HOME | IMC UK | Editorial Guidelines | Mission Statement | About Us | Contact | Help | Support Us

Oxford Indymedia

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 the following 2 comments

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


Publish your news
-->

Kollektives

Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World

Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
London
Northern Indymedia
Scotland

Oxford Topics

Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista

IMCs


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech