I don't get this line of thinking. What was done to him was a disgrace but what is the best line of action for someone who is in charge of the British government now?

The fact that he's been posthumously pardoned and he's getting recognition for his achievements seems better than the alternatives.

We can't cherry pick nice bits of history and ignore the rest. The current government is part of a larger context.

For example, the current British PM does not understand why reciting Rudyard Kipling in Myanmar is a problem (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/30/boris-johns...) and he wrote a book elevating his idol Churchill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Churchill_Factor). He really only thinks of Churchill as someone who "saved civilization", while ignoring that Churchill also caused millions of deaths (Bengal famine, etc) – "the Aryan stock is bound to triumph".

By ignoring historical facts and not recognizing that the UK is directly to blame for a lot of death and suffering in India, Africa, and all other places the empire touched, has consequences also today. For example, BLM also made it to the UK, however the situation for black people in the UK is quite different to the US. Probably because Boris ignores lots of historical facts, he doesn't even understand the first thing of BLM UK (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/08/i-hear-you-b...)

I'm focusing on Boris Johnson here, but his government is largely made up of long time friends from similar backgrounds with shared values.

Ignoring relevant historical context of Alan Turing is an example of larger problem in the current UK government. Gay rights are better today than 1950s, but it's by no means a solved problem. Hate crimes against LGBT are increasing (sexual orientation motivated crimes increasing more than for race and trans is even worse https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...).

This quickly becomes a huge topic on how to view and process history. I just wanted to say that Johnson reciting that poem in Myanmar was clearly deliberate and not some accident that we can attribute to his not knowing better.

God that clip of Boris gives me secondhand embarrassment. It almost seemed intentional on his part, even after the ambassador cautioned against his continuing the poem a few times. Jeez.

I do love "If...", though.

They could start by banning 'conversion therapy'. They been talking about it for years but dragging their heels on it.

You're right of course. I just have a personal hatred for the whole situation; to lose the genius of someone like Turing and all the further developments he could've made if it weren't for the persecution of his "crime" is absolutely tragic. That's without even considering the personal, moral aspect to this, which is something that many gay people experienced during the time. No number of meaningless pardons or pretty bank notes will change that fact, unfortunately. It'll always just be tragic.

I think pardoned is not the right word here. It's the other way around. It's the justice system that was way out of line.

He never did anything wrong, it was wrong to convict him for his sexual orientation. So there was nothing to pardon, but a lot to ask for forgiveness. Too bad he killed himself before anyone had the decency of recognize the atrocity they did to him.

And please do not argue that at the time things were seen differently. That is in no way a justification for what the "justice" system was doing. Cruelty against humans can never be justified, no matter the epoch. Otherwise we might end up justifying other atrocities that should never ever be justified.

"Pardoning" is the formal process for removing a criminal conviction which has not been overturned in court.

The process of decriminialising things is a lot rarer than criminalizing things, and it's not routine to wipe away all convictions under the old law. Quite probably it should. This is a factor that should be considered in the drug legalization that may happen over the next decade.

> So there was nothing to pardon...

There was a very real criminal conviction to pardon.

How can you possibly be this obtuse?

If jumping is illegal, and later people are pardoned for jumping, it is still a pardon, even if we find it ridiculous to outlaw jumping with our current moral code.

It's not exactly helpful to be a contrarian about every action of a government (by the way, the "English government" doesn't exist) because they haven't implemented the specifics of your personal political agenda.

The problem with being so blinded by hatred towards an entity is that you attribute malevolence to their every action and fail to consider things objectively. The government have pardoned him, the prime minister has issued an official apology, we are now celebrating him in multiple extremely prominent ways, which can only lead to more people learning about both his achievements and the injustices committed against him. Your reaction is to call that "a disgrace".

I would go the other way and say it's more accurate to call it the London government ;)

Although I was being deliberately over the top in my original comment, it wouldn't have hurt to add something tasteful to the note to symbolise the injustice and struggle he (and many) faced, and the direction of progress since then. Instead we get the palatable war hero parts only.

And to clarify what I meant by 'disgrace': Erasmus is gone because of Brexit, and to wash the fiasco clean they're using Turing's name to market its replacement. I don't know what else you can call that other than shameless.

What is this strange mentality to constantly inflict guilt and shame on people? Can't we just use this as an opportunity to celebrate the life and work of Alan Turing?

For a moment I thought your first sentence referred to those who persecuted Turing and their modern day counterparts

Apologies, I should have been clearer. By people I meant the general public of today. Those who had nothing to do with the persecution of Alan Turing.

Disagree with this... it has been thoroughly acknowledged with regretful apologies. There comes a time for healing so everyone can move forward. Plus, I don't know Alan Turing but it seems unlikely he would have wanted to be remembered for that.

They did not apologise. They pardoned him, and other gay men convicted historically - which implies that they committed a crime, requiring a pardon, rather than the government acknowledging that its stance was wrong.

The prime minister issued an apology over a decade ago.

Please stop spreading misinformation. You may feel passionate about an issue for whatever reason, that's not an excuse to lie.

https://blog.jgc.org/2011/07/complete-text-of-gordon-browns-...

You are misinformed.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-...

> Acknowledging the strength of feeling, Brown wrote: "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.

I'm not sure that "dealt with under the law of the time" rings quite the way it should.

The fact that that was even mentioned is disgusting to me.

They did apologize, however, although a lot of that seems to hinge on his brilliance and the fact that he may have caused them to win the war, which IMO shouldn't factor in to their apology at all.

Where are the apologies to all of the others they tortured in this manner who aren't war heroes? What else are they doing to make this right besides talking?

> I'm not sure that "dealt with under the law of the time" rings quite the way it should.

If legislators can't show respect for rule of law and faith in the electoral process then I don't know who can.

Sadly very very few students from the UK choose to go in Erasmus to other EU countries. I've been an Erasmus student in Norway, then I've been an organizer in the ESN Erasmus Student Network. Later I've been into 8+ erasmus semesters in different cities though I was a digital nomad and I was not in University anymore. What I saw as first hand experience is that UK students were always undereppresented. I absolutely don't think was somehow related to the EU grants. I think either the UK students were not as interested in going to other EU universities and/or the UK provided less funding and advertisement for the Erasmus program.

I believe the lack of UK students in the Erasmus was something terrible and that was either a cause/consequence that lead to the Brexit.

You can find official stastitics here: https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/education/library/statistics...

The countries sending the most Erasmus students in absolute numbers are: Spain, Germany, France, Italy, Turkey This is no surprise since those are the larger countries in Europe. The surprise was the missing UK students.

Finally in my experience half of the Erasmus students coming from the UK were either scottish or they were second/third generation british citizens, I suspect that made them somehow more used to travel and multi-cultural setups.

I admire deeply both Alan Turing and Erasmus of Rotterdam. I'm sad to see the Alan Turing exchange program is somehow a less tolerant replacement for not being able to partecipate in a larger multi-cultural program like Erasmus+

> I believe the lack of UK students in the Erasmus was something terrible and that was either a cause/consequence that lead to the Brexit.

Erasmus surely was underused by UK students but to make the connection to Brexit as a cause is quite the stretch, especially as students (apparently) overwhelmingly voted to remain part of the EU[1].

> research agency YouthSight found 87 per cent of eligible students at UK universities voted in the referendum. This was a higher rate of turnout than the general population of which, according to the Electoral Commission, 72 per cent showed up to vote amongst the overall confirmed electorate.

> Overall, 85 per cent of students who voted in the referendum chose Remain, meaning almost one million out of the UK’s 1.4 million full-time undergraduates voted to stay in the union.

I'm also not sure where you get tolerance as a factor. I don't see any far-right parties in the UK parliament but France and Germany have the Front National and the AFD both polling well over 10% and are often characterised by their opponents as far-right. I might as well ask you if that's because of greater Erasmus involvement, or just the attitude of continental students in general? Maybe it's because Erasmus will largely favour white people and put them into largely similar majority white cultures?

It would make little sense but I'd be in good company.

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/brexit-eu-referen...

>to make the connection to Brexit as a cause is quite the stretch

I did say either cause/consequence to express exactly that it's clearly not the lack of UK erasmuses alone that caused the Brexit. I believe though the lack of UK erasmus for the past decades is something that might be correlated with what caused the Brexit.

> Overall, 85 per cent of students who voted in the referendum chose Remain, meaning almost one million out of the UK’s 1.4 million full-time undergraduates voted to stay in the union.

I'm happy you shared that article with us and I'm happy to know once again many UK students wished to not leave the EU.

>Maybe it's because Erasmus will largely favour white people and put them into largely similar majority white cultures.

I think we can agree that people come in all colors and shapes, not just white and black. I can guarantee you there is already many permutations of colors and shapes of people in the Erasmus program. I wish more countries from Asia and Africa to join in more exchange programs in order to avoid for people of the similar color and shapes to cluster with each other. I wish the UK would have stayed and help. I don't have a problem with the UK having their own exchange programs. I have a problem with the UK leaving the Erasmus. I wish they would have stayed in the Eramsus program. The fact that the Alan Turing program is less tolerant to me is because is borned out of leaving the Erasmus program.

The vote was 85% for students while having low Erasmus participation - what change could you possibly expect from increased participation?

When I was studying prior to University, I don’t recall ever being given any information or told that it was even a possibility to enter a scheme like Erasmus & study abroad. It’s a shame.

I'm sorry too @trollied. If you meet university students tell them to go abroad with a student exchange. Whatever exchange is fine. For humanity to stay in peace and cooperation we need people to create direct friendship and bonds with people from other countries. This way when warmongering politicians will lash out at other countries each of us we'll remember the friend/lovers from the other countries and it will be easier to empathise with the other countries and stop the warmongering leaders. I remember my friend Peter from England and our good times in Rome when he was Erasmus and I think of him when Brexiters lash out on the EU.

I am lucky enough to have worked abroad for half of my adult life, so it's ended up OK for me. I wish the opportunities for younger people were there now.

> I'm sad to see the Alan Turing exchange program is somehow a less tolerant replacement for not being able to partecipate in a larger multi-cultural program like Erasmus+

How can this be true, students from the UK pick places like the US, Australia, Japan, Canada, etc isn't it just filling the need a bit more, how can it be less tolerant if it can be even more expansive than Erasmus is in terms of reach?

Please note that US, Australia, Canada are English speaking countries. I find for a UK student to go to another country speaking his/her own language less adventurous and enriching.

The Erasmus+ extends also outside of the EU. The UK could have brought in their relations with other universities and enlarge the network. I've been also in Hong Kong with exchange students and there was a significant larger percentage of UK students.

There is an asymmetry here, these locations are quite attractive as its easy to make friends, the language is the same but the culture is slightly different, etc.

While Erasmus+ extends outside the EU the scope is really weak and lots of people want to go to the same places with limited slots, that is what the problem is imo. I can understand the attraction of visiting an English speaking country from another EU country but for an English speaking country it is still culturally enriching to visit another country where you are past the language barrier to go a bit deeper.

I think the more choices the better. I'm not against the UK having their own exchanges. I'm against the UK leaving the Erasmus program. The UK already had exchanges programs to go to those countries that were not part of the Erasmus like Australia/Canada/Japan. The problem is cutting the Erasmus.

Also in my experience students that wants to go abroad will go nevertheless the location. When I applied for the Erasmus there was only 1 spot in the whole UK at the Glasgow University. A student with better marks than me got that one. I got my second choice which was Bergen, Norway. It was the best time of life. Leave the students the opportunity and let them know they have those opportunities

You do understand that the people in the “English government” today (presumably you meant British) are not the same as in the 1950s.

Institutions do not magically get absolved of their sins just because time has passed

What do you mean? You can only hold people accountable for their own sins, not the sins of their forebearers.

I think you mean "should" not "can", but regardless the past british government is not a forebearer of the current british government in the typical sense of the word. It is not a separate "person" but a continuous entity

Furthermore, hold responsible in this context means basically to acknowledge that the past actions were wrong, which is a pretty low bar as far as responsibility goes.

There is an argument that they do, as you cannot hold someone guilty for actions that they did not undertake.

At some point all of the criminals who did the thing in the past are dead.

Institutions can't act, because they have no brains or hands: only human beings can. You can't convict an institution of a crime, nor put it in prison.

Our entire society is based around the notion that institutins are separate legal personalities, distinct from the people that make them up. They can take on liability, sign contracts, be sanctioned by courts, etc.

Besides, we're talking moral responsibility not legal.

Yes, but that's a legal fiction. They can't act, neither can "our society" or "the government".

The only entities that can take actions of any kind are human beings.

Could you give the support that it was the hormone treatment that drove Turing to suicide? It is a commonly accepted interpretation, but there is not much support for it these days (even the suicide is questioned now, pinning it as an accident or murder).

Turing died a full year after his hormone treatment was completed. No motive for the suicide was established. Turing was in good spirits and had, according to friends, underwent his cruel treatment with "amused fortitude".

Not defending Turing's struggles to be gay or his inhumane treatment. But if we are celebrating science, we can't just assume that the English government drove Turing to suicide, without looking at other possibilities, or finding support. Especially, when we all remember Turing's circumstance of death was far from clear.

> No motive for the suicide was established. Turing was in good spirits

These are common misunderstandings of suicidality. Suicide often doesn't have a clear motive. And people who end their lives are often described as being in good spirits before they die. Sometimes they're trying to protect their families from their feelings of despair. Sometimes they've felt trapped for some time and they see suicide as a route out of that despair.

Agreed. But if Turing left a letter with the motive, or was known depressed or irrational, then I would not question the hypothesis that Turing was driven to suicide. Right now I can not see it as the fact it is presented as. I'd like to see some support from those on stage (not for lack of trying).

If suicide, I doubt there even is a clear motive (of course, forced hormone treatment is going to play a role in suicidal thoughts). It will be multi-faceted and reduction to one thing (be that the treatment, or something else) will not do full justice to the complexity of suicide.

> Sometimes they're trying to protect their families from their feelings of despair.

I think the cyanide apple was there to provide the possibility of an accident, for Turing did not want to hurt his mother with a definitive suicide. Or maybe he took his lonely love for fairy tales way too far and expected to awake to a kiss from a beautiful prince. The latter is no less a speculative invasion of his private life, than taking his sexuality or treatment as defining of his scientific legacy or suicide.

It is not a shame. Memorialising the suicide of a famous figure on a banknote is a terrible idea, for obvious reasons.

What happened to Alan Turing was an awful and ignorant evil, but this note is about celebrating his life and achievements. He has been pardoned and modern representatives of the government have apologised for his treatment. Is this enough? Of course not, a man was persecuted and driven to death for no good reason. Adding a coda about his suicide everywhere his name is mentioned won't help him. We simply don't have the power to right this wrong; we can only stay vigilant in the present day and honour the memory of Turing (and countless others) by preventing similar injustice now.

Edited: to remove joke that could be seen in poor taste.

I should clarify that I was being facetious about the idea of blatantly memorialising suicide.

> We simply don't have the power to right this wrong; we can only stay vigilant in the present day and honour the memory of Turing (and countless others) by preventing similar injustice now.

Quite agree, but has anything been done towards the latter? Every tribute to Turing I can think of has been about science and war, not justice.

Using the image of a man you drove to suicide for marketing purposes is a bit much.

Turing was a soldier. His mind was sharp as a blade. That's why the English government/military was involved with him. Infantry soldiers joke about the army owning you: giving you a fine for damaged government property, when you burn yourself for forgetting your issued sun block.

Turing's work caused death and saved lives of soldiers. Turing was a privileged scientist with clearance, interesting to foreign militaries, largely funded by his military, and with access to secret compute and information. Later in life, he was getting involved with very young, stray, men. He had his apartment broken into. He was beaten up.

Due to the common societal position on homosexuality at the time, and Russian agencies employing certain tactics, there was legit concern that one of the top UK soldiers was the target of sexpionage and blackmail. You could say Turing showed disgraceful behavior as a military servant with damaging information should it fall into the wrong hands (we would still not accept senior military people sleeping around with homeless Eastern-European teenagers and inviting them home, besides for maybe the commander in chief).

Next to the UK driving him to suicide, like you allude to, there is even the hypothesis that either Russia or the UK killed him and made it look like a suicide, to tie up loose ends, very similar to the death of Gareth Williams (supposedly suicided by crawling into a bag and closing the zipper), where BDSM and cross-dressing kinks, not homosexuality, was the angle. Some things never change, unless we remove all sexual taboos.

But let's celebrate the mind, for all of that does not even matter. He was also a great scientist (while a poor judge of Islam cults: His Turing test paper is supported by his outrageous invention that Islamists believe that women have no soul, but times were different back then, so I can forgive that).