For me Grishka, it was the bit where he said he shouldn't be pardoned. He then waffled on about Turing's love life for good measure.

Pedantic wriggling. Don't join in, it makes you look as stupid as Keith. I for one agree that you shouldn't make legal decisions based on subsequent law and decency, but Hastings was purely doing what he was paid to do as the hack he professionally is, sensationalise to sell copy. His reasonable conclusion is buried, whereas the sensationalism is top billing. He knew damned well he was teasing with controversy, and I for one was repulsed by his paymaster's awful stunt.

Hence my questioning his objectivity.

Churchill's attempts to intervene make the case alone worthy of Question. Chiefly on the grounds that his consent to medical intervention was not of his own free will, as it was coercion. This was, and still is an offence in itself. The test case being Quentin Crisp, who won and wasn't assaulted. Turing and many others deserved their pardons then, let alone the disgraceful way we treated a national hero. The reason for pardon, if you look at the submission by The Ministry for Justice, is based on the clinical assault where consent wasn't freely given, which makes it pardonable under the laws of the time. Hastings wrongly makes the case of retrospective justice being the driver. Not so in the case of chemical castration as punishment. This is why, despite some offenders actually requesting it, we don't castrate paedophiles where they are diagnosed as personality disorder. It might "cure" the urge, but is legally unsafe under, at present, The Health Act 2006 and The Health and Social Care Act 2008.

If the wars were about freedom over tyranny, the stain that was inequality up till very recently make a bit of a mockery of the claim. Just a more benign tyranny, that's all.