England local election results thread

[brogdale]

You make a fair point here, but I am using the word in a loose way to describe a situation where someone does something that they 'do not mean to do'. We've all done it. It may be 'accidental' in that sense, but that needn't imply that it is blameless - and I am certainly not saying that Cllr. Brewer is blameless. He made the comment and he was at fault. As for the word 'suspect', I am perfectly entitled to rely on supposition in an argument. I was not there, nor (I assume) were you.

In his own words...

"Mr Brewer said he had hoped his comment that "disabled children cost the council too much money and should be put down", would provoke a response and a debate into the issue of service costs provision, but said he "did not get the reaction he wanted".

The context being that he made the comments to a Disability Cornwall member at a stall at County Hall in Truro in 2011.

Do you accept the above as a correct reporting of the incident?

If so, do you also accept that Brewer's explanation does not appear to fall within any definition of accidental, not matter how broadly drawn?

Apart from complaining that some people appear to be very upset by Brewer's repugnant comments, what is your point?

 

[Earendel]

Then we can agree that he said it at a stall run by a disabled charity. Or to put it a different way, he was at a Council-run event, but he was not speaking to the media or on behalf of the Council, just to a worker at a disabled charity stall. That worker then reported him for his remarks. Is that reasonable? He later said that he did not mean to say it and could not understand why he had said it. And he apologised, and repeated the apology. When this is pointed out to you and others, I am called a 'liar' and a 'weirdo' and an 'apologist'. I object to the insults because they do nothing to advance your arguments and they dissuade others from contributing their views for fear that they might be insulted too. But you like it that way, don't you?

Either way, my points still stand, that this whole thing is an overreaction out of a very trivial incident. I also assert that those who are fuelling this (including yourself) are insincere.

Now, it seems to me we have nothing further to say to each other.

 

[toggle]

Then we can agree that he said it at a stall run by a disabled charity. Or to put it a different way, he was at a Council-run event, but he was not speaking to the media or on behalf of the Council, just to a worker at a disabled charity stall. That worker then reported him for his remarks. Is that reasonable?

yes.

a member of the council at a council run event in a council building is 'on duty'. they are representing their workplace and constituents when attending that event, and as such should learn not to gob off

 

[toggle]

Now, it seems to me we have nothing further to say to each other.

off you fuck then

 

[Earendel]

In his own words...

"Mr Brewer said he had hoped his comment that "disabled children cost the council too much money and should be put down", would provoke a response and a debate into the issue of service costs provision, but said he "did not get the reaction he wanted".

The context being that he made the comments to a Disability Cornwall member at a stall at County Hall in Truro in 2011.

Do you accept the above as a correct reporting of the incident?

If so, do you also accept that Brewer's explanation does not appear to fall within any definition of accidental, not matter how broadly drawn?

Apart from complaining that some people appear to be very upset by Brewer's repugnant comments, what is your point?

He also said this:-

"I listened to one of the ladies on the Disability Cornwall stall and came out with the comment," he said.
"If only I had not said that. I didn't mean it. I did it to provoke a response and debate the issue of service costs provision.
"It backfired. I was treating her with a lack of respect and I shouldn't have done it."
He added: "I meant no offence. I would defend disabled children to the last."



So he said it but the issue seems to be how he 'meant' it. It seems he was trying to make a point, but he put it across in a clumsy way.



You ask what is my point. I have already covered that exhaustively above: my point here is about the appropriateness of the reaction to his comments.

 

[brogdale]

Then we can agree that he said it at a stall run by a disabled charity. Or to put it a different way, he was at a Council-run event, but he was not speaking to the media or on behalf of the Council, just to a worker at a disabled charity stall. That worker then reported him for his remarks. Is that reasonable? He later said that he did not mean to say it and could not understand why he had said it. And he apologised, and repeated the apology. When this is pointed out to you and others, I am called a 'liar' and a 'weirdo' and an 'apologist'. I object to the insults because they do nothing to advance your arguments and they dissuade others from contributing their views for fear that they might be insulted too. But you like it that way, don't you?

Either way, my points still stand, that this whole thing is an overreaction out of a very trivial incident. I also assert that those who are fuelling this (including yourself) are insincere.

Now, it seems to me we have nothing further to say to each other.

"Just" to a worker? Are you for real? And, yes it was 'reasonable' to report his comments because they were vile and I would imagine very hurtful to a 'worker' connected to a disability charity.

Just for the recod, pal, I've not called you anything, merely destroyed your rather feeble attempt to excuse Brewer's comments.

Jog on.

 

[brogdale]

He also said this:-

"I listened to one of the ladies on the Disability Cornwall stall and came out with the comment," he said.
"If only I had not said that. I didn't mean it. I did it to provoke a response and debate the issue of service costs provision.
"It backfired. I was treating her with a lack of respect and I shouldn't have done it."
He added: "I meant no offence. I would defend disabled children to the last."



So he said it but the issue seems to be how he 'meant' it. It seems he was trying to make a point, but he put it across in a clumsy way.



You ask what is my point. I have already covered that exhaustively above: my point here is about the appropriateness of the reaction to his comments.

Perhaps you'd like to outline exactly how people might be expected to react appropriately to someone who bemoans the cost of disabled children and says he wishes them dead.

 

[toggle]

I did it to provoke a response and debate the issue of service costs provision.

so it wasn't a private comment, but he did it to provoke a response.

 

[toggle]

Perhaps you'd like to outline exactly how people might be expected to react appropriately to someone who bemoans the cost of disabled children and says he wishes them dead.

not just a random someone. someone who is part of the council, who decide how to assign resources to people with disabilities in the area.

 

[Earendel]

"Just" to a worker? Are you for real? And, yes it was 'reasonable' to report his comments because they were vile and I would imagine very hurtful to a 'worker' connected to a disability charity.

Just for the recod, pal, I've not called you anything, merely destroyed your rather feeble attempt to excuse Brewer's comments.

Jog on.

Yes, to one person on a charity stall. He didn't make the comment to the whole world or in a situation where he might have expected to be quotable. So you haven't destroyed anything. I have not tried to excuse his comments. I have tried to understand what actually happened and also suggest that you, and others, have overreacted, something which I know you would be loathe to admit.

 

[toggle]

He also said this:-

"I listened to one of the ladies on the Disability Cornwall stall and came out with the comment," he said.
"If only I had not said that. I didn't mean it. I did it to provoke a response and debate the issue of service costs provision.
"It backfired. I was treating her with a lack of respect and I shouldn't have done it."
He added: "I meant no offence. I would defend disabled children to the last."

So he said it but the issue seems to be how he 'meant' it. It seems he was trying to make a point, but he put it across in a clumsy way.



You ask what is my point. I have already covered that exhaustively above: my point here is about the appropriateness of the reaction to his comments.

she got upset, a lot of people got upset and he started pouring out excuses.none of which really mean anything.

 

[Earendel]

so it wasn't a private comment, but he did it to provoke a response.

Was he speaking to one person or not? And doesn't that rationalisation sound a bit ex post facto?

 

[toggle]

Yes, to one person on a charity stall. He didn't make the comment to the whole world or in a situation where he might have expected to be quotable

are you really that naive?

or just pretending to be, cause ti's the only arguement you have.

he was on the council for how many years and didn't think his comments would get into the press. did he forget we do still have newspapers this far down country. we are still taught to read here.

 

[Earendel]

she got upset, a lot of people got upset and he started pouring out excuses.none of which really mean anything.

Ok, she got upset. Fine, that's understandable. But is the hounding of the man in the national media justified? Is all this emotional energy you have spent on this justified? Do you really know what is in his heart and what he really thinks about these issues? Do you know anything of his record?

 

[toggle]

And doesn't that rationalisation sound a bit ex post facto?

no where in the same league as his justifications do

 

[Earendel]

are you really that naive?

or just pretending to be, cause ti's the only arguement you have.

he was on the council for how many years and didn't think his comments would get into the press. did he forget we do still have newspapers this far down country. we are still taught to read here.

Wait, hang on....Is it really naive of me to think that a local councillor's comments would not be quotable in the national media?

 

[toggle]

Ok, she got upset. Fine, that's understandable. But is the hounding of the man in the national media justified? Is all this emotional energy you have spent on this justified? Do you really know what is in his heart and what he really thinks about these issues? Do you know anything of his record?

i'm not hounding him in the national media. i'm doing that locally.

cause i live within the jurisdiction of Cornwall council and i have a disabled child.

and that cunt does not represent me

 

[Earendel]

no where in the same league as his justifications do

But those were his justifications - that's the whole point. It's seems to me that his comments were accidental and he engaged in these rationalisations under pressure from others. Now, for all I know, it may be that he is a bigot, but there's no evidence for that. I just think this campaign against him has been very cruel.

 

[toggle]

Wait, hang on....Is it really naive of me to think that a local councillor's comments would not be quotable in the national media?

are you really trying that act?

 

[toggle]

But those were his justifications - that's the whole point. It's seems to me that his comments were accidental and he engaged in these rationalisations under pressure from others. Now, for all I know, it may be that he is a bigot, but there's no evidence for that. I just think this campaign against him has been very cruel.

there's no evidence for anything youve said, is there

 

[teqniq]

Earendel Why are you shouting?

 

[Earendel]

i'm not hounding him in the national media. i'm doing that locally.

cause i live within the jurisdiction of Cornwall council and i have a disabled child.

and that cunt does not represent me

Fine, and you are entitled to think that, but my point is, the campaign against him was unfair and represented an overreaction. Have you contacted Cllr. Brewer and asked him what he is doing for the disabled? Better still, have you contacted him to ask whether, in light of the furore over his comments, he will now dedicate himself to working for the disabled in the area? Why can't something positive come out of it? Why do people have to be put on the rack like this for relatively trivial offences? If he really made the comment out of bigotry and thoughtlessness, then he needs to be educated. But if he made the comment out of carelessness (which is what I suspect) then his views need to be addressed. Simply abusing him (and others) doesn't achieve anything. That's just bullying.

 

[toggle]

Earendel Why are you shouting?

cause he is important.

 

[brogdale]

Yes, to one person on a charity stall. He didn't make the comment to the whole world or in a situation where he might have expected to be quotable. So you haven't destroyed anything. I have not tried to excuse his comments. I have tried to understand what actually happened and also suggest that you, and others, have overreacted, something which I know you would be loathe to admit.

You'll have to explain how I have over-reacted; I'm merely posting on a forum like you are.

By saying that "He didn't make the comment to the whole world or in a situation where he might have expected to be quotable" you appear to be suggesting that in such circumstances it was somehow acceptable to suggest that public expenditure could be reduced by 'putting down' disabled children to a person connected with a disabled charity.

You are coming across as an rather ineffective apologist; what on earth would motivate someone to jump to the defence of such loathsome views?

 

[Earendel]

Earendel Why are you shouting?

I'm not. Shouting is when you use capital letters.

 

[toggle]

Fine, and you are entitled to think that, but my point is, the campaign against him was unfair and represented an overreaction.

no it wasn't

brewer made a comment about my child and i think that on behalf of my family the campaign wasn't nearly vitriolic enough

 

[Earendel]

You'll have to explain how I have over-reacted; I'm merely posting on a forum like you are.

By saying that "He didn't make the comment to the whole world or in a situation where he might have expected to be quotable" you appear to be suggesting that in such circumstances it was somehow acceptable to suggest that public expenditure could be reduced by 'putting down' disabled children to a person connected with a disabled charity.

You are coming across as an rather ineffective apologist; what on earth would motivate someone to jump to the defence of such loathsome views?

Now you're just being pompous. You know full well I am not apologising for his views.

 

[brogdale]

Now you're just being pompous. You know full well I am not apologising for his views.

Answer the point(s) or fuck off.

 

[teqniq]

I'm not. Shouting is when you use capital letters.

quoted for the lolz. It has made me smile which is no bad thing seeing as how I have to go to work in a bit.

 

[toggle]

Now you're just being pompous. You know full well I am not apologising for his views.

do you know what an apologist is?

and how the terms differs from apologising?