Awesome recognition! I just wish people weren't such dicks to Turing in his lifetime.
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.
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.
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?
His order to bomb Dresden [2]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Debate_a...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_Wa...
Dresden is a much trickier call AFAIK, I don't think this is used widely as an indication of Churchill being morally deficient.
You can call it whatever you'd like, but this isn't illegal today.
I've never seen anyone being accused of being a paedophile for having sex with a 19-year-old. Do you have an example? This frankly seems like a backhanded slur on Turing.
> Not sure Churchill would make it on anymore either tbh.
Churchill was added to a bank note a mere three years ago.
It says 19 on his Wikipedia page.
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...
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.
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 (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_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.
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.
For heterosexual sex. It wasn't until the Sexual Offences Act in 1967 that male homosexual sex was legal at all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history_in_th...
And even then, it was only in your own home, England and Wales, and groups of two. The law wasn't brought into full equivalence with the law for heterosexual sex until 2001:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history_in_th...
2001! Fucking 2001! What is wrong with this country?
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_U...
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!