Skip to content or view screen version

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

David Willetts was pied after attending a private function in Oxford last
night.

the attempted pieing
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.

anon

Comments

Hide 6 hidden comments or hide all comments

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

not fair

25.09.2011 15:18

I wondering what would happen if this minister pied the disabled guy instead?
Imagine the uproar. You lot would be up in arms.

Therefore this is not acceptable.

anarchist

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

re: anarchist

25.09.2011 16:05

Pieing the minister was an act of rebellion and protest against what the minister plan to do. Which will, as the article says, "cause the deaths of some of the most vulnerable disabled people and will condemn countless others to isolation and poverty."

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

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

haha

25.09.2011 16:20

a troll calling itself 'anarchist' whatever next.

Good on the pie thrower, we need to make faeces pies for these scum.

Nestor

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

10% troll 90% stooopid

25.09.2011 22:27

Probably a state sponsored troll with an expensive education. See, money doesn't guarantee intelligence. 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.

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

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

analysis

25.09.2011 22:58

>> 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.
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

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

anal cyst

25.09.2011 23:16

yep thats him

 https://indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/09/484592.html?c=on#c273364

should be wiped off

Ouch

Why "merely"?

26.09.2011 13:38

" 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, 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

> "the reasons for choosing A have nothing to do with INTENDING to cause B" therre is no contradiction.

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