PM posthumously apologises for treatment of Alan Turing.

[Stan_Lite]

Gordon Brown has said he is sorry for the "appalling" way World War II code-breaker Alan Turing was treated for being gay.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8249792.stm

Personally, I think he's made an error in judgement here.

I agree that the treatment of Alan Turing was horrendous and led to his suicide but I doubt he was treated any differently to any other homosexual at the time. Is Gordon Brown prepared to apologise posthumously for the treatment of the thousands of other homosexuals who have been persecuted through the years? I doubt it. So why single out one man? Yes, he was a remarkable man and his work undoubtedly saved many lives and probably won WWII for the allies but does he deserve more respect than anyone else persecuted for their sexuality or beliefs?

It isn't just homosexuals either. What about all the young girls locked up in lunatic asylums for becoming pregnant as teenagers or all the slaves the British mistreated amongst many others?

There are a great many people throughout history who have been persecuted due to ignorance, suspicion or intolerance. I don't think it is right to single out one person simply because he did his country a great service.

Personally, I think Brown has opened the floodgates for all sorts of pressure groups and individuals to petition for apologies for all manner of slights or injustices. I also think that, by apologising for just one man, he has insulted a great many people by ignoring the fact that others were treated as badly, if not worse.

Your thoughts?

[Goose]

My feelings are a little different. I don't feel we should apologise for actions done by another generation, it should come from that generation itself. I know people are going to disagree with me, but why should someone apologise if they weren't around to change events? We've clearly gone a long way to correcting our ways, which to me is much better than an apology to a dead guy.

If we should apologise (for stuff we weren't around to stop), I guess we'll be apologising for the actions during the Boer War, plus about a thousand other incidents.

Yes, give him credit for what he did. No, don't apologise on behalf of some other moron.

[_dogma_]

I agree with Goose. It's not exactly heartfelt when we didn't have anything to do with his treatment. It was like apologising for aparteid, there was no point in that either!

[Garp]

In the mean time, the world keeps spinning, and nothing actually changes...

Seriously, what is the point of apologising for stuff in the past like that? Sure within relevant parties lifetimes, but posthumously... it's an utterly pointless piece of stupidity.

Tony Blair argued strenuously against this sort of thing not all that long ago, particularly when he was called on by idiots to "apologise for slavery".

[Mark]

Two words: Publicity stunt.

My personal opinion is that yes, he was deserving an apology given how much he contributed to this country. Whether that apology should have been made by Gordon Brown, and whether he actually meant it, are two entirely different questions.

It's impossible to say whether the outcome would have been different had he not played a large part - quite possibly the most important part - in developing the Bombe, but it's certainly possible. Of course, the same goes for many other unsung heroes, but to ask whether he deserves more respect than anyone else persecuted for their sexuality or beliefs seems to me to be missing the point - the respect comes from what he did for this country, not his sexuality.

All that being said, the fact that his family seem to have welcomed the apology is sufficient for me to set aside any negative thoughts that I may have. Seems to me that they are the most important people in this.

[Feek]

I really don't see the point.

[divine]

It's impossible to say whether the outcome would have been different had he not played a large part - quite possibly the most important part - in developing the Bombe, but it's certainly possible. Of course, the same goes for many other unsung heroes, but to ask whether he deserves more respect than anyone else persecuted for their sexuality or beliefs seems to me to be missing the point - the respect comes from what he did for this country, not his sexuality.

I don't think it is missing the point at all - ultimately, apologising for persecuting this one person, based on the fact he did something great for the country and not apologising to the rest is like implying the rest actually deserved it because they achieved nothing and we're not sorry about them.

[Mark]

OK, I concede. I hadn't thought of it that way around and you are of course absolutely right.

[Desmo]

It's just politics. He doesn't mean it and he probably doesn't care. It's just brownie points (no pun intended) for him and the world carries on.

[Stan_Lite]

I realise it's only done for publicity/brownie points, I just think it's ill-conceived as well as being insulting to every other person who has been persecuted, victimised or brutalised because of who they are but who have not had a personal apology.

I think I'll start a petition demanding individual personal apologies for each victim of the many atrocities committed by Edward "Longshanks" against the Scots and others in the 13th century. I think I'll start with the sack of Berwick ;)

[Von Smallhausen]

It's just politics. He doesn't mean it and he probably doesn't care. It's just brownie points (no pun intended) for him and the world carries on.

;D

[Treefrog]

I think I'll start a petition demanding individual personal apologies for each victim of the many atrocities committed by Edward "Longshanks" against the Scots and others in the 13th century. I think I'll start with the sack of Berwick ;)

The apology would have to come from his direct descendant IMHO - that should make her speech worth listening to ;D

And aren't the English still technically at war with Berwick, since the town was missed off the peace agreement?

[Stan_Lite]

And aren't the English still technically at war with Berwick, since the town was missed off the peace agreement?

It was Russia. This quote taken from http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/berwick/berwickupontweed/index.html

Under the Treaty of Perpetual Peace between Henry VII of England and James IV of Scotland in 1502 (just 11 years before the Scottish army and nobility was destroyed by the English at the Battle of Flodden) Berwick was given a special status as being "of" the Kingdom of England but not "in" it. As a result the town thereafter needed special mention in royal proclamations.

This had one odd effect. When Queen Victoria signed the declaration of war on Russia in 1853, she did so in the name of "Victoria, Queen of Great Britain, Ireland, Berwick-upon-Tweed and the British Dominions beyond the sea." But Berwick was not mentioned in the Treaty of Paris that concluded the Crimean War in 1856, leaving the town technically still at war with Russia.

A peace treaty was only finally signed by a Russian diplomat and the the Mayor of Berwick in 1966. As the mayor said at the time: "You can tell the Russian people that they can now sleep peacefully in their beds". I love the quote from the mayor :D