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.