Ship of Fools: Alan Turing to Get Galileo Treatment?

Thread: Alan Turing to Get Galileo Treatment? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028514

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

No, not that Galileo treatment, the other one where the government apologizes to you (posthumously, of course) for your persecution. This being the twenty-first century there's even an online petition (British subjects only, please).

So what do you guys think? "Meaningful action", "hollow gesture", or "he deserved what he got"?

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

I think it's meaningful. Look at the actions of John Maynard Keynes compared to Turning. Both rendered stellar and invaluable service to their country during time of war. Both were gay (or in Keynes' case bisexual). Yet Keynes was kept on the government's payroll while Turing was driven to suicide.

We in the computer community want justice for our here just like the economics community had fair treatment for Keynes.

Posted by Afghan (# 10478) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Yet Keynes was kept on the government's payroll while Turing was driven to suicide.

So, the British Government should apologise for the fact that computer scientists were less well regarded than economists?

I think it is utterly dreadful that homosexuals were persecuted in 1950s Britain. But if that persecution was dreadful than it was dreadful whoever suffered it. Nobody should argue that Alan Turing deserved a special exemption from it for his undeniably important and brilliant work but it was okay for everyone else.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Afghan:
Nobody should argue that Alan Turing deserved a special exemption from it for his undeniably important and brilliant work but it was okay for everyone else.

Who did? Argue for that, I mean.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Afghan:
Nobody should argue that Alan Turing deserved a special exemption from it for his undeniably important and brilliant work but it was okay for everyone else.
Who did? Argue for that, I mean.

Someone will suggest that the government apologises for sending Oscar Wilde to jail next. [Disappointed]

Posted by The Atheist (# 12067) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Someone will suggest that the government apologises for sending Oscar Wilde to jail next.

Bugger!

I was just going to say that.

George Michael, anyone?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Surely it was a member of the judiciary not the executive who sent poor Oscar away? Should it not therefore be the Lord Chief Justice who does penance for this in sackcloth and ashes? Let's face it, he wouldn't look any more ridiculous than he normally does...

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Surely it was a member of the judiciary not the executive who sent poor Oscar away?

If someone had behaved in the 1990s the way Oscar Wilde was widely rumoured to have behaved in the 1890s they would have been in jail long before they had a chance to bring a libel case.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Pray elaborate...

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

Hostly Hat ON

This seems to be a DH to me. Down we go...

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

Hostly Hat OFF

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Surely it was a member of the judiciary not the executive who sent poor Oscar away? Should it not therefore be the Lord Chief Justice who does penance for this in sackcloth and ashes? Let's face it, he wouldn't look any more ridiculous than he normally does...

I was thinking more in terms of the whole "blacklisted from working in the profession in which had served his country so well in its hour of need" rather than the actual judicial sentencing, more akin to American Robert Oppenheimer than Oscar Wilde.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Turing wasn't either blacklisted or imprisoned. Just doped up to the eyeballs. Which possibly affected either or both of his judgement or his intellectual ability.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Surely it was a member of the judiciary not the executive who sent poor Oscar away?
If someone had behaved in the 1990s the way Oscar Wilde was widely rumoured to have behaved in the 1890s they would have been in jail long before they had a chance to bring a libel case.

I'm also curious as to the details of this...

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Turing wasn't either blacklisted or imprisoned. Just doped up to the eyeballs. Which possibly affected either or both of his judgement or his intellectual ability.

Perhaps technically true, but in real world terms having your security clearance yanked meant not being able to work on truly top-level projects anymore. That's why I brought up the analogy to Oppenheimer, who suffered a similar fate for different reasons.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Atheist:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[qb]Someone will suggest that the government apologises for sending Oscar Wilde to jail next.
Bugger!

Be careful what you wish for.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Bearing in mind that governments are often willing to overlook much more severe infractions for those with the proper genius and/or skills, it makes the treatment of Turing that much more baffling and wrong.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Indeed. Labour MP and later Lord Tom Dryberg was a notorious cottager (= having sex with other men in public toilets) yet he was never prosecuted, presumably because the Prime Minister of the time had a word with the police.

Turing's cause of death MAY have been suicide (his family suggested it was either murder or accident) - though plenty of other homosexual men committed (and some still do) suicide.

Rather than give in to blackmail, he went to the police to report his blackmailer, who had burgled his house to find evidence. That was remarkably brave at the time.

He was a runner of Olympic ability yet the hormone treatment he was forced to undergo left him fat and unfit.

His biographer, David Leavitt, described his final years (still only in his 40s) as a "slow, sad descent into grief and madness".

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Indeed. Labour MP and later Lord Tom Dryberg was a notorious cottager (= having sex with other men in public toilets) yet he was never prosecuted, presumably because the Prime Minister of the time had a word with the police.

Rich friends rather than the PM I think, it started before he got into government.

Driberg was also an Anglo-Catholic of course. And apparently a crossword setter & (IIRC) a minor poet. Odd man.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

The late Tory PM Ted Heath allegedly went 'cottaging' in the 1950s, but had to give it up before the powers that be would recommend to the Queen that he be admitted into the Privy Council!

Posted by Laurie17 (# 14889) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
The late Tory PM Ted Heath allegedly went 'cottaging' in the 1950s, but had to give it up before the powers that be would recommend to the Queen that he be admitted into the Privy Council!

Blesss !

Posted by Laurie17 (# 14889) on :

'...though plenty of other homosexual men committed (and some still do) suicide.'

always heart-breaking

let's say so

[ 19. August 2009, 00:07: Message edited by: Laurie17 ]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Anyone visiting Manchester might like to know there's a memorial to Alan Turing in Sackville Park. The park stands between the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST) and Canal Street, which is now the heart of Manchester's gay scene. The statue is life-size, sitting on a (bronze) park bench and holding an apple. Turing is thought to have committed suicide by eating an apple injected with cyanide.

It's a beautiful statue in a lovely little park, a quiet but fitting memorial to a great man who suffered under an unjust law.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Indeed. Labour MP and later Lord Tom Dryberg was a notorious cottager (= having sex with other men in public toilets) yet he was never prosecuted, presumably because the Prime Minister of the time had a word with the police.
Rich friends rather than the PM I think, it started before he got into government.

Driberg was also an Anglo-Catholic of course. And apparently a crossword setter & (IIRC) a minor poet. Odd man.

I read a book about Driberg that said that he discovered cottages and High Mass over the same weekend in his youth.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Hooray!
Gordon Brown apologises!

L.

BTW - I signed! [Yipee]

[ 10. September 2009, 21:02: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

Thanks Louise, that made me cry. In a good way.

Posted by chiltern_hundred (# 13659) on :

I shall be visiting Bletchley Park tomorrow in a party organised by the Institute of Linguists, of which I am a member.

It might be a good place for a future Shipmeet.

Posted by lady in red (# 10688) on :

I heard this on the radio this morning, and I have to admit to being rather baffled. Maybe this belongs to a different purgatory thread - but anyways - how can Gordon Brown apologise? I don't see how he was responsible. A recognition that wrong was done is one thing, but I am genuinely perplexed about how one can be sorry for wrongs that are committed by others and which he had nothing to do with.

I get this can be one of those collective responsibility things, but in that case why say I am sorry?
[Confused]

Yours,
confused of Paris

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lady in red:
how can Gordon Brown apologise? I don't see how he was responsible. A recognition that wrong was done is one thing, but I am genuinely perplexed about how one can be sorry for wrongs that are committed by others and which he had nothing to do with.

I get this can be one of those collective responsibility things, but in that case why say I am sorry?

In the article he wrote in the Telegraph he didn't say 'I am sorry', he said, "On behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan's work...we're sorry."

He was not writing as an individual - he was writing in his role as the elected leader of Great Britain. Lots of people don't seem to understand this - perhaps it isn't possible for the guilty to apologise - but at least we can do the next best thing and for their descendents and successors to apologise on their behalf. Symbolic gestures don't cost us anything but they can mean a great deal.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

As Hawk pointed out, one of the conceits of governments is that they are continuous entities and essentially immortal, unless something truly drastic happens to them. There is a practical aspect to this as it saves the trouble of renewing treaties, reviewing criminal convictions, and basically reconsidering every piece of government business every time a new administration takes control. Thus although Gordon Brown is a new individual to occupy the post of Prime Minister, it is presumed that the Crown on whose behalf he speaks is the same. This may be a legal fiction, but it's a very useful one.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Hooray!
Gordon Brown apologises!

L.

BTW - I signed!

An apology does not count for much if it is not backed up by actions. Peter Tatchel has suggested that the PM should apologise to the men whose careers have been blighted because they have criminal records e.g. two men aged twenty who were prosecuted because the age of consent was twenty-one. Their offence means that they will be barred frpom even giving lifts to children under the new vetting and barring system and, through existing CRB procedures, are already unable to be teachers, social workers, nurses etc because they are classed as paedophiles.
Such an apology would need to be backed up by changing these rules.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As Hawk pointed out, one of the conceits of governments is that they are continuous entities and essentially immortal, unless something truly drastic happens to them. There is a practical aspect to this as it saves the trouble of renewing treaties, reviewing criminal convictions, and basically reconsidering every piece of government business every time a new administration takes control. Thus although Gordon Brown is a new individual to occupy the post of Prime Minister, it is presumed that the Crown on whose behalf he speaks is the same. This may be a legal fiction, but it's a very useful one.

Arguably he is speaking on behalf of the Privy Council, which is an even more useful legal entity, because it includes all past cabinet ministers and many other key state figures and the major opposition leaders and hence most of the next cabinet as well.

Thus the executive Cabinet and most government departmental ministries are sub-committees of it.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Peter Tatchell has suggested that the PM should apologise to the men whose careers have been blighted because they have criminal records e.g. two men aged twenty who were prosecuted because the age of consent was twenty-one. Their offence means that they will be barred from even giving lifts to children under the new vetting and barring system and, through existing CRB procedures, are already unable to be teachers, social workers, nurses etc because they are classed as paedophiles.

That is not true.

The existing CRB procedures do not bar anyone nor do they class people as 'paedophile'. All the CRB does is report to a potential employer (or voluntary body) that X had a conviction in year Y for offence Z.

So it would be open to an employer to investigate the circumstances and employ someone with a conviction of this type anyway.

Under the developing ISA rules, it would be open to an individual to appeal to the ISA to deal with particular circumstances or general cases like this. Obviously we shall see how that all works in practice when it finally happens.

Which is not to say there is no problem for people in that career situation.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The point is that an employer would not KNOW if a straight person, when they were 20, had sex with someone of the same age because it wasn't a criminal offence.

If an apology leads to changing criminal records, nor would they know about gay people who did the same thing.

Currently there is an inbuilt prejudice in the system.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Also, there is an automatic bar on teaching, with no appeal, ever since Ruth Kelly gave away her powers of discretion last year.

I have spent 30 years as a union rep. and have dealt with cases of summary dismissal of very good teachers who 'made a mistage' 30 years ago - because of this - it is heart-breaking.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Leo,
have you (or anyone else) got something you can link to on this? I would like to know more about it.

Personally I think one of the important things about Brown's apology is that it helps to morally isolate the charlatans who claim to be able to cure people of being gay or who claim that this is a good thing to attempt. It helps, through Turing as an example, to raise awareness that this is a truly wicked thing. Given that there are conservative Anglicans over here within Anglican Mainstream who have tried to push the modern incarnation of 'curing' gay people, so-called 'reparative therapy', I think it's important to raise awareness and to press the church to dissociate itself from such people. To me it's absolutely beyond the pale.

Gordon Brown has spoken out against the way this was done to Alan Turing, perhaps someone could challenge Rowan Williams to speak out against the people inside his church still pushing a similar agenda to Turing's persecutors. Perhaps that should be a petition?

cheers,
L.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Leo,
have you (or anyone else) got something you can link to on this? I would like to know more about it.
L.

For convictions for 40 of the most serious offences inclusion on the List is automatic. For other cases the decisions have been at Ministers discretion – the vast majority always taken by officials on Ministers behalf. In these discretionary cases, advice may be sought from a wide variety of relevant sources before a decision is taken – for example the police, experts in sexual offences, forensic psychiatrists.

After extensive consideration I have decided the most effective approach is to bar from working with children all those who are now convicted or cautioned for any sexual offences against children whether the individual is on the sex offenders register or not. I will shortly bring forward regulations automatically to enter on List 99 anyone who is convicted or cautioned for a sexual offence against a child.

I will also automatically bar individuals for a range of other serious sexual offences against adult
http://www.4children.org.uk/information/show/ref/530

Posted by BillyPilgrim (# 9841) on :

Alan Turing was convicted of "gross indecency"; presumably having sex with another man in a public place, e.g. a toilet or a public open space. How many straight couples have been prosecuted for fucking in public in the UK?
(Rhetorical question, obviously.)

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BillyPilgrim:
Alan Turing was convicted of "gross indecency"; presumably having sex with another man in a public place, e.g. a toilet or a public open space. How many straight couples have been prosecuted for fucking in public in the UK?
(Rhetorical question, obviously.)

You presume wrongly. Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 applied equally to acts in public and private. Go and check any half decent article on Turing, and you'll see that he was convicted under this law for acts that took place in private.

Could you not be bothered to check before slandering him?

L.

[ 16. September 2009, 02:37: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by BillyPilgrim (# 9841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:

Could you not be bothered to check before slandering him?

L.

No I couldn't be bothered, because I was posting late, and a bit stressed. Apologies to you and to Alan. The point about public sex still applies though, but is probably off-thread.
He wasn't done for cottaging, but for sex in private after a pickup outside a Manchester cinema, IIRC. The charge was gross indecency according to the Wikipedia article though, which would have been the same if it had been public, hence my leaping-to-conclusionism.
Once again, I apologise for the unintended slight on Alan Turing's character.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Sorry if I was being a bit nippy!
L.

Posted by BillyPilgrim (# 9841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Sorry if I was being a bit nippy!
L.

Yes, it's the time of year! Unnecessary apology accepted. My fault for posting on an empty brain.

Posted by DagonSlaveII (# 15162) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So what do you guys think? "Meaningful action", "hollow gesture", or "he deserved what he got"?

All relative to which party you are speaking to at the time.

1. It's a "meaningful gesture" towards the modern folks of the same ilk. As in, the gesture is beautifully done with the effect of pleasing or subduing a specific group of people. It's like apologizing to the modern American Blacks for the slavery they never once went through. It has a wonderful calming effect, without doing a damn thing for today's problems.

2. It's a "Hollow gesture" that keeps people off more urgent topics, and it does nothing for the already dead. If there's such a thing as purgatory, I don't see how one could be removed from such a place by being forgiven on this side of the veil--and likely would have already served their time (depending on your view of Sheol).

3. Considering that the Bible is clear that ALL deserve death (whether or not they get it), then the "He deserved what he got," is accurate. But then, "He got what his executioners deserved," is quite the same.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
The late Tory PM Ted Heath allegedly went 'cottaging' in the 1950s, but had to give it up before the powers that be would recommend to the Queen that he be admitted into the Privy Council!

Interesting. Well, he was also an organist. It figures.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0