;)

Re:Hmmm!

[maxwell demon]

No algorithm can tell for every algorithm whether it will halt in finite time. That means for each testing algorithm there exists at least one program which doesn't halt, but the algorithm cannot tell that it doesn't halt. Now, an algorithm where your example is such an algorithm is certainly possible, but would obviously be a very poor testing algorithm.

Proud to be sorry, an odd concept

[Derekloffin]

Don't get me wrong, I feel the statement is fine and all that, just strikes me as weird to put those two concepts together.

Re:Proud to be sorry, an odd concept

[segedunum]

You're obviously not familiar with Gordon Brown as a literary wordsmith.

Re:Proud to be sorry, an odd concept

[sbeckstead]

No, Mr. Brown is being proud to be the one apologizing. A politician's way of bragging to the other politicians that he got to do it and they didn't. Peacocks are all the same.

Re:Proud to be sorry, an odd concept

[Entropius]

Is that any worse than a conservative who's proud that he's not sorry when he ought to be?

Re:Proud to be sorry, an odd concept

[CowboyBob500]

And you must have missed an awful lot of education if you think that Gordon Brown is anything to do with liberalism.

Re:Proud to be sorry, an odd concept

[Anonymous Coward]

"Liberal" means something entirely different in the US than it does in the Czech Republic.

Re:Proud to be sorry, an odd concept

[twostix]

You must have been overly educated if you believe Gordon Brown and his cohorts are not the real world implementation of modern social liberalism (as opposed to the fantasy that lives inside so many peoples heads).

And to be honest it *really* doesn't matter what Univerisities and academics and students claim is the perfect ideal in the class room and in papers. Over and over again the output of academia on any subject regarding political thinking bears absolutely no resemblance to what the ideal advanced by academia becomes when it *hits the real world*.

Maybe next time though they'll be far enough left for you? Hell go even further to the left and next time they'll meet your expectations and instead of 1 in 5 UK citizens working for the government, thought crime, open borders and and the state inserting itself absolutely between parents and middle class children they'll fully embrace the ultimate "necessary evil" to bring about a classless society?

I assume that's what you long for, they did try though - the current Labour government unfortunately they were just too soft to really bring it about...

Re:Proud to be sorry, an odd concept

[metlin]

I know you were being flip. However, in economics, a liberal is usually someone who supports free market economics - something that's typically considered a conservative view point in the US.

Re:Proud to be sorry, an odd concept

[93 Escort Wagon]

Don't get me wrong, I feel the statement is fine and all that, just strikes me as weird to put those two concepts together.

The BBC would like to apologize for the previous apology.

Not forced

[CarpetShark]

An online petition got more than enough signatures to force an official statement

Bullshit. The British Government happily ignores these online petitions whenever it doesn't suit them to agree. It's simply a matter of them saying something like "We expect the results of an investigation into this matter. We will make a decision in due course. Thanks for playing." They normally rephrase that last part though.

Re:Not forced

[99luftballon]

Well, not exactly. Once the petition is signed by more than 500 signatures the government has to make a response. However, you are right in that the response is usually worthless.

Re:Not forced

[kenj0418]

Once the petition is signed by more than 500 signatures the government has to make a response.

Over here in the states we have in our constitution that we have the right to "petition the government for redress of grievances". Although, unfortunately, no one had the bright idea to make it a requirement that the government actually give a damn -- or even pretend to - when we do.

Re:Not forced

[mdwh2]

They may have claimed this at one time, but I've seen plenty of petitions with over 500 still waiting for a response.

But yes, it's basically just an exercise for them to tell us why we are wrong.

However, to be honest I'd much rather that petitions were ignored, than listened to, as they are poor indicators of public opinion, and are often biasedly worded, and signed by people who haven't considered the facts. Plenty of bad lawmaking has come as a response to well publicised petitions.

The problem is that the Government ignores petitions it doesn't like, but will still wave the ones it does agree with as "proof" that it's listening to the people.

Re:Not forced

[sjames]

Actually, that's where the 2nd amendment was supposed to come in to play.

Re:Not forced

[KeensMustard]

The 2nd amendment to what? The Basset Hound Breeders Handbook?

Re:Online petition

[sbeckstead]

I'd say since about 24 hours ago or however long it was. Seems to have worked.

Not really...

[Auraiken]

Humility is an honourable trait.

Re:Not really...

[Darkness404]

Its easy to say you are sorry for something that you didn't do and weren't accused of doing.

Re:Not really...

[SirSlud]

No it's not. It's a credibility issue. (As an aside, to suggest that modern western governments arn't accused of denying equal treatment to gay people, which is what Turing's situation was all about, is whitewashing the issue altogether.)

All programmers have been faced with explaining how *that* programmer fucked up, but you're the *good* kinda programmer who will make things right.

Still, at the end of the day .. what would you prefer .. that *nobody* apologize to his descendants just because it *might* be construed as being done solely for political gain?

I mean, shit, in the grand scheme of pros and cons, who would honestly oppose such an apology supporting a still stigmatized sizable percentage of the population? I mean, what's next .. you only want politicians defending your shit because they "feel it in their heart", not because they're elected to represent the sentiment of the people?

I consider myself a cynic, but the kind of cynic that still knows its damn retarded want to cut off the nose to spite the face when it comes to government and politics.

Re:Not really...

[dissy]

Its easy to say you are sorry for something that you didn't do and weren't accused of doing.

Yea you're right. I'm sorry :(

Re:Not really...

[Don_dumb]

Its easy to say you are sorry for something that you didn't do and weren't accused of doing.

Have you not being paying attention - it clearly is not easy.

This took thousands of people petitioning the government. Have a look at how long it took for apologies for the various hideous treatments to and of Australian Aborigines. Even then many people were still opposed to doing so.

If you can be proud of others before your time, then you can be genuinely sorry for acts done by others before your time.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Better late than never.

[WiiVault]

Despite the awful treatment he was exposed to at the time, it is comforting to see him finally recogonized for what he really was.

Right On.

[beej]

This was long overdue, to be sure, but even now it means so much to so many people. I believe we all owe Turing, whether we know it or not.

Any time a government admits, "Ok, we screwed up," it's a big deal, and it's usually a sign of change for the better.

Re:Right On.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not "we screwed up", it's "our predecessors, who are long dead, screwed up".

And it's ridiculous to blame the British government exclusively for what happened to Turing. Anti-gay sentiment was not merely endemic, it was part of the everyday background social noise in almost all levels of society. The government of the day was just reflecting the morals of the day.

If anything, it's not the government but the people of Britain who owe Turing an apology. As such, it should probably come from the Queen, not Gordon Brown.

(Arguably, the peoples of the rest of Europe and America owe him just as much, but that's a separate issue. And they didn't actively persecute him, although doubtless they would've done so like a shot if he'd tried to take refuge there.)

An Easy Apology

[thechanklybore]

I suppose we should be pleased that Brown has issued this apology, just a shame he's part of a government that knew about torture of terrorism suspects under interrogation. I don't think chemical castration is any worse, and it was even legal at the time. How times have changed eh? Now the government only does awful things to you without evidence and when you've not even had a trial.

To stop this turning into a rant though, I salute you Alan Turing for bringing philosophy into Computer Science through all your pioneering AI work. You deserved far better.

Re:An Easy Apology

[alexborges]

"I suppose we should be pleased that Brown has issued this apology, just a shame he's part of a government that knew about torture of terrorism suspects under interrogation. I don't think chemical castration is any worse, and it was even legal at the time. How times have changed eh? Now the government only does awful things to you without evidence and when you've not even had a trial."

Well yeah. The thing is, Turing's contribution to the great britain shouldve made him a hero. INstead, he got castrated.

The cases you point to, at least, were against "enemies" (however true that is). What they did to Alan was against a war hero, perhaps the most important life saver in the retake of europe from the nazis as his work allowed the allies to gather the information they needed to get the nazis out the countries they had invaded.

Not to mention, for christ sakes, that he was the inventor of computer theory. Not just europe or the brits owed things to him: my job and life revolve arround what he started because I work in computing. The computer revolution would not have been possible without his mathematical work (and that of many others like Von Neuman).

Re:An Easy Apology

[thechanklybore]

I agree with you. We English have a history of persecuting our great men based on their sexuality (Oscar Wilde for example).

Still, hero or nobody I imagine that goverment will have a constant supply of things to apologise for in 50 years time to which they will say "I can't believe the abhorrent and barbaric treatment of people in those times".

Swings and roundabouts.

Re:An Easy Apology

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you. We English have a history of persecuting our great men based on their sexuality (Oscar Wilde for example).

You English also have a history for taking credit where it's not due. Oscar Wilde was Irish, not English or British.

Re:An Easy Apology

[erroneous]

If we have to put up with Alan Green and Colin Murray then we're damn well taking Oscar Wilde as compensation.

And we'll have Van Morrison too while we're at it.

You can keep U2 though. Seriously.

Doesn't do him justic

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a shame they didn't at least pay passing tribute to Turing's full accomplishments. Cracking Enigma and "quite brilliant mathemetician" don't do the man justice. I like Wikipedia's "often considered to be the father of modern computer science" as a starting point.

Re:Doesn't do him justic

[osu-neko]

It's a shame they didn't at least pay passing tribute to Turing's full accomplishments. Cracking Enigma and "quite brilliant mathemetician" don't do the man justice. I like Wikipedia's "often considered to be the father of modern computer science" as a starting point.

To non-computer-nerds, that's a footnote... trivia compared to "cracking Enigma".

Of course, these days a lot of people wouldn't immediately grasp the significance of "cracking Enigma", either. At least in the US. I imagine knowledge of WWII history is somewhat better over on the other side of the pond...

That's not good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

What they did to a human, let alone him... no, a simple apology just won't do.

Re:whatever

[alexborges]

I believe you mean "a puff".

Nothing more than a computer-theory-inventing-second-world-war-winning-hero puff.

Re:TL:TL

[nbates]

"Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted under homophobic laws were treated terribly."

It is not too late. Homosexuals still exist, even homosexuals that were alive back then.

Gordon Brown's apology not enough

[Gizzmonic]

Stop me if someone else has already addressed this point-but why not re-animate him as a zombie? Gay Zombie Turing would be amazed at the amount of rights homosexuals have today, although I assume he'd be more appalled at what passes for sophistication these days.

Re:Gordon Brown's apology not enough

[Landshark17]

Gay Zombie Turing would be fantastically impressed by the rights homosexuals have today, but he would sadly be the victim of much descrimination as a zombie, since prejudice against them is still wide-spread and well-rooted.

In the immortal words of Tom Servo:

[ZekoMal]

Whoopdie Shit. Nothing quite beats apologizing for leading someone to suicide because they didn't love what your government decreed everyone should love...long after their death. Maybe next time the government will, I dunno, apologize in their lifetime! Better still, how about not doing something grossly inhumane to someone? Hell, Turing did good things for these assholes and all he got was shame and suffering from them. Any "deeply sorry" just comes off as "Well I guess I better do this before someone throws a rock through my window" in my eyes.

Re:Online petition

[Anonymous Coward]

Its been a little longer than 24 hours.... I know that there have been hundreds of petitions over at least 30 years... I've signed a fair amount of them over the years.
 
Though those are the old fashioned in-the-rain gathering signatures on paper type....

Scoring brownie points

[SoVeryTired]

Bah, this is just Labour trying to score a couple of brownie points since they're about to get trounced in the election next year.
Some PR drone probably stumbled across the petition and thought "Ok, this sounds like a good idea and it won't hurt the government's image, we might as well do it".

Re:TL:TL

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not even just that there are people alive today who were persecuted in years past -- 93 state governments still persecute homosexuals, 7 by the death penalty.

Too bad things didn't happen Greg Egan's way

[JoshuaZ]

There's an excellent short story Oracle by Greg Egan imagining what would have happened if Turing's life had gone slightly differently. Egan portrays a very interesting world with heavy emphasis on how Turing might have interacted with C.S. Lewis. See http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/MISC/ORACLE/Oracle.html.

Re:Online petition

[Tumbleweed]

Since when is an online petition worth more than a squirt of piss?

I'm pretty sure aiming a quart of piss at PM Brown wouldn't have gotten the same response.

Pretty sure, anyway. Ya never know with those Brits...

Not the best choice of phrase

[FlyingSquidStudios]

"We can't put the clock back" sounds awfully inappropriate in an apology for chemically castrating someone.

Official Skinflint Act

[epine]

I read Spycatcher a long while ago. Wright seemed like a guy who made many solid technical contributions to the geekdom of spy craft. Clearly, later in life he had some axes to grind. One of which is the terrible way the Official Skinflint Act was used to deny benefits to long serving members of the secret service. Like what they say about Area 51: the only secret there is the massive waste of taxpayer dollars.

Peter Wright - Wikipedia

Because of the interest and because of the rancour following the pension, in 1985, he decided to publish his memoirs in Australia in order to make ends meet. The British government did all it could to suppress publication, under the pretext that such a publication would be in violation of the Official Secrets Act. They brought an injunction against Wright in Sydney. The Australian court, however, ruled against the British government, thus turning a book that might have had moderate success into an international best seller. Furthermore, the verdict not only vindicated Wright but also represented a victory for press freedom. The publication of Spycatcher temporarily unlocked the doors of official secrecy as far as former intelligence officers were concerned. With the enactment of the 1989 Official Secrets Bill, an absolute prohibition on revelations by serving or former intelligence officers was imposed.

The British governing class always seemed to care a lot more about that stiff upper lip thing, than rewarding those who toil in mandatory obscurity.

The other aspect that boggles the mind is the "gays are communist pinkos" circularity. If you castrate your war heroes, I think you might just be priming the pump for defection. It's not gays as such who are unreliable, but anyone who fears arbitrary persecution by their own government.

Another thing I've sometimes wondered: notwithstanding the official secrets act, where was Churchill when Turing could have used a solid character witness, such as "the official secrets act prohibits me from discussing the details, but in my opinion, if you do this, you'll shame the British empire for 100 years" or some distinctly British harrumph to that effect.

The real shame here is the amount of power held by the people who knew better.

Re:Official Skinflint Act

[Xest]

Churchill was busy being Prime Minister at the time.

That should say a lot about Churchill's real character- if anyone could've protected Turing he could, and he chose not to.

Churchill made some great speeches during the war, but remember as soon as the war was over his government was kicked out, yes they got back in next term but only because his government was better than the, at the time, found to be even worse Labour government.

This view of Churchill as a great Briton is questionable, he talked a good talk during the war, even in the case of Turing referring to him as a great person. But his actions exist in sharp contrast to his words. Even politicians back then said one thing and did another.

Re:Congratulations, I guess

[Malibee]

Yes.

Genuine progress and enlightenment does not require a political mandate.

Re:Not really...Truth abou humility

[blueskies]

Randroids don't pass the Turing test.

something was accomplished

[Anonymous Coward]

Apologizing or not- neither one helps Alan Turing now.

But this sets a precedent. By apologizing for this behavior in the past it cements it as being definitely not OK and that can help others.

Why geeks don't care about homosexuality

[trout007]

Feel free to add more. 1. We are happy when anyone gets laid 2. The heterosexual geeks aren't threatened. I mean if we can't get girls to find us attractive no gay guy would. 3. Decreases denominator in available (girl/guy) ratio.

Re:Congratulations, I guess

[NotBornYesterday]

You are completely right. Well, almost completely right. The only worse thing would be letting history roll on without even so much as an empty, belated, politically opportune token such as this apology. When an injury is done to someone that is beyond repair or restitution like this, even moving mountains won't fix things. But silence becomes an accomplice to the original act, and at least speaking out serves to break it.

Re:Congratulations, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

You got your apology to a dead man from a man who did not wrong him. I hope you (the petitioners) feel better, because it certainly accomplishes nothing else.

It's hard to believe you're serious, but just in case... When a government acknowledges that something it did was wrong, it reinforces the notion that governments are supposed to do right. When there's a perception that it does so at the request or insistence of the governed population, it reinforces the notion that governments should or must be responsive to the governed population. Anyone who thinks that "merely" symbolic actions don't accomplish anything doesn't understand how important symbols are. If you really thing nothing was accomplished, I recommend a rigorous course of study in social and political theory, preferably in some place where the government can do no wrong, say, Saudi Arabia or North Korea.

But I rather think you understand all of the above all too well, and would like to minimize what has happened because you're perfectly OK with what happened to Turing in the first place.

Check. Next up...

[ysth]

Oscar Wilde

Re:TL:TL

[mdwh2]

There's an interesting point - is there anyone still alive today who was prosecuted under the laws? Could they get any compensation, or will they only get just words too?

Still, Brown's tolerance for LGBT people and their sexuality probably doesn't extend as far as the Spanner case, where gay sadomasochists were imprisoned for consensual S&M. When the Labour Government passed the recent law on "extreme" consensual adult images, they cited the Spanner case as justification for the new law. I'm bisexual, and masochist - but despite the welcome improvements to gay rights on the one hand, overall I can't say Labour have made me feel better regarding my sexuality over the last twelve years.

On the one hand, they propose laws banning hate speech that could cover accusing gay people of being child abusers; but on the other, they themselves compare "extreme" adult images to child porn, and sadomasochism to pedophilia.

Knighthood

[(void*)cheerio]

Nice gesture. Now they should give him the honour he deserved while he was alive. Considering his contributions to the war effort and Computer Science, he should be knighted.

Re:Knighthood

[:jax:]

He wasn't knighted, but he got the OBE award in 1945, which is one step below a knighthood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Hut_8_and_Naval_Enigma Now, he obviously should have been knighted for his work and given time he probably would have been. Regrettably he wasn't given that time.

Re:You do the crime, you do the time.

[rsilverman]

You're missing the point. Brown is not apologizing for Britain having behaved *illegally*, or for having prosecuted Turing. The law was applied as written at the time (I'm assuming; I haven't checked). He's apologizing for Britain's treatment of Turing, period. The law was unjust, and the results horrific. Britain is recognizing this and doing the only thing it can at this point: express its regret.

Re:Congratulations, I guess

[sasha328]

I was going to moderate, but decided to respond to this instead.

You got your apology to a dead man from a man who did not wrong him. I hope you (the petitioners) feel better, because it certainly accomplishes nothing else.

An apology never "changes" anything. Harm done is not undone by saying "I am sorry". But an apology is an admission that "I" if I'm the one who did the wrong, or "We" if it is an entity that still exists (such as a company, country etc) recognise the action committed by people like us is wrong and shameful.
An apology is always humbling, and one is humbled they end to listen better.

We recently had an, admittedly symbolic, apology to the "Stolen Generation" (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2162035.htm) A lot of people in the previous Government scoffed at it as symbolic and will not change the plight of the indigenous peoples, but they completely missed the point. The point to the Indigenous Peoples is a "recognition of wrongs done".
The apology itself was didn't wind back time or give, now adults, the time they lost with their parents!

I was not born (I was not even a twinkle in my parents' eyes!) when these "legal" actions were taken, but I felt proud that we acknowledge wrong done to others by my country.

A previous post mentioned: Justice delayed is justice denied. This, imho, is BS. Justice should always be sought and welcomed when it is offered.

Re:Congratulations, I guess

[ImNotAtWork]

You got your apology to a dead man from a man who did not wrong him. I hope you (the petitioners) feel better, because it certainly accomplishes nothing else.

What it accomplishes is setting a new tone.. that the Government (or at least its current leader) has reflected on this subject and identified that the past actions were heinous in nature, that an apology is warranted. Offering the apology will set the precedent that G.B.'s leadership will not condone this treatment and will expect its agents to never commit the same action lest it make the leadership look hypocritical.

This reminds me of a trip I took to Venice, Italy. I was walking around and found myself in the 'Jewish Ghetto' and permanent plaque was put up by the people of Italy apologizing for the way the Jewish people were treated. This plaque helps both the parties involved to not forget history and be doomed to repeat it.

I'm glad to see that apology

[Shlomi Fish]

I'm glad to see an apology for Turing's treatment being set straight. Alan Turing definitely didn't deserve the bad treatment that was inflicted upon him for his sexual orientation. He certainly deserves this apology.

One historical note is that several models of computers (or actual computers) preceded the more formal computer science, but naturally, the theoretical work of Turing (and related early CS pioneers such as Alonzo Church), and their rigour should also be highly regarded.

Re:I'm glad to see that apology

[justleavealonemmmkay]

People change. Institutions remain. Brown is the chief of that institution, he apologises in name of the institution.

Re:I'm glad to see that apology

[justleavealonemmmkay]

I'm glad to see an apology for Turing's treatment being set straight.

Ironic. Trying to get Turing straight is what got him suicidally depressed.

Why not

[bussdriver]

Incest is a cultural and possibly biological bad thing... I suppose I could agree that they shouldn't be involved in that either. I do not think it would be common and the abusive stuff would still be a crime (one could classify it as abuse and get it MOSTLY illegal without messing the right to choose a partner.)

Multiple spouses? I suppose those happen already, just not in the legal system... Legally, its 1 at a time but that doesn't seem to change a whole lot. Again, normal people don't do it without cultural support for it. Women with rights probably are extremely unlikely to agree to other wives. For the most part, I think today we have about the same stats regardless of the legal system.

Age? Well its rather silly to put numbers on it. Every now and then I hear about some poor child (18 or 19) fooling around with a 16-17 year old and getting labeled a sex offender. Where has the purpose for judges gone??? (they are there to inject some "common sense" not brainless apply law by guidelines.)

Government needs more restriction on its power to enforce the belief systems of the majority onto minorities. This INCLUDES marriage! A standard contractual agreement is all that is required to give the benefits of legal marriage-- without any restrictions--- relatives, room mates, etc. should be possible. If you want marriage go to a private entity for it. It is a bad idea to mislabel civil unions "Marriage" and dilute the language.

---

Me, I find the behavior of the UK continually ironic. I think they should give Turning more than just a formal apology. He should be held up as an example of how flawed humans can be so that future generations have more examples to hopefully learn from. Given the size of his contribution, he should get a holiday.

Re:Why not

[EdIII]

If it were really about the genetically damaged offspring, they would also have laws against people with genetically passed diseases from breeding, when they have a high risk (or certainty) of passing it off onto their offspring.

but where is the line for certainty (of bad offspring)

I know it throws up all kinds of references to Gattaca, but the difference is simple. Brother and Sister is information readily available to everyone without violating anyone's privacy. Capturing genetic profiles and then basing marriage licenses on it, or "procreation licenses" would be far different and regardless of motivations, I find my own genetic profile to *deeply* and *profoundly* private. I can see 100 years in the future that we wear clothes designed to prevent DNA from falling off and being collected by little robots in restaurants for marketing purposes.

Siblings procreating has the highest certainty of genetically damaged offspring. 1st cousins next.

I think we can draw the line at siblings and 1st cousins. Genetic profiling is not required for that, and I would never support genetic profiling under any circumstances. Ever. The only person that should have access to your genetic information is your primary care physician and that information should be strongly protected by the most strenuous legal language possible with severe consequences for unauthorized dissemination.

Re:Why not

[grumbel]

Brother and Sister is information readily available to everyone without violating anyone's privacy.

So is down syndrome, dwarfism and a ton of other gene defects, after all if a defect wouldn't have obvious consequences it wouldn't be that bad a defect to begin with. Should we stop all those people from having children too? Especially since the chance of defect in the children might be a good bit higher then with incest.

In Germany it is especially weird, doing embryo screening to check for defects is actually outlawed and incest outlawed as well. So you have one law passively encouraging defects and another trying to prevent them. And of course there is still the issue with the law not outlawing the baby making, but the sex, which today just seems out of date, as making babies without is doable just as having sex without risk of a baby is doable.

Re:Why not

[drsmithy]

Nobody is suggesting that two people that are dwarves cannot procreate. Just brothers and sisters. You keep wanting to expand the restriction, when nobody is agreeing to it in the discussion. I am not even suggesting that two people that have Down Syndrome cannot procreate either.

I think you guys need to go back to your basic assumption that "sex" and "procreation" are synonyms.

Re:Why not

[DrgnDancer]

The problem is that laws aren't (and probably shouldn't be) written as guidelines. They're written as rules. If the rules say you're an adult at 18, and that adults cannot have sex with children, then some pissed off parent is going to INSIST that this rule applies to his 17.85 year old daughter and her 18.25 year old boy friend he doesn't approve of; no matter what common sense says. This sort of problem has been mitigated in a lot of jurisdictions by modifying the rule slightly to say "18 year olds are adults, and adults cannot have sex with children, unless their ages are 2 or fewer years apart" or by lowering the age of consent to 16 or something along these lines.

Even with these adjusted rules you get stupid stuff that happens ("Ahh, but my daughter is exactly 2 year and ONE DAY younger than that boy."), but treating the laws as guidelines tends to create the opposite problem. Situations where legitimately bad things have happened, but people get away with them because of leeway in the law and influence. It's one of the great conundrums of civilization.

Re:Online petition

[Idarubicin]

...a quart of piss...

You crazy Yanks and your bizarre 'English' language. The correct UK spelling is B-U-D-W-E-I-S-E-R. And it comes in pints, not quarts.

What was actually said

[houghi]

What was actually said:
Hey it seems that this Turing gay, uh, guy, made it possible to do all the snooping on our citizens. We are now able to store AND process all this data about everybody as Orwell intended it to be.
Thanks Turing. You were not that bad after all.

Re:Theosophical Inquiry

[osu-neko]

Apparently the movement in Britain to legitimate homosexuality began as a rebellion against the infusion of Judeo-Christian ideals in society and the onerous ethical requirements of the Victorian era. That said, I argue that it is no accident that during the era it was said that the sun never sets on the British Empire, while these days other powers are in ascendancy.

Indeed. In an era when Britain would forcefully deny the rights of other nations and dominate them militarily all around the world, it also denied human sexuality and imposed an equally immoral view of "ethical requirements" on people regardless of how they felt about it. In the era when Britain stopped being so thoroughly evil to the core, it ceased both to impose empire on others and to enforce the most abhorrent of Judeo-Christian ideals upon its own citizens. Both the lack of an empire and the lack of Victorian standards are signs of an increasingly moral and ethical British society. I too agree that this is no accident, both are signs of increasing enlightenment among the British (and the world at large).

Good base for progress then?

[philtmp]

Now its been recognized that hackers were witch-hunted, persecuted and even worse, maybe we can ask our governments to stop doing so (Reverse engineering lawsuits, DMCA, software patents, ...) and recognize the value of our work?

Robert Oppenheimer

[chrisdotwood]

Obama should do the same for Robert Oppenheimer

Overdue, but still meaningful

[Nitewing98]

As a gay programmer myself, it often amazed the people I worked with that the two parts of my personality weren't in conflict. I very seldom ran into predjudice, though. In fact, often I was recognized as a good teacher and the other employees felt free to come and ask my help when they had a tough coding problem.

Alan Turing has been an idol of mine for a long time, and he was treated badly, yes. But more important than the apology is the recognition that there have been contributions of significance to the world by gay men and women and transgendered persons. Our history has been actively suppressed for centuries, but we are finally being recognized as having value in the modern age.

God bless Alan Turing, and Gordon Brown. Every little bit of kindness and generosity makes the world a better place for all of mankind.

Cynical image building exercise

[Archtech]

In other news, the Prime Minister also apologised for the burning of Joan of Arc and Bishops Ridley and Latimer.

"Apologising" for things other people did is a great way to look good without any risk of admitting your own faults and mistakes. Indeed, it can be a subtle way of rebuking those people for their shortcomings, with the implication that you yourself are free from them.

By apologising for the witch-hunt Turing was subjected to, Brown manages to give the impression that he is unprejudiced, not a bigot, modern, and humble enough to admit past mistakes. To quote the brilliantly-worded title of Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson's book, "Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)". http://tinyurl.com/mlmjt6

Why do I have the feeling that plenty of people in Brown's 21st century Britain are being persecuted - right now - for beliefs and characteristics that our leaders find just as frightening and alien as earlier British politicians found Turing's homosexuality (and intelligence)?

Re:TL:TL

[Anonymous Coward]

No one cares about your "orientation".

Actually, they do. GPs "orientation" (and mine too) is grounds for dismissal or denial of jobs such as teaching (because we will obviously be a threat to the children) and we are the target of one of the most fucked up laws ever to be passed (Im not affected yet, Kenny McAskill has still to get his trainwreck me-too law passed up in Scotland). 3 years in jail and life on the sex offender register for possessing a photo of an act which is perfectly legal to do. This is not a "chip on your shoulder".

Google for "Consenting Adult Action Network" and they have the details. Oh, its mildly NSFW (in case you didnt guess already :) )

Re:Scoring Mod points

[CmdrGravy]

So you're saying that democracy at work consists of some PR drone cherry picking the agenda of the government based on the views of a tiny minority of the voting population and only taking action when it involves the government not actually having to do anything significant but which makes it look good ?

Sadly I think Labour share, have always shared, this view and that is the tragedy that faces this country today.

Re:TL:TL

[nbates]

S&M is relevant to straight people too.

The problem is some people have a hard time understanding the concept of "consenting adults".