5 ms·

Awesome recognition! I just wish people weren't such dicks to Turing in his lifetime.

by ddalex 7y ago

mathieubordere 7y ago
+1 It breaks my heart when I think about what they did to him.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  It might make you feel better to know that he was convicted under the age of consent law, which was 21 at the time. (The kid was 19.) It wasn't entirely fair because they made the age of consent higher for gays (edit: I had it wrong, the age of majority was 21 in all cases), but at least he wasn't convicted purely for being gay. The teenager was not punished.
  - edanm 7y ago
    Do you have a source for that? I'd never heard that, and it doesn't fit with everything I have read about Turing. According to most articles I find in a quick search, they say he was convicted for "Gross indecency" because homosexuality was illegal at that time.
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing It says 19 on his Wikipedia page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing_law This says his conviction was in 1952. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_young_people%27s_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom#20th_century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_young_people%27s... This page says the age of majority was actually 21 for both genders until 1970. So, I had it wrong, Turing would also have been considered as having a relationship with a minor if he had been with a 19 year old girl. Supposedly the actual law he was convicted under was written in a very vauge way due to "Victorian morals" (Wikipedia), and he was convicted under "Gross indecency" without much description.
      - edanm 7y ago
        Umm, I think you're getting this wrong. First of all, you are literally arguing against what literally every biography of Turing says (that he was convicted for engaging in homosexual acts). But if you want to quote the Wiki articles, that's fine, but it seems like you're missing the most important parts: From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing (emphasis mine): > During the investigation, he acknowledged a sexual relationship with Murray. Homosexual acts were criminal offences in the United Kingdom at that time,[131] and both men were charged with "gross indecency" under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885.[132] Initial committal proceedings for the trial were held on 27 February during which Turing's solicitor "reserved his defence", i.e., did not argue or provide evidence against the allegations. The above flat-out contradicts what you are saying. Just in case, here's what the Section 11 of the Criminal Law act says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_Amendment_Act_1885#Section_11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_Amendment_Act_188...: > The clause provided for a term of imprisonment "not exceeding two years", with or without hard labour, for any man found guilty of gross indecency with another male, whether "in public or in private". No definition was given of what, exactly, constituted "gross indecency", as Victorian morality demurred from giving precise descriptions of activity considered immoral. In practice, "gross indecency" was widely interpreted as any male homosexual behaviour short of actual sodomy, which remained a more serious and separate crime. Nowhere in any of the above does it say anything about him being arrested or convicted because his partner wasn't at the age of majority, and all of the above say that it was for homosexual acts.
        whatshisface 7y ago
        This doesn't contract those biographies, it adds an additional detail. I guess to really know whether it was a significant detail you'd have to be an expert in 1950s British law. Maybe someone can find the judge's verdict, if he wrote one.
        cygx 7y ago
        https://www.turing.org.uk/sources/sentence.html https://www.turing.org.uk/sources/sentence.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_indecency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_indecency Note that both Turing and Murray were charged with the same crimes, though which of them was charged with 'committing the act' and 'being party to the commission of the act' changes from date to date.
  - cygx 7y ago
    The 19-year-old was in fact charged, pled guilty and "Bound over to be of good behaviour for Twelve Months".
  - foldr 7y ago
    > (edit: I had it wrong, the age of majority was 21 in all cases) No, you're still wrong -- and spreading an awful lot of misinformation in this thread. The age of consent for straight sex was 17 when Turing was convicted. There was no "age of consent" for gay sex as gay sex was illegal at the time. When gay sex was legalized in 1967 (long after Turing was convicted), the age of consent was set to 21 for gay sex and remained at 17 for straight sex. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform_in_the_U... It's so easy to find this stuff out that I have to wonder if you have some kind of agenda here.
    - fortran77 7y ago
      > It's so easy to find this stuff out that I have to wonder if you have some kind of agenda here. I don't wonder at all!
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - liberte82 7y ago
    I can't say castrating someone for doing it with a 19 year old at 21 is really any better.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
I feel like people would still react negatively to a 40-something picking up unknown teens (19, in the one case I know the details of) for casual sex? Particularly if that person were considered a security risk? People [wrongly] get called a paedophile for such behaviour and get pilloried in the social press. Aside: it always seemed like the simplest explanation for the strangeness around his arrest was that he was compromised (in the national security sense). Of course none of that relates to his fantastic achievements in computing. Fry (Christian fundamentalist) and Newton ( Christian fundamentalist writer) -- both of whom have been on bank notes -- probably wouldn't fair well in the court of public opinion nowadays either. Not sure Churchill would make it on anymore either tbh.
- chimeracoder 7y ago
  > Not sure Churchill would make it on anymore either tbh. Churchill was added to the note quite recently. Unfortunately, most British people seem to have a nearly uniformly positive opinion of Churchill, despite the unconscionable atrocities he committed.
  - widowlark 7y ago
    Churchill did more good than bad.
    - MrsPeaches 7y ago
      Worth reading some of his views though: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    It was indeed Churchill's role in "trouble" abroad (that's a characteristic British euphemistic underplay). Which has only recently become an issue that's openly been discussed in the UK media AFAIAA.
- tialaramex 7y ago
  Newton's thinking was not broadly acceptable to Christians in his day either. He was a Unitarian! He specifically didn't believe in the Trinitarian understanding of God that had already been essential to mainstream Christianity for centuries by that point. Churchill was a drinker. There's plenty of evidence into the 21st century that functioning alcoholics are able to maintain status in most walks of life including politics. Or were you thinking of something else?

Awesome recognition! I just wish people weren't such dicks to Turing in his lifetime.

by ddalex 7y ago

Awesome recognition! I just wish people weren't such dicks to Turing in his lifetime.

mathieubordere 7y ago

+1 It breaks my heart when I think about what they did to him.

whatshisface 7y ago
It might make you feel better to know that he was convicted under the age of consent law, which was 21 at the time. (The kid was 19.) It wasn't entirely fair because they made the age of consent higher for gays (edit: I had it wrong, the age of majority was 21 in all cases), but at least he wasn't convicted purely for being gay. The teenager was not punished.
- edanm 7y ago
  Do you have a source for that? I'd never heard that, and it doesn't fit with everything I have read about Turing. According to most articles I find in a quick search, they say he was convicted for "Gross indecency" because homosexuality was illegal at that time.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing It says 19 on his Wikipedia page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing_law This says his conviction was in 1952. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_young_people%27s_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom#20th_century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_young_people%27s... This page says the age of majority was actually 21 for both genders until 1970. So, I had it wrong, Turing would also have been considered as having a relationship with a minor if he had been with a 19 year old girl. Supposedly the actual law he was convicted under was written in a very vauge way due to "Victorian morals" (Wikipedia), and he was convicted under "Gross indecency" without much description.
    - edanm 7y ago
      Umm, I think you're getting this wrong. First of all, you are literally arguing against what literally every biography of Turing says (that he was convicted for engaging in homosexual acts). But if you want to quote the Wiki articles, that's fine, but it seems like you're missing the most important parts: From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing (emphasis mine): > During the investigation, he acknowledged a sexual relationship with Murray. Homosexual acts were criminal offences in the United Kingdom at that time,[131] and both men were charged with "gross indecency" under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885.[132] Initial committal proceedings for the trial were held on 27 February during which Turing's solicitor "reserved his defence", i.e., did not argue or provide evidence against the allegations. The above flat-out contradicts what you are saying. Just in case, here's what the Section 11 of the Criminal Law act says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_Amendment_Act_1885#Section_11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_Amendment_Act_188...: > The clause provided for a term of imprisonment "not exceeding two years", with or without hard labour, for any man found guilty of gross indecency with another male, whether "in public or in private". No definition was given of what, exactly, constituted "gross indecency", as Victorian morality demurred from giving precise descriptions of activity considered immoral. In practice, "gross indecency" was widely interpreted as any male homosexual behaviour short of actual sodomy, which remained a more serious and separate crime. Nowhere in any of the above does it say anything about him being arrested or convicted because his partner wasn't at the age of majority, and all of the above say that it was for homosexual acts.
      - whatshisface 7y ago
        This doesn't contract those biographies, it adds an additional detail. I guess to really know whether it was a significant detail you'd have to be an expert in 1950s British law. Maybe someone can find the judge's verdict, if he wrote one.
        cygx 7y ago
        https://www.turing.org.uk/sources/sentence.html https://www.turing.org.uk/sources/sentence.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_indecency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_indecency Note that both Turing and Murray were charged with the same crimes, though which of them was charged with 'committing the act' and 'being party to the commission of the act' changes from date to date.
- cygx 7y ago
  The 19-year-old was in fact charged, pled guilty and "Bound over to be of good behaviour for Twelve Months".
- foldr 7y ago
  > (edit: I had it wrong, the age of majority was 21 in all cases) No, you're still wrong -- and spreading an awful lot of misinformation in this thread. The age of consent for straight sex was 17 when Turing was convicted. There was no "age of consent" for gay sex as gay sex was illegal at the time. When gay sex was legalized in 1967 (long after Turing was convicted), the age of consent was set to 21 for gay sex and remained at 17 for straight sex. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform_in_the_U... It's so easy to find this stuff out that I have to wonder if you have some kind of agenda here.
  - fortran77 7y ago
    > It's so easy to find this stuff out that I have to wonder if you have some kind of agenda here. I don't wonder at all!
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- liberte82 7y ago
  I can't say castrating someone for doing it with a 19 year old at 21 is really any better.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

I feel like people would still react negatively to a 40-something picking up unknown teens (19, in the one case I know the details of) for casual sex? Particularly if that person were considered a security risk? People [wrongly] get called a paedophile for such behaviour and get pilloried in the social press. Aside: it always seemed like the simplest explanation for the strangeness around his arrest was that he was compromised (in the national security sense). Of course none of that relates to his fantastic achievements in computing. Fry (Christian fundamentalist) and Newton ( Christian fundamentalist writer) -- both of whom have been on bank notes -- probably wouldn't fair well in the court of public opinion nowadays either. Not sure Churchill would make it on anymore either tbh.

chimeracoder 7y ago
> Not sure Churchill would make it on anymore either tbh. Churchill was added to the note quite recently. Unfortunately, most British people seem to have a nearly uniformly positive opinion of Churchill, despite the unconscionable atrocities he committed.
- widowlark 7y ago
  Churchill did more good than bad.
  - MrsPeaches 7y ago
    Worth reading some of his views though: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  It was indeed Churchill's role in "trouble" abroad (that's a characteristic British euphemistic underplay). Which has only recently become an issue that's openly been discussed in the UK media AFAIAA.
tialaramex 7y ago
Newton's thinking was not broadly acceptable to Christians in his day either. He was a Unitarian! He specifically didn't believe in the Trinitarian understanding of God that had already been essential to mainstream Christianity for centuries by that point. Churchill was a drinker. There's plenty of evidence into the 21st century that functioning alcoholics are able to maintain status in most walks of life including politics. Or were you thinking of something else?