# A Centenary "Sod off!" to Alan Turing from Britain's PM

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-centenary-sod-off-to-alan-turing-from-britains-pm/612207>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [February 8, 2012, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-centenary-sod-off-to-alan-turing-from-britains-pm/612207 "2012-02-08T16:55:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2012, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-centenary-sod-off-to-alan-turing-from-britains-pm/612207/41 "2012-02-14T22:00:34Z")

</div>

> [@DSeid](#):
>
> Nor does that summary state what the SoS should rule or why, just that an application can be made and that IF successful THEN the charge is considered to have never been made.

Actually, the text of the bill requires the SoS to decide if

> [@](#):
>
> it appears that—
> 
> (a) the other person involved in the conduct constituting the offence consented to it and was aged 16 or over, and
> 
> (b) any such conduct now would not be an offence under section 71 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual activity in a public lavatory).

and if the SoS decides that those conditions are met then the “disregarding” is successful. There are also provisions for appealing the decision to the High Court.

Not that this would change anything for Turing, of course.

edit: [text of the bill here](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2010-2012/0121/lbill_2010-20120121_en_10.htm#pt5-ch4).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_King_of_Soup)\
**Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-centenary-sod-off-to-alan-turing-from-britains-pm/612207/42 "2012-02-17T15:54:51Z")

</div>

I think there may be semantic problems with pardoning someone, especially in this case. To pardon means paradoxically that you are forgiving someone for an offense and simultaneously pretending that they did not commit it. Denial of Turing’s homosexuality, and the attitude that it’s something to be forgiven, both demonstrate the same ignorance and bigotry that killed Turing and others in the first place. An apology, on the other hand, places the emphasis where it belongs: on the government’s offense against its citizens rather than any supposed crime by any individual.

And actually, I liked the apology, which I found [here](http://blog.jgc.org/2011/07/complete-text-of-gordon-browns-apology.html). The law and prosecutions could have been more strongly deplored, and it could have been more clear that Brown, while singling out Turing especially, was apologizing to all the other victims as well. But for a PM to describe the government’s actions as “horrifying,” “inhumane,” and “appalling” is not the usual course of events, and I thought the counterpoint between Brown’s apology to Turing and his expression of gratitude for Turing’s contribution in the fight against another movement of mass hatred was sincere, well thought-out, and quite moving.

Of course, the cleansing of individuals’ records with respect to these prosecutions should be immediate and automatic, not something to be applied for. But from my point of view, it is exactly right that rather than presume to pardon any person for his actions, the British government chose instead to offer contrition for its own.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-centenary-sod-off-to-alan-turing-from-britains-pm/612207.md?page=2)