WHEREAS I was not in a position to read Vic Barlow’s column about ‘Freedom of Speech’ I note we now have two correspondents (Jan Hargrove and Chris Hutchin) determined to be offended on behalf of some other anonymous people.

Quite frankly freedom of speech does not stop just because someone may be offended.

In this case of course the comment was about a garment. I’m not quite sure how a garment can be offended.

To describe the wearing of a burka as creating the effect of a letter box is no more offensive than describing a group of nuns as penguins.

The latter description typically being regarded as humorous.

Perhaps our two correspondents could enlighten us as to what the difference is and why I, or anyone else, should be offended on behalf of others?

Chris Hutchin appears to think that a debate can be initiated without someone making an initial comment.

And of course he uses the word ‘racists’, don’t they always when they don’t have a rational argument to offer.

I doubt he even knows what the word properly means as it is merely used these days to shout down and demonise those who don’t agree with the planned New World Order.

As far as social cohesion is concerned has he not noticed that it has been rapidly breaking down over at least the past two decades, which is hardly surprising considering that the indigenous population has seen a diametrically opposed culture increasingly brought into the country.

Elaine Heywood Weaverham