I WAS disturbed and offended by Carol Sarler's article about the homeless boy. Ms Sarler sets herself up as the arbiter of language ('He makes up . . . phrases that have no meaning but obviously sound, to him, like the music of intellect'), so, presumably, her admission that when she visits Jason's new bedsit she finds her 'flesh crawling with distaste', is intended as a brave acknowledgement of her own shortcomings, but she must surely then relinquish the right to make such omniscient-objective statements as that living rough 'no matter how cold and damp, has not harmed Jason physically or hurt him emotionally' or that the street 'was, and probably is, the best place for him'? Does this sound to Ms Sarler like the music of intellect? It sounds a bit out of tune to me.