[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...?