to wonder how the occupy random places people

[Sevenfold]

can afford to do it.
if they work, are they on holiday? are they rich?
if on JS, don't they loose that as they are not looking for work......

Or perhaps a group of religious extremists who think women shouldn't be educated, would you support them in demanding a local authority ban all females from education?

Protest all you like, but occupy have issued a list of demands which I think is arrogant and presumptuous.

The EDL are indeed foul and racist as are the BNP, they often claim to speak for many when in fact they speak for few and in that way they are similar to the occupy protestors IMO. A small minority group who are arrogant enough to think they represent many and think they can bypass laws and democracy. If occupy are so sure of there support by 99% then they should have no problem cleaning up at the elections!

London I support their right to protest much more than I support their demands. I also support the rights of groups whose demands I disagree with to protest. I don't want to live in a world where we all think the same.

Protest is a way for regular people to gain power and voice that is usually the persevere of large organizations or rich individuals. It's an important part of democracy.

See what for yourself? The info I have based my postings on comes direct from their own website.

Preserve

No objection to the protest, personally think it's a bit silly but no issue with the protest. I object to the arrogance of making demands and claiming to represent the many.

Occupy is an international movement. The list of their demands are below... Londonone what exactly do you disagree with?

On 16 October, the Occupy London protesters issued the following 'Initial Statement':

• The current system is unsustainable. It is undemocratic and unjust. We need alternatives; this is where we work towards them.
• We are of all ethnicities, backgrounds, genders, generations, sexualities dis/abilities and faiths. We stand together with occupations all over the world.
• We refuse to pay for the banks? crisis.
• We do not accept the cuts as either necessary or inevitable. We demand an end to global tax injustice and our democracy representing corporations instead of the people. *We want regulators to be genuinely independent of the industries they regulate. *We support the strike on the 30th November and the student action on the 9th November, and actions to defend our health services, welfare, education and employment, and to stop wars and arms dealing. *We want structural change towards authentic global equality. The world?s resources must go towards caring for people and the planet, not the military, corporate profits or the rich. *We stand in solidarity with the global oppressed and we call for an end to the actions of our government and others in causing this oppression. *This is what democracy looks like. Come and join us!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_London

Londonone, the protesters may be ambitious in what the want to achieve, but don't know why you would call them silly.

There is plenty in that I disagree with but the specific demands that I find objectionable are

"In its initial statement, the City of London policy group calls on the Corporation of London to do the following:

1. Publish full, year-by-year breakdowns of the City Cash account, future and historic.

1. Make the entirety of its activities subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

1. Detail all advocacy undertaken on behalf of the banking and finance industries, since the 2008 financial crash.

It is the intention of the City of London Policy Group to present this list of demands formally to the Guildhall later this week"

From the occupy website.

What right do they have to make demands of the Corporation of London?

Their lives are impacted by the City of London. That's a pretty big reason to want to call on government.

What right do they have to make demands of the Corporation of London?

If the Corporation of London gets any public funding, it should be liable to answer to the public. So why are you so affronted that Occupy is pushing for greater information transparency on how any public funds are used?

Hilarious. Protesting against dirty capitalism but financing themselves by working at Starbucks, Harpers, in IT on Wall St...

Ok so going back to my example above, would you support a group of a few hundred religious extremists demanding that a council didn't allow females access to education? If not why not?

flatbread - The corporation may need to be accountable but not just because a few hundred people decide that is what they want. I could probably muster a few thousand people who want cyclists banned from the roads in London, does that mean it shpould happen?

I think the point, hells 1908, is that there isn't an alternative to dirty capitalism at the moment.

Lonon,

Not all protests and demands are equal. As a society, we generally don't allow for public protests that infringe/hurt/discriminate against rights of people based on gender, ethnicity, religion or disability. Your example of women's education discriminates and infringes rights on based on gender and is hence not a legitimate public protest.

Increased freedom of information on how public money is spent is hardly something to get upset about. In any case, if you are against it, please feel free to go and organize a counter-protest and we can see how many supporters you have.

London, not Lonon...apologies, my keyboard is old and sticky

I see flatbread, so essentially things you agree with are ok but things you don't aren't. Far more support has been shown to both restoring the death penalty and stopping benefits for rioters (No10 Petitions) doesn't mean they should happen or does it?

And flatbread who is the arbiter of which protests are valid? Is it you?

No, London I am not the arbitrator. Limits on free speech are set by the law. Statutes forbid public speech and protests which target/threaten people on account of skin colour, race, ethnicity, religion, or gender.

Its all a bit pointless though isnt it.

That's not the point I am making flatbread, the point I am making is that no minority group should be able to simply make demands and expect to have them met. IMO all protests are valid but when you start demanding actions by others and claiming to speak for the majority you are arrogant. We have a democratic system, that is how change should be effected IMO, as I said if they really represent the 99% as they claim to they are in line for a landslide!

And I think none of the examples I have given would fall foul of free speech legislation.