David Willetts says deaths of disabled people "are not a policy", gets pied.
anon | 25.09.2011 15:03 | Public sector cuts | Social Struggles | Oxford
the attempted pieing
A disabled rights activist told him, while hurling a plate of
whipped cream at the cabinet minister's face, that his government's cuts
will cause the deaths of some of the most vulnerable disabled people and
will condemn countless others to isolation and poverty.
Willetts' security guard reacted fast and intercepted the pie, causing a
brief shower of cream that sprayed the minister's expensive-looking suit,
but sadly left his face untarnished. Willetts, surprisingly, did not
counter the claim, but merely said that causing the deaths of disabled
people "is not a government policy."
A small group of protesters then followed him, chanting "Disabled people
shouldn't pay, while the bankers get away", while he disappeared into the
safety of Balliol College, presumably to sponge his suit before enjoying
further hospitality from Oxford's elite.
whipped cream at the cabinet minister's face, that his government's cuts
will cause the deaths of some of the most vulnerable disabled people and
will condemn countless others to isolation and poverty.
Willetts' security guard reacted fast and intercepted the pie, causing a
brief shower of cream that sprayed the minister's expensive-looking suit,
but sadly left his face untarnished. Willetts, surprisingly, did not
counter the claim, but merely said that causing the deaths of disabled
people "is not a government policy."
A small group of protesters then followed him, chanting "Disabled people
shouldn't pay, while the bankers get away", while he disappeared into the
safety of Balliol College, presumably to sponge his suit before enjoying
further hospitality from Oxford's elite.
anon
Comments
Hide 6 hidden comments or hide all comments
not fair
25.09.2011 15:18
Imagine the uproar. You lot would be up in arms.
Therefore this is not acceptable.
anarchist
re: anarchist
25.09.2011 16:05
In my view, pieing is a lot less than the minister deserves for what he has done.
I would be outraged if the minister pied the disabled rights activist (disability status and gender not given), because this person is not doing anything to harm Willet's livelihood.
Can you really not understand the difference? Or have I just fed the trolls?
Apples
haha
25.09.2011 16:20
Good on the pie thrower, we need to make faeces pies for these scum.
Nestor
10% troll 90% stooopid
25.09.2011 22:27
There's another goes by 'anon' and as this post is assigned the same, wouldn't surprise me that he changed his name to 'anarchist' to spout his shite.
As above So below
analysis
25.09.2011 22:58
You mean he is doing his job, and you just happen to disagree with what he has done, rather than try get and do his job the way you want?
>> Can you really not understand the difference? Or have I just fed the trolls?
I understand the difference. But i don't think anyone should be allowed to 'jump the queue' using intimidation. Otherwise, I'd be in my rights to throw a pie at a disabled person who decides to get in front of me in some queue (thus affecting my livelihood).
>> a troll calling itself 'anarchist' whatever next.
loser
>> Good on the pie thrower, we need to make faeces pies for these scum.
Bite the hand that feeds you? How about they give you nothing and just shoot you instead?
>> Probably a state sponsored troll with an expensive education.
Yes, obviously. Clearly you are so correct on this.
>> See, money doesn't guarantee intelligence.
And being poor doesn't show any intelligence either.
>> I've met loads of them in my time. Especially in halls at university, I remember this one guy who had been there for approaching on 10 years, parents kept paying for him to repeat until he passed his medical exams. Probably a doctor now, somewhere, God help his patients.
So you are referring to a place that is completely subsidised and has no bearing on the real world.
>> There's another goes by 'anon' and as this post is assigned the same, wouldn't surprise me that he changed his name to 'anarchist' to spout his shite.
Whatever. You are shite
anarchist
anal cyst
25.09.2011 23:16
should be wiped off
Ouch
Why "merely"?
26.09.2011 13:38
will condemn countless others to isolation and poverty."
" Willetts, surprisingly, did not counter the claim, but merely said that causing the deaths of disabled
people "is not a government policy."
Is this simply a problem of language and logic? Why MERELY? Why "SURPRISINGLY"?
If X says "choice A will result in B" and Y replies "the reasons for choosing A have nothing to do with INTENDING to cause B" therre is no contradiction. Y's reasons for choosing A are of course in disregard of the consequence B but that doesn't mean that was in any way a reason for choosing A.
Take this simple example. You choose to share your food with starving person X instead of starving person Y. Would you argue that this means you INTEND Y to starve?
STOP --- I am by no means making the claim that the government doesn't have a policy to intentionally harm the disabled. Just that no valid case is being made by showing that governmental choices have that effect. You'd need to dig deeper. And you can't begin by assuming that cuts aren't necessary (even if you believe that, since claims about motivation of another's choices depend on what the other person believes). So you have to argue why something else (that you specify) should have been cut instead.
MDN
Merely why
26.09.2011 17:59
True to an extent, but if choosing A is likely to cause B there is still a moral, and often legal, aspect. It's like the difference between murder (where there is intention), and manslaughter (where there is no intention). It's not just about intention, it's about responsibility for the affect of your actions (something the Tories are quite keen on, so they say).
> You choose to share your food with starving person X instead of starving person Y. Would you argue that this means you INTEND Y to starve?
Again, true to an extent. But a false analogy in the circumstances of cuts to people with disabilities. I believe a better analogy would be:
You choose to share your food with well-fed person X instead of starving person Y. Whilst you may not have intended for person Y to starve, do you accept you could have chosen a path that would have prevented this?
> And you can't begin by assuming that cuts aren't necessary (even if you believe that, since claims about motivation of another's choices depend on what the other person believes).
As I said, it's not just about their motivation; it's also about the likely consequences of their actions. And why is it not allowed to assume that you cannot question another person's beliefs. Nonetheless, I'll play the game ...
> So you have to argue why something else (that you specify) should have been cut instead.
Trident, military spending (more than has been the case), PFI repayments. That lot should more than do it.
xkcf
Hide 6 hidden comments or hide all comments