Free speech, eh?

[TheOstrich]

Not one of you would accept it, or would you?

No choice, WM - it's probably in her Contract of Employment .....

Additionally, if she used a work computer to make the post, she'd probably have fallen foul of the organisation's internet use policy.

Just sayin '

I do understand your PoV, but given the current politally-correct climate out there, I fear you are destined to remain in a gang of one, whilst everyone else hides firmly heads-down beneath the parapet ..

[Workingman]

Of course you have a choice, if you want it. What if she did it on her own computer and used a private account? Would the authorities still be allowed to get her? Yes or No? Will they be allowed to get you?

Heads-down beneath the parapet might be safe for a while, but it does not solve the problem. You will still need to be very careful what you say in the future.

I do not want that.

[Suff]

I'm totally with you WM but the point is the world has moved this way. We either get with it or get steamrollered.

Personally I'm opting out. Anybody want's my opinion, they can have some of it. However, even here, I'm fairly careful what I say.

I have some decidedly military opinions about some things and they are way off the mainstream. There are places those opinions can be aired and one of those is an ex forces board I have viewed. They are blunt about it. "Don't like our way of talking or our opinions? F off and go somewhere you are wanted, stay here and you'll be banned and your IP will be blocked..."

As I said these are "some" of my views. Most of my views are more mainstream.

For instance I don't believe that murdering scumbags who video the murder of a gentle priest have any rights at all. None. In fact the only right I believe they have is to the most painful and prolonged death that modern science can devise. Some would say that dehumanises me. My Army colleagues know different. They understand the power of deterrent, which is why you will never find them on a CND march.

Sadly we have to face facts. Government, local government and now companies believe that our own personal opinion is theirs to control. My answer to that, in those cases, is my opinion is personal and so I'll keep it to myself.

[Workingman]

I'm totally with you WM but the point is the world has moved this way. We either get with it or get steamrollered.

But why?

Why should we be steamrollered? I do not want to be steamrollered.

I also visit ex-mil sites, but only to read. I never post, and I have to say that I disagree with most of what is said, even though I understand it.

All I want is to be able to express my views, even though they might not be mainstream. So long as I do it in an unoffensive way why should that be a problem? Why should anybody else be prevented from doing the same?

This is what is happening to the person in my OP. She is being silenced by an unelected cohort who do not like what she is saying. That is wrong.

[Suff]

Indeed it is wrong.

But it IS.

We can point it out and complain but we are not going to change it. To me if this is the way that our society wants to go, they can get on with it without me.

[Kaz]

Yes Frank, but calling a three year old a f******* d*** isn't inoffensive, is it? Much of the public might find that offensive, and this woman has a high profile and very well paid job, paid for with public money. It was stupid of her, at the very least, although I do get your point

[Suff]

She didn't say that though did she. She replied to it and tried to drag it down a path of misery in Syria. Something which typifies, for me, who she is.

The reaction is totally overdone and should be dropped as WM says.

[Kaz]

Point taken, but when you retweet or share you are repeating it, and spreading it. As Ossie said, she probably has something in her contract about what she puts on social media, many jobs these days do, especially those in the public sector....

I'm not saying the witch hunt over this is fair, just that she should have had the sense to foresee it

[Workingman]

Kaz, she did not call anyone a f******* d***head, she responded to someone else who had used those words. Her response was in perfectly acceptable English using words that would not offend a saint. It was the sentiment of what she said that has upset the elite, and that is what bugs me.

She said what she said as a private individual and not as a member of the British Council. She did not bring her position with her employers into play at any stage.

Where does this end? Do all employers and other 'interested parties' monitor Twitbook and other unsocial media 24/7 hoping to find postings they find offensive on behalf of their 'correct thinking' friends in order to punish those posters? This is what appears to be happening.

It is not a healthy attitude to free speech, in my opinion, quite the reverse. In a free society people have to be allowed, within reason, to say things others disagree with.

Suff, the fact that she tried to send the thread in a different direction does say a lot about her personal beliefs, but that is what happens in open and free debate. That is why her points should be allowed to stand.

[Suff]

Indeed WM, if people don't like it they can ignore it or send the thread in a different direction again.