Alan Turing

Absolutely.
But what about the other homosexuals who were also persecuted - should they not receive a pardon also?

Agree totally with you both.

I agree, there should be a blanket pardon for all homosexuals prosecuted during that time.

I agree too. I was chuntering all through that news item this morning. You can't pardon one man for his 'sin' just because he did good things but all the rest have to remain'sinners'.

I don't understand the "pardoning" thing. As we see it today, he did nothing wrong. So how can he need pardoning? They've got the phrasing wrong.

Yes, I think it should be an apology!

I was shocked by the 'chemical castration' info - I never heard that before.
Poor man!

Yes, there should be a general pardon.

Somehow his case seems worse because he was so brilliant and treated so particularly appallingly when the country should have been feeling grateful. However, it's a fair point all convictions should be wiped out.

My heart is with the pardon. Particularly as the security services hounded him and possibly caused his suicide.
My head says once you start pardoning dead people for doing things that were against the law at the time, you will open the floodgates for "campaigns" to pardon all kinds of people. There is a "campaign" to pardon Steven Ward (aided and abetted by making him the star of a new musical, thank you ALW). Maybe he was made a scapegoat, but why would anyone want to spend time rehabilitating the reputation of someone who procured teenagers to act as prostitutes for the very rich and very powerful?

There needs to be a better way to do this. "Pardoning" sounds as though you still think there was wrong-doing involved.It was just the abhorrent laws at the time.

It's cynical the way this has been done at Xmas.

Alan Turing not only helped save countless lives during the war but he was one of the inventors of computing. I think it is appalling that he has been pardoned because he is famous when so many other lesser known people have not. We can't judge what was done 50 years ago by modern mores but perhaps a way could have been found to honour him and his contribution to this country.

Perhaps an honorary posthumous knighthood would be more appropriate ..... that's if anything posthumous has any worth.

A pardon implies that he did something wrong.

Poor chap was only 41 when he killed himself.

Isn't a posthumous pardon the definition of pointlessness?

Not like he has any descendants is it. Maybe supposed to be one of those symbolic acts like Kevin Rudd saying sorry to native peoples of Australia...

Or Tony Blair's "deep sorrow" over the slave trade and his apology for the Irish potato famine.

It's just an act to make politicians feel virtuous. Alan Turing isn't going to feel anything.

A posthumous knighthood is a good idea!

I'm not sure that knighthoods can be granted posthumously and wonder whether they should be. What is the point? The man was treated appallingly under the laws existing at the time – as, of course, were many other lesser known and unknown figures. It's too late to do anything to try to "put it right" now and any attempt to do so will just be because grandstanding politicians want to be seen as the good guys.

yes the list of those wronged by governments past is pretty long isn't it. Some of them have been made into saints, which does happen after death.

As you say nothing can put it right. He's not going to know.

Presumably if you make someone into a saint, then you think they know that they are being made into a saint. Anglicans don't make saints do they? There were the English martyrs burned and chopped up by "bloody" Mary Tudor, but I don't think they are saints? (can someone shed light?)

Sadly governments and society determine what is acceptable or not at any point in time and legislate accordingly. I agree that from today's perspective punishing someone for their sexuality is fundamentally wrong but it is purely a subjective viewpoint. At the time it was considered to be illegal. As views become more liberal so the legislation is ammended to accomodate current levels of acceptance, doing so however often brings with it other associated unforseen problems but that is the price of liberal freedom.

ps Who else is would you want to determine what is acceptable besides society and its representatives, albeit that democracy is a deeply flawed system?

Absent my point exactly, at the time it was considered acceptable for homosexuality to be deemed illegal. Sad but true.
Not sure I class politicians as (true) representatives of the people however more representatives of their party ideology. However if I had the choice, with certain reservations, I would be happy for the Air Marshall, First sea lord, Field Marshall and 12 captains of industry to run the country and legislate. Seems a fair swap for 650 MP's and 800 odd peers.

Wouldn't be a democracy then, would it ps? MPs are at least elected by a majority. May be a small majority of wrong-headed people but that's the way it works.

Lilygran It could be classed as democracy if it represented the views of the people. It is argued that currently democracy is a case of giving people the chance to vote on what they are dictated to do. Except for Switzerland of course as they practice direct representation, the only country to do so I believe.