Aussie is praised for booing at UK comedian after 'deeply sickening' joke sparks heated back and forth in front of audience: 'That was extremely insensitive'
Carmen Azzopardi, a type 1 diabetic, was appalled when Paul Foot launched into a ten minute skit on diabetes sufferers during his show at the Moth Club in Hackney, east London, last Wednesday.
Ms Azzopardi called out the comedian on stage but Foot hit back and said he disagreed his comments were 'insensitive'.
In the ten minute skit, Ms Azzopardi claimed Foot 'made fun of people' who wear continuous glucose monitors - a device diabetics use to keep track of their blood glucose levels.
He then mimicked a diabetic having a hypoglycaemic episode by shaking on stage, before suggesting they die after suffering a heart attack.
In footage shared on TikTok by Ms Azzopardi, she could be heard booing and calling out the comedian following the skit.
'That was a s*** joke. I have type 1 diabetes, that was extremely insensitive and mis-informative,' she said.
Foot hit back and said he didn't believe he was being insensitive as he attempted to continue his set.
'I don't think it's up to you to decide if it's insensitive or not,' Ms Azzopardi said.
The pair continued to clash in a tense exchange as the comedian argued 'comedy is subjective' while the audience could be heard nervously laughing intermittently.
Foot went on to blame her for the show's 'awkward' ending.
'Due to the failure of you to grasp that simple intellectual point, cause you fail to grasp the difference between these issues, cause of that it's ending in an awkward way,' he said.
Ms Azzopardi said her friends urged her to leave the gig, but she wanted to stand her ground and avoid the comedian making fun of her once she had left.
Foot then called out Ms Azzopardi for talking while he was finishing up his set and said they would never agree over his comments as he was sharing 'an intellectual argument' while she was on 'the emotional side'.
The disability campaigner explained why she was angered by Foot's comments in a video following the exchange.
'All in all, deeply embarrassing for him, deeply deeply sickening to witness as someone who is living with that disease,' Ms Azzopardi said.
'It's probably one of the most blatant acts of ableism that I have ever personally experienced since being diagnosed with this illness, because that's what it is, it's an illness, not a punch line to a joke.'
Social media users overwhelmingly agreed with Ms Azzopardi.
'Is the joke in the room with us? I don't understand which part is meant to be funny. Well done for calling him out!' one said.
'This is so weird? Did someone with diabetes break up with him? This is such a random gripe to have,' another wrote.
'Why were people laughing? Not a single thing in this clip was funny,' a third added.
'I have type 1 diabetes and I used to do stand up and there is a way to make tasteful jokes about YOUR own illness and experience but this ain't it,' a third said.
However, disagreeing with the campaigner, one wrote: 'God forbid a comedian tells a joke.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
A large pro-Palestine protest has won legal right to march across Harbour Bridge. How will the shutdown affect Sydney?
A pro-Palestine protest that plans to march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge will go ahead with legal protection after its organisers won a supreme court challenge. The court heard up to 50,000 people were expected to attend – the same number of people who marched across the bridge for World Pride in 2023. New South Wales police sought powers to move on protesters and expressed serious concerns about the disruption a large protest on the bridge would have on the city. But Justice Belinda Rigg said disruption and inconvenience alone were not enough to stifle the right to political protest and noted 'significant support for the march'. Here are some answers to questions you may have about the march, including its planned route, transport disruptions and potential risks. The ruling means protesters will have immunity from being charged under the Summary Offences Act. This includes protection from offences like 'obstructing traffic' – crucial in this particular protest. However, police will still have access to a range of other powers to stem what the court described as 'antisocial behaviour' or other types of offending. This includes showing prohibited symbols. David Mejia-Canales, a senior lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre, said the authorisation 'doesn't give people the ability to engage in all types and all forms of activism'. 'It's really important for people who do attend that they follow the directions of organisers and marshals.' There is no authority to ban protest or deem it unlawful in NSW. This is because, while there is no express right to protest in the state, it is covered in common law and by the Australian constitution, which the high court has found implies the right to freedom of political communication. The protest will begin at 1pm on Sunday at Lang Park in Sydney's CBD. Protesters will then march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge into north Sydney. Early plans shared with protesters stated the march would end at the US consulate, but this may change. The protest is expected to last several hours. The bridge will be closed to traffic from about 11.30am. Police hope it will reopen to traffic from about 4pm. They have advised people to avoid the CBD and travel in the city unless necessary. Yes, but NSW police will comply with the court's decision and say they are working with protest organisers to address issues and concerns. A significant police presence will be in the city, including officers brought in from across the suburbs. The force has said it will also use specialist resources, including the public order and riot squad and mounted police. Police have advised the public to expect significant disruptions in and around the CBD. A counter protest against antisemitism, organised by the Christian-led group Never Again is Now, will not be granted legal protection because, according to the supreme court, 'notice was served less than seven days before the proposed assembly'. The group had been planning to protest outside the Sydney harbour tunnel, close to the pro-Palestinian march. Rigg said police would have the legal power to direct this group to move on or, if necessary, arrest demonstrators for non-compliance. These powers will not extend to those marching in the pro-Palestine demonstration. The state government is yet to respond to the supreme court decision. Earlier this week, Chris Minns opposed the protest, saying: 'We cannot allow Sydney to descend into chaos.' But several NSW Labor MPs defied their premier, vowing to attend the march. Labor's Stephen Lawrence, Anthony D'Adam, Lynda Voltz, Cameron Murphy and Sarah Kaine were among 15 NSW politicians who signed an open letter on Thursday evening calling on the government to facilitate 'a safe and orderly event' on Sunday. The state opposition leader, Mark Speakman, said while he respected the freedom to protest, including with rallies and marches, 'allowing the takeover of the Harbour Bridge for a protest in the middle of the day sets the wrong precedent for the future'.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Heathrow's third runway plan is wrong – and not just because of noise and pollution
Here we go again. To say there is a deja vu aspect to the latest proposal to build Heathrow's third runway is an understatement. For reasons that are not clear, Sir Keir Starmer has determined the airport's expansion to be a key plank in the government's economic growth strategy. Seemingly, he did not take into account the issues that grounded the plans in the past, as far back as 1968 – namely, Heathrow's unfortunate and unavoidable proximity to the M25, the rivers and their valleys that cross that part of west London, the additional noise pollution, and the need for improved and costly transport links to and from the centre of the capital that will result from the vast uplift in passengers. On the constant sound from the increased number of planes landing and taking off, the prime minister will insist that great technological strides have been made in curbing the din. It is true that new aircraft are less noisy. However, they are still extremely audible, there will be more of them, and they will be flying over a heavily residential area. As for the rest, nothing has altered fundamentally, environmentally and logistically, since Heathrow last submitted a scheme, pre-Covid. Inflation means the bill is now an eye-watering £49bn. The bill, ultimately, will be borne by the air passenger, and Heathrow is already the most expensive airport in the world. Will the airlines and their customers stomach at least a doubling in charges? There is the thorny problem, too, of public transport to and from London. The London mayor will be expected to find a way to enable an extra 60 million people a year to use Heathrow. Transport for London is strapped for cash, struggling to upgrade the Tube network. How the additional demand will be met is not clear. What has shifted as well is the nature of air travel. Post-pandemic, business travel is down and looks unlikely to recover – that, certainly, is what the industry is saying. During the outbreak, holding meetings remotely came into its own and employers took a hard look at their budgets – Zoom or Teams often represent a better alternative in executive time and expense. That therefore raises a major doubt about one of the main claims made for Heathrow's extension. It is said to be necessary to enhance London and the UK's standing in the business world, but how, if the commercial users are not there? There has been movement too, and not of the positive kind, in attitude towards Heathrow the operator. The power outage that shut down the plum in Starmer's vision for resurgence and global acclaim was a shocking episode; it not only highlighted a neglected infrastructure but also a failure of management. Thomas Woldbye, who is seeking permission to build this national project, is the same boss who slept through the night as Britain's busiest airport ceased to function. Heathrow's reputation in the sector was already poor, but this took it to a new low. Woldbye has an idea that is different from the one previously suggested, which is to build the third runway over the M25, taking the motorway underneath – and all without any disruption to road users. This is fanciful even without a track record that hardly inspires confidence. Which raises another question. Why? Why should Heathrow as a company get to preside over the airport's improvement and reap the benefits? If we're all agreed that it is a vital national asset, holding a pivotal place in the economy, then why should the incumbent be in charge, not to mention entrusted, with its development? Those who wax lyrical about Heathrow's importance like to reminisce about how Britain led the transformation of international aviation. Boosting the airport is seen as completing that journey. It is the case that we once did. That was in the Margaret Thatcher era, when British Airways was freed from the shackles of state ownership. Thatcher did more than that, though. She enabled and encouraged competition, giving a steer to the challengers and disruptors, notably to Richard Branson at Virgin and Michael Bishop at British Midland. The newly privatised BA was forced to raise its game, and together, these three set new standards. There appears to be an assumption that Woldbye's company must be given the job. But there is another option. Surinder Arora, the self-made billionaire who has masterminded the building of leading hotels at Heathrow and other airports and is a substantial Heathrow landowner, has his own remedy. His is much cheaper, envisaging a shorter runway that does not affect the M25. It is easy to dismiss Arora. But he is popular with the airlines, he rails rightly against Heathrow's pricing, and he knows a thing or two about customer service. He also possesses heavyweight advisers in the shape of Bechtel, the US engineering, construction and project management giant. He deserves to be taken seriously. Heathrow needs a competitor. Likewise, if neither the airport operator nor Arora is selected and the third runway is again kiboshed, then surely serious thought must be given to expanding rival airports. Heathrow has been resting on its laurels for too long. As for Starmer, he perhaps should ask himself how it is that someone who professes to be forensic legally is so capable of displaying rushes of blood to the head politically. Giving Heathrow such prominence smacks of impetuousness. He's done it and has been left with an almighty headache.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Starmer needs to listen to us, says Labour MP who quit government over welfare cuts
Sir Keir Starmer needs to listen to his own MPs, an ex-Labour frontbencher who quit her role over plans to slash benefits has said. Vicky Foxcroft, who dramatically quit as a government whip in June, said ministers need to 'properly engage' with Labour backbenchers after a massive rebellion forced the government to abandon key aspects of its benefits reforms. Ms Foxcroft said she was 'really concerned' about the negative impact the proposals – which were later abandoned – would have on disabled people. 'There was some quite bad cuts to disabled people's benefits suggested, particularly around Personal Independence Payment (PIP), and having to have four points before you would be able to access the benefit. 'And I was just really concerned about that. And, you know, at that point, I didn't feel that I could support it and didn't feel that I could go out and whip for it and get other MPs to do the same', Ms Foxcroft told GB News ' Gloria De Piero. She said she had 'sleepless nights' in the lead-up to her decision to resign, saying it was 'really difficult and I really would rather not have had to do that'. 'I was actually having a hard personal time at that time as well, with my dad passing away quite suddenly. And so, you know, I had the stress of all of that, but also I was really worried about these proposals, and I really spoke to lots of people about what my concerns were around it. 'I had some sleepless nights, it plays on your mind the whole time', the MP for Lewisham North added. Asked what the government could do differently next time, she said: 'I think it's really important to listen to MPs. MPs are out in their constituencies. They're meeting with people. You know, when they're raising concerns it is coming from what people are worried about. 'It's really important that that engagement takes place in the future. And properly takes place.' But Ms Foxcroft also insisted that the government can turn around its fortunes, despite a poor performance in the polls, with Reform UK surging ahead. 'We've got quite a few years until a general election, and we are doing a lot of good things in Parliament, the Renters' Rights Bill, the Employment Rights Bill, the Football Governance Bill, but at the moment, some of this stuff is just bills in parliament. 'What we need is people to really feel the difference actually, genuinely in their lives.' It comes amid growing concern over the direction of Sir Keir's government from voters on both the left and the right, with the prime minister's approval rating hitting an all time low earlier this month. His support among the public reached new depths of minus 43 after the £5bn welfare U-turn, according to polling published last month. The survey, first reported by The Sunday Times, also found that just a year after coming to power, seven in 10 voters think Sir Keir's government is at least as chaotic as the Tories' previous term.
