In the News Freedom of Speech

[slim63]

TBH, I don't think he had any say in it at all, however virtuous he thinks he is?
He has no experience or similarity regarding rearing a child with down syndrome (or at least he hasn't mentioned it.)
This women obviously has the experience and has (i think) taken his remarks as a personal jibe possibly reflecting on her own choices in life?
His remark 'appalling change in their lives' is a very old fashioned view, considering the advances and development within the special needs fraturnity.
I would waver he has pissed off a few professional peeps 'Mencap' for a start with his carefree and uneducated remarks.
Just saying loike.

Absolutely fair comment mate

But the bloke is 85, bought up in a different era with different attitudes and used to abiding by different rules, to be honest why should he change any more than you or i will in the next 20 years (if we last that long) ?

I cant see that he has broken any laws and was polite in getting his opinion over throughout the only reason I can see for arrest an harassment is some silly bitch not being able to either argue her point with any degree of common sense or not being able to ignore the old duffer and move on ........... bet she posted it all over (un) social media and got a load of "oh thats terrible hun" remarks before calling plod, boils my piss to be honest

 

[Pow-Lo]

I am reminded of a couple of years back there was a works night out, towards the end of the night one of the female Officers said to a Senior Officer “see you tomorrow” he replied “yeah, look forward to it” one of the other females said “you never say that to me” he replied “because I don’t like you” the next day at work she reported him, luckily the management told her to grow up.

Do either of them have big tits?

 

[JayTee]

Do either of them have big tits?

Breasty dumplingist!

 

[Pow-Lo]

TBH, I don't think he had any say in it at all, however virtuous he thinks he is?
He has no experience or similarity regarding rearing a child with down syndrome (or at least he hasn't mentioned it.)
This women obviously has the experience and has (i think) taken his remarks as a personal jibe possibly reflecting on her own choices in life?
His remark 'appalling change in their lives' is a very old fashioned view, considering the advances and development within the special needs fraturnity.
I would waver he has pissed off a few professional peeps 'Mencap' for a start with his carefree and uneducated remarks.
Just saying loike.

You’re being a bit selective in your observations. Whilst he did indeed comment “…appalling change in their lives” he qualified such statement in the subsequent sentence “Indeed, they might well believe they could end up being very inadequate parents in this situation.”

With respect, your interpretation of his letter has been as blinkered as the myopic, entitled little twat that went bleating to the police.
Just saying loike.

 

[ogr1]

So he's not allowed an opinion...? Since when...? She expressed hers freely enough.

If we (wife and I) knew in good time that we were going to have a Down's Syndrome child then we would have aborted it.
Our personal opinion (if we're allowed) is that we don't see the point in raising a Down's Syndrome child, given the choice.

Some folk will see that as selfish and harsh. I really couldn't give a f*ck what they think. Personal choice and personal opinion.

He is entitled to his opinion but, it was on based on what exactly? High moral standards.
All that tells me is that if he was in that position with his wife/partner, then he would have aborted the birth.
Even based on that, he would not have had the last say on it..That decision would inevitably been the sole decision of his partner.
Or in extreme cases the courts would decide.
Can you be certain that if in the same position, you and the Mrs would both agree to an abortion?
In reality it is not so simple. I can totally understand why she is defending the choice she made.

 

[ogr1]

You’re being a bit selective in your observations. Whilst he did indeed comment “…appalling change in their lives” he qualified such statement in the subsequent sentence “Indeed, they might well believe they could end up being very inadequate parents in this situation.”

With respect, your interpretation of his letter has been as blinkered as the myopic, entitled little twat that went bleating to the police.
Just saying loike.

With respect...Utter bollox.
None of us have (that i am aware?) had to make the decision to terminate a down syndrome child.
He had a very selective opinion, probably based on his age and upbringing. This would have been a very taboo subject 85 years ago.
“…appalling change in their lives” “Indeed, they might well believe they could end up being very inadequate parents in this situation.”
Just sheer ignorance.
If his kids or grand kids (if he has any?) had a down syndrome child, then i think he would regret his remarks.

 

[slim63]

With respect...Utter bollox.
None of us have (that i am aware?) had to make the decision to terminate a down syndrome child.
He had a very selective opinion, probably based on his age and upbringing. This would have been a very taboo subject 85 years ago.
“…appalling change in their lives” “Indeed, they might well believe they could end up being very inadequate parents in this situation.”
Just sheer ignorance.
If his kids or grand kids (if he has any?) had a down syndrome child, then i think he would regret his remarks.

Mate, I respect your opinion and believe in your right to hold it but the bloke in question should have the same right to an opinion whether you or I like it or not.
And that is what the problem a lot of us here have with this is he simply was not allowed that free speech.

As you already know I bought my kids up alone and am doing the same for my granddaughter (with a lot of help) It isn't easy trust me on that.
What you may not know is I once did a lot of voluntary work with downs syndrome kids and others with disabilities, the downs kids were by and large really lovely people but by hell they could be hard work at times without meaning to be and it does wear you down, I think this is what the old boy was trying to get across in his letter, if he had voiced that opinion to you me or his friends then there wouldn't be a problem we would agree or not and that would be the end of it, in this case he was a tad silly for whatever reason

So personally I think if you have kids its up to you to bring them up in the best way you can, but put in the position of this woman at my age today honestly do not know what I would decide was for the best, certainly some old duffer spouting off wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference to my decision and I wouldn't go crying to plod or the media about it, but once again its trial by media and the silly old sod is about to get shafted

 

[Cougar377]

The issue here is not Down's Syndrome, regardless of how emotive a subject it may be. It's the fact that one person has expressed an opinion and decided to share it with the world, another has expressed their opinion in reply and only directly with the other person and it ended up with one party being reported to the police, with the result that they now have a police record.

That is wrong.

Neither party broke any laws, all they did was express a personal opinion and now an elderly man has a police record for the rest of his life.

How is that even possible..?

 

[Me!]

OH FFS. Since when has writing a perfectly reasonable, politely worded letter been offensive...? Old fashioned maybe, but hardly offensive....other than the fact that having a opposing opinion is offensive to some in this world.

She was happy to gob off because SHE was offended and he replied in a civilised manner. Most NORMAL people would have either ignored it or replied in kind.
But no....she had to go bleating to the police.

Could I just ask what pronoun you like to be referred by?

 

[ogr1]

He made a silly mistake by seeking out this women by letter and has drawn a
reaction that he is unable to defend.
The police have cautioned him not for
his comments, but for showing prejudice
against a disabled body of people.
He has egged himself and should have
kept his mouth shut.

 

[derek kelly]

Wtf is the problem? I despair, the guy is not expressing his opinion on whether or not to terminate a Downs syndrome foetus or a foetus with downs syndrome (does it really matter how it is worded?) he is simply putting across that there are two choices & nobody should judge either.
If a woman gets pregnant through rape should she have an abortion? There is no argument about her life being drastically changed, of course it will, if she keeps the child then every time the child misbehaves she will wonder if he/she is going to be a wrong un, she will have the knowledge that her rapist could be part of her & child’s life (Sheffield grooming gang as example)
Basically the guy is telling her that there is more than one opinion on the subject he is not saying her opinion is wrong.

 

[andyBeaker]

OH FFS. Since when has writing a perfectly reasonable, politely worded letter been offensive...? Old fashioned maybe, but hardly offensive....other than the fact that having a opposing opinion is offensive to some in this world.

She was happy to gob off because SHE was offended and he replied in a civilised manner. Most NORMAL people would have either ignored it or replied in kind.
But no....she had to go bleating to the police.

You miss the point I make entirely - buried in the article is the fact that he tracked her down and wrote to her at her home address. I can understand why the lady might find that as a minimum unsettling. Note that the article says he has agreed not to contact her again.

None of us know the ins and outs of exactly what has happened and I for one do not find it a massive leap of faith that the Daily Mail would sensationalise the story.

I do have some sympathy for the gentleman as the outcome to me doesn’t align with his actions which appear to be naive rather than deliberately offensive. I think it is another example of how different generations see things differently.

 

[Pow-Lo]

With respect...Utter bollox.
None of us have (that i am aware?) had to make the decision to terminate a down syndrome child.
He had a very selective opinion, probably based on his age and upbringing. This would have been a very taboo subject 85 years ago.
“…appalling change in their lives” “Indeed, they might well believe they could end up being very inadequate parents in this situation.”
Just sheer ignorance.
If his kids or grand kids (if he has any?) had a down syndrome child, then i think he would regret his remarks.

Not much I can add to what Tony posted after your comment. However, what I will say is that his comment is not sheer ignorance, far from it. Assuming I've interpreted what he meant by "...very inadequate parents in this situation” correctly, me, personally, speaking for myself and only for myself, would most likely be quite inadequate as the parent of a Downs syndrome kid. I interpret what he's said as a lot of people thinking 'Downs syndrome? Fuck that, I couldn't deal with it' and he's probably right. I would imagine it takes a special sort of parent to be able to cope with a kid with any form of disability and I am a pimple on the arse of such talent.

If any of his family had a Downs kid, I find little in his remarks to regret when taking the letter as a whole and not a selective sentence here and there to suit a particular argument.

 

[Pow-Lo]

What you may not know is I once did a lot of voluntary work with downs syndrome kids and others with disabilities,

Respect!

 

[Pow-Lo]

I note with interest that Ms. Mewes has suddenly disappeared from Twatter.

I would guess that likelihood is that she's been carpet-bombed with abuse for grassing the old fella up to the police. Whilst such behaviour cannot be condoned, it's hardly surprising.

As Beaks has mentioned above, it seems that Mr. Kedge crossed the line when he tracked her down and wrote to her at her home address. That cannot be condoned either but the question at the forefront of my mind is why did he do that? Having been a teacher for so many years, it's reasonable to assume that he's had significant experience in dealing with idiots and no doubt learned to flip them off without getting himself bent out of shape. Therefore, what did Ms. Mewes do to provoke him into crossing that line?

On face value (and that's all we have here; we don't have the full picture), it seems to me that Ms. Mewes is a bully. Not just any bully but the worst kind, the one that always plays the victim no matter what shit she starts.

 

[Squag1]

Was her address not at the bottom of the letter in the newspaper??

 

[Duck n Dive]

Sensitive subject this!!

I feel AB is sort of right in that it seems to be a mix of the manner in which this chap followed up plus (to a lesser degree) the sensitivity of the subject matter.

I guess some of what is happening is a product or the modern ability to comment or espouse viewpoints and try to exert influence without taking responsibility.

This is perhaps encouraged by the apparent anonymity provided by the internet. Of course that is not true as the internet does not in reality provide any anonymity if those looking for you are either the authorities or have deep pockets.


In years gone by the method of passing public comment which could be seen by many was the "letter to the Times". These were signed with a name and some degree of acceptable control exercised by the publication. In many cases it was actually probably easy to identify the writer. The Rev Arbuthnot from The Vicarage, Little Snodbury wasn't exactly anonymous. Certainly letters to local papers were more likely to lead to identification.

Anyone using that method to influence really can't complain if they get a reply by the same method.



These days anyone can call themselves anything and pass comment on line in an attempt to influence others or create an outcome they would like.



I wonder how anyone on here would feel if a forumite (now there's a modern word that meant nothing forty years ago!) sent a letter to their home address rather than commenting on a thread. If Derek suddenly found his postman overwhelmed with sacks of letters advising him on available car choices. Would he value the contribution or worry perhaps that some who advised him his choice of vehicle indicated being in league with the devil, so deserving of eternal damnation and might attempt to help that on its way?



In the case of this women it seems she was so concerned that apparently she moved house.



This chap wrote directly and does not appear to have tried to hide who he was or his address. In that sense I guess he was being open and honest, but why not simply and only reply in the form of the original comment? It would still be seen and understood. Maybe he was indeed doing so out of some sense of "honour" or perhaps it was intended to somehow show that anonymity did not exist. The second option does strike me as possibly a little spooky.

Or perhaps he tried to respond in that way but for some reason was unable to?



I guess there is a right of sorts to freedom of expression but I can't help thinking that it exists only when doing so "in person". Doing so in person counters the right with an immediate responsibility for the comment - excercising it incorrectly could well lead to a sore nose!! Trying to exercise a right to speech remotely means also being remote from the consequences and can mean that any "right" being used irresponsibly.



So it becomes clear (in my opinion) that "rights" go hand in hand with "responsibility" and should not be exercised in isolation/anonymity.



Unfortunately we have a modern generation (but not just them!) who appear to be growing up with that sense of balance missing.



We now have a society developing where it's easy to exercise influence and comment anonymously.



However, that's not actually true. Those who believe that to be the case are being naive in the extreme. I mentioned earlier that both the authorities and those with deep pockets find the internet no barrier to following through, indeed in many ways it makes it easier.



Anyone running/hosting/moderating a forum such as this will be very much aware of this and its consequences. Those consequences come with responsibilities on steroids which can only be discharged by immediately and quickly pointing the finger!!



I think I'd best stop there!!

 

[andyBeaker]

Was her address not at the bottom of the letter in the newspaper??

No. Letters in The Times are identified by name and a general indication of residence.

Sir Andrew Beaker, Seaford, for example.

Other than Pow-Lo the fact that he has tracked her down seems to be going over heads. Not saying he did that with sinister intent, indeed I suspect he didn’t, just extreme naivety although I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for him in that respect.

 

[Duck n Dive]

No. Letters in The Times are identified by name and a general indication of residence.

Sir Andrew Beaker, Seaford, for example.

Other than Pow-Lo the fact that he has tracked her down seems to be going over heads. Not saying he did that with sinister intent, indeed I suspect he didn’t, just extreme naivety although I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for him in that respect.

Which is actually enough to find someone in most cases

 

[Oldandbald]

No. Letters in The Times are identified by name and a general indication of residence.

Sir Andrew Beaker, Seaford, for example.

Other than Pow-Lo the fact that he has tracked her down seems to be going over heads. Not saying he did that with sinister intent, indeed I suspect he didn’t, just extreme naivety although I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for him in that respect.

My letter is in the post.