They chose him as the Messenger, to say that all is not well, not all can afford the fees. Good for them, they are the few that don't want to be bled dry of their future, they don't want to be "enslaved to debt."
This was a disgusting and outrageous protest by a few self-righteous scumbags who simply don't get the concept of free speech.
David Willetts should not have given up so easily. It was a pity the great majority who were there to listen did not manage a show of solidarity to defeat the freedom-haters, but it must have been difficult to know what to do about this braying thuggery.
These scenes were not anarchist or socialist in character, but genuinely fascist.
His policy will not change: it’s not like a research paper which we can subject to an especially swinge- ing peer-review. There is no super-sophisticated, high-level, “interdisciplinary” argument which we can deploy to change his heart. To entertain such fantasies is vain and self-deceiving.
They do not behave like academics in debate; they do not behave reasonably, and can- not be reasoned with. Willetts’ views, right down to his responses to sharp questions on policy, are well-known. The man hardly lacks a platform. Only the most cloth-eared participant in our higher -education culture could be unaware of Willetts’ arguments, and only the most staringly loyal tory squire would be unable to mount his own description of its egregious opportunism, myopia, and chauvinism.
Reasonable arguments cannot succeed here. Willetts is not interested in winning an argument of that kind; indeed he is not interested in *argument* in the way that you are interested in it at all: he simply does not esteem argument as you esteem it. He is interested in only one thing — in managing his policy through Whitehall. You can’t talk him. out of it. Politicians are immune to having “flaws” in argument exposed: that just isn’t how argument appears to them to work.
These are im- portant achievements. No matter what the flimsily committed might feel; no matter that the sensible and reasonable will not support them — one might as well say, no matter that their opponents will not support them — they will continue to mount their argumentative objection, strenously and passionately.
Winning broad support among the drowsy lions of the English yeomanry is not an option for them, and it would be absurd for them to conduct themselves with that aim in view. Assess this coolly, from their point of view. They prevented their opponent from winning his little triumph. They demonstrated the strength and will of their commitment, concentrating their comrades in the struggle.
You are disturbed by the hooligan intensity with which the protestors set out their case. But in the broader political context you must remember, and you must try to understand, that the minister, and not the students, is the aggressor. The students are fighting a defensive action with dwindling re- sources as the political feast moves on elsewhere.
That is what it means: power to command attention. In academic Q&A, questions are addressed to the speaker only under the provision that he can silence them by interruption, refuse them, or absent himself, at any point. There are no means of coercing an invited speaker into statement or response should he be disinclined to respond. It was this authority to speak and to be heard, not freedom of speech, which was denied him
What was denied him was authority to speak to a silent audience. The freedom of the speaker to speak without interruption, is not what free speech means: it doesn’t mean that literally, it doesn’t mean that historically or morally, it doesn’t mean that in the jurisprudential discourse of civil rights.
What you really object to in such spectacle, whether you acknowledge it or not, is the disturbance of the order of authorised speech, not the arrest of free speech. Willetts’ “freedom of speech” was in no sense denied or even challenged by the protestors.
This is a poor effort from students of one of the world's top universities.
Prepare well-worded questions that could force the politician to slip up/to admit his policy is damaging. Turn up to the talk/lecture/event. Let him make his case. Then ask said questions if they are still unanswered/relevant.
Don't just shout at him so he can't even make his case. He might as well not have turned up. As GalacticMuppet said, disgraceful.
@naym2011 I have seen (in real life, for example when I attended a lecture and Q&A by Vince Cable) intelligent, well-mannered students ask poignant questions. He basked in the questions that supported him but the best questions were those that questioned his judgement as then shadow business secretary.
Those 'negative' questions made him *squirm*. And it was not only funny but also indicative of how superior the questioner was to him.
Well done for being the big man and telling me to fuck off.
@bigbadbetts You are a subservient sheep, we are in the mess we are in because of people like you. You swallow everything corrupt governments tell you, i'm right am i not?
@spurs1991 No. If he was a "subservient sheep" he wouldn't be questioning the value of your demonstration. Pretty arrogant to assume anyone who disagrees with your style of protest swallows everything corrupt governments tell them.
it really is only about 10 of them isn't it.
MissInformati0n 2 months ago
They chose him as the Messenger, to say that all is not well, not all can afford the fees. Good for them, they are the few that don't want to be bled dry of their future, they don't want to be "enslaved to debt."
kookaburrakookaburra 2 months ago
bunch of cunts
dogkicker91 3 months ago
PS. Have these bellowing twerps ever seen The Life of Brian? "YES, WE'RE ALL INDIVIDUALS!"
1903eab 3 months ago
This was a disgusting and outrageous protest by a few self-righteous scumbags who simply don't get the concept of free speech.
David Willetts should not have given up so easily. It was a pity the great majority who were there to listen did not manage a show of solidarity to defeat the freedom-haters, but it must have been difficult to know what to do about this braying thuggery.
These scenes were not anarchist or socialist in character, but genuinely fascist.
1903eab 3 months ago
His policy will not change: it’s not like a research paper which we can subject to an especially swinge- ing peer-review. There is no super-sophisticated, high-level, “interdisciplinary” argument which we can deploy to change his heart. To entertain such fantasies is vain and self-deceiving.
justanotherpatriot 3 months ago
They do not behave like academics in debate; they do not behave reasonably, and can- not be reasoned with. Willetts’ views, right down to his responses to sharp questions on policy, are well-known. The man hardly lacks a platform. Only the most cloth-eared participant in our higher -education culture could be unaware of Willetts’ arguments, and only the most staringly loyal tory squire would be unable to mount his own description of its egregious opportunism, myopia, and chauvinism.
justanotherpatriot 3 months ago
@justanotherpatriot Interesting generalisations you have there.
Guitareben 3 months ago
Reasonable arguments cannot succeed here. Willetts is not interested in winning an argument of that kind; indeed he is not interested in *argument* in the way that you are interested in it at all: he simply does not esteem argument as you esteem it. He is interested in only one thing — in managing his policy through Whitehall. You can’t talk him. out of it. Politicians are immune to having “flaws” in argument exposed: that just isn’t how argument appears to them to work.
justanotherpatriot 3 months ago 2
@justanotherpatriot So true!
Guitareben 3 months ago
These are im- portant achievements. No matter what the flimsily committed might feel; no matter that the sensible and reasonable will not support them — one might as well say, no matter that their opponents will not support them — they will continue to mount their argumentative objection, strenously and passionately.
justanotherpatriot 3 months ago
Winning broad support among the drowsy lions of the English yeomanry is not an option for them, and it would be absurd for them to conduct themselves with that aim in view. Assess this coolly, from their point of view. They prevented their opponent from winning his little triumph. They demonstrated the strength and will of their commitment, concentrating their comrades in the struggle.
justanotherpatriot 3 months ago
You are disturbed by the hooligan intensity with which the protestors set out their case. But in the broader political context you must remember, and you must try to understand, that the minister, and not the students, is the aggressor. The students are fighting a defensive action with dwindling re- sources as the political feast moves on elsewhere.
justanotherpatriot 3 months ago
That is what it means: power to command attention. In academic Q&A, questions are addressed to the speaker only under the provision that he can silence them by interruption, refuse them, or absent himself, at any point. There are no means of coercing an invited speaker into statement or response should he be disinclined to respond. It was this authority to speak and to be heard, not freedom of speech, which was denied him
justanotherpatriot 3 months ago
What was denied him was authority to speak to a silent audience. The freedom of the speaker to speak without interruption, is not what free speech means: it doesn’t mean that literally, it doesn’t mean that historically or morally, it doesn’t mean that in the jurisprudential discourse of civil rights.
justanotherpatriot 3 months ago
What you really object to in such spectacle, whether you acknowledge it or not, is the disturbance of the order of authorised speech, not the arrest of free speech. Willetts’ “freedom of speech” was in no sense denied or even challenged by the protestors.
justanotherpatriot 3 months ago
good work, fuck the tories
eaglepies 3 months ago
David Willetts should pay back the costs of his own free university tuition before lumping massive debts onto future generations.
Dendiol 3 months ago
WELL DONE ! DONT LET THE GOVERMENT GET AWAY WITH ROBBERY LIES
IF PEOPLE GET ARRESTED FOR SLADER
WHY CAN POLITICIANS GET AWAY WITH LYING ?
WHAT MANDATE DOES THE COALATION HAVE TO IMPOSE A SECOND MORTGAGE ON ALL STUDENTS ????
well done for letting that pig know what students think of him
naym2011 3 months ago
This is a poor effort from students of one of the world's top universities.
Prepare well-worded questions that could force the politician to slip up/to admit his policy is damaging. Turn up to the talk/lecture/event. Let him make his case. Then ask said questions if they are still unanswered/relevant.
Don't just shout at him so he can't even make his case. He might as well not have turned up. As GalacticMuppet said, disgraceful.
hughcanbefound 3 months ago 7
@hughcanbefound fuck off , politicians dont respect "well worded questions" they only respect violence
well worded cowardly questions are dismissed by politicians
naym2011 3 months ago
@naym2011 I have seen (in real life, for example when I attended a lecture and Q&A by Vince Cable) intelligent, well-mannered students ask poignant questions. He basked in the questions that supported him but the best questions were those that questioned his judgement as then shadow business secretary.
Those 'negative' questions made him *squirm*. And it was not only funny but also indicative of how superior the questioner was to him.
Well done for being the big man and telling me to fuck off.
hughcanbefound 3 months ago
@hughcanbefound Exactly. If you don't want to listen to him, don't invite him.
GalacticMuppet 3 months ago
Disgraceful, the students weren't even interested in listening.
GalacticMuppet 3 months ago 3
@GalacticMuppet disgraceful, the government isnt even interested in listening.
ewen666 3 months ago
Why are these students moaning about fees, they got to CAMBRIDGE! just get mummy and daddy to pay it
torrentmad 3 months ago
Pathetic................it would have been better had the female students got their booobies out in protest
dustyRN 3 months ago
so freedom of speech is now dead :(
marmy261 3 months ago 5
@marmy261 u dont know the difference between freedom of speech and a protest
no one is denying the minister freedom of speech he can still write articles etc
naym2011 3 months ago
He studied at Oxford, should have gone there.
HAHAHA
Well done, silence the political buffoons.
markchav 3 months ago
Thick, arrogant students actually made me sympathise with Willetts (never thought this possible). PR disaster for them and Cambridge.
bigbadbetts 3 months ago 2
@bigbadbetts You are a subservient sheep, we are in the mess we are in because of people like you. You swallow everything corrupt governments tell you, i'm right am i not?
spurs1991 3 months ago
@spurs1991 No. If he was a "subservient sheep" he wouldn't be questioning the value of your demonstration. Pretty arrogant to assume anyone who disagrees with your style of protest swallows everything corrupt governments tell them.
You are a disgrace to the anti-cuts movement.
newsjiffy 3 months ago 3
bore off
zzzzzzzzzzz
davefurnish 3 months ago