"The government should open a new inquiry into the death of gay war-time code-breaker, mathematical genius and computer pioneer Alan Turing"
Yeah! And 9/11, the JFK Assassination, and ufos and crop circles too!
Legendary code-breaker and computing boffin Alan Turing - seen by many as the father of modern computing and credited with a huge contribution to the Allied victory in World War Two - may have been murdered by the British security services, it has been claimed. “The government should open a new inquiry into the death of gay …
And Elvis, Hendrix and Jim Morrison.
The fact that Madeline McCann may have also worked for MI5/6 and was just undercover as a small child should not be overlooked and perhaps an investigation into abduction by terrorists and/or state actors should not be ruled out.
Especially cos there's no evidence for any of the above, either, which makes it extra double-plus shifty, of course.
Please, even suggesting such an idea will bring all the conspiracy nutters out if the woodwork. I mean, they are still looking for the man on the grassy knoll.... The subsequent demands for a national inquiry will at first be turned down, then appealed on the grounds of sex discrimination etc etc, cost millions and millions and for what?
Still, I have heard he was working for the Russians.......
I've always admired Peter Tatchell for his tenacity and drive and conviction even though on occasions I have disagreed with him.
This time though he has really come out with a corker, it may make him look a little silly, especially as we all know Turing was killed by the CIA to stop him defecting to the USSR.
Peter is in fact a human rights activist - he's involved in a lot more than LGBT affairs.
I believe that he's probably jumped the shark on this one, which is a pity because he is, in my opinion, a top bloke. I've had some minor dealings with him regarding trans rights and he's never been less than unfailingly polite and helpful
"Peter is in fact a human rights activist - he's involved in a lot more than LGBT affairs. I believe that he's probably jumped the shark on this one."
I would not be surprised if, having looked at the newspapers and seeing that both Alan Turing and the NSA have been in the headlines recently, he thought that he could combine and take advantage of the public interest that these two stories have, and use them to launch his own attack on MI5.
Don't for get "a-gender", as in "agender", not "a gender".
I only learned of that one a few weeks ago. Maybe it's an SF thing?
As for Turing being purportedly killed by the CIA, maybe it was the CIA's doing at the behest of MI-5? Never forget, such agencies thrive on "plausible denial", tho I concede I have no stake in their involvement one way or the other.
Also, for those of us who never knew what Turing looked like, I always presumed an older, rounded-more oval-shaped head, with balding hair. Then, on seeing his photo here on theRegister, I was disapponted that there was not a game of "guess what photo is really that of Turing".
Years ago, someone did some app or web page asking people to pick the face they imagine to be that of a famous person they'd never seen in photos or in real life. Many people purportedly are very bad at associating correct photos with names. Still, it makes for an intriguing game.
Imagine, though, if Turing lived, and that so-called civilized countries' governments had no McCarthyism apoplexies afflicting them, and that he inspired other, mathematically and scientifically-minded closet cases or gay-tolerant/accepting researchers to feel safe in the world. Such people might exist even in the absence of people like Turing, but imagine if more thrived in research -- cryptographically-minded people from that era might be as good as if not better than human-programmed computers at attacking HIV/AIDs problems, closing in on cures for it as well as for cancers, flus, the common cold, and all number of other malades of our and their times.
When will we ever truly learn from our ignorance that intolerance, abuse, witch hunts, fear, and fear-mongering don't do us much good? OK, off of my horse and platform and on to hobbies.
"Peter is in fact a human rights activist...." Only when those humans are gay or he can use them to bash "The Man". He has shown no interest whatsoever in any cause for any other reason, being a relic of the leftie Gay Liberation Front which started the "Turing gay icon" myth in the first place. The problem for crusaders like him is that as homosexuality has become more accepted and mainstream they have to make more rediculous claims to get the air-time they crave.
"....I believe that he's probably jumped the shark on this one...." Nope, he hasn't jumped the shark as that does not reflect the self-serving opportunism of his claim, he's just trying to drum up attention for his crusade. He knows he can safely make this stupid, attention-seeking comments because there is no way for the secret service to either shut him up or sue him for slander. Please note Tatchall is very careful not to name any individuals in the service as that would leave him open to being sued, he simply smears the lot in one go. What a twat.
"Only when those humans are gay or he can use them to bash "The Man". He has shown no interest whatsoever in any cause for any other reason, being a relic of the leftie Gay Liberation Front which started the "Turing gay icon" myth in the first place. The problem for crusaders like him is that as homosexuality has become more accepted and mainstream they have to make more rediculous claims to get the air-time they crave"
As might be expected, an almost entirely fact-free response.
His last successful campaign, conducted jointly with David Davies, the well known Trotskyite Conservative MP, was to repeal Section 5 of the Public Order Act, seeking to decriminalise mere insults in the interests of free speech. So if you want to call me or him a faggot, go right ahead - its legal. Because of Peter Tatchell.
Most of his campaigns for gay rights are now focussed on the international stage where homosexual rights are not 'accepted and mainstream' at all. You may recall he was beaten to a pulp by Robert Mugabe's goons for doing so.
Someone else has commented on the alphabet soup that is GLBTI etc. One important point to understand however is that Trans rights are not the same thing as Gay rights. Some trans people are gay but many are heterosexual. One reason I'm a supporter of Peter is that he's as passionate about trans rights as he is about gay rights. Unlike established pressure groups like Stonewall who specifically exclude trans people from their remit.
".....As might be expected, an almost entirely fact-free response....." Aw, Trishiebunny, I note you dodge discussing Tatchell's association with the Gay Liberation Front, that the GLF invented the Turing myth of being hounded to suicide, Thatchell's only recent attacks on Zimbabwe having spent years avoiding criticising anti-gay Communist countries like Cuba (the GLF nutters used to like wearing Che Guevera T-shirts, something I always thought really demonstrated that the sheeple's stupidity is asexual given Che's well-known homophobic stance), and how Tatchell only ever jumps on bandwagons (David Davis was the originator of the motion to repeal that bit of the DPA, Tatchell was asked to join to stop others accusing Davis of being anti-gay).
".....So if you want to call me or him a faggot, go right ahead - its legal....." And yet if I were to the PC crowd would be all over me, accusing me of being a homophobic Fascist or the like. It may be legal, but it is still not ACCEPTABLE to call someone a faggot, the threat now not being of legal punishment but instead of being hounded by the PC crowd. Which is really funny as a black colleague of mine is quite happy to refer to himself as a "ass-loving gay nigger" (which would never be acceptable for me to say in public even though he is happy to). Indeed, you steer well clear of discussing Tatchell's history and prefer to seek to stifle me by inferring I must be a homophobe to question Tatchell's motives and behaviour - how hypocritical of you!
....." Aw, Trishiebunny, I note you dodge discussing Tatchell's association with the Gay Liberation Front"
Oh, stop being so pathetic, Bryant.... I've not dodged anything. I've no interest in what Peter Tatchell (or anyone else for that matter) was doing 30 years ago. The 1970s and 1980s Trots grew up and got regular jobs years ago. I imagine they're all now moaning about their mortgages and voting Conservative by now. Tatchell's stuck to his human rights guns and whether you agree with him or not, he deserves credit for doing so even if he does get it wrong from time to time.
"Indeed, you steer well clear of discussing Tatchell's history and prefer to seek to stifle me by inferring I must be a homophobe to question Tatchell's motives and behaviour - how hypocritical of you!"
When I said 'you can call me or him a faggot', the 'you' was generic. I'd have thought that was blindingly obvious. I have no idea if you're a homophobe or not - in fact I suspect that you're not. You do strike me as a bit of a prat though, I'm afraid.
".... I've no interest in what Peter Tatchell (or anyone else for that matter) was doing 30 years ago....." Really? In a forum thread on a rediculous allegation that MI5 killed Turing over sixty years ago? On which you seemd to have enough interest to post your unquestioning faith in Mr Tatchell? I suppose it is easier for the sheeple to just try and forget some of the hilariously stupid stuff their icons got up to in the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties.
"....Tatchell's stuck to his human rights guns....." No, he has realised the niche for gay protesting is drying up as it has become mainstream and so has diverisified into "human rights" (with gay overtones) in order to try and stay relevant. Oh, sorry, I suppose you like to assume only Tory politicians or activists are cynical?
"....When I said 'you can call me or him a faggot', the 'you' was generic...." What, now we're all homophobic if we're not GLBTI?
"Really? In a forum thread on a rediculous allegation that MI5 killed Turing over sixty years ago?"
Why yes, Matt, really.
If you turn your mind back to what I actually said (rather than some figment of your imagination) I said that, much as I admire him, he'd jumped the shark on this one. I have no interest in what MI5 did over sixty years ago any more than I have any interest in what Peter T did thirty years ago
"What, now we're all homophobic if we're not GLBTI?"
Stop being a dick. I didnt say that. You know I didnt say that. Everyone else knows I didnt say that.
"Stop being a dick"
Unfortunately Trish, there's a dick like Bryant trolling every forum on the Net. The more he annoys, the better it makes him feel. This speaks volumes about the kind of person he is and his motives to offend and annoy. I'd imagine him to be a totally insignificant person face to face. Here, his odious 'bravado' gives him a sense of power, and the more disdain he receives the more his choleric nature is stimulated.
Unfortunately Trish, there's a dick like RobZee trolling every forum on the Net. The more he thinks he annoys those that he disagrees but can't actually debate with, the better it makes him feel. This speaks volumes about the kind of person he is and his motives to offend and annoy. I'd imagine him to be a totally insignificant person face to face. Here, his lack of any actual argument or theorem is painfully obvious, and he has to hide it by trying (and failing) to be smart.
"....So are you saying Turing is a myth, that he was gay is a myth, or that he is an icon is a myth?....." Turing was a genius, a loyal Britain and his work and achievements should be celebrated. Unfortunately, that's kinda hard when a certain group insist on revisioning history to suit their socio-political agenda. In the Seventies, the Gay Liberation Front (formed in the UK at that mindless bastion of British Socialism, the LSE) deliberately took the Turing story and started telling a different version as part of their schpiel. This included the two accusations that ignored the known facts - an insistence that Turing committed suicide, and that he was hounded to his death by The Establishment. Now the really ironic bit is the same group that pretended to put him on a pedestal tend to race past his scientific achievements - I had one hilarious encounter in the Eighties with an GLF activist that shrieked about Turing's greatness and his "terrible treatment" but couldn't actually name the scientific field Turing had worked in! For the GLF sheeple, the fact that he was gay and the myth of his being hounded had become so centre stage they had no idea what the man actually did in his lifetime. That bit of gay propaganda has become so common that many calmly and unquestioningly accept both the unproven suicide theory and groundless accusations of hounding as historical facts. Those that dared to question were instantly labelled as homophobic regardless of their motives.
".....Or are you just talking shit?" Since you obviously have to ask, Turing had completed his hormone treatment (in lieu of jail time) and his sentence was considered served over a year before his death. In that year, whilst he was formally barred from working on classified projects (which he would have been for any criminal conviction, including a conviction of heterosexual curb-crawling), his academic work was unaffected. In fact, apart from being barred entry to the USA (and the US can and do bar for many convictions even today), his professional life was relatively unchanged after his conviction, and some would say LESS changed than if he had been a heterosexual academic charged with curb-crawling. You may start your remedial reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
I agree that Peter Tatchell is more than a LGBT campaigner, but he does sometimes waste his time on trivia.
This Turing story is one of them, but my favourite is his championing of the demands of the 4.5 people (and a spaniel) in Cornwall who want independence.
To be fair, the investigation was fairly brief at the time and wouldn't have been considered sufficient to reach the conclusion of suicide these days. That said, I read a theory that his death was accidental, and that he'd accidentally got cyanide from his home laboratory on to the apple (apparently he was quite careless in his lab and had been electrocuted several times, plus his friends suggested he was in good spirits at the time and he had been off the court mandated medication for around a year)
"That said, I read a theory that his death was accidental, and that he'd accidentally got cyanide from his home laboratory on to the apple (apparently he was quite careless in his lab and had been electrocuted several times, plus his friends suggested he was in good spirits at the time and he had been off the court mandated medication for around a year)"
I was under the impression that he tried to make it look accidental to some degree, and wanted it to at least be viable that it was accidental rather than suicide in order to give his own family a little bit of solace.
I don't understand why you were downvoted for making a perfectly reasonable point.
While there was certainly a huge stigma attached to homosexuality at the time, there was also a huge stigma attached to suicide.
Giving his family & friends the option to think it an accident rather than suicide would be a possible comfort.
Any useful information wont be out of secrecy laws for another 33 years if it still exists. Even modern techniques wouldn’t be able to say if there had been cyanide on the apple - if it still exists, or even in his body.
The only good that would come of an inquiry would be to keep the bugger in charge from buggering up something else.
An even bigger problem than re-opening the enquiry would be tracking down any remains of the cyanide-laced apple. I think this is more a case of a "has-been" gay campaigner grabbing the chance of getting his name back in the media.
Although it is said that he died from eating an apple laced with cyanide, the allegedly fatal apple was never tested for cyanide.
"The only good that would come of an inquiry would be..."
To keep a bunch of parasitic civil servants and lawyers in work for two years, for zero benefit.
" ...to keep the bugger in charge from buggering up something else."
Unless the crazier conspiracy theorists are right and a lizard runs the show, I don't think the same person is running Five as it was 50 years ago. Although, if the claim is true then MI5 are clearly very opposed to having buggers in charge...
I agree, an investigation now would be utterly useless and cost a fortune.
The important point to take away from this, is that most agree the agencies tasked with protecting the status quo, now and back then have the capacity to act in the most abhorrent fashion against its own citizens, it is that, that we should be addressing.
1984 is nothing but a sunset away, where we will awake to a regime that through stealth and fear has installed itself at the heart of a machine that cannot be dismantled and then it will be too late.
We need proper governance of our secret services, not some Lord Lacky intent on maintaining his and his cronies privileged life at any cost.
Think there may be a bit of self / cause publicity going on without thinking the facts through.
The conspiracy was that he was killed because he was a homosexual and open to blackmail.
Well as Man + plus dog knew he was homosexual, being convicted in a public court of the offence, it kind of neutralises the blackmail aspect.
Bit like saying, I'm going to expose Frankie Frazer of beating people up.
In this frenzied homophobic atmosphere, all gay men were regarded as security risks
This would be about the time when John Maynard Keynes was sent to America to negotiate the post-war loan on behalf of the British government. It seems unlikely that nobody knew about Keynes' sexual orientation, so clearly the judgement was more nuanced than this implies.
Given all the stigmas and illegality, homosexuals would have been wide open to blackmail.
"Got some nice pics here of you and young Freddie here. Imagine the humiliation your mum would feel if these were given to the police and you were dragged through the courts..."
Remember too that this was soon after the shambols of Guy Burgess and the Cambridge Five too, which would have put the spotlight on homosexuality and spying.
Why O Why is this being brought up,
Yes I agree he was horribly treated by the authorities 'at that time', but that was for committing what was 'at that time' a crime.
Rightly or wrongly the people who our grandparents and great-grandparents voted for, passed a law that was acceptable in the eyes of the majority 'at that time'.
Now with no way of knowing or being able to prove one way or another a 'talking head' wants airtime and comes up with an unanswerable question.
MI5 itself genuinely had been infiltrated at a high level by a ring of Soviet agents
Isn't it obvious then? Evidently* Turing must have uncovered this fact. He probably decrypted their secret messages back to the motherland and was about to blow the whistle on them. So they had him killed and attempted to cover it up as a suicide.
*the evidence that this is what happened is that he was found dead. Apparently by suicide. but many suspect it was made to look like that. Quad Erat Demonstratum!
Turing being gay wasn't what made him a 'security risk', being stabbed in the back by his own countrymen is what created any risk which may have existed.
It's easy in today's world to jump on the 'acceptance' bandwagon and talk about how far we've advanced as a civilization but that gets so far away from the issue as to be negligent. The man was betrayed by the very country he was helping. Betrayal of the worst order is the issue, not gay rights or anything else, but betrayal by those who you protect and defend.
Britain has a very long history of overlooking any behavior, no matter how atrocious, as long as it benefits the Crown. Heretics, despots, pirates, drug lords and witches, both inside Britain and without, have all found protection, and even support, to continue their actions as long as it benefited the ruling class. But a man who helped to defeat the supervillain of the century is publicly castigated over his sexual preferences.
For the government to grant a 'pardon' for his homosexuality now is the height of disingenuous behavior. A morally reprehensible political plot that is nothing more than a publicity stunt to curry a few votes. The fact they're focusing on the gay aspects is an attempt to gloss over the fact they betrayed their own. They did not even grant him the same considerations they had been giving to truly horrendous people for centuries. He was treated even worse than the Tribesmen who were paraded around London as a spectacle. He helped safe the country and rated worse than a sideshow curiosity.
They aren't apologizing for the betrayal, they're apologizing that their cover for betraying their own is no longer an acceptable excuse. They would betray him again if they could, just choose a better excuse and what's worse, they're proving in all this they would betray you too.
John Dee was indeed an occultist and student of alchemy. Most of the philosophers in Europe at the time were as well, it was a time of a very strange mix of Christianity and much murkier things they tried to amalgamate into a universal set of truths. Exceedingly odd advice was given to Kings and Queens and decisions were made based on things that 150 years later would be viewed as Satanic.
But I was actually referring to British adventures in Africa and India where 'sorcerers and practitioners of the darkest arts' helped solidify British control over tribes and regions through the use of 'magic' as a form of psychological warfare. More than a few British officers were shipped back to Britain for refusing to associate with those 'godless simpletons'.
It was all very, very strange. Those sorts of things make history more fun; no? I think kids would enjoy learning history a lot more if those embarrassing things were included in their studies. But, they are embarrassing, so ignoring them makes them go away. Right?
Quite so, and you will notice that the Queen's cousin -a notable queen himself, was a member of the group of 5 in that spying conspiracy. And what did they do to Sir Anthony Blunt? Well, strip him of his knighthood of course ( I bet he enjoyed it). You're the queen's cousin, luv, you'll get away with a smack on the wrist(ooooh!).
At the time, the venerable Peter Cook was appearing on a chat show and recalled a memorable faux-pas of his, he related " I felt a right Sir Anthony".
I rest my case.
...Britain has a very long history of overlooking any behavior, no matter how atrocious, as long as it benefits the Crown....
ALL COUNTRIES have a very long history of overlooking any behavior, no matter how atrocious, as long as it benefits the PEOPLE IN POWER.
There, fixed that for you...
I would recommend to all those who want to have a better understanding of Turing's role in defeating the Nazi Germany and the Axis powers, a brilliant book by Neal Stephenson - Cryptonomicon. Turing, disguised in the novel as Waterhouse, is the BRAIN that helps to outwit the German war machine. The book, making a great reading, IMHO perfectly describes Turing's life. When I first read it 6 years ago, I had no idea he was treated like a criminal in his own country, instead of being knighted or otherwise rewarded for his role in WWII. Indeed, the news about his being pardonned now were a shock to me.
As a side note, those who read Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy by John le Carre would probably recall, that in the "intelligence" community routine interventions, called terminations, are just one of the basic ways of ending an agent's employment.
Regardless of the consequences, perhaps it might be prudent to consider that forcing ones opinion on others is called bullying in some parts and many find little difference between that definition and the "accept us or be called homophobic" rhetoric from the gay community. Same thing goes for the rest of the politically correct bullshit I hear on a daily basis.
I do not have to accept the viewpoint of anyone and I willingly admit that you have exactly the same right as I. Be openly gay if you want to but please do not force your opinion that everyone should accept your behaviour.
Please stop telling everyone that we have to "atone for the sins of the fathers" because they were horrible people who werent "enlighted enough to understand homosexuality", or whatever psychobabble BS that you feel you were wronged by society for. What is past, is past. Grow up and quit blaming others for your own shortcomings, there will be no reparations or apologies for percieved injustices.
Here are the rules: I won't fuck with you and you don't fuck with me. I have the same right to my own opinions or beliefs as do you. Let's agree not to try to piss each other off by voicing those personal opinions/beliefs in a way that involves bullying or name calling, otherwise the gloves come off. Let's make a concious effort to avoid unneccessary confrontation and abuse. Give it a rest.
Oh god anytime there's any kind of politically correct news topic, out come the "it's political correctness gone mad!" brigade. I have to read this kind of stuff on a daily basis. Subjecting me to this is surely a form of bullying?
Why can't you just not offer an opinion? That's my opinion. Lets agree not to communicate. Otherwise my hat will come off. Lets make a conscious effort to avoid unnecessary confrontation and abuse. Give it a rest you idiots.
“Be openly gay if you want to but please do not force your opinion that everyone should accept your behaviour” ... “I have the same right to my own opinions or beliefs as do you”
How about I turn it around?
Be openly homophobic if you want to but please do not force your opinion that everyone should accept your behavior” ... “Gay people have the same rights to their own opinions or beliefs as do you”
At what point does your opinion that gay people should not try to ensure they are treated equal regardless of their sexual orientation outweigh my opinion that all people should try to ensure all people are treated equal regardless of their sexual orientation?
The problem comes from the idea that you feel you should/are being forced to have to ‘accept’ the ‘behavior’ of a gay person, as if being gay is a behavioral flaw like being an annoying drunk, a bad loser or unkind and rude for no reason, what exactly is it you feel you have to ‘accept’? That someone is gay? So? How does it affect you in anyway?
Lets have a little test, I have copied what you wrote only changing a few choice words. Read it and tell me if you feel it is acceptable.
"Regardless of the consequences, perhaps it might be prudent to consider that forcing ones opinion on others is called bullying in some parts and many find little difference between that definition and the "accept us or be called racist" rhetoric from the black community. Same thing goes for the rest of the politically correct bullshit I hear on a daily basis.
I do not have to accept the viewpoint of anyone and I willingly admit that you have exactly the same right as I. Be openly black if you want to but please do not force your opinion that everyone should accept your behaviour."
Or how about this?
"Regardless of the consequences, perhaps it might be prudent to consider that forcing ones opinion on others is called bullying in some parts and many find little difference between that definition and the "accept us or be called anti-Semitic" rhetoric from the Jew community. Same thing goes for the rest of the politically correct bullshit I hear on a daily basis.
I do not have to accept the viewpoint of anyone and I willingly admit that you have exactly the same right as I. Be openly Jewish if you want to but please do not force your opinion that everyone should accept your behaviour."
See, there you go... it's STILL okay for you to spout your opinions. No contradictions at all.
How did what I say force any view on you? All I did was call attention to the methodology of Political Correctness gone wild. Make any accusation you wish because there can be no defense against the crime of being non PC!
You just did a great job reiterating the issue I have, that anyone with any beef could claim they were being discriminated against. You probably think that NAMBLA have a right to force their opinions on the world as well.
Oh Woe is Me! You are a racist, homophobic, anti-semite for even bringing this up.
Seems you never got to the bottom of my post did you? A 21st century version of live and let live?
How about you and your ilk stop blaming everyone else for your own shortcomings? If your PC type would spend as much time keeping your own house in order as you do complaining they are being "discriminated" against, no one could criticize it.
Be openly Jewish if you want to but please do not force your opinion that everyone should accept your behaviour.
I will now fan the flames...
(Runs away in asbestos gear)
>At what point does your opinion that gay people should not try to ensure they are treated equal regardless of their sexual orientation outweigh my opinion that all people should try to ensure all people are treated equal regardless of their sexual orientation?
The line is crossed when you move from "equality under the law and equal value as a person" to "you must accept all my actions as being morally ok.", and "we are going to teach your children not just to accept people as equally valuable, but that all sexual activity is has equal moral validity."
What is objectionable is the suppression of discussion. I suspect there are interesting evolutionary arguments for suggesting that homosexuality is a disorder which is suboptimal compared to heterosexuality. Christians would also take a view based on different grounds and they would condemn the majority of activity between (unmarried) heterosexuals as immoral - a far larger and more relevant issue than the activities between gays. Certainly if you bring the sex into the classroom, it should be on the level of, "this is how humans reproduce," not, "here's some fun stuff you might like to do with your genitals." If you want to teach it, it must be testable, otherwise its propaganda.
I recently heard a Australian comedian seriously compare the lack of gay marriage to slavery. Yes, the lack of transferable pension entitlements was compared to being ripped from your family, chained up in ship (where you had a very high chance of dying) and being sent to forcibly work under people who beat you with bull-whips and could rape you at will.
The constant barrage of opinion like that is wearing thin. In the UK, there were equal rights under the law with civil partnerships, the lobby had to push for the word "marriage" to be legally redefined. That's quite annoying as there are many situations where I do actually want to distinguish between the different types of relationship. Quite frankly, it was much easier to use the prefix "gay" as a qualifier than "heterosexual." It also means that historical references of "marriage" are easily misunderstood as the meaning has changed dramatically and quickly. Having words changing meaning over time ("Silly Virgin Mary" anyone?) is hard enough without adding to it with social engineering.
So may I make a suggestion: do what the UK used to do. Create Civil Partnerships or some such thing which has an equal legal standing with marriage. Don't call it "marriage" though. Homosexuality is not heterosexuality so why call the relationship between people of the same gender the same as between two people of different genders? If oranges are not the only fruit, don't call all fruit "oranges."
Oh, stop moaning about the Russian Olympics too. What does who you like to sleep with have to do with sport?
While I agree with some of your statement, the point is that line “equality under the law and equal value as a person" has not been reached yet, let alone crossed.
We are also talking about someone who was prosecuted and forced to be ‘chemically castrated’ or go to prison because he was gay, which led him to lose his job and his livelihood, physically and emotionally change him and ultimately kill himself (or some think to be murdered), and while this didn’t happen in my life time, it did in my parents, its still in ‘living memory’.
"....which led him to lose his job and his livelihood, physically and emotionally change him and ultimately kill himself....." And there we have all the myths in one go!
Turing did not lose his livelihood, his academic career was completely unaffected, only his (relatively low-paid) Government work was withdrawn. You obviously missed the bit where Turing's hobby was GOLD-plating his cutlery - do you think that was likely if he had no livelihood?
"....physically and emotionally change him...." Turing undertook a treatment with artificial female hormones that did have physical side-effects, but the idea of long term psychological damage is questionable. I doubt if the whole arrest, trial and treatment were fun, but he seemed to be getting on with his life afterwards and showed no signs of depression. Indeed, instead of a suicide note, the last thing he is known to have written was a list of tasks to complete in the office the next week!
"....and ultimately kill himself...." And yet there is no actual evidence either of a suicide or even an intent to commit suicide, quite the contrary.
"That's a pretty reactionary statement Matt...." Sorry, you'll have to be a bit more explicit as to which bit is getting your Y-fronts in a twist. The old ESP isn't working too well after the NY celebrations.
"....Do you honestly fell that the sort of "treatments" meted out to gay people and others during the 50s (frontal lobotomy anyone?) were even remotely ethical?" No. But more to the point, where did I said I DID think it was ethical? Oh, I didn't, you just jumped to the assumption "he's not going with the gay flow so he MUST be homophobic and approve of the historic treatment of gays".
"The line is crossed when you move from "equality under the law and equal value as a person" to "you must accept all my actions as being morally ok.", and "we are going to teach your children not just to accept people as equally valuable, but that all sexual activity is has equal moral validity."
So straight sex is more morally upstanding than gay sex? That infers that there is something grubby and wrong about gay sex. Why do you feel that way?
"I suspect there are interesting evolutionary arguments for suggesting that homosexuality is a disorder which is suboptimal compared to heterosexuality."
So you're just putting that out that based on guesswork. You might as well say "I suspect there are some interesting arguments for suggesting that Asian people are genetically inferior"
[And given there are about 6 Billion of us too many around here, I would say that frankly the best thing that we can do for the planet is to all turn gay!]
"the lobby had to push for the word "marriage" to be legally redefined."
Don't make it sound like this was just the lobby. I'm straight and it's marriage to me and should be. The concept that we need to have a special word for legal gay partnerships is not something a lobby dreamed up; it's common decency and sense to most of us.
"Don't call it "marriage" though. Homosexuality is not heterosexuality so why call the relationship between people of the same gender the same as between two people of different genders? If oranges are not the only fruit, don't call all fruit "oranges." "
That's pretty backwards. About fifty years by my reckoning. Marriage is marriage: Two people legally bound together and forced to give money to lawyers if they split up. Gender is only important if we start quoting the bible. And the bible doesn't get a say in how the lives of people who don't want to follow its teachings are run.
You have a very transparent belief that gay relationships are not as equal as straight ones: morally, ethically, and by very definition. Hopefully things will change and your children will grow up in a world where that view is as rightly consigned to history as it deserves to be.
“the methodology of Political Correctness gone wild” Totally agree, its political correctness gone wild that people should expect to be treated equally, what next, letting women vote? Why back in my day we used to chuck Jews down wells, castrate gay people, and hang people for being black on a Tuesday, and now you are telling me I can’t? ITS PC GONE MAD!
I never said you are not entitled to your opinion, I never called you a racist, homophobic, or anti-semite, I was just demonstrating that your apparent disgust at gay people wanted to be recognized as people is exactly the same disgust applied to a number of other sections of society over the years, I could have used women and Christians in the middle east as the examples.
The difference is my opinion is
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”
It’s not exactly a new idea, but then again I guess Thomas Jefferson, was one of these lefty do goodie Commie PC types as well.
As for NAMBLA, did you just compare being Gay, Black, or Jewish to being a paedophile?
No matter if you like it or not, two adult women or two adult men can have sex with each other as long as they are both consenting and don’t do it in public, just like straight people. This affects absolutely no one but themselves, No one if forcing you to watch them.
Your last paragraph is not about equality, its about you being fine with people being discriminated against because you are not one of them and you don’t want this to change because it makes you feel uncomfortable.
“If your PC type would spend as much time keeping your own house in order as you do complaining they are being "discriminated" against, no one could criticize it.”
Just to point out I am neither Gay, Black, or Jewish, so my own “house”, being a heterosexual white Protestant is exactly the “house” I am trying to sort out.
Dear Mr. Telegraph Discussion Board Contributor. (is it you?)
Here's how it is. For most of our history, a variety of types of people who are 'not normal' were imprisoned, tortured, murdered, ridiculed and generally made to feel like outsiders. They still are, in most of the world, including in parts of our society.
By some small miracle, the people of our country have decided, step-by-step, that this is wasteful, cruel, pointless and wrong, despite the cries of those who wish the 'not normal' people were treated a bit more like in the 'Good Old Days'.
Turing's treatment was a product of the 'Good Old Days' - the world crafted by those weak enough to allow the concept of human rights to be blurred and diminished by arguments about 'normality' and dark-ages 'morality'.
There are plenty of people today who would happily turn back the clock and re-establish the sorts of threats and violence which were (and still are, elsewhere) common against the 'not normal'.
The PC brigade sometimes wind me up, and Tatchell sometimes gets it wrong, but I'd rather have this and a decent, free society, than the crappy hellhole which society descends into when there's nobody to speak up for the 'not normal'.
...Please stop telling everyone that we have to "atone for the sins of the fathers"....
'Atoning for the sins of the fathers' is a critical theological requirement if you are to explain the 'Problem of Pain' - that is, why, if God is all-powerful and all-loving and runs the Earth, we still have unhappiness.
Myself, I wonder why, if blame passing down through generations is a theological requirement for the Christian religion, the Godhead is primarily known as 'God the Father'...
Government and security service investigations are always whitewashes that exonerate themselves and crucify anyone else.
Anyone who has any suspicion that the authorities are involved in anything untoward is always accused of being a conspiracy theorist.
Ironically, these are the same authorities that were convinced Saddam had WMDs, that there are terrorists under every bed (including Angela Merkel's), that every Huawei device can be triggered by the PLA to blow up or wipe data remotely and that there will be chaos and carnage if they don't read the Facebook account or monitor the World of Warcraft activity of every human being on the planet.... by their bonkers standards, suggesting Turing's death is a bit suspicious kind of pales....
I dunno about all the stuff you wrote, the issue with homophobia if you ask me starts from a very early ages, right from infancy... when kids go to school and refer to each other as gay to insult one another, when they go home to hear their parents talk nasty ways about such things.
Then look over seas and look at lets say Thailand where they have accepted it in the education and now becoming more main stream within the commerical world.
Whilst in the west a lot of effort has been put in to accept Lesbians and Gays there has not been a lot done for the other characters of the LGTBI
And the lack of education for the so called living longer population shines in an exemplary way
Whats that you don't believe me, how about you go out to London in a dress tomorrow and face the reality
The fact is that there are few homosexual parents, which is natural, so most kids are brought up in a heterosexual environment.
They see women wearing dresses not men, so a man in a dress is odd, and from the few i've seen in a dress, they look damned odd...
They see women wearing dresses not men, so a man in a dress is odd, and from the few i've seen in a dress, they look damned odd...
I saw a few wandering down a street on a CCTV once, just as they came across a drunken moron who, thinking they were transvestites, decided to beat them up. Sadly for him they turned out to be professional cage fighters going to a fancy dress party.
So, to go back to the article, things are not always what they seem.
EXACTLY....and we don't need to be constantly bombarded by either sides opinions on the subject. All we have to do is live and let live. Proselytizing for either cause only serves to exacerbate the problem.
What Alan Turing did to win the war will outlive his sexual proclivities.
repent of your wickedness and give your heart and life to Jesus Christ before he comes in Judgment on this wicked world, which will be very, very soon
Uh yeah. Just another 10↑↑2 years or so (in Knuth up-arrow notation) until the Hippie from Palestine is back among us. I guess. Then it's off to Gitmo and no messing.
I'm very uncomforatble with your implicit assumption that Jesus disaproves of gays.
Your get out clause that no-one should talk about gayness doesnt make that any more true.
Alan Turing was indeed a skilled and talented software pioneer. But that he was hounded to death by the establishment is indeed newsworthy.
PS. I'm Straight
"The Sodomite lobby wants everyone to keep talking about this subject, because of their Nazi-like obsession with forcing everyone to bow before their god and "confess their crimes" against their perversions. Keep it in the closet where it belongs, or better yet, repent of your wickedness and give your heart and life to Jesus Christ before he comes in Judgment on this wicked world, which will be very, very soon."
I'm sorry, I appear to have walked into the wrong century.
I think Jesus would frown upon your lack of humanity, care for thy neighbours etc? Have you considered reading the bible before spouting nonse? Really, that Jesus guy seems like a mighty forgiving and loving chap for all around, not just for middle aged white men that visit big stone buildings to make themselves feel happy inside!
"We all appreciate his great contributions to science and engineering, but we don't care about his private life."
Correction. Most of us don't care about his private life, but a few of you seem utterly obsessed about anal sex, which more accurately could be described as a 'Nazi-like' obsession, as Hitler did indeed think that gays ought to be exterminated.
Please don't regurgitate the bible at me, unless to explain why the 'abomination' of mixing threads is so widely ignored by the gay-bashing fraternity.
It's a pity you had to mix Jesus, homosexuals and Nazis, as you were right on the cusp of realizing an incredibly important, and difficult, challenge faced by any minority group seeking equality with the majority. That challenge can be summarized as follows:
'The significance of unique characteristics that define a minority are reduced in direct proportion to the level equality experienced by that group'.
Or: The more equality you experience, the less special you are. Equality means you're just like the rest of us, therefore you aren't due any special consideration other than the acknowledgement you are a sentient being.
Now, that fact scares the hell out of minorities. If they are equal they aren't special anymore; who will listen to their plight? Who will help carry them forward? To overcome this the speakers in a minority will move towards identifying as [SPECIAL_CHARACTERISTIC], not identifying as Human, but as what they feel defines them; and identifying loudly. It results in a situation where failure by others to make those characteristics the primary issue anywhere they are present results in a backlash from those who feel they aren't special anymore. So you get news outlets, not just El Reg, that slowly adopt the same mindset and the special aspects do become the primary issue. Outlets like El Reg are only following the examples set by the disenfranchised group.
Now, I'm not a member of any minority (except maybe the very tall group) and it certainly isn't my place to determine when a minority group has reached equality. But it does present a conundrum for minorities. When do you stop pressing for 'more equality'?
There is a breakpoint where continuing to press for more equality results in a backlash from the majority. In succeeding in their quest for equality they, by default, lose special considerations. Equality means nothing is given or taken from you and that's a bitter pill. The phenomenon has a good example in the African-American actors Samuel L Jackson and Morgan Freeman, both who have stated that Black History Month here in the States is now holding them back, actively holding the group back instead of propelling it forward. The backlash from the NAACP and other black advocacy groups was swift and brutal.
As long as minorities press for special consideration they can never have true equality. Deciding when to make that decision, to consider yourself equal, is a hard, hard, thing to do.
That wasn't my intent. My intent was to say that the unique characteristics of a minority matter less as that minority is accepted and treated equally by the majority. Today it would be exceedingly rare for news that involved a black person to draw attention to the fact that person was black unless that persons color specifically added something to the story. Except for a few racist holdouts, a black person is now just a person. Their race is irrelevant.
But for a very long time, long after slavery had ended, there was major pressure to make a story about charity pancake breakfasts about the cook, who happened to be black. The charity itself and the food were overshadowed by a race issue. Not wanting to take that angle meant blowback from advocacy groups and for a long time, it was a good thing. It did help raise awareness. But as they have approached real equality the pressure for those stories has weakened. What once helped, now causes animosity. You can see it in these comments. Most of the comments aren't about 'perversion' but about why does his being gay even matter? Most minority groups eventually reach that point. It's a good thing.
I wasn't trying to offend. Apologies if I did.
I do see your point about how a cultural identity can be "mainstreamed" like the various attempts to sell the gay lifestyle (metrosexual lolz), assorted black and latino culture etc. And while for some in those groups, the acceptance isn't what they where after, what they want is to be recognised for their special identity, in fact most people in those groups would really like to just be accepted into society as a whole.
As you write articulate and often thoughtful posts, I'd like to pick apart a couple of your points. As a (presumably) white person, globally you are a minority. Certainly if you have a net worth of 25k or more, than you're in the richest 20% of the world. However, not to be too much of a prat about this, I assume you're talking from a perspective of the UK, where being white, straight, mono-lingual english speaker, and non-practising CoE would put you in the rough majority. Pretty much any of those things not being the case, you'd be in a technical minority. So quite a lot of people are in minorities, but don't get much stick, because they 'fit in" with the majority. Religious tolerance has also been a cornerstone of modern societies due to the great amount of persecution and wars that have been , and are currently being waged with religious justification. I imagine because it's very hard to argue with "God told me to murder the bastards" which leads to prolonged hating on each side.
The other point was on the news focusing on someones skin color means there are less "must promote black people" stories, but you would have to admit that it still comes up a great deal. Perhaps a bit between the lines, or in the decision to use say a particular athlete to promote team GB because they "tick the boxes" (ie are black and female). In the US it still is very much an issue, perhaps to to whitey becoming a minority, or the greater amounts of mixed race children. Obama was the first "black" president, despite the fact that apart from his father's genes, his cultural upbringing was pretty much upper-middle class. If a major UK political party selected an indian, black or asian as it's leader, you could measure the columns written on it in meters. Hell, even a female leader is a rarity. So I find it hard to believe that there is real equality, except perhaps under the law. It's like saying there is gender equality, just only applied to those under 40 (well, not quite, but it's closer) because despite law changes, there is still a strong cultural attachment to certain roles.
On a slight side track, it should be noted that gender equality is pretty bad for younger blokes (on average). I've joked about seahorse workforces where you get 90% male over 45 and 90% female under 35, caused by a combination of hiring practises (got to balance those numbers, can't arbitrarily fire half the staff 'cos they are blokes, thus strong emphasis on hiring ladies) and the fact that women are usually better employees than males. Heh, that will get me some stick, so perhaps if I phrase it as women in general are more open to criticism of their work, better at defusing social tensions, more able to admit mistakes or seek assistance, better able to compromise, change jobs less, have less of a need to assert their ego at work, all of which make them more desirable as employees. Oh, and are more likely to undervalue their own skills. Of course this is a massive generalisation, there will be tons of men who are like this, and tons of women who aren't. But much like saying on average women are more agile and men are stronger, there will obviously exist women that are stronger than most men.
Back to the main topic, another key issue about minorities is how easy they are identified. Because in some ways that is the only way you can actually test the bias. If you have a different skin tone or gender than the "norm" then it's pretty easy to notice. If you're gay or follow a religion without strong outward identification (skull cap and curly locks, turban, big arse beard, or just it being the first thing you say to someone) then you get to see the change in reaction as you get mentally moved from the majority to the particular minority. You do get a bit of the race/gender thing these days, especially in tech. I have a friend who is a very good coder, who has had several roles where she pretty much had the job sealed (based on her exsting work, references and email) but when she turned up to interview the sudden change because she "might not be a good fit" in the 100% company. Funniest was when they had actually sent her a formal job offer, and had to work out how to retract it without admitting their sexism. Turns out Regan is suitable a name for either gender, but sexist blokes assume that only men code.
There is some interesting research on how people react differently to the same piece of work depending on the perception of whether the author was male or female. The two studies I recall are both done in academia, by groups who strongly identify as gender equalists and firmly in the PC camp. Turns out they are still pretty sexist. One was on how a paper was graded, with a male name earning about half a grade more, the other was on career advice based on a CV. What I personally found more interesting than the research itself (which pretty much confirms social norms) was that the academics who where used in the study rejected that they where sexist, despite the results. The CV advice was especially telling, since a number pretty much said "of course my advice is different to a male or a female" whilst denying that it was evidence of sexism.
Anyways, went way off topic there. In general I would say that unless you spend some time as being identified as a minority, then telling them that they "pretty much" have equality doesn't really cut it. You can experiment if you like, just tell a few workmates that you used to date men*. Then see who refuses to eat at the same table as you. Or when reporting an assault to the police, mention you where holding hands with another bloke.
No offense intended. It's a touchy subject after all.
* unless you actually want to deal with the backlash, stick with this as a thought experiment. I got written up by HR (and subsequently left the company) after I had a go at a colleague after he suggested that "hanging was too good for fags". Now I stick with the loud "Ha ha, murdering people different to us is funny. Give us another, I hear you've got a good line in rape and nigger jokes"
"Now, that fact scares the hell out of minorities."
Because everyone in every minority things the same, obviously.
"Now, I'm not a member of any minority"
So you're waxing lyrical and making blithe statements about things that you have no real insider experience of.
"Black History Month here in the States is now holding them back"
Well yes. At least we agree on something. The whole 'X history month' thing is ultimately divisive.
Don J - let me say that I enjoy your posts - they're generally well considered and well articulated. I'm not sure that I can agree with you on this one.
'The significance of unique characteristics that define a minority are reduced in direct proportion to the level equality experienced by that group'.
I think I understand where you're coming from on this one. But as a member of a minority group, I'd be more than content if my 'special characteristic' genuinely made no difference and I were indeed treated as just another sentient being.
You see, equality consists of two things - civil rights and human rights. Gay and transgender people have in the UK reached a situation where our civil rights are pretty much the same as those of anyone else. We have, in short, equality under law,
However we dont achieve genuine equality until people in general dont differentiate between us and any other people when we go about our daily lives. No amount of law changes that - changes in peoples' perceptions change that. In my lifetime (I was born in 1953) gay people in the UK have progressed from a situation where their activities were illegal, through the battle for civil rights, and are genuinely reaching a situation where they are generally accepted by others (halfwit talk about 'Sodomites' not withstanding). Trans people still suffer from public ridicule - some of us on a daily basis - and acts of violence against trans people are still fairly common.
All I want to do is to be myself - a parent and a grand parent who's an IT professional, tax payer, shit guitar player, and petrol head who happens to be trans.
The hell with special treatment - when I can be that person without constantly worrying about my job and without fear of abuse and violence then I'll be equal.
Until then, I'm not.
'The significance of unique characteristics that define a minority are reduced in direct proportion to the level equality experienced by that group'.
Well, that is one mighty paradox. People don't seem to appreciate it, but that's quite understandable - everybody but zenmasters are uneasy when they wake up in the middle of a paradox. And I'm not sure I've ever seen a true zenmaster...
most common thing
under the sun
is the need
to be special
Why is Tatchall stopping at just Turing? Surely, if he wants the maximum publicity and to help "The Cause" then Christmas would have been the best time to announce Gawd is gay.
What, you don't believe me? There's much more evidence for Gawd being gay than there ever was about Turing being murdered.
For a start, Gawd is obviously so anti-female, he just has to be a militant homosexual male. Do any female angels get the top jobs? Main non, they go to Gabriel, Azrial, etc., etc. And then there's the very obvious point of sex - guys can have as much fun as they like whether it's by themselves or not, and have you ever heard a guy complaining the woman came first? And who has to carry the baby for nine months? Stretch marks, breastfeeding, hormone-induced moodswings - it's all just transparent hatred of women. And then we have how women are so fixated with self-destructive adiction to fashion, constantly starving themselves and beating themselves up because they don't look like models, yet more divine retribution. And then there are the two biggies that show Gawd has it in for the heteros - periods and marriage!
Tatchall is just such a wimp for going with the limp "Turing-was-murdered-for-being-gay" dribbling when he could have gone all anti-Church and whacked them with The Truth about Gawd. Oh, maybe that was becuase the Church, a billion Christians and their lawyers might not be so quiet in their response....
Of course, connaisseurs of fine bandes dessinées know that the "take him out" scenario was put into a comic, written by Benoit Peeters and illustrated by Alan Goffin:
Christopher Morcom was Alan's first ... uh ... love interest.
Sadly, the Deadly Apple was replaced by a Deadly Car Accident.
Scans cannot be had on the Interwubs thought, this publication is too obscure.
*Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex
I have heard of the L, G, B and T bit. All for it, in fact!
To paraphrase Feargal Sharkey: A good Tranny these days is hard to find. But never mind that now.
I'm curious about the Intersex thing. WTF is that? I suppose I could look it up on the webnet. But I'm an innocent that still doesn't know what 2 girls one cup is about. No really, I don't. La la la can't hear you. Please don't try to pollute my beautiful mind ((c) B.Bush).
Got to admit, I am kind of curious though. Not bi-curious mind you. Oh no. Just you know..
As for that Tatchell chap. Isn't he just the British White equivalent of the Reverend Al. Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? Don't like the cut of his gib to be frank about it. Then again, never burn your bridges, might need to give him a call soon to find out what t'Intersex ting is.
Please god no, don't let it be what my dirty mind might think it is. Deep fried crisp, shirley not! Mind vacuum needed Mother! Oh sweet cheese crisp, please not. Not that. Anything but that. I'm definitely not looking it up now.
They will be worrying Rhododendrons next and calling it Art.
All I can say is: If you tolerate this, then your children will be next. Will be next. Will be next...
Gosh. I don't know what to say.
I could do the old 'oh but you were just being ad-hominem and provided no real counterpoint to my argument' type of thing. But I don't think I'll bother. I'll take my compliments where I can.
Yes, it does take a lot of talent to beat the competition, I quite agree.
Shame you couldn't be more specific and enter into the arena, but all the best to you anyway.
I thought it was all built on preposterousness anyway - this thread I mean - "gay boffin super hero" - gave it up for me.
It's a loss to me why I'll never know why you think the things you do. But anyway, just keep telling people. They might not understand you, but I'm sure it makes you feel better. Wait a minute, that's another definition of insanity there.
And thanks for the thumbs up. At least you're not sarcastic. Though I feel, and hope, you are being deeply ironic. I do not hold my breath.
It's a new day, a new year. And life is too short whilst troubles are too long. I've rambled on and on. In danger of. Breaking into poetry. Best to just let it be. Unlike Paul McCartney. There. See. How deranged do you want to be? Enough for you. And me.
Thumbs up to you too, sir.
You do not need to have a security clearance to work against the USSR.
However there is no evidence that his death was an assassination by anyone either.
Test the apple to see if it even contains cyanide suggest the guy in the article. If it did or didn't what would it mean? Nothing. He died from cyanide poisoning, the apple was the obvious path.
But knowing whether he took the cyanide as powder or a contaminated apple by fumes, would not point to or exclude accident, suicide or murder or assassination.
It is more lack of motive for assassination or murder that points to accident suicide. The UK government didn't have to kill him to revoke his security clearance, and neither did the USA nor the USSR.
Just look at all the very clever souls on here with their `tin-foil hat` comments - such wits.
Noone has ever been removed from circulation by the secret service contractors. No, never happens. Stuff and nonsense. Poppycock.
It just doesn't happen. Also, your government is your friend and to be trusted 100%, as they do you.
Hasn't everything you've seen taught you this?
Are you fucking blind or just hard of thinking?
My understanding is that the secret service tries to save the taxpayer money buy recruiting it's hired killers, uh, I mean contractors, from a pool of already trained and vetted killers known as the armed forces. Who are also pretty good about doing bad things in service of the greater good and keeping quiet about them.
Certainly it is what appears to have happened in colonial actions and Ireland. I mean, there would be no way british soldiers would be performing drive by shootings on civilians in the midst of the troubles.
Personally I'd put Turing's death down to accidental poisoning. There are plenty more convenient suicides and accidental deaths that have the fingerprints of the security services on them. Wrists cut with a blunt knife, hung from a print-less rope without a means to reach the elevation, glass with prints, empty bottle of booze wiped clean, being found zipped inside a bag etc. I have heard it suggested that a hit and run, being run off the road or a straight up collision with something more massive would be a suitable way to assassinate someone without it being investigated as a murder.
I suppose the security services could always "contract" out to a third party by passing on information. Lots of political assassinations (I'll put journos in that group too) again are very convenient to the current political structures but can be blamed on criminal groups or corruption.
I live in the Netherlands currently. Just over 10 years ago the leader of a political party who was actually seen to be making changes in the political landscape was shot and killed in the run up to an election.
No point being AC. The spooks already know who I am :)
Ok, I'll bite,,,,
Seeing as how its still more or less Christmas.
There are a number of intersex conditions which may or may not include chromosonal differences but almost all of which result in the presence of ambiguous sexual organs, both internal and external. So, for instance, a person may be born with a penis and a womb. For some time these conditions have been 'treated' by surgery in childhood followed by a hormone regime that the medics consider appropriate for the sex chosen (typically with consent of the parents). Its increasingly common now for the individual concerned to be given time to determine their own gender identity (the physical sex with which they best identify) before surgery takes place, ideally just before puberty. Some individuals now choose to remain intersexed and have no surgery.
Because some intersex people physically present externally as consistent with one sex but have the internal sexual organs of the other, its not totally unknown (though quite rare) for their intersex condition not to be discovered until adulthood.
Alan Turing wasn't murdered for being homosexual, they thought he was about to publish a P=nP proof and thus open the door to eldritch horrors from beyond space-time, who find us crunchy and tasty with ketchup. (According to Charles Stross' 'The Atrocity Archives'...)
The assumption was that Turing laced an apple with cyanide and ate it. Fact 1. No Suicide note was allegedly found at the scene. Fact 2. Turing regularly ate an apple without finishing it. Fact 3. the apple was not tested. There is therefore no evidence that he committed suicide. Turing's death was not properly investigated and the verdict of the Inquest was reached without any supporting evidence whatsoever.
Now, let me try to lock myself in my red sports bag for the umpteeth time - I know it's possible.
I think it was more the Americans who pushed to have Turnings clearance revoked.
The public school boys who ran/run things in the UK in those days would not have seen much wrong with being gay.
Look at the Cambridge Six (or Seven or whatever it is up to). Gay and working for MI5 & MI6, no problem. But they were not on joint projects with the Americans.
But even then, the circumstances, the experiment he was doing in his room with dangerous chemicals, I really doubt this was an assassination.
The real question is whether it was a suicide or an accident.
Had the Manchester Police dealt with the complaint that Alan Turing made (that he'd been robbed), there would have been no question, no issue, and other gay men would not have had to accept that police turn a blind eye to homophobic crime. When police ignore a Man being beaten to death for being Gay, it is rather stupid for Peter to focus on the foolish notion that Alan was assonated.
The stupid conspiracy theorists should know Russians knew we’d broken Enigma, because we’d told them (but not how), so they knew we didn’t use it after the war.
You kinda need access to the KGB archives to learn which cyphers the Russians used after the war, but we did provide the Russians with Ultra intelligence starting with artic convoys to relieve the Leningrad blockade and ending with the siege of Warsaw when the Russians ignored detailed intercepts of German orders and left the uprising to its fate. Lawrence Olivier did a great monolog on Russian complaints about allied intelligence officers with Ultra knowledge allowed to fall into the hands of the Gestapo in the ‘world at war’.
Turing would not be interesting to the KGB when he died because his operational knowledge was ten years old, and his mind was operationally useless in case he was a mole. Fun as conspiracy theories are, it is stupid to think the security services would rather kill him than answer the question when he asked Police to call.
Which is a better case for investigation: tenuous Conspiracy or very real Homophobia?
He knew about the tunny machine, the mechanical 501 bit digital encryption machine the germans used for high command. The Russians were using these in the 50's to 70's because they thought they were unbreakable. If turing had blabbed via his norweigan boyfriend the cold war would have been compromised. In the interests of national security it would have been reasonable to bump him off. Prob got warned first. Just cos you are good at maths does not mean you have any common sense.
I note you post anonymously when using this language. Sitting here at El Reg HQ, I can see who you are - and also know about your other account which you use when we filter out your bizarre ramblings from this one, anon or not. Kindly cease and desist from splattering the site in profanities.
Another fave bleat with the sheeple, but it turns out Barnaby Jack wasn't assassinated by the healthcare industry, he did himself in accidentally with his stupid drug habits (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25598791). But don't worry, members of the flock, those confirmed baaaah-lievers Blowhard Gale and Loser BlueGreen will be along shortly to tell you the NSA inserted an overdose of heroin into his modem via a specially and evilly designed RJ-11 port, all because the NSA wants to protect the evil bankers that own shares in the US healthcare Companies. They will assure you any tales of drug overdoses are just square killjoys trying to ruin your fun. Oh, BTW, it appears Mr Jack wasn't gay and wasn't working for GCHQ, so don't expect Peter Tatchall to be spending much time on the subject.
There is a tug of war going on between us engineers who want to keep Turing as a great figure in our world, and those who want to drag him into a world of 2014 gender politics. To Stonewall and Tatchell I say: let go, he his ours, look what he did:
- the pwning of Enigma (not single handed, he cooperated with others)
- the construction of the bombe machines
- runner almost to Olympic standard.
- inventor of sequential state machines, aka Turing machines.
- predicted in 1950 that by 2000, computers would have 125 megabyte memories. Bang on IIRC.
"There is a tug of war going on between us engineers who want to keep Turing as a great figure in our world, and those who want to drag him into a world of 2014 gender politics....." In truth, Turing can be both. He was gay and it obviously did not stop him being both a computing genius and a loyal patriot, which would seem to be good enough for both groups to celebrate his achievements. The problem is people like Tatchell have to make up wild accusations bordering on lies for their own political agendas.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019