1. Comment #413984 by serendipity1 on September 11, 2009 at 1:06 pm

Goodness, what a fantastic turn of events...
Maybe there is hope for us all ....

Other Comments by serendipity1

2. Comment #413986 by Ignorant Amos on September 11, 2009 at 1:15 pm

It was disgraceful the way they treated this genius of a man. There is no doubt that he DID change the history of WWII.

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

3. Comment #413988 by stephen.stallebrass on September 11, 2009 at 1:24 pm

This is great news. Arguably the closest that Britain came to losing the Second World War was the Battle of the Atlantic and without the ULTRA decrypts this could have been lost and the world may indeed be a very different place.

Other Comments by stephen.stallebrass

4. Comment #413990 by Koreman on September 11, 2009 at 1:28 pm

Turing was a remarkable scientist, one of the fathers of computer algorithms and artificial intelligence. He defined the Turing test.

Other Comments by Koreman

5. Comment #413991 by jotatsu on September 11, 2009 at 1:32 pm

I've read some of his original papers, this man is a giant in the field of early cryptography, mathematics, computing and artificial intelligence. Its a shame how humanity loss this mind.

Other Comments by jotatsu

6. Comment #413992 by Steven Mading on September 11, 2009 at 1:33 pm

The comments on the telegraph article are rather disgusting because people ignored the actual important part of the story, which is really about Turing. Because the PM who delivered the apology is unpopular, the commenters made the article be about him. Lots of comments angry at Brown - very few comments about Turing himself. Sigh.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

7. Comment #413993 by Cartomancer on September 11, 2009 at 1:34 pm

Perhaps we might get full marriage equality and the ban on giving blood lifted too now, eh?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

8. Comment #413994 by Border Collie on September 11, 2009 at 1:36 pm

Does anyone know if the US government ever apologized to Robert Oppenheimer for somewhat similar mistreatment?

Other Comments by Border Collie

9. Comment #414001 by Neal O on September 11, 2009 at 2:14 pm

Good news plain and simple. Brown's letter reads well and seems pretty unequivocal to me. You would not think so if you read some of the comments on the Telegraph site tho.... If ever anyone accuses atheists of having a chip try reading some of them!

Other Comments by Neal O

10. Comment #414002 by Ignorant Amos on September 11, 2009 at 2:18 pm

7. Comment #413993 by Cartomancer

Holy guacamole!!! I didn't even know sexual orientation was a bar to giving blood....that has to be against the law at some level.

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

11. Comment #414003 by PERSON on September 11, 2009 at 2:24 pm

10. Comment #414002 by Ignorant Amos on September 11, 2009 at 2:18 pm
It was probably reasonable for a short while when there was (I think) evidence that HIV was vastly more prevalent amongst gays. But that hasn't been the case for a long time now, AIUI.

Other Comments by PERSON

12. Comment #414004 by nalfeshnee on September 11, 2009 at 2:24 pm

Cartomancer quoth:

Perhaps we might get ... the ban on giving blood lifted too now, eh?

While we're at it, why not lift the European, US and Australian ban on giving blood simply because you lived in Britain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creutzfeldt-Jakob_disease#Blood_donor_restrictions

Equally perverse, in my opinion.

Carto: sorry for hijacking your post :=)

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

13. Comment #414019 by Sharrow on September 11, 2009 at 3:02 pm

And each of us who signed the petition got an email from the PM in our email! What a system.

Now we just need that petition on stopping Cormac Murphy O'Conner from getting a peerage to succeed....

Other Comments by Sharrow

14. Comment #414023 by kaiserkriss on September 11, 2009 at 3:18 pm

While I don't want to urinate in any body's cornflakes, the idea of an apology to a dead person is not rational. Alan Turing was indeed a brilliant man who was ostracized for being"who he was".
This apology won't buy him anything, it won't make him feel good or better about himself either. It seems to be for the benefit of others and thus rings hollow and contrived.

I truly believe Mr Turing's contributions to civilization should be recognized and acknowledged, but an apology just does not cut it.

I do however strongly support the petition stopping that bigot Cormaac Murphy O"Conner from getting a peerage. That would actually affect him, a living person. jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

15. Comment #414025 by Jeromex on September 11, 2009 at 3:29 pm

Kaiser - I'm sorry I have to disagree.., this apology has to be for society. Acknowledging an atrocity in the past helps society itself heal and grow morally.

Other Comments by Jeromex

16. Comment #414028 by epeeist on September 11, 2009 at 3:39 pm

Comment #414023 by kaiserkriss:

This apology won't buy him anything, it won't make him feel good or better about himself either. It seems to be for the benefit of others and thus rings hollow and contrived.

His family are apparently pleased by the apology. That is good enough for me.

Other Comments by epeeist

17. Comment #414031 by wice on September 11, 2009 at 3:46 pm

@kaiserkriss

ever heard of a symbolic gesture? of course it won't help Turing, since he's dead. it's a message to society.

Other Comments by wice

18. Comment #414035 by kaiserkriss on September 11, 2009 at 3:56 pm

epeeist, Jeromex: Sorry to keep disagreeing with you despite your comments.

It said in the article that Turing had no known surviving relatives. While I can appreciate the apology in the context of his family, that is a very private matter, but my point still stands that we as atheists who DON"T believe in an afterlife are just trying to feel good about something.

As I expressed further down in my post, I strongly believe Alan Turing's contribution to mankind should be recognized by society and brought to the attention of the masses in actions that will be remembered and not just hallow words that are quickly forgotten.

That being said, I personally hold Alan Turing as one of civilizations great minds, up there with Einstein and daVinci.jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

19. Comment #414041 by kaiserkriss on September 11, 2009 at 4:12 pm

wice

Yes, a symbolic gesture, so is celebrating mass by catholics, and we've all read about the symbolism on these pages associated with that gesture.

To me recognition of Alan Turing in the form of a scholarship, re naming of a College at Oxford or Cambridge even a statue is more befitting to this great man, rather than a feel good irrational response in the form of an apology rattled off by the PM. jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

20. Comment #414045 by Swordmaiden on September 11, 2009 at 4:27 pm

Too little too late but better then nothing. Its good to see a petition we sign apparently having a positive effect. Since I first heard of Turing years ago I have been in awe of his work and deeply saddened by his treatment.
He has done more to inspire and impress me than Jesus ever did and his work had a more positive, practical benefit to the world than JC's!

Other Comments by Swordmaiden

21. Comment #414056 by Steve Zara on September 11, 2009 at 4:45 pm

Comment #414035 by kaiserkriss

Although I feel kind of happy about the apology, I tend to agree with you.

An apology for the past is pretty strange when you think about it. After all, the moral environment was different. We think of what happened as mistaken now, but people thought they were doing the right thing then. An apology seems only sensible if you are still doing the wrong thing now, and have just decided to stop.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

22. Comment #414062 by EricTheRed on September 11, 2009 at 5:00 pm

I think the prime ministers response was a good one (see below) and it didn't take a decade for him to respond. Well done Gordon.

Prime Minister: 2009 has been a year of deep reflection – a chance for Britain, as a nation, to commemorate the profound debts we owe to those who came before. A unique combination of anniversaries and events have stirred in us that sense of pride and gratitude which characterise the British experience. Earlier this year I stood with Presidents Sarkozy and Obama to honour the service and the sacrifice of the heroes who stormed the beaches of Normandy 65 years ago. And just last week, we marked the 70 years which have passed since the British government declared its willingness to take up arms against Fascism and declared the outbreak of World War Two. So I am both pleased and proud that, thanks to a coalition of computer scientists, historians and LGBT activists, we have this year a chance to mark and celebrate another contribution to Britain’s fight against the darkness of dictatorship; that of code-breaker Alan Turing.

Turing was a quite brilliant mathematician, most famous for his work on breaking the German Enigma codes. It is no exaggeration to say that, without his outstanding contribution, the history of World War Two could well have been very different. He truly was one of those individuals we can point to whose unique contribution helped to turn the tide of war. The debt of gratitude he is owed makes it all the more horrifying, therefore, that he was treated so inhumanely. In 1952, he was convicted of ‘gross indecency’ – in effect, tried for being gay. His sentence – and he was faced with the miserable choice of this or prison - was chemical castration by a series of injections of female hormones. He took his own life just two years later.

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. 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 Alan’s status as one of Britain’s most famous victims of homophobia is another step towards equality and long overdue.

But even more than that, Alan deserves recognition for his contribution to humankind. For those of us born after 1945, into a Europe which is united, democratic and at peace, it is hard to imagine that our continent was once the theatre of mankind’s darkest hour. It is difficult to believe that in living memory, people could become so consumed by hate – by anti-Semitism, by homophobia, by xenophobia and other murderous prejudices – that the gas chambers and crematoria became a piece of the European landscape as surely as the galleries and universities and concert halls which had marked out the European civilisation for hundreds of years. It is thanks to men and women who were totally committed to fighting fascism, people like Alan Turing, that the horrors of the Holocaust and of total war are part of Europe’s history and not Europe’s present.

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.

Gordon Brown

Other Comments by EricTheRed

23. Comment #414065 by hungarianelephant on September 11, 2009 at 5:08 pm

21. Comment #414056 by Steve Zara

An apology for the past is pretty strange when you think about it.

The most surreal one was surely Tony Blair's apology to Ireland for the Potato Famine, which happened 70 years before the country even existed.

Although it was once suggested by Newton Emerson that the Famine was personally ordered by Queen Victoria, I think this was supposed to be satire.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

24. Comment #414068 by DamnDirtyApe on September 11, 2009 at 5:11 pm

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. 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 in conviction. I am proud that those days are gone and that in the past 12 years this Government has done so much to make life fairer and more equal for our LGBT community. This recognition of Alan's status as one of Britain's most famous victims of homophobia is another step towards equality, and long overdue.

I think that's about as good as we could have hoped.

You are quite right to say an 'apology' is a bit weird and arguably irrelevant. I prefer to interpret this as 'recognition' of the wrongs of the past.

We've got it in writing from the government of today - treating people like that is wrong clear as day.

... Although I was a tiny bit annoyed with the way Brown inserted little snippets hear and there to make Labour look good. This is bigger than Turing and its bigger than them.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

25. Comment #414077 by j.mills on September 11, 2009 at 6:04 pm

Steve said:

After all, the moral environment was different.

I'm uneasy with that argument. Seems like 'temporal relativism'. For instance, there were people who saw how wrong slavery was (notably slaves!) even when the 'moral environment' fully supported it. It didn't 'get' wrong over time, it was wrong all along, no matter how popular.

In any event, glad to see Brown doing something that's essentially an unalloyed good for a change, albeit a small issue. Good to see that he included a nod to "the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted" (rather as Steve was arguing for on earlier threads). Sad to see the petulant and irrelevant sniping of the commenters on the Telegraph site.

I am pretty firmly of the school that thinks a state apology is a worthwhile marker of social progress, an acknowledgement that the comprehension of wrongs done has reached the top, a tiny ratcheting forward of civilisation. At the least it's gotten the matter aired, even under the noses of Telegraph readers.

Other Comments by j.mills

26. Comment #414079 by flying goose on September 11, 2009 at 6:09 pm

I feel that the best apology we can give to Alan Turing and people like him who suffered the inhumanity of their fellow human beings in the past is keep asking the questions. One question in particular. ‘What inhumanities are we committing without a second thought?’ and ‘How can we change things?’ We can learn from the mistakes of the past, but I would rather cast my judging eye on me and my own society, thats the way to make a real difference.

Other Comments by flying goose

27. Comment #414081 by Clairebear on September 11, 2009 at 6:11 pm

I was so damn happy to get this in my mailbox. Great news, even if it won't put back the clock. It sends a good message.

Other Comments by Clairebear

28. Comment #414082 by Steve Zara on September 11, 2009 at 6:14 pm

Comment #414077 by j.mills

Good to see that he included a nod to "the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted" (rather as Steve was arguing for on earlier threads).

I was, of course, particularly happy about that.

Temporal relativism is inevitable, because there are no moral absolutes, only moral frameworks that we devise and try and improve. As some historian said today, it is likely that future generations will apologise for things we are doing now that we consider morally fine, or necessary.

I agree with flying goose. What we should be doing is constantly asking questions... what could we be doing wrong now?

EDIT: Having read a few sickening comments following the Telegraph article on their website, I now support the apology. Anything that makes those bigots angry has to be a moral act.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

29. Comment #414083 by j.mills on September 11, 2009 at 6:22 pm

Steve said:

What we should be doing is constantly asking questions... what could we be doing wrong now?

Aha! But if right and wrong are merely properties of present society, then how can we be doing wrong by our own standards?

Put that another way: if Turing's contemporaries had asked, "what could we be doing wrong now?", how could they have concluded that homophobic policies were wrong if those policies were part of the 'moral environment' of the time?

I ain't no expert ethicist, but I'm reluctant to give those who were short-sighted in the past a free pass, just as I am for those in the present.

Other Comments by j.mills

30. Comment #414084 by Steve Zara on September 11, 2009 at 6:29 pm

Comment #414083 by j.mills

I think I have an answer...

Right and wrong aren't properties of anything or any time. They are things we strive to understand.

We should not be too harsh on people in the past, because they don't have the knowledge or understanding we have now.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

31. Comment #414086 by j.mills on September 11, 2009 at 6:36 pm

Yo. I can go with that. Blanket condemnations are as unhelpful as blanket adoration (as of dead soldiers): each wipes out the individual. So: they were human back then, as we are human now.

('S not like I'd seriously disagree with ya, Steve! :) )

Other Comments by j.mills

32. Comment #414088 by Corylus on September 11, 2009 at 6:55 pm

KaisserKriss and Steve Zara

I understand where you are both coming from, but I don't agree in this case. Let me lay out why. I make sense of this sort of thing by distinguishing between private and public apologies.

In our private lives (sincere) apologies generally have the following features:

1) an admission on the part of one individual to another (or limited group of others) of moral culpability.
2) an acknowledgement that a human action (or inaction) caused the person being apologised to a demonstrable upset or harm.
3) an implicit or explicit resolution that the apologising party will make every effort to prevent a re-occurrence of the situation in which harm was caused.

Public apologies are different creatures. For example...

1) There can be no admission of individual moral culpability. This is because it is nonsensical to talk of assuming moral culpability for the actions or inaction of others. Especially when situation occurred at a time in which the apologising party could not possibly have any influence upon events.

So, in this instance you are both quite right that apologies in the public sphere (particularly to dead people) make no sense. OK.

2) Well, again we can point out that no action on the part of the person apologising caused the harm in question.

However this is not what this point is about. This is about admitting that harm occurred. When refraining from apologising (in both public and private contexts) we often argue that the 'harm' in question either did not occur or was necessary. This necessity can be due to a need to either prevent a greater harm or in the cause of an ultimate good.

For example the methods of the inquisition may have smarted a bit (I don't think even Torquemada doubted this:-), but this pain was seen as nothing in light of the ultimate salvation of souls. These actions were about the prevention of never-ending agony. Why apologise for harming someone when your actions do them a favour? Sheesh!

In this context the admission of harm is about; as Steve says; the 'moral environment being different'. However, just because the inquisition did not admit to itself that unjustified harm occurred does not mean that no unjustified harm did occur.

Yes, in private, the admission or harm generally comes after the blood has cooled. In public, it sometimes comes when a predominant view is reassessed. In both cases though there is an admission of harm. Also, there might be overlap in that public apologies can occur after the collective blood has cooled and private apologies can occur due to collective view being bought to the attention of an individual.

3) A resolution that a situation will not reoccur. This happens in both cases. There are still differences though.

In private cases the resolution come from one person. People on their own are weak, this is why we often ask individuals to prove to us for a time that they will not hurt us again. Governments and large institutions are not weak, the individuals within them might be, but we are better able to hold them to account by attacking them as institutions when they do not keep their promises. We can do this by refusing their services of voting them out of office.

OK - I'm rambling. What is my bottom line? Just that we need to be clear about what type of apology we are talking about when we assess the sense that it makes.

Kaisser I agree with you that politicians apologising can be an exercise in self serving behaviour. I particularly look out for the taking on of individual blame and excessive emotional displays when doing so. This politician would either be an unstable masochist (in which case I don't want them in power) or a manipulative con (in which case I really don't want them in power). These apologies don't have power of feature #1 and we should never allow them to have that status.

However, as long as public apologies have the features of #2 and #3 I think they are useful. In some cases they can be even more useful than private apologies because of the importance of #3 and the greater harm that public bodies can cause. As long as we don't conflate public and private I think we are OK.

In the light I this, I am happy that Alan Turing got his apology, and I am glad that Gordon Brown (as a public representative) made it.

-----

[Edit:]

Steve

EDIT: Having read a few sickening comments following the Telegraph article on their website, I now support the apology. Anything that makes those bigots angry has to be a moral act.

Oh, FFS! Could you kindly not change your mind until after I have written out and posted my reasons for disagreeing with you.

Other Comments by Corylus

33. Comment #414104 by j.mills on September 11, 2009 at 8:31 pm

Incidentally, kaiserkriss mentioned (#18):

It said in the article that Turing had no known surviving relatives.

The first article is simply wrong: the second quotes his delighted niece:

A niece of Mr Turing, Inagh Payne, said that at the time she had no idea about his contribution to the war effort because he kept his work "hush-hush".

She was also unaware of his sexuality and his prosecution as the family "kept mum about that sort of thing". She said she was "very grateful" for the apology.

"We realise now that he was gay and we think he was treated abominably," she said.

And this blog elsewhere on the Beeb cites three nieces:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/susanwatts/2009/09/alan_turing_were_sorry_you_des.html

Alan Turing's three nieces were stunned as well, when I broke the news to them. The youngest, Shuna Hunt, said "that is incredible - gosh I feel I am in a dream".

Middle niece, Janet Robinson, said "That is really good news".

And the eldest, Inagh Payne, said that Alan's treatment had indeed been an injustice.

So there certainly are people for whom it's directly relevant.

Other Comments by j.mills

34. Comment #414107 by Big T on September 11, 2009 at 9:29 pm

The apology was long overdue and a posthumous knighthood is a very good idea.

Other Comments by Big T

35. Comment #414117 by Steve Zara on September 11, 2009 at 10:03 pm

Comment #414088 by Corylus

This is about admitting that harm occurred.

Here's the thing that bothers me a bit.

Governments have already admitted that harm occurred. They have already done their best to ensure that no harm like that occurs again. They did both by changing the law.

I am still coming across something rather unfortunate in interviews in various media. Statements that it was appropriate to apologise about Turing because of who he was, and waste of a life. The implication, probably unintentional, that he deserved an apology because he was a special gay.

This is complicated.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

36. Comment #414123 by j.mills on September 11, 2009 at 10:37 pm

Well, further to what Steve's saying, I suppose it's true that if no one famous had happened to suffer this fate, probably nobody would have petitioned for an expression of regret; nor would one have been forthcoming. On the other hand, given he was a war-hero and top boffin, Turing's case at least gives the lie to any notion that a gay man is inherently "inferior" or "useless", thereby (further) eroding a stereotype.

Steve said that riling bigots was a moral act. This is more than jocular: in a small way some mindsets have been challenged by confronting this little gesture of Gordon's.

Other Comments by j.mills

37. Comment #414125 by Corylus on September 11, 2009 at 10:47 pm

Comment #414117 by Steve Zara

Governments have already admitted that harm occurred. They have already done their best to ensure that no harm like that occurs again. They did both by changing the law.

Possibly they have, but I don't think we can infer such specific motivations from a generalised action like legislative change.

Laws get changed for all manner of reasons. For example, they may be unenforced, unenforceable, uneconomic or simply unpopular. None of these motivations for change imply a demonstrable upset or harm to an individual. There may be indirect harm certainly - in that all citizens can be harmed by their tax money being wasted. However, direct harm is something that is rarely acknowledged for reasons of liability if nothing else. Apologies are such acknowledgements - this is why they are special.

I am still coming across something rather unfortunate in interviews in various media. Statements that it was appropriate to apologise about Turing because of who he was, and waste of a life. The implication, probably unintentional, that he deserved an apology because he was a special gay.

I understand this. You are unhappy with the notion that someone might be more deserving on an apology due to an individual talent or contribution. You feel that this is (and should be) a separate assessment from the level of harm that has been caused.

I agree with this in a purely abstract level, but I am also trying to balance this with the fact that people's sympathies are more easily and more consistently stirred when viewing individual rather than collective suffering.

For example, the most insensitive among us can be changed by being encouraged to view an individual case that resonates. Conversely the most sensitive can be spared being driven to distraction by all cases of injustice by simply concentrating on specifics. Both of these groups can switch off when being asked to view injustice and act upon it.

We need as many people 'switched on' as possible.

This is complicated.

Yes it is. I think the thing is to see Turing as an example and not an exemplar. He wasn't a saint, he wasn't a sinner. He was simply a human being with human needs. A person who was wronged. We happen to able to put a name to him.

This means that an apology can be personal. What this does not have to mean is that other apologies are undeserved.

[Edit: expanded]

Other Comments by Corylus

38. Comment #414133 by Steve Zara on September 11, 2009 at 11:06 pm

Comment #414125 by Corylus

You are unhappy with the notion that someone might be more deserving on an apology due to an individual talent or contribution. You feel that this is (and should be) a separate assessment from the level of harm that has been caused

It's actually not that. There can be something not that nice in the background when someone from a minority with a particular talent is given an apology like Turing.

There is just a hint of the use of the word 'but', as in:

Turing was gay, but he was a tremendous scientist, so he deserves an apology.

I'm not saying this was present in what Gordon Brown wrote. I was very pleased with the tone of that response to the petition. But, this 'but' can be there in what other people say.

There is the implication that the negativity of his homosexuality is counteracted by his status as a world-class mathematician and computer scientist, and his help in the War.

There are (if you will excuse the phrase) plenty of other bad 'buts' around if you look for them. There can be praise for a woman which can imply "sure, she is a woman, but look what she achieved".

Language can be very revealing. It can indicate that we are still at a general level of tolerance, and not full acceptance, of principle such as equality.

Comment #414123 by j.mills

Steve said that riling bigots was a moral act. This is more than jocular: in a small way some mindsets have been challenged by confronting this little gesture of Gordon's.

Absolutely. It does good to turn over some rocks and see what nasties crawl out.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

39. Comment #414134 by Mark Smith on September 11, 2009 at 11:11 pm

I've just read the article and think Gordon Brown's statement is excellent.

Other Comments by Mark Smith

40. Comment #414141 by Corylus on September 11, 2009 at 11:46 pm

Steve

It's actually not that.

Then it's I who should apologise. I should have let you be more specific rather than assuming a motivation on your part in advance.

There can be something not that nice in the background when someone from a minority with a particular talent is given an apology like Turning.

There is just a hint of the use of the word 'but', as in:

Turing was gay, but he was a tremendous scientist, so he deserves an apology.

Yes, I can see where you are coming from here.

In answer to this I am tempted to argue that we need to replace 'but' with 'and'. The trouble is I know that this is a tactic beloved of people who read dreadful self-help books on influencing people.

For example, (the advice goes) ... when in a business meeting and being given a crap proposal from someone you do not want to upset... do not say "This is crap", do not say "This is good, but this bit is crap" instead say "This is good and with further work it could be brilliant!".

I try to avoid lies and half-truths whenever possible so I'm not going down that road. According, I have to admit I don't have a complete or an easy answer to the 'bad buts' - other than we should be aware of them and speak up when we sense their presence.

Language can be revealing. It can indicate that we are still at a general level of tolerance, and not full acceptance, of principle such as equality.

Yes it most certainly can. This is why I like to tease out what we mean by given words, look at how these meanings change with context and point out when words are ambiguous or misused.

I actually don't think that words were misused in the substance of this apology which is why I am satisfied with it. It seems we agree on this.

I'm not saying this was present in what Gordon Brown wrote. I was very pleased with the tone of that response to the petition.

With regard to whether others misuse language...

But, this 'but' can be there in what other people say.

I don't deny this and again, I have no complete or easy answers.

However, I would point out that these others are not speaking on behalf of a government. Do you think it possible that they were speaking in private rather than public terms and missing the distinctions I was trying to draw out above? I'm interested in whether you think what they say could be addressed in that fashion.
---
Damn, you are keeping me up past my bedtime, I need to turn in soon :-)

Other Comments by Corylus

41. Comment #414142 by Crazycharlie on September 11, 2009 at 11:50 pm

Though not a official apology, it's still something. A prime minister of Great Britain lo these many years later acknowledging Alan Turing's contribution to winning the war and admitting that Turing was unjustly treated is an honor. --Alan Turing, a great mind. We will always be in his debt. We will always remember him.

Other Comments by Crazycharlie

42. Comment #414145 by Steve Zara on September 12, 2009 at 12:01 am

Comment #414141 by Corylus

Then it's I who should apologise. I should have let you be more specific rather than assuming a motivation on your part in advance.

Don't apologise. I'm not clear sometimes.

Yes it most certainly can. This is why I like to tease out what we mean by given words, look at how these meanings change with context and point out when words are ambiguous or misused.

Yes, and I have learned a lot about that from you.

I actually don't think that words were misused in the substance of this apology which is why I am satisfied with it. It seems we agree on this.

We do. I am being a bit mean saying how I find the apology strange. It is a useful apology in many ways, and I thoroughly approve of the way it was worded; as I said, I think it goes beyond the sense of the petition.

Do you think it possible that they were speaking in private rather than public terms and missing the distinctions I was trying to draw out above? I'm interested in whether you think what they say could be addressed in that fashion.

I think much of this use of language is done without thought. I find myself trying to puzzle out what is behind certain use of language when particular phrases make me uncomfortable, even when I am confident that the language was backed by good intentions. The working of the petition made me a bit uncomfortable. The response by Gordon Brown made me happy.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

43. Comment #414147 by Corylus on September 12, 2009 at 12:11 am

Comment #414145 by Steve Zara

I am being a bit mean saying how I find the apology strange.

Not mean, just trying to work it through.

I think much of this use of language is done without thought.

That's always a problem.

The response by Gordon Brown made me happy.

I'm glad about that :)

Right now I'm going to bed!

Other Comments by Corylus

44. Comment #414396 by Follow Peter Egan on September 12, 2009 at 6:11 pm

This is very positive. Thanks for your efforts, Richard.

There'll always be bigotry but it's always worth countering.

Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan

45. Comment #414507 by beanson on September 13, 2009 at 7:26 am

Pointless tokenism
Should there be also an apology to Oscar Wilde? all the millions of other persecuted gays? Why stop there, a personal apology to all people throughout history who were wrongly persecuted ('wrongly' according to our present moral standards)- start now and we may be finished by doomsday

Though perhaps we may need to retract some of these appologies if our morals revert at some future date?

It's equally important to apologise to all the sentient beings throughout the universe that have been wrongly persecuted- after all we have played as much part in their woes as we have in Alan Turings

Such a load of tripe...

How about something that actually means something- apologies to people who are currently alive; and not just apology but redress. I'm sure we can all think of deserving cases.
Aternatively our flacid prime minister could speak out against the revolting bigots who would like to bring back the persecution- Bishop Nazir Ali for example

As no one here believes in a life after death a postumous apology is meaningless to the object it is directed at. As for the surviving relatives argument- well that one would be relevant I suppose if the apology was directed at them for their distress (which it isn't) however, of course, this argument diminishes with the passage of time and the deaths of those directly concerned and is anyway proportional to the anguish they themselves felt (presumably not on par with our tragic hero)

The whole spectacle is symptomatic of our mawkish society- somewhat akin to the outpouring of patheticness at that dispicable royal sloane-ranger's demise.

Other Comments by beanson

46. Comment #414860 by zengardener on September 14, 2009 at 5:15 am

I think flying goose makes an important point. This should give people pause to consider their own actions.

Other Comments by zengardener

47. Comment #414907 by bendigeidfran on September 14, 2009 at 9:41 am

Perhaps hounding him to his death was for the best - what if he'd got a pop at the genetic code? Cancer, aids, death, - all cured by lunch, leaving him all afternoon to make gay tomatoes. Looks like a narrow escape to me.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

48. Comment #415238 by j s bach on September 15, 2009 at 9:46 am

Does anyone know if the "Apple" computer logo is in rememberance of Turing? ie an apple with a bite out of it? Or is this just common knowledge?

Other Comments by j s bach