Film: The Imitation Game

Not sure what you are suggesting Val?
Are you saying that in his case the law should have looked the other way?

 

I'm saying I agree with longk.

 

Yes, given the amount of lives he saved.

 

His homosexuality wasn't relevant in what he achieved ... it's relevance is why too many people never got to hear about him and his achievements in the first place! (Aside from the fact his work was top secret at the time and for some time afterwards).
To have casually mentioned it would have been to have missed the whole point of who he was, what he achieved, how he was treated, why he was treated that way and the whole context of why you were amongst many who simply hadn't heard of him.

Think we're on dodgy ground with that whole concept: do you mean as happened with Jimmy Savile? Or, perhaps as with Cyril Smith (et al?)
Just as their predilections are abhorrent (and illegal) today, so too was homosexuality at that time.

 

EXACTLY!!!! Just the point I was trying to make.

 

@Val.. you've taken my comment out of context.
The whole point about his sexuality lie in the consequences. The film couldn't have been made without reference to it and, seeing as it was the burglary at his house (the opening scenes?) it was an essential component.
At that time, homosexuals (generally) were considered a security risk. For Turin this meant his security clearance was removed and so he couldn't continue with his work for GCHQ. His career ended in disgrace.
Consider the opposite: if he had been discovered as a homosexual prior to applying for his role at Bletchley ... suffice to say, the whole war could have turned out quite, quite differently!

 

As in a whole bunch of his former employers in government and the establishment were calling in such favours at the time to save their own sorry asses but not his.
Saville and Smith were protected because of what they knew.

 

Slightly off topic I know and I hope I'm not opening a can of worms here but I don't actually believe most of what Jimmy Saville is accused of. How easy is it to accuse somebody who cannot possibly defend themselves. Where is actual proof? why are these people who 'come forward' always believed!!!

 

Maybe that explains the difference: Turin admitted to being a homosexual whereas, in your observation those people wanted to hide/deny any wrong doings? He didn't try to save his own, nor ask anyone else to save his.

 

Suppose he were alive. Would he have to admit it before you believed it? What if he merely denied it, is that "proof" it didn't happen? What does "actual" proof mean to you @Val.. ?

 

I'm sort of with you - I don't believe all of them. At the last that I heard it was over 400 had come forward. Now I find it impossible to believe that they all kept quiet, were bought off or got brushed off by the authorities. I think that he was a wrong 'un but I also think that there are some who are out to take a cut of any damages (opportunists).

I think that he more or less admitted it to Louise Theroux when he said that his name would be mud after he died.

 

The man was a complete pervert,everybody knew but dare not say......he believed he was invincible and until after he died HE WAS.

 

Obviously if he admitted it then that is that, but there would be a trial and his accusers would give evidence?? and folk could make up their own minds, but to be 'tried' and found guilty posthumously seems ludicrous to me. I guess I just don't 'get it' but then I am kind of suspicious of most of these historic abuse charges, I don't understand why they are coming forward now, what they actually hope to achieve by coming forward and why in the most part they are believed.