Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Ohelemapit

Councillor under fire over disabled remarks

36 posts in this topic

A councillor has apologised for telling a disability charity that "disabled children cost the council too much money and should be put down".

Collin Brewer, an independent member of Cornwall Council, made the comments to a Disability Cornwall member at a stall at County Hall in Truro in 2011.

The charity complained and the authority's Standards Committee has reported its findings.

Read More

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow what a piece of ****, an apology after a statement like that sure as hell wouldn't make me feel any better about the guy.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how in the world of politics an apology makes everything as clear and pure as freshly fallen snow. This'll be forgotten in a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry? He should be forced to resign. Does he actually think that after saying something like that he can continue to represent constituents in any way? Idiot.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet many of those people who condemn the councillor's comments will see nothing wrong in putting a child down whilst the child is still in the womb.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My four year old son has picked up the saying (from somewhere!) "sorry makes it better" and uses this every time he does something he shouldn't.

I've had to point out to him that sorry doesn't always make it better. Someone should point that out to this councillor! You kind of expect this behaviour from a four year old though!

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely scandalous!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like Hitler's policy of "euthanizing" older disabled children. Is that what the world is coming to now? Kill the people who are not well, old, or not useful to society to balance the budget? Good grief. Why not cut back on some of those lovely government perquisites politicians so enjoy first?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also condem those statements.

However, it is a fact of and in nature that only the strong survive.

As a species we have moved beyond that through compassion, empathy, and medical advances, further separating ourselfs from the other life forms on this diverse planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My four year old son has picked up the saying (from somewhere!) "sorry makes it better" and uses this every time he does something he shouldn't.

I've had to point out to him that sorry doesn't always make it better. Someone should point that out to this councillor! You kind of expect this behaviour from a four year old though!

Someone should point it out to Cameron, too. I can't understand this modern obsession amongst British politicians to apologise for eveything, even for things that happened before they were born. I think it was Tony Blair who started the whole thing.

The other day Cameron apologised to the Indians for the 1919 Amritsar Massacre (which was only retaliation for the murders of Europeans by Indians), yet so far we've not had a word of apology from the Indians for their brutal massacre of Britons during the 1857 Rebellion, which was started by brutal Indian religious leaders when Hindu and Muslim Indian soldiers in the British Army were asked - like other soldiers - to bite off the paper cartridges for their rifles which were greased with animal fat, namely beef and pork. The murderous response by the Indians, spurred on by religious fanatics, was completely over the top. There was not even a word of apology from the Indians for their brutal rapes of many British and European girls and women throughout the 19th century (in one instance, 48 girls as young as 10 were raped by rebels in Delhi). The brutal British response to the 1857 mutiny was seen by many as an opportunity for revenge for these rapes. Yet not once did the Indian Prime Minister apologise to the British on behalf of his nation for the brutal murders his people committed in 1857 or for the rapes of hundreds of British and European women.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He should resign.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He should resign.

Why is killing disabled children in the womb considered okay but killing disabled children out of the womb isn't?

Edited by TheLastLazyGun
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet many of those people who condemn the councillor's comments will see nothing wrong in putting a child down whilst the child is still in the womb.

oh? speak for yourself before you speak for others.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet many of those people who condemn the councillor's comments will see nothing wrong in putting a child down whilst the child is still in the womb.

That's because it isn't actually a 'child'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should point it out to Cameron, too. I can't understand this modern obsession amongst British politicians to apologise for eveything, even for things that happened before they were born. I think it was Tony Blair who started the whole thing.

It's called diplomacy (a useful tool), and I'm pretty sure it existed before Blair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is killing disabled children in the womb considered okay but killing disabled children out of the womb isn't?

Cause they have to look their victims in the eyes.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is killing disabled children in the womb considered okay but killing disabled children out of the womb isn't?

Right wing nonsense thread-derail attempt. Fetal abortion is not the issue here.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right wing nonsense thread-derail attempt. Fetal abortion is not the issue here.

It may be nonsense and a derail attempt but he brings up a good point. If a politician is for abortion, he's just pro-choice. When someone says something about euthanasia outside of the womb? That's when people start crying foul.

Edited by Hasina
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be nonsense and a derail attempt but he brings up a good point. If a politician is for abortion, he's just pro-choice. When someone says something about euthanasia outside of the womb? That's when people start crying foul.

That's because a fetus, before a certain point in its development, isn't a human being, as is defined by the medical profession almost exclusively worldwide. Which is why it is legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's called diplomacy (a useful tool), and I'm pretty sure it existed before Blair.

It was Blair who started off the tradition of British politicians apologising for things which happened before they were born when he apologised to the Irish for the Potato Famine.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because a fetus, before a certain point in its development, isn't a human being, as is defined by the medical profession almost exclusively worldwide. Which is why it is legal.

I know this and it's understood. My reasoning is this, that fetus will always become human. Always. I'm pro-choice of course, what others do is their business. Myself? I'm personally pro-life with some stipulations.

So because the dictionary says so, fetus = not human, it's totes okay. (Gonna sound mean now) But these disabled children who won't be contributing anything to society are humans. The potential human life is less important then already established but disabled human life.

Edited by Hasina
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was Blair who started off the tradition of British politicians apologising for things which happened before they were born when he apologised to the Irish for the Potato Famine.

I'm sure you'll find precedent long before that. I think you've been blinded by your political beliefs again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this and it's understood. My reasoning is this, that fetus will always become human. Always. I'm pro-choice of course, what others do is their business. Myself? I'm personally pro-life with some stipulations.

So because the dictionary says so, fetus = not human, it's totes okay. (Gonna sound mean now) But these disabled children who won't be contributing anything to society are humans. The potential human life is less important then already established but disabled human life.

Not because the dictionary says so, because medical professionals, almost unanimously, say so.

It is less 'important' because it is only a 'potential', not a reality. Every menstrual cycle and every pull-out-at-the-last-minute is also a 'potential' life, depending on how you look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because a fetus, before a certain point in its development, isn't a human being, as is defined by the medical profession almost exclusively worldwide. Which is why it is legal.

The Nazis said that about the Jews to justify their murder of them.

There are many abortions going on today in which the baby is developed enough for it to be an actual human being. That's why the British Government is looking at reducing the abortion limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not because the dictionary says so, because medical professionals, almost unanimously, say so.

It is less 'important' because it is only a 'potential', not a reality. Every menstrual cycle and every pull-out-at-the-last-minute is also a 'potential' life, depending on how you look at it.

Of course, the professionals know it all, and hey, they know exactly where to draw the line, right? There's absolutely no argument at all amongst medical professionals about this? It just slight tiffs really? No important debates about it? Okay. Glad you checked.

The problem with a menstrual cycle is you're expelling just the egg, half a human, same goes if the guy pulls out, only 'half a human' is technically wasted. When the sperm and egg form the zygote and then into the fetus, then it's fully human, it'll develop unless euthenised into a homo sapian.

Edited by Hasina
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.