In 1952 Turing was prosecuted under the gross indecency act after admitting to a sexual relationship with a man. Two years later he killed himself.

The petition was the idea of computer scientist John Graham-Cumming.

He is seeking an apology for the way the young mathematician was treated after his conviction. He has also written to the Queen to ask for a posthumous knighthood to be awarded to the British mathematician.

Alan Turing was given experimental chemical castration as a "treatment" and his security privileges were removed, meaning he could not continue work for the UK Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).

Not sure what the point is:
A) because he's long dead
B) because at that point in history, that sort of thing was considered wrong. We can't use modern standards to judge people from a different era.

We can't use modern standards to judge people from a different era.

So slavery was OK then?

I don't agree with the posthumous knighthood, but I'd definitely go for having the conviction quashed.

Are you then going to posthumously pardon Gary Glitter?

Turing

Cumming.

If, in your hypothetical society a century hence, it's no longer an issue for people, why not?
That nicely illustrates the difference between morals of the time - in Turing's day, it was a criminal offence to be gay. Which I'd hope, today, we'd be amazed at the notion.

There's movements to get women who suffered due to accusations of witchcraft to be pardoned - at the time, much of what they were accused of was abhorrent by the standards of the time, and frequently fantastical.

Anyway, yes, a pardon should be forthcoming, as it made as much sense as accusing him of being unreasonably ginger and left handed.

Someone's sexuality should never be a criminal offence.

No, but rape should be. Turing wasn't persecuted for his sexuality; he was prosecuted for indecent acts.

There is a difference between Gary Glitter having some porn, and what he did after his life was pretty much destroyed and he actually went and (allegedly) acted it out.

I do not agree with prosecuting "thought crime", but actually breaking the law with physical deeds is wrong - no matter how stupid the law might be. There are many laws I don't agree with, but I accept the fact that by living in this country I have to abide by them.

If a law is wrong, you protest it. You don't just ignore it.

That said, this is a fantastic example of just how obscenely wrong the law often is. Clearly, the law makers should be vilified and made to account for their sins - but it doesn't work that way.

And of course rape should be illegal, who said otherwise? Sexual acts between consenting adults should never be illegal.

You need to carefully define three things there:

1. Consent
2. Sexual acts
3. Adults

These have not been constants throughout history, or indeed throughout the world. I'm sure you have a very clear idea of what they mean, but other people may not agree. Are they wrong, or are you?

I think the current limits/definitions given to each by English law are fine TBH.

And yet they're different to those in practically every other country, including America, Germany, Spain, India...

They're also different to those in England 50 years ago.