Let St Pauls Be St Pauls

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Now that the protest occupying the area outside St Pauls has made its point, it's time they moved on. Any goodwill they may have for their points of view is being eroded by the problems they are causing this key place of worship and tourist attraction. They are not inconveniencing 'The City' in the slightest. Own-goal.

The police would indeed move them on if the landowners request it. I understand from press reporting earlier in the week that they refused to make such a request. That was however before the need to close the cathedral for public worship was known.

It seems that the Church has still made no such request. But as the protest is now preventing public worship, and a camp has been established elsewhere, I think protesters are now doing wrong. Unless the Church, not the "City" is indeed their prime motivator now.

"They should protest outside Bank. But they're not allowed to. So they've ended up somewhere that causes no inconvenience to those they're protesting against. And upsets tourists and christians."

Has anyone actually asked tourists and Christians if they are upset by the protests?

I would imagine that those who regularly worship at St Pauls would indeed be upset.

Well the Christians have complained.

Actually now I think about it as an atheist I'd have to say that at least they are annoying Christians so not a total waste of time :o

I'm a Christian and I'm complaining.

Nice to see the Church standing shoulder to shoulder with the poor and the dispossessed.

"Well the Christians have complained."

Do you have a source, please, Onagar? I'm interested in what "the Christians" have said.

OK so the protesters have bought the excuses of left wing politicians and are blaming the banks for our country being in serious trouble (right wing politicians blame left wing politicians), so in order to protest against the banks they're causing trouble for St Pauls.

The Politicians and the banks must both be delighted at this wonderfully mistargeted protest.

"Jesus would have been on the side of the protesters."

Jesus would no doubt be better informed and would be blaming the politicians who are really responsible for our economy being so fragile that the bankers could break it. He would also no doubt be boycotting all the global mega-corporations.

But no, the protesters go and sit outside St Pauls while listening to their iPods and tweeting away on their mobiles.

Genius.

These protesters are really doing the politicians and bankers a massive favour, I wonder if they're actually funding them? I mean imagine if some genuinely informed protesters really set out to make a difference as opposed to this silly bunch of easily distracted muppets.

We have about 20 people camped in our City Market Square - they are just as ineffective.

I have to agree with Louise Mensch on HIGNFY - you cant complain about capitalism and then reap rewards from it.

I care about the poor and dispossessed, but they're not generally the ones who protest about capitalism, it's rich left-wingers whose family home is a mansion in Berkshire. How many people on here are supporting the anti-capitalists with posts sent from their apple iPhone?
apple - the biggest symbol of capitalism in the world - you have to laugh.

But surely the problem is that there isn't a shared view of what 'being St Paul's' means.

Christianity is based on teaching, life, and death (and resurrection) of a radical chap who knocked around 2,000 years ago speaking out against established norms.

I'm a Christian and I was proud of the actions of those who ran St Paul's last week. But I can understand why the authorities felt they must close.

CateOfCateHall If you were keeping up you'd know that St Pauls is unhappy about not being able to stay open. I'm going to assume they are Christians unless you want to argue that they are not?

also rycooler Sun 23-Oct-11 16:31:21 I'm a Christian and I'm complaining.

That's two sources. How many do I need to pass your inspection?

"Why was a religious site making £20,000 a day in the first place?" - Because it NEEDS to to function for pity's sake! An old house costs a fortune in upkeep; can't you see that a building the size & age of St Paul's costs so much more & needs the revenue for its upkeep, especially given how many people visit on a daily basis? I'm so disheartened by the protesters' refusal to see this. It seems that having failed to get onto capitalist ground & having contributed to the closure of this much-loved & incredibly important building they seem to want to convince themselves & others that St Paul's is the enemy. I'm with the OP.

Again the same old trumpet blowers for the status quo.

Much and all as you like to believe you're somehow a cut above the hippies and dossers etc at the protests - it's 99% likely that you are not. You ARE them. Being a pro-Christmas turkey protects you for a while but the day will come for you or your kids - it's inevitable in a system that concentrates wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands.

Snidey remarks about legitimate protests are pointless. They are DOING something, rather than sneering from the safety of their homes.

btw, a lot of people have all the time in the world to protest. Have you seen the unemployment figures?

The main businesses being hit by this protest are those in Paternoster Square, because it is completely closed off. Some of these are small businesses who will go to the wall if this goes on much longer.

Patronising & arrogant, SinicalSal. You may have a beef with certain posters, but I for one certainly do not believe I'm a cut above anybody. I am however allowed a studied opinion I think. Do you think you can do people the courtesy of allowing them an opinion without assuming they're part of the 'status quo', or being a 'turkey'? And you accuse others of being snide! The protesters can have it both ways; they can find another, appropriate venue, keep the moral high ground & the public's goodwill & let St Paul's have its life back. Given that it wasn't even the originally intended venue it doesn't seem that too much to ask. Refusing to move is just self-defeating & given that St Paul's hasn't asked police to move them on, a poor payback. It appears very mean-spirited of them & of you to try to defend it by attacking.

But then I suppose it's also a calculated risk (or a very cynical approach) on the protesters' part. They could try to find other places to protest in & risk being moved on or blocked by the likes the owners of Paternoster Square. But why do that when you can hold a church to ransom? Hold them off as long as possible by insinuating they're lying about H&S reports, paint them as capitalists because they get revenue from visitors for their upkeep, all the while knowing that they haven't & are not likely to ask the police to move you on. And if they do, well they're instantly the bad guys, right? They simply can't do right for doing wrong, can they?

I'm referencing a cliche Bobthebuddha, 'turkeys voting for Christmas' not calling anyone a turkey! I'm not sure 'certain posters', or any posters for that matter would get the heebiejeebies at being called turkey, even if I did!

It seems like any conversation I've had about this issue gets sidetracked into snidey attacks on the protesters being dreadlocked dolers and the like. fEck all about the issues - pros and cons of neo-liberalism or otherwise. Why so? is it because for 99% of the people there are feck all pro's?

Thanks though for the 'patronising and arrogant' bit.

"They are DOING something"

But what are they doing?

Are they building support for the protest movement?

Are they targeting the politicians who are ultimately responsible for the mess we're in?

No, they're forcing St Pauls to close, showing the inability to realise who's really causing our problems, running around draped in the symbols of capitalism while proclaiming it's demise and genuinely damaging whatever public support they might have.

If there were some capitalist cabal locked away in their top secret bunker dreaming of ways to discredit the protest movement they really couldn't have come up with a much better plan than what the protesters are doing.

But rather than listen to that opinion you'd rather dismiss the people who point out the damage this lot of idiots are doing as being "turkeys" or just those who "sneer".

There are problems in our society and we do have the power and strength to deal with them if only we'd take the chance. Annoying St. Pauls and making yourself look like a fool is not going to help.

"It seems like any conversation I've had about this issue gets sidetracked into snidey attacks on the protesters being dreadlocked dolers and the like.'

And that's now going to get worse isn't it?

Any chance to talk about people moving and trying to occupy London will not be sidetracked into a discussion about the idiots who ended up "protesting" outside St Pauls and forced something that could have been one of their biggest supporters to close.

As said earlier, this is not helping and call me cynical but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some elements of those protesting who are doing this quite deliberately in order to cripple the protest movement.

Sorry, but it was patronising & arrogant. Why base your posts solely on what 'dreadlocked dolers' red raggers say instead of engaging with the posters who don't use that kind of language? There are plenty of us.

1. i don't get what these protesters are for - i get what they're against in vague terms.

2. couldn't they have staged smaller protests around more relevant areas of London? fairly easy to organise using the mobile phone, no?

3. just looks like a bunch of people who haven't thought about what they want, and therefore amazingly enough, aren't acting in an effective way to achieve it...

TBH I'm not in the UK so don't know the story re St Pauls and was a bit trigger happy (on a thread with St Pauls TWICE in the title ) so apols for that. My points were more general ones about the protests as a whole.

Do agree that there are some elements within who DO wish to discredit the movement - but tbh they don't have much to do. The media is doing a fab job.

Well, the it either going to have to move, or accept that the UK will come to believe that their target is St Pauls - either in its role as a church (which is doubly shabby as the church authorities are the ones who stopped the police from preventing their setting up camp), or in its role as historic monument which has a colossal annual maintenance bill which they will be unable to pay if their income is cut off.

It's not hurting those who were believed to be the target, so again it has to be the Church they hate the most.

It's a pity they did not have the nous to realise that endangering a national treasure ("never shut, even in the Blitz") is the fast track to loss of public support.

And they seriously need to muzzle that prat who said he'd be there until Christmas. If they prevent the festivities there at a major Christian festival, they will look like the pettiest bunch of petulant killjoys possible.

fair do's