Parents meet-up at St Pauls/Occupy London?

When I was in Antwerp recently, I found that they charge to enter the cathedral there. So not unknown elsewhere.

breadandbutterfly, the Church needs 'a bob or two' to maintain the huge number of historic buildings it has responsibility for. These buildings cost 'obscene' amounts of money to maintain & keep a lot of people in employment as a result.

And I repeat (yet again for those who can't seem to understand) if you don't want to pay to go in, all you have to do is go to a service of which there are several a day.....shall I say it a little louder for the hard of hearing?

YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY to 'enter God's house'.

THE 'FLOCK' DOES NOT HAVE TO PAY.

You have a choice to pay or not pay to go in

spoof news about occupy london - very funny I think

It was beginning to look as if the St Paul's Cathedral policy was going to be to turn a blind eye while the police gave the protesters a good kicking. Very glad Archbishop Rowan Williams said what he did - that a real debate, focussing on the already massive, widening gap between rich and poor, and what can be done about it, is needed, with a view to making long overdue changes in our society. The St Paul's protesters are showing that ordinary folks are angry. It can't be enjoyable, sleeping in a tent in this weather. They are tough and principled and I admire them. They never wanted St Paul's to close its doors - as other posters have said, that was for political reasons, to show ther protesters in a bad light and to turn the general public against them. Well, duh - it didn't work.

I am amazed that you have to pay about £14.95 to look inside St. Paul's. I remember going to the Notre Dame many years ago, but I can't remember if you had to pay to go in. Paying to enter God's House is a bit shocking.

Given the huge wealth of the church and their duty to their 'flock' I'm not really clear why we should be paying to see a church at all. Why was St Paul's raking in 20 grand a day in visitor's fees? - the church is not short of a bob or two. Bit obscene.

Public wishing to prey or find a quiet space are directed to St Dunstan's Chapel.

Sunday services can be attended for free but no 'sight seeing' is allowed.

Peter Marcus could have just told the family that they could go to a service in the Cathedral & save themselves the entrance fee if they were that upset. A point that seems to be missed umpteen times a day on message boards, Facebook pages newspaper letters pages & outside the Cathedral itself, deliberately or otherwise.

BandB - that letter was from The Times.

Interesting post on my facebook - a letter to a newspaper which annoyingly I cannot cut and paste as it is a photo of the actual letter. So - excuse my rubbish typing - here it is:

Sir, The last time I was at the entrance of St Paul's Cathedral, I met a rather disappointed family with young children on a day trip to London, who were upset that they couldn't get in. Not because of any protesters, but rather because of the admission prices (currently £14.50 per adult, and £34.50 for a 2+2 family).
It wasn't the forces of anti-capitalism which had closed the cathedral to those visitors. Quite the opposite.
PETER MARCUS
Leeds

A good point, succinctly made. Extra brownie points to anyone who can tell me which newspaper that is clipped from, or show the link (or is my friend's friend the original photographer? Don't know.)

"If it had continued to be open, and tourists go in and out, and evensong happen etc, would you still be against the camp?"

'Against' is a strong word. I don't support the occupation and I think the aims of the people there are rather woolly but I do support people's right to protest. Very sad that the Dean stepped down today and think the protesters saying they are 'not responsible' are kidding themselves

OP are you there? Any chance on an update on MN group and when you're next going?

Personally i think the protesters have handled it badly- they should have thought a bit more about the PR - also it made it clear that it was pointless and without direction i wouldn't join a protest with no clear demands issues or focus

And breadandbutterfly, Zelda's question DOES matter because those of us on these threads who've quite reasonably stated why we weren't happy with the situation regarding the Cathedral have been shouted down as 'anti-protest', 'right-wingers', the usual pick n mix of cliches. As if it's only pro or anti & nothing in between. So it matters, a lot...

Breadandbutterfly; my conclusions are:

A) A cathedral in the City of London which cost a fortune to run has people with financial experience advising it. Entirely sensible. Ask yourself, does the Guardian Media Group use landscape gardeners or ecologists to advise on its financial status & offshore tax affairs? Probably not. Draw your own conclusions from that

B) Being in business/working for a law firm does not automatically mark you as evil. Our country couldn't function properly without them & many charities would be considerately poorer. Even Giles Fraser has openly stated he's not anti-capitalist

B) A left-leaning newspaper tries to smear the Cathedral. Right-leaning papers try to smear the protesters. No surprises.

To those who criticise the Cathedral for taking private money & charging tourists (not service-goers btw); would you prefer it had public funding instead? And if not, how do you propose it pays for its considerable upkeep? I've asked this question many times but for some reason no-one ever answers it.

And Zelda, in answer to your question, no I personally wouldn't. This is getting repetitive, but I've said I was going with the kids to the protest but changed my plans after the Cathedral closed & I was unhappy at the 'we're not moving no matter what' kicked in & commentators turned on the Cathedral.

It is reopening, Zelda, so doesn't really matter either way.

Interesting to see 2 myths about the protests debunked today - firstly that only 10% of the tents are occupied at night - which an expert has now dismissed as 'rubbish science' (see Guardian link above). It turns out that the pictures purporting to show this are not police pictures (as the police always claimed) and show nothing of the kind, as the technology used is not capable of giving that kind of information. What's the likelihood that the proof of this story being false will be given the same front-page space and prominence as the original? Or indeed that an apology will be issued for (deliberately?) misleading readers? (Not holding my breath...)

Secondly far from 'Christians' and the Cathedral being opposed to the protesters, the canon chancellor of St Paul's has himself RESIGNED in protest that the protesters could be forcibly removed. So true Christians, and Cathedral staff, have been shown to be very much on the side of the protests.

On the other hand, the Guardian has also revealed some interesting stuff about some of those pulling strings behind the scenes at the Cathedral - by an astonishing coincidence, they include many of the uber-rich bankers etc that the protesters are protesting about in the first place. So clearly their attempts to stop the protests going ahead are ENTIRELY unbiased. See:

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/26/st-pauls-reopen-occupy-london?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

"Protesters and their supporters have scrutinised the links between St Paul's and the City. The cathedral has close ties with its neighbours. David Rouch, a partner at the City law firm Freshfields, sits on the council of reference of the St Paul's Institute, while Roger Gifford, the chairman of the Association of Foreign Banks, sits as a trustee of the St Paul's Cathedral Foundation. Carol Sergeant, the chief risk director for Lloyds Banking Group, and John Spence, a former managing director for Lloyds, are also foundation trustees."

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

It's not "my" cause difficult Lemon. If you have no plans to "humiliate" it which I never thought you did I wonder what your plans ARE on here. Studenty rant is all I've picked up in your posts as they are empty and too fixated on me. Get over me and get on topic if you have anything to add.

meditrina the eviction will take place and is only a matter of time. Meetings are taking place right now that will determine that. You anti protest posters will support this action, no?

Good morning glasnost. No evasion here, just other stuff on, and you were also implying I was picking on you personally rather than your posts so I was going to leave it. Which bit would you like a reply to? I will do my best, but tbh, it just sounded like a studenty rant. You didn't actually ask me any questions or I'd have 'replied' sooner.

Obviously, I do wonder what you mean by 'TRANSPARENT', since I have been pretty direct with you and have no hidden agenda - although your posts do seem to have a hint of paranoia about them, so I imagine you think I'm working for 'the media' or 'the bankers' or whatever reductive bogeyman you pick. I'm not.

I've refused to be drawn by you and your petty little tactics into answering as I didn't wanto fall into a trap OK, this is quite paranoid. I've asked direct questions - there's no trap, what trap are you afraid of if you've thoroughly examined the arguments and believe in your cause?

'Refusing to be drawn' could be interpreted as 'not actually having the answers'. Certainly, on the subject of where I or others could find this unbiased info you refer to, your 'refusal to be drawn' just looks odd. If I had something I cared about strongly and someone asked me where they could find out more information about it, I'd be very keen to point them in the right direction.

I've started loads of thread on here (2 specific to the Occupy movement) that if you hadn't come so late to the party you could've browsed if you're sooooo interested in my politics. But for you to extrapolate my posts on here and hold me up as some symbol of this is cynical, disingenuous and does a great disservice to the many involved.

Right, I'm not sure how to reply to this. Am I late to the party? Zelda went to the camp yesterday, so it seems like a current discussion to me. Not really sure about the relevance of your other threads, but I was only replying to your posts on here - I think that's quite normal on MN. The stuff about 'extrapolating' doesn't seem to relate to my understanding of the word extrapolate, as you haven't provided me with anything to extrapolate conclusions from. I have basically just asked you questions which you've avoided, or twaddled about David and Goliath or whatever.

I don't consider you a symbol of 'this', or a symbol of anything for that matter. It is sanctimonious phrases like this one: 'is cynical, disingenuous and does a great disservice to the many involved' that really do show the emptiness of your position. As I have no agenda or plans to humiliate your cause - and haven't posted against the issues it purports to support - there is no cynicism involved, ditto 'disengenuous' (see issue of paranoia above). As for doing a great disservice to the many involved, I fail to see that I have done anything at all to the 'many involved'. You, on the other hand, haven't really advanced their case here.

My apologies, have found this on the resignation.

Eviction remains in the realms of speculation. The camp was a bit silky not to have found a way to co-exist with the Catherdral earlier - it was looking quite promising late yesterday.

Evidence for both the resignation and forced removal please?

Sorry that, "adjustments to satisfy fire regulations so we can happily co-exist, and camp can continue with full support of the Cathedral" just isn't as eye catching, is it?

Canon Giles Fraser who has been supportive of the protest from the get go has resigned as he knows they'll be removed forcibly soon and is - as a real Christian gent - against that. "Scaremongering" am I the conveniently evaporated meditrina?

Isn't it curious how all the corporate/authority apologists go AWOL when their flimsy arguments are rubbished by reality.

Oh. Lemon, I'm sill waiting for a reply to my post 7.40. Evasiveness or a "refusal to engage"? Etc. Etc. You lot are TRANSPARENT.

A simple way to clear space and help St Pauls would be to remove those tents unoccupied at night...

And Murdoch and the Barclay bros and the porn baron Desmond. What fragrant company.