On the positive side, huuuge support for the Occupy London Stock Exchange protest

[breadandbutterfly]

Cast your vote too if you wish, or just revel in being, if not 1 of the 99%, at least currently 1 of the 87.5%. :)

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2011/oct/17/occupy-london-poll

[glasnost]

88.1% now breadandbutterfly!

[breadandbutterfly]

Yay!

[ChickenLickn]

:)

[crazynannawitchbitch]

[bobthebuddha]

ah, but how much in real terms is 88.2% (closing figure) of a Guardian poll? For some reason they don't say

[breadandbutterfly]

In 'real terms'? Well, I suppose it depends who's bothered to vote. Have you?

[bobthebuddha]

Nope, the vote had closed. I find these types of poll pretty facile anyway, given that they're always yes/no & nothing in between. You know, like GW Bush & his 'you're either with us or against us'. I guess that's your inference too by asking me? And no, it doesn't 'depend on who bothered to vote'. The audience of the Graun is pretty small (bigger online than off though I daresay) so it depends more on who bothers to read it . It would be a major shock all round if the vote had gone any other way..

[bobthebuddha]

Well smallwhitecat, Canon Giles Fraser (regular Guardian writer) welcomed the protesters with open arms when they couldn't get to Paternoster Sq & asked police not to move them on. Now St Paul's is panicking (as are soon-to-be-marrieds too I'm sure) because their takings have plummeted & they're seriously considering having to close altogether.

[breadandbutterfly]

bob - acc to the below, the Guardian has around 50 million - yes, you read that right - monthly users. Less than the Mail (70 million). But hardly insignificant.

www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/25/abce-july-guardian

[bobthebuddha]

Interesting, breadandbutterfly. Doesn't tell us how many did the poll though. Incidentally, St Paul's has now closed its doors to the public. H&S has done what the Blitz couldn't. Seems ridiculous. I was going to take the kids down to see the protest & the cathedral this w'end. But I hope the protesters do the right thing & find another place to camp out now.

[claig]

It's been done deliberately. The media is all over the story.

The first line is: those nasty meanies, the protestors, they have stopped the tourists and good worshippers from entering the Cathedral - a place of worship, not money - the first time since the Blitz. That has guaranteed that many of the public will turn against the protest.

The second line, pushed by progressive newspapers, will be: the nasty, rich Church, why don't they stand shoulder to shoulder with the poor protestors against the nasty money makers.

It is progressive divide and rule to fool and divert the public and help the bankers.

[claig]

'A statement from the protesters said: "Since the beginning of the occupation six days ago, OccupyLSX have tried hard to accommodate the cathedral's concerns in any way we can.

"Over the past 48 hours, we have completely re-organised the camp in response to feedback from the fire brigade and we have also accepted the presence of two large barriers to preserve access to the side door of the Cathedral.

"This afternoon we have been told, in a telephone call, by the fire brigade, that they have not issued any new requirements above and beyond those already communicated directly to the camp. Therefore, there are no outstanding fire safety issues."

The statement calls on the cathedral to specify their "precise safety concerns" and the closure of the restaurant "mystified" them as the access to it had "never been blocked by the encampment".



www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15406865

[BlueyDragon]

claig, are you suggesting the request to the protesters to move on is some kind of banker conspiracy? Or that in fact the protest itself was started by bankers to make protesters look bad? I suspect the bankers are not behind the media's reaction to this. The opposing media viewpoints are behind the media's reaction to this. Bankers are not responsible for everything.

[claig]

I am suggesting that progressives are behind this, not bankers. The bankers don't need to do anything, they have progressives to do that for them.

[claig]

As Aliceliddel said on the other thread, when she quoted something from Tony Benn that I had never heard but which is very true
"too many socialist parties, not enough socialists".

It's exactly the same with progressives. Most of them are not for real. Most of them are there to fool the public. Remember how the Guardian ditched Gordon Brown and "enthusiastically" backed Nick Clegg in the election.

How do you think the ruling elite are able to change the public's mind and move them in the direction they want them to go. They use progressive pied pipers, most of them Oxbridge educated ex-public school types, to tell them about climate catastrophe and how little time they have left to "save the planet".

[onagar]

Did we win?

Are we getting a brave new world or did the bankers and politicians just drive past and ignore everyone?

[claig]

The protestors use the slogan "we are the 99%".

How are the 1% able to rule the 99%, create new 'carbon' taxes for them and cut their benefits? They use proxies and progressives.

[bobthebuddha]

Ohh... so that's why so many people voted Lib-Dem in the last election then. The plants at the Graun decided to fool the public & everyone went for it! Oh hang on...

[claig]

Proxies, puppets and progressives. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish between them.

[claig]

How do you think the Lib Dems increased their percentage of the vote so much? Do you think it was due to Nick Clegg's phrase "you are the bosses"? The media acted as cheerleaders for him.

[claig]

Correction. The media (apart from the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror) acted as cheerleaders for him.

[bobthebuddha]

What??? The figures I've seen tell me their share of the GE vote in 2010 saw an increase of around 1% on the previous and 5 fewer seats...

[claig]

Yes, you may be right. I can't remember the figures any more. Their polls went sky high and they were ahead of Labour. I can't remember how that materialised in the election results and whether they increased their percentages in their key seats. But, I think the Guardian's ditching of Brown and backing of Clegg was a significant cog in the wheel that led to Labour's defeat.

[bobthebuddha]

You could have Googled the facts you know; but granted, it is a little inconvenient letting them get in the way of personal theories.