Prosecution of Alan Turing Petition

[Little-Miss]

oops....didnt read above... Edited September 11, 2009 by Little-Miss

[srochford]

i would like him to do that aswell, my cousin has been out there and lost friends in iraq, but it is right that he has apologised for the wrong doing that was shown to alan turing.

 

I think this is genuinely difficult. Whether there's any point in an apology for what happened to Turing is debatable but certainly the government of the day behaved badly in the way homosexuals were treated so something was definitely wrong.

 

Should a government apologise for the fact that soldiers die during a war? Not really sure. I think most people would agree that there is risk from the Taliban and Al Qaida in Afghanistan (and Pakistan). If that's the case then it's probably right for an army to be there and, sadly, soldiers get killed when you're fighting a war.

 

Iraq's a bit different; many people think that we should never have sent armies there but our government disagrees (and it's worth remembering that the Conservatives basically also supported this). If it was right for our army to be there then I think it's actually wrong to apologise for the fact that soldiers get killed - that's just what happens in war time.

 

Of course, you can argue that the soldiers need better defensive equipment and that's probably true but in reality even if they had vehicles with better armour it would just meant that the bad guys use bigger roadside bombs and people would still die.

[PiqueABoo]

If that's the case then it's probably right for an army to be there

 

The public are apparently against you: There was some poll published only a couple of days ago and only 1/4 were for the deployment, more than 1/2 were against (the rest were undecided, confused etc.).

[IT_Guy]

I think this is genuinely difficult. Whether there's any point in an apology for what happened to Turing is debatable but certainly the government of the day behaved badly in the way homosexuals were treated so something was definitely wrong.

 

Should a government apologise for the fact that soldiers die during a war? Not really sure. I think most people would agree that there is risk from the Taliban and Al Qaida in Afghanistan (and Pakistan). If that's the case then it's probably right for an army to be there and, sadly, soldiers get killed when you're fighting a war.

 

Iraq's a bit different; many people think that we should never have sent armies there but our government disagrees (and it's worth remembering that the Conservatives basically also supported this). If it was right for our army to be there then I think it's actually wrong to apologise for the fact that soldiers get killed - that's just what happens in war time.

 

Of course, you can argue that the soldiers need better defensive equipment and that's probably true but in reality even if they had vehicles with better armour it would just meant that the bad guys use bigger roadside bombs and people would still die.

 

I'm not sure we can blame the government for how he was treated, homosexuality was not publically acceptable in that era, blaming the government for it seems like a cop-out to me.

 

Same with Afghanistan really, its easy to blame the politico's and Gordon Brown is torn to pieces over his conduct but the great british public voted these people into office.

 

Any politician who sends soldiers into a war should have to justify themselves in my opinion, preferable in public to the relatives of the deceased.

Edited September 11, 2009 by IT_Guy

[torledo]

 

Same with Afghanistan really, its easy to blame the politico's and Gordon Brown is torn to pieces over his conduct but the great british public voted these people into office.

 

Any politician who sends soldiers into a war should have to justify themselves in my opinion, preferable in public to the relatives of the deceased.

 

don't blame the policy makers who also vote on issues such as going to war ? are you sure about that ?

 

Sadly the country can't vote in politicians on each and every specific issue, the public make themselves heard if there is widespread protest about issues being debated - i think this is what harriet harmison reffered to as the 'court of public opinion'.

 

Even then, this opinion is sometimes led by msm opinion/misinformation. How much does the 'consensus' really understand about bank bailouts or the lisbon treaty beyond newspaper headlines,

to be able to make an informed decision ?

 

That's why the govt. are paid to do, it's why they pay advisers and researchers, to make informed decisions. or not. LOL. Unfortunately the govt. seem to be more swayed by 'special relationships' with foreign superpowers, industry vested interests and the opinion pieces of influential newspapers.

 

I don't like the idea at all that voters have to put up or shut up when there really isn't much of a meaningful choice in how to vote, or when to reappoint. Voters have to wait up to five years plus put up with a prime minister who'll delay going to the polls to the last possible moment.

 

All the GBP are programmed to do is vote in one of two main political party choices who can barely differentiate from each once they actually get in to power. It used to be the case that the differences were far more apparent, but the days of left-vs-right, nationalisation vs privatisation divides are long gone. Today it's all just slightly different shades of neo-liberalism.

 

Or voters can display total apathy and not vote, in which case those that do will vote in one of the two neoliberal options who will be hamstrung anyway by the previous administrations policies for the first four years of office atleast. some choice that is!!! Ha!

 

Remind me again why i can't blame the PM and the govt. for decisions they make ?

[IT_Guy]

don't blame the policy makers who also vote on issues such as going to war ? are you sure about that ?

 

Sadly the country can't vote in politicians on each and every specific issue, the public make themselves heard if there is widespread protest about issues being debated - i think this is what harriet harmison reffered to as the 'court of public opinion'.

 

So if the GB public don't agree with Labours policy on the AFG war, don't agree with the further unification with Europe policies of Labour and don't agree with the immigration policies of Labour why exactly did they vote for them!? Whats left?

 

Even then, this opinion is sometimes led by msm opinion/misinformation. How much does the 'consensus' really understand about bank bailouts or the lisbon treaty beyond newspaper headlines, to be able to make an informed decision?

 

That's why the govt. are paid to do, it's why they pay advisers and researchers, to make informed decisions. or not. LOL. Unfortunately the govt. seem to be more swayed by 'special relationships' with foreign superpowers, industry vested interests and the opinion pieces of influential newspapers.

 

So the consensus/public don't understand the issues and therefore should leave it to the experts to decide what they should think? Personally I believe that the sooner we get rid of 'professional' politicians the better.

 

I don't like the idea at all that voters have to put up or shut up when there really isn't much of a meaningful choice in how to vote, or when to reappoint. Voters have to wait up to five years plus put up with a prime minister who'll delay going to the polls to the last possible moment.

 

All the GBP are programmed to do is vote in one of two main political party choices who can barely differentiate from each once they actually get in to power. It used to be the case that the differences were far more apparent, but the days of left-vs-right, nationalisation vs privatisation divides are long gone. Today it's all just slightly different shades of neo-liberalism.

 

Or voters can display total apathy and not vote, in which case those that do will vote in one of the two neoliberal options who will be hamstrung anyway by the previous administrations policies for the first four years of office atleast. some choice that is!!! Ha!

 

I agree that the two main parties are very close which is why the extreme parties are gaining votes, screaming facist/racist and threatening to ban these parties won't work, ban the BNP and people will vote UKIP. People do have a choice, its just a matter of how angry people get.

 

Remind me again why i can't blame the PM and the govt. for decisions they make ?

 

My original point was about historical acceptable norms, the laws of a country reflect its peoples beliefs to a major extent and they change as the people change. Its not really a political issue, more a judicial one.

Edited September 12, 2009 by IT_Guy

[torledo]

So if the GB public don't agree with Labours policy on the AFG war, don't agree with the further unification with Europe policies of Labour and don't agree with the immigration policies of Labour why exactly did they vote for them!? Whats left?

 

good question. I certainly didn't vote for these bunch of t****.

I think you'd struggle to pidgeon hole what labour's policies are. You'd think they were the party of relaxed immigration and that may or may not have been the case with certain types of immigration application during the late 90's early noughties, but then when you look at how they've reacted to some of the general hysteria about immigration you'd be forgiven for thinking they were actually acting more like a right-of-centre party in certain decisions they've made. Truly inexplicable bunch of administrators.

 

So the consensus/public don't understand the issues and therefore should leave it to the experts to decide what they should think? Personally I believe that the sooner we get rid of 'professional' politicians the better.

 

No. There should be better information about the issues being debated. I agree about professional politicians. But they are far from being experts that's why surround themselves with 'advisers' on policy areas.....and that's where you get the vested interests i spoke of. Who do you get to advise you on a banking crisis, an ex-banker or two perhaps ? To be fair many of the issues being debated are so complex in nature that it's hard to come to clear conclusions.

 

One issue where politicians, and indeed their advisors, betray a complete lack of understanding is in the area of the modern monetary system. And this lack of knowledge also exists within the MSM. That's why i say that they tend not to make informed decisions even though they are paid to do so.

And with something like the economy, if they are basing policy on misnoma's and outdated concepts then that effects us all profoundly.

[srochford]

So if the GB public don't agree with Labours policy on the AFG war, don't agree with the further unification with Europe policies of Labour and don't agree with the immigration policies of Labour why exactly did they vote for them!? Whats left?

 

 

Minimum wage?

Better pay for nurses?

Better pay for teachers?

New hospital buildings?

New school buildings?

More police on the streets?

 

Just a few of the big things that this government did - not sure if they're all a good idea. David Cameron obviously thinks most of them are a waste of money and will reverse them and I'm sure that there are plenty who agree with him.

[IT_Guy]

Minimum wage?

Better pay for nurses?

Better pay for teachers?

New hospital buildings?

New school buildings?

More police on the streets?

 

Just a few of the big things that this government did - not sure if they're all a good idea. David Cameron obviously thinks most of them are a waste of money and will reverse them and I'm sure that there are plenty who agree with him.

 

Ah, spend, spend, spend, of course. I suspect it will soon be payback time.

 

 

In the words of Margaret Thatcher; The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples money.

[PiqueABoo]

Whats left?

 

What's been delightfully described as the "incontinent expansion of the state's reach" i.e. all the Orwellian nanny state stuff, but that generally annoys lots of people too.