Thursday, 21 March 2013


 “I can think of nothing more alarming than the statement that ‘Cameron has blood on his hands.’”, claimed a judge at Oxford Magistrates' Court who prosecuted Bethan Titchborne for causing "harassment, alarm and distress" for engaging in a lone protest against Prime Minister David Cameron in November 2012, when she was brutally assaulted by police officers for asserting her democratic human rights. 

Bethan explains her rationale for demonstrating as follows: 

30 people have died as a direct result of the government’s ‘welfare reforms’. Thousands have died after being found ‘fit for work’. Over the long term, as more and more is taken away there will be increasing harm and death, including many hidden ones. The fine and costs come to more than I earn in a month, the judge said that on a whole £700 a month of course I’d have no trouble paying it back. After rent, travel to work, food and paying off loans I don’t have money left at the end of the month, and my salary is going down soon, so I’m not sure what will happen next. Except that I’m going to keep saying that Cameron has blood on his hands.

The estimation of thirty people dying from welfare cuts and sanctions derives from Calums List, a website collating media stories on individuals cited to have been killed as a direct of consequence of said welfare "reforms". There is no way of knowing how many more dozens may have died already; and we can assume there will certainly be dozens of cases in the future.

According to the Department of Work and Pensions itself, in response to a Freedom of Information request, at least 10,600  severely disabled and sick people died within 6 weeks of having their Employment and Support Allowance withdrawn by the DWP, after undergoing an Atos 'Work Capability Assessment', and being deemed 'fit for work'.

Steve Bell - May 2011

The mass death caused by this industrialised medical malpractice backed by state culpability is not necessarily genocide, as it is not strictly a deliberate killing of a group of persons (in this case disabled and unwell) driven by political power. The political scientist Rudolph Rummell, however, describes democide as the following: The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.

Rummell further elaborates: Democide is meant to define the killing by government as the concept of murder does individual killing in domestic society. Here intentionality (premeditation) is critical. This also includes practical intentionality. If a government causes deaths through a reckless and depraved indifference to human life, the deaths were as though intended. If through neglect a mother lets her baby die of malnutrition, this is murder. If we imprison a girl in our home, force her to do exhausting work throughout the day, not even minimally feed and clothe her, and watch her gradually die a little each day without helping her, then her inevitable death is not only our fault, but our practical intention. It is murder.

I believe that the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of disabled and sick people in the UK, directly caused by the collusion between the Department and Work Pensions and Atos in the Work Capability Assessment system, and the reckless and depraved ethos justifying it, constitutes democidal mass murder by proxy (at the very least manslaughter) by David Cameron's government. It is why Bethan Titchbourne was right to say that CAMERON HAS BLOOD ON HIS HANDS.

We can respond to this flagrantly politicised assault on our freedom of expression by the legal system in the following way:

  • Join the #cameronhasbloodonhishands Twitter hashtag campaign. Use the hashtag when possible when discussing the UK's disability welfare and human rights issues.
  • Say "Cameron has blood on his hands" at anti-government and anti-cuts demonstrations. Chant it. Brandish signs with the slogan on it. If in the circumstance you encounter or see David Cameron in public (I emphasise public), be sure to make him hear how drenched in blood his hands are. 

We will not tolerate the state's democide, and its attempts to suppress dissent against it, laying down.

Thursday, 14 March 2013

Cameron's big money

At Prime Minister's Questions on 13 March 2013, David Cameron attacked Ed Miliband for the Labour Party's acceptance of donations from trade unions in 2012: the GMB, USDAW, ASLEF, the TSSA, UCATT—£2.7 million, dinosaur after dinosaur, dinner after dinner. They pay the money, they get the policies, but the country would end up paying the price.

It's somewhat inaccurate for Cameron to say that the trade unions inform Labour Party policy, given that in so many instances, Labour remains entirely uniform to the cause of neoliberal austerity cuts. But, in view of the unions, Labour are the most effective vehicle for democratic socialism and social democracy, despite the sometimes contemptible positioning of its leadership (which is another issue entirely).

Ed Miliband does deserve credit (and it is something he should emphasise when responding to Cameron's swivel-eyed anti-union jibes) that in April 2012, he advocated a £5,000 cap on donations to political parties from any individual or organisation. 

David Cameron and the Conservative Party rejected this, despite their supposed outrage over large monetary support for the Labour Party from 'union barons'. 


It is perhaps because, unlike the Labour Party which receives donations from unions that are the cumulative contributions of thousands of low to relatively modest payed workers, 50% of Tory Party funding comes from bankers and financial firms in the City of London. £42 million has been given to the party from the City since Cameron became its leader in 2007. To put this into perspective, this is £12 million more than the insufficient "discretionary" fund for the poor and disabled victims of his bedroom tax.

No wonder Cameron's government is so driven to implement an agenda which transfers the expense of the financial system's crisis onto the social fabric.

Almost exactly year before attacking Ed Miliband for having "dinner after dinner" with the leaders of trade union donors, Cameron was forced disclosed the private dinners he had with large corporate donors to the Conservative Party.

His raving, self-evident hypocrisy confirms that he has no real moral objection to a politics based upon his bribery and corruption; his motive is only to attack the trade union movement which attempts to cooperatively organise a modest opposition to it.