Alan Turing

FlicketyB's 2 responses above are all you need to read , that's all I will say.

OMG I never realised how far this ridiculous process had gone! Tony Blair apologising for the Irish Potato Famine.

Well, if that is what he wants to do I expect him to come round to me personally. Make the apology and give me compensation. My great great grandfather and his family emigrated to London from Ireland because of the famine. While Blair is at it he can apologise for all the notices to be found in lodging house windows in the late 19th and early 20th century; 'No Children, No Irish, No dogs'. My mother could remember these signs from her own childhood.

What else can someone apologise to me about? Ah yes, all the discrimination shown to women over the centuries. My mother left school for a good job with the Prudential. She began studying for the Institute of Insurers, or some such professional organisation, she passed some stages , but then realised that, as a woman, the chances of her making any progress in her job, even if she had the right qualifications, was negligible and she would always earn less than a man.

I could go on and on. As I have said these historical apologies for something we have never done and had no control over is quite ridiculous.

Absent and Kiora I think you should be mindful of the season of goodwill ..... any mention of the former prime minister who made a mint by selling his soul to dictators and war criminals should be strictly off-limits!

I'm sorry for going off the subject absent but I think Tony Blair has more recent issues to apologise for than the Irish potato famine.His 'deep sorrow' should be saved for those lost and left to mourn who suffered during his term in office.

I think all these retrospective apologies and pardons are ridiculous. Where do we stop? Should we apologise to all the catholics tortured and killed and deprived of human rights for 300 years? Jews killed in medieval pogroms in England? Children hung for poaching or theft in the 18th and 19th century, or transported to Australia?

Each age has its own moral code and rules. The prosecution of Alan Turing and other homosexuals happened, . People who were not even born when it happened apologising for the conviction are of no use to the offender, they have suffered the punishment and they are now dead. All these apologies do is give those granting the post obit pardon a warm glow of smug self satisfaction and - they hope - a few political brownie points.

We can apologise to the living when something has happened to them in their life time that was appalling even by the standards of the time it happened, child abuse is an obvious example, but, to quote a cliché 'the past is another country, they do things differently there' and we need to accept that.

ps Compared with the UK, Switzerland's population is very small – a little more than a tenth of the UK's and a little bigger than that of London.

Switzerland is small and homogeneous in comparison with UK. Someone decides what issues to refer. You mention those charged with legislature. What and who are they, how do they receive their charge, and from whom? The system you said you would prefer is actually a military/plutocratic oligarchy with no popular mandate. I believe many people elected to office in this country wish to serve, in comparison with the few seeking power, wealth and influence. I also believe that the electoral system we have, with its many flaws, doesn't work all that badly.

Works in Switzerland, not a small group.
Everybody listens especially those charged with legislature.
A referendum is a direct vote (as against indirect) to decide a specific proposal by the electorate. A vote is a means of electing a party representative to office and is normally by minority as the majority generally have their votes spread over a number of candidates (in UK it is first past the post rather than proportional representation)
Government (just a word) does not have discretion, it pursues the policies decided by referendum. It is the few elected to serve the needs of the people (as against the political party)
You get it by standing up to be counted and wanting to serve your country and its people (no self serving individuals need apply).
Now for match of the day.

Might work with a small group but not in a modern industrialised state with a very large, diverse population. Who does the listening? What's the difference between a referendum and a vote? How much discretion does the government have over what issues are referred? Who/ what is the government? How do you get it?

Simply by listening - impartially, but it will require referenda, something successive administrations are reluctant to do as presumably it could upset the ideology.

How do you establish the views of the people?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?)

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

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.

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.

A posthumous knighthood is a good idea!

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.

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...

Isn't a posthumous pardon the definition of pointlessness?

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.