[Closed] Disabled Children Outburst Shocker (no Tory content)

He seems like a nice chap

I know Godwin's Law and all that, but maybe the Hitler had just come 'from a council meeting where we had been talking about budget cuts and staff cuts'

seems like a legitimate reason to be contemplating culling vulnerable folk to me..

I've said similar about children, trying to get rid of pestilent chuggers. I'm also known to mention that various sections of society "should be taken out and shot". I don't ACTUALLY mean they should be taken out and shot, and I take it as read that anyone with an IQ anything above 'carrot' would know that.

Eugenics is already happening; advances in medical science mean that people can be informed about possible disabilities their unborn child may have, and make decisions about it's survival at that early stage. It would be interesting to see figures of how many foetuses with say Downs Syndrom are aborted/the number of children born with Downs, and compare it with data from 20 years ago.

Would a family with limited economic means be doing the right thing to abort such a foetus? Seeing as how that child's birth and subsequent need for care would undoubtedly place a much greater strain on their own and society's resources?

*For the record I'm not advocating any particular course of action or viewpoint, merely putting the subject up for discussion.

Hmm yes but it is monumentally insensitive and offensive, isn't it? Especially from someone in public office?

merely putting the subject up for discussion

[img] https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTG6cPWK-IRbdWmotIZB_33xvu13GP2_n0wCnYwOLzGGgeFVm7b [/img]

Euthenise the politicians!

Eugenics is already happening; advances in medical science mean that people can be informed about possible disabilities their unborn child may have, and make decisions about it's survival at that early stage. It would be interesting to see figures of how many foetuses with say Downs Syndrom are aborted/the number of children born with Downs, and compare it with data from 20 years ago.

I think there’s a world of difference between parents choosing to abort a foetus before its viable because they feel they couldn’t cope with its disability, and a councillor declaring that [i]disabled children in general[/i] should be ‘put down’ due to how much they cost the state...

Hmm yes but it is monumentally insensitive and offensive, isn't it? Especially from someone in public office?

He's fully entitled to his own views, even if they aren't the same as others'. To suggest that children who are loved by their families should be killed to save money is, as you say, monumentally insensitive and offensive, yes. In my opinion anyway.

Can of worms? Of course. Should that stop us discussing the issue? Of course not.

I think there’s a world of difference between parents choosing to abort a foetus before its viable because they feel they couldn’t cope with its disability, and a councillor declaring that disabled children in general should be ‘put down’ due to how much they cost the state...

This is entirely dependent on your own cultural/religious/ethical stance though. Many feel that abortion is as fundamentally wrong as 'euthanising' an independently living person.

He even quotes Hitler!

"I am very sorry."

Bastard!

I don't ACTUALLY mean they should be taken out and shot, and I take it as read that anyone with an IQ anything above 'carrot' would know that.

I wouldn't have thought that it's appropriate for an elected official to have those views though, or to be passing such views off to the public, however flippantly.. some bitter misanthropic loony in the bus station perhaps, but not the fella that's been entrusted to make decisions on behalf of his community..?

surely anyone with an IQ higher than 'aborted foetus' can see that..?

Put him in a room for 5 minutes with my (disabled) wife and see if he changes his mind?

God help Glenn Hoddle if she ever meets him too. Remember his comments about "being punished for acts in a previous life" years ago. If he appears on TV it still causes swear words to be shouted at it!

Aren't the local council elections in May? I suspect his comments may be coming back to haunt him round about then. In a pretty career changing way

he defo shouldn't resign.
he should be sacked or removed from public office.
and i love the "i've done nothing wrong" but i've apoligised lie.
what have you apologised for then?

I find his comments particularly poor for someone
1) In public to make such a comment.
2) Someone who is supposed to represent the public. Exactly who is purporting to represent? Im not aware of any elected Nazi Party representatives in the UK.

No doubt it's an incredibly insensitive thing to say even if taken out of context, however he's a publicly elected official and since he's been one for 26 years has presumably done and will continue to do a good job.

Rather than the usual sensationalist call for resignation or sacking, why not just let the public decide if they still want him in office? If the elections are in May then he'll find out soon enough what everyone thinks of him.

Personally I find it hard to believe there was any malice in the comment and would rather give him the benefit of the doubt and label him a bumbling idiot.

I don't recall anyone calling for Prince Phillips resignation or sacking every time he puts his foot in it!

Mad Pierre - Member

Put him in a room for 5 minutes with my (disabled) wife and see if he changes his mind?

Put him in a room with my 6 year old would have the same effect too. 😉

This is an offence and he should be processed exactly the same as everyone else. That he is supposed to be a pillar of the community, and one could argue someone who should besetting an example, only serves to compound this:

The offence is section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:
(a) [b]uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour[/b], or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
[b]within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.[/b]

If I had made such a comment I would at the least be required to resign, but more likely would be sacked and made example of in the courts and receive a short custodial sentence.

"I said they should be put down. I was just hot under the collar, I suppose, coming from a council meeting where we had been talking about budget cuts and staff cuts."

So rather than sort out the notoriously appalling and inefficient way local councils run their budget, he suggests culling vulnerable children? I despair, I truly do.

Eugenics is already happening; advances in medical science mean that people can be informed about possible disabilities their unborn child may have, and make decisions about it's survival at that early stage. It would be interesting to see figures of how many foetuses with say Downs Syndrom are aborted/the number of children born with Downs, and compare it with data from 20 years ago.

Would a family with limited economic means be doing the right thing to abort such a foetus? Seeing as how that child's birth and subsequent need for care would undoubtedly place a much greater strain on their own and society's resources?

*For the record I'm not advocating any particular course of action or viewpoint, merely putting the subject up for discussion.

There's a huge moral difference between abortion and killing someone with the capacity to think - even if that capacity is limited.

This is entirely dependent on your own cultural/religious/ethical stance though. Many feel that abortion is as fundamentally wrong as 'euthanising' an independently living person.

And that would be a scientifically unsound stance to have.

I bet he secretly wants to be a Tory

I bet if you counted all the foetuses aborted on medical grounds they would be outnumbered by children born with problems due to parental ignorance or selfishness - and by that I mean children born with foetal alcohol syndrome and problems due to poor maternal health from drug use etc.

The world will never be free if disability - accidents, genetics, mental health issues etc will always see to that

There's a huge moral difference between abortion and killing someone with the capacity to think - even if that capacity is limited.

Again:

This is entirely dependent on your own cultural/religious/ethical stance though. Many feel that abortion is as fundamentally wrong as 'euthanising' an independently living person.

And that would be a scientifically unsound stance to have.

We're not talking aobut 'science'. We're talking about [i]ethics[/i]. Which comes down to your own particular point of view.

This is an offence and he should be processed exactly the same as everyone else. That he is supposed to be a pillar of the community, and one could argue someone who should besetting an example, only serves to compound this:

The offence is section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

I think you'd have to prove 'intent'. Otherwise it's simply someone exercising their right to freedom of speech. Very complex. And his position has no relevance in this instance (if he were head of children's services etc then it might be).

For the record: I don't agree with the man. I personally find his views abhorrent. But I still believe he should have the right to express them, same as I have the right and freedom to express mine.

What does being a Tory have do with this story, need to make sure my prejudices are being guided properly.

But I still believe he should have the right to express them, same as I have the right and freedom to express mine.

I take it you don't approve of the concept of hate crimes then, which is strange coming from someone who claims to be Jewish.

In the UK you don't have the right to express the opinion that certain individuals or sections of society should be killed.

I think there’s a world of difference between parents choosing to abort a foetus before its viable because they feel they couldn’t cope with its disability, and a councillor declaring that disabled children in general should be ‘put down’ due to how much they cost the state...

This is entirely dependent on your own cultural/religious/ethical stance though. Many feel that abortion is as fundamentally wrong as 'euthanising' an independently living person.

Regardless of your personal stance, the distinction is that one approach is legal, the other isn't.

I do like the "I haven't done anything wrong but I've apologised" thing that seems popular these days. Sorry for nothin'.

Love his terminology, "put down" FFS.

I think you'd have to prove 'intent'. Otherwise it's simply someone exercising their right to freedom of speech. Very complex. And his position has no relevance in this instance (if he were head of children's services etc then it might be).

Not really no; there doesn't even need to be someone who [i]is or was[/i] insulted etc. the prosecution just have to establish there was [i]a[/i] person present who is [i]likely[/i] to be. Clearly, the fact it has been reported in this manner suggests there was.

The following statutory defences apply:

(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.
(b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
(c) The conduct was reasonable.

I can't see how any of these apply, and in my experience neither would a magistrate.

I can understand the sort of pompous debate going on when an intelligent person might use the words (in a heavily ironic way) "all right, let's put them down then" as a comment on the ridiculous direction the debate was going.

In which case it's reasonable to apologise but still maintain your position.

Very complex.

No it isn't.

And his position has no relevance in this instance (if he were head of children's services etc then it might be).

Of course it's relevant:

Collin Brewer, an independent Cornwall councillor, [b]made the remarks at an equalities event at County Hall.[/b]

He had been [b]talking to Theresa Court, who works for disabled people's organisation Disability Cornwall[/b], in October 2011.

The only reason for his presence would've been his position. That his comments were to a disabled organisation worker suggests an arrogance and level of (poor) judgement that it is easy to assume that his comments were [i]intended[/i] to cause upset.

I take it you don't approve of the concept of hate crimes then, which is strange coming from someone who claims to be Jewish.

What do you mean I 'claim to be Jewish'; I [i]am[/i] Jewish. What's that got to do with anything anyway? Why mention that at all?

In the UK you don't have the right to express the opinion that certain individuals or sections of society should be killed.

You have the right to express whatever views you want. You also have a legal obligation to ensure you don't offend anyone. The two may be incompatible.

No it isn't.

Yes it is. The right to freedom of speech is a very complex issue. Although I think some people misunderstand me; I am not advocating his views, merely stating that some people and cultures would view abortion as equivalent to murder of an independent living person.

Not really no; there doesn't even need to be someone who is or was insulted etc. the prosecution just have to establish there was a person present who is likely to be. Clearly, the fact it has been reported in this manner suggests there was.

The following statutory defences apply:

(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.
(b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
(c) The conduct was reasonable.

I can't see how any of these apply, and in my experience neither would a magistrate.

You may well be right on that matter, although none of us truly know the context in which the remarks were made, although the man's own stetement that:

I was just hot under the collar, I suppose, coming from a council meeting where we had been talking about budget cuts and staff cuts

Suggest he may not actually truly believe in such abhorrent action.

Sometimes people can just catch you on the wrong day.
"It's not a good enough excuse, I will forever be apologising for it. I can't apologise enough. It's not something that's in my nature, I always support disabled charities.
"I am very sorry."

I'm not entirely convinced he is actually an advocate of eugenics. I am convinced he's a prick, however.

Enough already. I should have gone home hours ago. 😡

He was just talking bollocks, he knows it, we know it

What do you mean I 'claim to be Jewish'; I am Jewish. What's that got to do with anything anyway? Why mention that at all?

What do I mean by saying that you claim to be Jewish ? Well exactly that - that you claim to be Jewish. Which bit don't you understand ? And why did I mention it ? Well I think it's pretty obvious why I mentioned it in relation to hate crime. Try to work it out for yourself 💡

You have the right to express whatever views you want.

No you don't. You don't have the right to express the view that certain sections of society should be put to death. You might believe that right should be allowed, but it isn't.

.

EDIT

Suggest he may not actually truly believe in such abhorrent action.

Well make your mind up ffs. You very clearly suggested that it was what he believed and you defended his right to express those views, quote :

[i]"For the record: I don't agree with the man. I personally find his views abhorrent. But I still believe he should have the right to express them, same as I have the right and freedom to express mine."[/i]

Are you defending him because he has the right to express those views, or are you defending him because he doesn't actually "truly believe" what he said.

The joy of freedom of speech is that it generally hands idiots enough rope.....

I do like the "I haven't done anything wrong but I've apologised" thing that seems popular these days.

"I'm sorry you were offended"

The joy of freedom of speech is that it generally hands idiots enough rope.....

It's not "freedom of speech" binners. From last year :

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/20/three-muslims-convicted-gay-hate-leaflets ]Three Muslim men convicted over gay hate leaflets[/url]

[i]"Jury rules that men who handed out leaflets calling for gay people to be killed breached hate crime legislation"[/i]

They had said :

[i]"The death sentence is the only way this immoral crime can be erased from corrupting society and act as a deterrent for any other ill person who is remotely inclined in this bent way"[/i]

I'm also known to mention that various sections of society "should be taken out and shot". I don't ACTUALLY mean they should be taken out and shot, and I take it as read that anyone with an IQ anything above 'carrot' would know that

You have the right to express whatever views you want. You also have a legal obligation to ensure you don't offend anyone. The two may be incompatible.

I think it is unlikely that in the cold light of day he meant this but i would worry and for ever question the judgement of someoen who gets wound up and then says at an equalities oevent to a person who works with people with disabilities that they should all be killed as it is cheaper. What he does [ or any of]when "stressed" would seem to give insight into his charachter.
I may get angry and cross but i dont become a hate fueled moron and to do at an equalities meeting to this person is head in hands stupid and a sackable offence for any other council employee

We're not talking aobut 'science'. We're talking about ethics. Which comes down to your own particular point of view.

Any ethical stance should be answerable to the question, why? If you can't link your ethical stance in with a scientific rationale then to me, it's utterly devoid of any legitimacy.

There are a few lines where abortion can be drawn with a scientific basis -

1) Before the fetus can feel pain

2) or before it is a person in terms of it's self-awareness which actually put's the age at about 1 years old (I seem to remember).

We can cross the second one out because just about any form of euthanasia has the ability to cause pain - and we can also cross it out from a utilitarian + possibly a public health perspective (mental health and happiness of society....unforeseen consequences to people's psyche living in a society that euthanizes babies....it's a lot easier for medics to stomach abortions without suffering from dehumanization than it is with euthanasia.....the throwaway attitude it would foster towards children as being sub-human..... etc etc etc...there's probably all sorts of public health issues you could use to argue against it)

On the other hand the idea that a foetus at the age of conception has as much right to life as a human has no basis in science what so ever. Can it feel pain? No. Can it think? No. It's only a POTENTIAL human - much like my sperm is a potential human. So am I committing mass genocide by ****ing into a sock?

The idea that life is somehow special at the age of conception has no basis in the material world, it's purely a stance grounded in 'belief'. Which has no place in the 21st century - when someone makes a claim they need to back it up with supporting evidence, even religion.

We're not talking aobut 'science'. We're talking about ethics. Which comes down to your own particular point of view.

In that case, I wonder why science has to satisfy ethics panels when you submit a research proposal.

It is ethics that underpin the aims of research; knowledge, truth, and avoidance of error. Ethics prohibit fabrication, or misrepresenting results.

Ethics promote the values that are essential to collaboration; trust, accountability, respect, and fairness. For example, data sharing policies, and confidentiality.

I think you're wrong - ethics are fairly removed from "your own particular point of view". They're actually grounded in the Mores of society - what we [i]all[/i], or what consensus demonstrates that which is acceptable. I think you're talking about opinion - we all have them but it doesn't make them right. Some opinions should be kept inside the heads of their owners; like those of Colin Brewer.

If ethics came down to one's particular view point then they would have no value what so ever. With out a rational basis what some describe as their ethics is purely superstition or prejudice .

mt - Member
What does being a Tory have do with this story, need to make sure my prejudices are being guided properly.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-21612089 ]Seems he has resigned, but now the poor precious is having trouble sleeping...[/url]

Can't believe he is now garnering sympathy. What a tosser.

Is it possible to launch a private prosecution against him? It's time that these hatemongers learned that their outbursts have consequences.

I'm not eating. I think it will live with me. It's continual regret. I'm hoping I will cope with it. We will see.

Maybe he should be put out of his misery...?

Konabunny

Thought he was an "independent" councilor.

It is ethics that underpin the aims of research; knowledge, truth, and avoidance of error. Ethics prohibit fabrication, or misrepresenting results.

Which is why it's not wise to apply purely scientific principles to such matters. Much done in the name of 'Science' is unethical; nuclear weapons anyone?

I think you're wrong - ethics are fairly removed from "your own particular point of view". They're actually grounded in the Mores of society - what we all, or what consensus demonstrates that which is acceptable.

Ok, but a consensus is arrived at through agreement on what particular individual philosophies are preferred by a group. It is the consensus in Catholicism that abortion is wrong. Hence why it is illegal in many Catholic countries. People there beleive that abortion is [i]ethically[/i] wrong.

Any ethical stance should be answerable to the question, why?

Ah, the one question Science has always failed to answer. Hence society's need for things like religion and philosophy. Which have their place in the context of social organisation, whether you agree with them or not.

Bwaarp; I find your comments very interesting, although I don't agree with all of them, and find contradictions in certain things you say.

On the other hand the idea that a foetus at the age of conception has as much right to life as a human has no basis in science what so ever. Can it feel pain? No. Can it think? No. It's only a POTENTIAL human

How do you know a foetus cannot feel any pain? And a foetus is a collection of unique cells, whereas your sperm are single-celled organisms. So it's an unfair comparison.

The idea that life is somehow special at the age of conception has no basis in the material world, it's purely a stance grounded in 'belief'. Which has no place in the 21st century - when someone makes a claim they need to back it up with supporting evidence, even religion.

Now consider genetic engineering, and the philosophy of eugenics. then have a read of Brave New World.

Very interesting perspective though; thanks for posting. Lots to think about.

If a purely scientific rationale is to be followed, then surely the removal of those with defective genes from the potential gene pool is preferable, no? In a world with diminishing resources, and the need to think more carefully about potential future inhabitants of this planet, then wouldn't such views be more in line with pure scientific thinking?

Just playing devil's advocate by the way; I don't subscribe to any theories of biological determinism, eugenics, am 'pro-choice' when it comes to abortion (and voluntary euthanasia), and find the idea that loved family members could be exterminated simply because they have little or no social, practical or economic value, utterly morally reprehensible.

What do I mean by saying that you claim to be Jewish ? Well exactly that - that you claim to be Jewish. Which bit don't you understand ? And why did I mention it ? Well I think it's pretty obvious why I mentioned it in relation to hate crime. Try to work it out for yourself

You're obviously looking for an argument I can't be bothered participating in. I know what you are suggesting' that as a Jew, I should be profoundly aware of the wave of hate crime that swept through Europe in the middle of the last century, and the holocaust suffered by tens of millions of innocent people. rest assured, I am. Being Jewish doesn't somehow make me any more responsible to be aware of such atrocities than anyone else though. Work that out.

You have the right to express whatever views you want.
No you don't. You don't have the right to express the view that certain sections of society should be put to death. You might believe that right should be allowed, but it isn't.

Homosexuality isn't allowed in some countries. Does that mean people there don't have the right to be gay? Just because something is illegal, doesn't necessarily mean you don't have the [i]right[/i] to do it. And when it comes to freedom of speech, it has to mean exactly that, [i]freedom[/i]. To say whatever you like.

As I also said:

[i]"You have the right to express whatever views you want. You also have a legal obligation to ensure you don't offend anyone. The two may be incompatible."[/i]

Claiming you don't have the 'right' to say something simply because it's illegal, is dangerously close to the Thought Police of 1984. And for the moment at least, 2+2=4.

Are you defending him because he has the right to express those views, or are you defending him because he doesn't actually "truly believe" what he said.

I'm not defending him at all. Just defending the notion of Freedom of Speech.

he's just resigned.

Konabunny

Thought he was an "independent" councilor.

toppers3933 - Member

he's just resigned.

Seems his strokes made him do it!

Apparently so. Maybe we should all feel sorry for him. 🙄

We don't need euthanasia to reduce the state burden, but whoever came up with the idea of slipping contraceptives into spaghetti hoops needs a medal, and the sooner we implement it the better.

konabunny

So does that mean your prejudice meter is broken?

BBC Newsflash

"Someone says something nasty and we are upset because it's not a tory"

Since they seem to be getting it from the media at the moment, why not say he was a Liberal.

[i]whoever came up with the idea of slipping contraceptives into spaghetti hoops[/i]

"Mum! Why is my spaghetti hoop all chewy?"

"'cos they've started putting condoms in them. Durr!"

thx1138 - Member

You're obviously looking for an argument I can't be bothered participating in.

And you then carry on in your usual argumentative way.......was that suppose to be some sort of joke ?

Claiming you don't have the 'right' to say something simply because it's illegal, is dangerously close to the Thought Police of 1984. And for the moment at least, 2+2=4.

I don't really see this; people do have freedom speech, but with that freedom also comes adult responsibility. To spout offensive abusive insulting crap then claim freedom of speech is nonsense and lazy. People have a moral responsibility to think about [i]what[/i] they're saying, [i]where[/i] they saying it, to [i]whom[/i] they saying it, and the [i]effect[/i] this [i]could[/i] have on anyone likely to hear it.

This is common decency and intelligence.

Think about the defences to the Public order offence I mentioned above;

(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.
(b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
(c) The conduct was reasonable.

This wording isn't by accident; it confers upon people the responsibility to [i]think[/i] about what they're saying before it blurts out of their mouths. This bloke has displayed an inability to do this and it's right that he's gone from that position.

How do you know a foetus cannot feel any pain? And a foetus is a collection of unique cells, whereas your sperm are single-celled organisms. So it's an unfair comparison.

Neuroscience....it's getting pretty hardcore these days. We know exactly what you need to be able to feel and process pain - a foetus does not have the required cellular structure up until a certain age.

Why is it a unfair comparison? At a scientific level a fetus at a certain stage is a collection of cells and just that - with no more human characteristics than a sperm cell besides having a few extra chromosomes and multiple cells. The cells don't talk to each other in the way that a born child does, there is no mature nervous system - save for genetics it's barely any different than a chicken embryo.

If a purely scientific rationale is to be followed, then surely the removal of those with defective genes from the potential gene pool is preferable, no? In a world with diminishing resources, and the need to think more carefully about potential future inhabitants of this planet, then wouldn't such views be more in line with pure scientific thinking?

Yes but you don't have to go about that by euthanizing or sterilizing people do you? Would family genetic planning really be morally unethical if we took it to the next level where we started knocking out bad genes in sperm that are likely to cause significant developmental disorders? At the end of the day, you are not harming anyone.

Scientific research is relevant ethics to help eliminate inconsistent value sets (like the Vatican's ethical/previous ethical stance on contraception) and to help guide us to find new ethical ideals.

Interesting paper that I read the other day when browsing journals (although no totally relevant) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068523/

Mildred: you're using common decency, moral obligation, thoughtfulness, and the law as if they were interhangeable and as if the state should be responsible for enforcing/ensuring them all.

So does that mean your prejudice meter is broken?

Mildred: you're using common decency, moral obligation, thoughtfulness, and the law as if they were interhangeable and as if the state should be responsible for enforcing/ensuring them all.

Ha ha yes, I suppose I am...

Anyway, my greater motivation for involvement is that my son has recently been diagnosed with a congenital condition, which means both mummy & I must also be carriers of a genetic anomaly. He's a typical fun loving 'bonkers' 5 year old who, apart from being the same size of most 8-10 year old and having slight OCD tendencies, is no different to any other kid. He could, technically, be classesd as disabled but in my opinion that's his decision; to 'label' him disabled now would have massive ramifications in later life; he's convinced, even at this age, that he wants to be a soldier or catch baddies like daddy, but if we registered him disabled that's totally out the window.

Konabunny, I was trying to hard to be funny.
Interesting thread discussions this though. It never ceases to amaze me how some folks are willing to have law to silence the offensive, stupid, dangerous, inept and misguided people (sometimes its helpful to know who they are) Perhaps even the person having a bad day who says something out of character, should made a criminal. Tell me you have never regretted saying something really stupid for effect.
But who is going to protect us from those that are willing to abuse the law and silence those that speak out. Who decides what is offensive, you? The Police? A government with something to hide? An NHS Trust? A company that is dumping waste in Africa? A national broadcasting organisation? A political party wanting us to get into a war?
There is a battle going on now for press freedom, yes it's been abused but if those that really want to make the media accountable to the political classes win the day, we could see an end to many of the "right to know" things we take for granted. Anything that upsets any of the short list above will find a place to hide.

Remember those that offend by what they say are a small price to pay to have the freedom to say what we like when we feel its important (that freedom did not come cheap, look at your history). It also helps with identifying the idiots, general nutters, dangerous and those who may need to just calm down a bit and see the others point of view.

How would you spot a BNP person if they were not spouting offensive sh1t?
Hope I have not laboured my point there.

Hope I have not laboured my point there.

No I don't think you have, but the issue here was the full context in which he said this. This would include his position, the meeting he was at, his audience... And so on. My immediate thoughts were if I had said something similar I would be punished accordingly because in my position, just as it is in his position, it is unacceptable to be so offensive.

It's not just the implication of his comment, it is the language used. To "put down" is a phrase used for animals; basic rhetorical analysis gives rise to the question of whether his underlying thoughts are that disabled children are simply animals, devoid of personhood, which has the effect of also negating their protection under law. Now I'm the one labouring my point but like most politicians who are democratically elected, it is right and proper that he is answerable to the voting public, who he is meant to represent.

Perhaps even the person having a bad day who says something out of character, should made a criminal. Tell me you have never regretted saying something really stupid for effect.

Do you know the guy in question then ? Are you aware there are actually people who believe that certain disabled people are a burden on society and should have their lives ended ?

Here are a couple of comments posted on the Independent's website in response to this story :

Megan B • a day ago

In the wild, animals and birds kick out disabled young, they can tell almost at birth which ones will not survive as adults when they have to fend for themselves.

and

Mister Kev Megan B • a day ago

You're right, it's called 'natural selection' - unfortunately we now have the technology/bleeding hearts/pointless charities to keep pretty much anyone alive well past the point at which they're of any use to society as a whole, and natural selection goes by the board. IMHO this isn't a good thing at all.

And whilst your defence of the right of hate-mongers to express themselves is admirable, perhaps you could also spare a thought for their victims ? Because this is not a victimless crime - spouting hatred has consequences.

Gay people, for example, have a right to a peaceful and secure life free from hate, threats, and intimidation. So it was absolutely right that the three Muslims in the link which I posted earlier were prosecuted for calling for the death sentence for homosexuals, at the expense of denying them the right to freely express themselves.

Victims have rights too.

And in case you think there is no animosity shown towards disabled people and it isn't a problem :

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hate-crimes-against-disabled-people-soar-to-a-record-level-7858841.html ]Hate crimes against disabled people soar to a record level[/url]

Plus of course the parents of disabled children have the right to live free from accusations that their children are a burden on society and should be put down. Which, however much spin you put on it, is exactly what this councillor said.

Well said Ernie!

As part of any punishment if found guilty, anyone convicted of hate crime against the disabled should be forced to wear visual impairment spectacles or be confined to a wheelchair for a certain period. Though they can be reassured that at some point their 'disabilty' will end, they will get some first hand experience of what it is like to live and cope as one of the people they despise. I doubt if there would be much reoffending afterward.

Some really interesting views from Mildred and Bwaarp, thank you. I truly appreciate that you have made such fantastic input to this discussion. I am learning things and adapting my own position as a result, which I think is what such discussion should achieve; better that people come away a little bit more enlightened, than various egos strut and posture, which sadly happens far too often in discussions on here.

I don't really see this; people do have freedom speech, but with that freedom also comes adult responsibility. To spout offensive abusive insulting crap then claim freedom of speech is nonsense and lazy. People have a moral responsibility to think about what they're saying, where they saying it, to whom they saying it, and the effect this could have on anyone likely to hear it.

Of course, and I have stated as such. But MT makes a very good point:

Who decides what is offensive, you? The Police? A government with something to hide? An NHS Trust? A company that is dumping waste in Africa? A national broadcasting organisation? A political party wanting us to get into a war?

In this particular case, and idiot has said something stupid. And has now paid the price for his stupidity. A moment of idiocy, and now a lifetime to reflect on that one moment. Hopefully he'll now consider his actions, and seek to become a better person towards others in society. But the debate his actions has created must not be stifled; it's our duty as Humans to seek greater understanding, surely, and this cannot come about by censoring thoughts, views and opinions that don't necessarily coincide with the accepted consensus. The world was once flat...

Neuroscience....it's getting pretty hardcore these days. We know exactly what you need to be able to feel and process pain - a foetus does not have the required cellular structure up until a certain age.

Granted, and even 'pro-life' groups accept that foetuses of less than 20 weeks cannot feel pain. But this doesn't mean we shouldn't still consider matters; maybe scientists don't yet have the absolute definitive answer on this issue.

Yes but you don't have to go about that by euthanizing or sterilizing people do you? Would family genetic planning really be morally unethical if we took it to the next level where we started knocking out bad genes in sperm that are likely to cause significant developmental disorders?

But that is simply one school of thought. Others may argue that a foetus has a 'right' to life as soon as it is conceived, and that even those with certain 'defects' can still continue to play a valuable role in society. Stephen Hawking is one particular example; do you eliminate all foetuses with particular 'defects' as soon as they are detected? Do you prohibit those carrying 'defective' genes from procreating? Where do you draw the line? It's really not as simple as some seem to think.

At the end of the day, you are not harming anyone.

Maybe you are 'harming' future society by denying it that individual who may have something valuable to offer.

My wife has a severely mentally and physically disabled brother. It's very likely she is carrying that 'defective' gene. We don't have any children and aren't going to (probably more because we're selfish bastards than anything else really). This is our choice. But her brother is a happy contented soul who is loved and cherished the same as any relative. Would you deny her and her family the right to have that experience?