A daily editor has hit back after a reader accused him of printing “derogatory tripe”.
Kevin Booth, who left the Burton Mail to take up the reins at the Leicester Mercury earlier this year, said he was right to publish a letter by reader Don Tallis, which included the phrase “if you can’t afford to have children, don’t breed”.
The decision was criticised by another correspondent, Bob Pfeiffer, whose response questioned whether Kevin, left, had been “drafted in from the Daily Mail”.
Both letters were also published on the Mercury’s website.
Bob wrote: “Don Tallis’ view (Mailbox, October 29) that poor people should not ‘breed’ in order that we can eliminate or substantially reduce child poverty in Leicester is, of course, beyond contempt.
“What angers me more is the fact that the Leicester Mercury seems quite happy to print this derogatory tripe.
“One wonders if the new editor has been drafted in directly from the Daily Mail.”
Countering with an editor’s note at the foot of the letter, Kevin responded: “Mr Pfeiffer appears to be advocating censorship simply because the writer’s views do not reflect his own.
“Freedom of speech is surely a fundamental part of any democracy, and for that reason we were right to publish the letter.
“But Mr Pfeiffer is correct about one thing – I was ‘drafted in’ from the Mail. It was the Burton Mail.”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
Sorry, I’m with that Tallis chap.
Report this comment
Disgraceful, Mr Booth! You knew exactly what you were doing in printing such a letter.
I can’t believe your shoddy response about censorship and freedom of speech either. You are an editor and the choices YOU make over what to print in your paper are supposed to taken with consideration and respect for all your readers.
You should know better than this, especially given the wide-ranging religious and cultural make-up of your city.
If you are going to treat your own letters page like an unmoderated comment board on your website then what do you do?
It hardly matters where you were drafted from if you are not going to do your job!
Report this comment
I’m with Oliver.
Like most people I would defend, with the last breath in someone else’s body, an Englishman’s right to free speech, which is a bedrock of the liberty and freedoms we enjoy in this country.
But that does not give anyone the right to say something that someone, somewhere might or possibly might not find a bit disagreeable.
Perhaps a committee of folk representing the wide-ranging religious and cultural make up of that fair city could – perhaps vet is too strong a word – but rather ‘advise’ this editor on what content might be preferable and more suitable in his paper, then freedom will truly flourish.
Report this comment
Good gag, Oliver.
Report this comment
A newspaper is a forum for free speech.
The editor was right to publish.
When editors start censoring views they disagree with, we’re in big trouble. There isn’t a view in the world that is ‘agreeable’ to everyone.
Anyway, my wife and I decided against having ten kids because we couldn’t afford them.
What’s so outrageous about that?
It would have been far more outrageous for us to have them, then expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab.
Oliver’s comment is nothing more than pious, po-faced PC tripe.
As for Confused, I’m not surprised he’s confused. Does he have a fully functioning brain, I wonder?
The day when cross-cultural committees decide what goes in newspapers is the day we all go down the toilet, probably helped on our way by the Taliban.
I truly hope these comments are not coming from journalists. If they are, they should seek alternative employment immediately.
Report this comment
“if you can’t afford to have children, don’t breed”
Would anyone like to make a rational argument against this statement? Does anyone think people should have children they can’t afford?
Report this comment
Brassington, despite your insults. I’m not offended, but I do wonder why you have to so personal in your attack on Confused.
What you are doing is confusing public opinions with the role of an editor.
An editor is supposed to use his paper to present these sorts of opinions in a rational and intelligent way so that readers can make informed decisions about how other people feel about issues like this. It’s not what you say, but how you say it and comments like this are fine if handled properly and crafted into a wider discussion.
Resorting to right-wing, Daily Mail-esque headlines and comment pieces in order to create a different type of debate is, in my opinion, selling out in the same way as the constant clickbait we see online in a desperate bid to provoke a reaction and drive traffic.
As I said before, this type of opinion may be okay for an unmoderated comment board on the website, but an editor should treat his newspaper with more care if he wishes to retain its position of trust and authority in the local community.
Brassington, if you think that this type of journalism suits a local newspaper, then I sincerely hope you get that job at the Daily Mail. Good luck!
Report this comment