

Gordon Brown apologises to Alan Turing - sharpn
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/gordon-brown/6170112/Gordon-Brown-Im-proud-to-say-sorry-to-a-real-war-hero.html

======
slackenerny
Congratulations jgrahamc!

(It was his campaign to effectiveness of which many, including me, were
sceptical.)

Further discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=816217>

------
prawn
Shame that some of the comments on the Telegraph article are so bitter and
irrelevant. Glass half full, people!

~~~
sharpn
wow, yes - they weren't there when I posted the link. Swivel-eyed loons :o

~~~
barrkel
Labour, the party in government, is a pretty bad lot, but the Tories, whose
supporters traditionally read the Torygraph, are no better.

I have to live in this country, but I fear for its future. About the only
party I can stomach voting for is the LibDems, but it's been a long time since
they had a hand in government (assuming continuity with Liberal Party).

------
vixen99
We know that Gordon Brown has no personal moral responsibility for the
prosecution of Alan Turing but has nevertheless apologized to Turing, a person
who no longer exists. But now everyone feels better and at no cost to
themselves. This is a great bargain whereby one can score brownie points to
promote one’s moral stature. The urge to prepare a list (it'll be a long one)
of suitable future recipients of our moral largesse.will be irresistible.

~~~
jacquesm
Wow. That's got to be a record for cynicism. I see where you're coming from,
but don't you think that it might actually be helping people that are
discriminated against for their sexuality, race, gender or whatever people use
to identify others by some irrelevant characteristic in order to prosecute
them ?

The fact that there is 'no cost' is great, that means that it got done. The
church took 400 years in some cases to recognize their wrongs, the British
Government (at the prodding of John Graham-Cumming) took 'only' 50 years and
change.

I'm all for pressing governments to admit their wrongdoings, and I'm all for
shortening the time it takes them. The great news here is IT WORKED. They took
notice, and within a fairly short time.

They stopped short of what was asked, but they didn't exactly do nothing
either, that's the prime minister speaking in person there, not some two bit
flunky.

Gordon Brown personifies the British government, in this case that could have
gone only one step higher (the Queen) but apparently she couldn't be bothered,
or Brown decided that it might help his re-election chances if he did it
himself.

Whatever the truth of it is a cause for rejoicing.

Now let's hope some of this rubs off on his underlings, some of who are in a
perfect position to show that they too understand that discrimination is
wrong.

------
jacoblyles
What did Gordon Brown do to Alan Turing?

~~~
catzaa
That is my point exactly. Did Gordon Brown kill him or condoned his killing?
Furthermore, if he apologised on behalf of the government, is it the same
government that killed him (seeing as how the parties/people in power
changed).

If the latter is true, aren’t there bigger things he can apologise about? The
UK government did quite a few dastardly things during its long rule (as most
governments did). It would be nice if they start apologising to every country
and group that they oppressed during the colonial period.

~~~
StrawberryFrog
_That is my point exactly. Did Gordon Brown kill him or condoned his killing?_

No, and if you read the statement, Gordon Brown took the opportunity to blow
his own trumpet - "my how far we've come, things are so much better now" (I
paraphrase). Quite a politically astute response, actually, since it makes
them look good from a number of angles.

~~~
jacquesm
Brown is a very smooth operator, and for sure he would try to do everything to
spin this to his own benefit.

That does not mean that nothing was achieved however.

In my opinion, now it is time to press on and demand a formal pardon in light
of this apology I don't see how it could be refused. He's pretty much admitted
they got it wrong, a pardon is the next logical step.

~~~
StrawberryFrog
_He's pretty much admitted they got it wrong_

The language is ambiguous: If by "he" and "they" you are referring to the same
entity, then no, no such admission has been made. And it's not clear that it
should be.

More like "thousands of other gay men who were convicted under homophobic laws
were treated terribly ... I am proud that those days are gone ... " In other
words "they got it wrong in the 1950s. We're better."

~~~
jacquesm
'He' refers to Brown today, the head of the current government, 'they' refers
to the British Government in the past.

Apologies for being ambiguous. Not sure what the downvote was all about,
whether that was because of Brown being a smooth operator (he is), him trying
to spin this in such a way that he benefits from it (he did, especially some
of the words could have been a lot better chosen for an apology), whether they
disagree that nothing was achieved (it was, there is an apology where there
was none before) or whether they disagree with that this in my opinion is a
first step (it is, it's my opinion, I should know ;) ).

------
sharpn
Political gimmick, but I remember the petition for this was posted here & I
guess this apology was prompted by that campaign.

~~~
kenver
The guy can't win! If he hadn't he would have been done for not apologising,
and now that he has it's a political gimmick.

When I read it I just thought it was a nice thing to do.

~~~
sharpn
Well perhaps 'gimmick' is a loaded word; what I meant was that a full pardon
would have been more fitting, and also that he's apologising for something
done by someone else long ago - I can't think of a better word, but I do take
your point.

~~~
potatolicious
A full pardon IMHO is more of a gimmick than an apology. The guy is dead -
pardoning him won't do him any good. On the other hand, a heartfelt apology
communicates something explicitly, and might do some good for people who are
facing similar discrimination today.

~~~
sharpn
Not to split hairs, but a pardon is an action & implies regret - ie
communicates something tangible explicitly. Whereas an apology without pardon
is 'just words' & implicitly declines the opportunity to pardon. I can't speak
for those who are facing similar discrimination, but my guess is that a pardon
would be a more tangible comfort.

Either way, due credit for making the statement.

------
Hexstream
No mention of his contributions to computing at all :/

------
DanielBMarkham
Congratulations to all of us who bravely rallied around the cause of a dead
man, persuading the British government to do something that has no real
meaning to it and then celebrating our common victory over, er, something-or-
another. I'm not sure what we defeated or cause we moved forward, but it sure
felt great!

Let's keep up the good work! We have a long list of horrible deeds done in the
past to dead people by other dead people, and there's no limit to the amount
of patting ourselves on the back we can achieve. After all, we are so morally
superior to all of those folk, and it's time we told ourselves that.

Never mind that slavery still exists in the world, or imprisonment for gays,
or genocide, or female genital mutilation. No point in addressing or doing
something about actual, real evils that we can make an impact on. Nope! When
you can score easy symbolic points, all of that real action seems kind of
silly. Let's hear it for symbolism over substance! </sarcasm>

As a person of European descent, I would like to take this opportunity to
request that the Italian government apologize for the Romans keeping so many
of our ancestors as slaves. This is a wrong that's gone on way too long, and
something superficial and symbolic must immediately be done so that I can feel
better about it.

------
jokull
He should apologise for using the terrorist law against Iceland (I'm
Icelandic).

