REGARDING Glenn Hoddle's sacking, both Kim Keogh and TJ Longstaff (Letters, February 10) give a variously confused and illogical interpretation of the affair.

Mrs Keogh says that she believes in free speech. Don't we all?

Hoddle, however, in what he said - and he later admitted that he did say it - abused the proper concept of free speech by the absurd statement that the disabled are paying for their sins in a previous life.

Even if he believes that, he did not have to say it.

He was suffering from dentopedoligy - foot-in-the-mouth syndrome - coupled with a degree of megalomania, caused possibly by an expansion of the cranium.

And yes, I would agree with Mr Longstaff that the citizens of this country are supposed to tolerate all other citizens, etc., but we don't have to tolerate insensitive and hurtful remarks directed at some of the more unfortunate members of our society, particularly from a so-called born again Christian whom you would expect to show at least a modicum of understanding and compassion.

Dr Edmund Critchley wrote in the same issue that common sense and decency should have dictated that Hoddle's remarks were recognised for what they were.

I'm afraid he has lost me there because I, too, fail to recognise his remarks for what they were.

As to the terminology concerning whether people are said to be disabled or people with physical or mental disabilities or, as the Australians say, "physically challenged," does it matter?

ALBERT MORRIS, Clement View, Nelson.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.