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.

Can someone actually tell me what positive impact these people have made for their cause?

They have inconvenienced St Paul's and it's users, whether tourists, worshippers, weddings, they are costing the country more money in terms of policing etc, they are pretending to camp out but most go home at night, they are just seen as a pain the arse really ....

Finsbury Square is pretty appropriate from an historical perspective alone as well as being capitalist central; round there was the scene of encampments by displaced people (so their tents really were permanently occupied) after the Great Fire & at times of low wages, unemployment & rising prices in the 16/1700s. Just don't mention the Gordon Riots; a few places of worship got trashed .

"Right, so those of you who think the protesters should move, where do you suggest they go?"

Somewhere where their protest will actually make a difference rather than St Pauls where all they are doing is destroying the credibility of and public support in the protest movement.

"We need to remember that the problems that led to the biggest economic and political crisis of the last 100 years aren't solved. The causes haven't been addressed. Protest is necessary to stop the wealthy and powerful ignoring the concerns of ordinary people."

I actually agree.

So stop annoying St Pauls.

Stop making the protest movement look ignorant and selfish.

Stop destroying the vital public support that is required for any successful protest movement.

Stop targeting the banks.

Start blaming the politicians who created an economy that was so reliant on the banks to fund public spending that they couldn't let them fall.

Start demanding that Governments live within their means rather than driving us ever deeper into dependency on the banks by borrowing money to pay the bills.

Start moving the protest so that hits the politicians.

Same old suspects. Go home and get a life and stop distupting peoples lives and liveryhoods.

That's ironic chip - they are protesting against the financiers who have wreaked devastation on the entire global economy. Who are the disruptive ones?
According to the papers the canon chancellor is ready to resign if the protestors are forced

Out - damn phone!

Here's a duplicate of a post I made on the politics board - apologies for duplication, but I thought it properly belonged here in refutation of the many wildly inaccurate statements made on this thread.

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? hmm (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. hmm 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. wink

"I'll let you draw your own conclusions. wink"

So just to make this quite clear you're saying that the Church of England is corrupt and in it with the bankers?

Which would mean that the whole left wing image of the Church of England is just a front to throw people off the truth?

So things like the Archibishop's comments in favour of Marxism and the way that the Church might rip itself in two over how liberal the CofE is becoming are just masks that they hide behind.

Really?

Or alternatively the CofE could be exactly what it appears to be, very left leaning, and those protesters are just ignorant fools camping in the wrong place.

Which is more likely?

Meditrina Quote from the Guardian "The London Fire Brigade said it had not advised the authorities at St Paul's to close the cathedral for fire safety reasons, saying it was satisfied that there were "no fire safety concerns with the camp itself"." .......so who has been claiming there is a fire hazard and just what is their agenda? Pretty clear that Boris would like to see them leave.

The church has a difficult balancing act, weighing its behaviour towards the protestors with the impact that will have on its ability to carry out it's functions.

"Pretty clear that Boris would like to see them leave."

I don't know if he does...

The protesters seem to have swallowed the line that this is all the bankers fault hook, line and sinker. But then rather than actually inconvenience the bankers they've gone and annoyed St. Pauls and a few small businesses.

So the bankers aren't being affected by this and meanwhile the public support and credibility for the protesters takes a continual kicking. Which as far as Boris and his rich chums are concerned is just brilliant. The politicians are even more delighted as the protests are ignoring their ultimate culpability entirely.

So the politicians are probably quite happy for the protesters to remain right where they're are. They're ineffective and are destroying their credibility and support.

So if there is any "conspiracy" going on here rather than thinking that the CofE is actually a corrupt and secretly right wing organisation I think it's far more likely that the rich and powerful are secretly quite happy for things to be just as they are right now.

BadgersPaws - you write above that "the public support and credibility for the protesters takes a continual kicking", yet that well-known left-winger, Max Clifford, has come to somewhat the opposite conclusion, quoted below:

"The publicist Max Clifford said it was a PR disaster..

He told the Guardian "It's not a good advert for Christianity for a church to be shutting out people who aren't causing problems to anyone. It's a very well-organised protest. It's peaceful. I was brought up to believe that a church was a place where people would find refuge. It's a very damaging stance they're taking."

So I think you need to consider just who this is really damaging, the Church or the protesters? I don't think it is the protesters...

Incidentally, I don't think anyone is claiming (other than yourself) that the Church is "actually a corrupt and secretly right wing organisation".

That is very different to saying, I think correctly, that certain powerful interests are doing their best to put pressure on St Paul's at the moment. Hence the principled resignation of its canon chancellor.

Just spent four days at St Paul's Youth Hostel with my teens, passed the protesters several times each day. While I am in sympathy with what I think is their main cause (the issue of the bankers and unfair distribution of wealth), there were literally DOZENS of posters covering every available surface complaining about many, many different and unrelated issues. The result is that they appear to have no particular agenda and are just there to complain about everything - their message has been totally diluted. We ended up calling it the "big whinge". They even had a washing line pinned up welcoming ideas, one of the comments on it was "direct action now". For what? Against whom? Still non the wiser. I also don't think they are helping themselves by having banners up saying that they want to do away with money and then having a whip round for petrol for their generator and sending someone for 9V batteries for their megaphone. Incidentally, the reason why the tents don't show figures in at night is because the pictures were taken at 11.00pm, and they're all outside the tents until at least 1.00am singing etc and generally being irritating when you're trying to sleep. They're not particularly messy, they're not particularly in the way (I can see NO reason to close the cathedral), they've just become meaningless. They need to have a complete re-think and be clear on what it is that they're protesting against and, more specifically, exactly what they want to be done about it - whatever it is in the end.

"Incidentally, I don't think anyone is claiming (other than yourself) that the Church is "actually a corrupt and secretly right wing organisation"."

Any insinuation that the Church's complaints and justifications aren't reasonable and are in fact motived by some other desire is saying exactly that.

Either the Church is telling the truth.

Or it's lying for some reason be that for it's own "selfish" interests or because of some powerful figure in the background pulling strings.

We've even seen a statement above that "true Christians" are "very much on the side of the protests." So people are not even just accusing St Pauls of the CofE of lying, being manipulated but also of not being "true Christians".

And that's the kind of stuff that you have to believe in order to buy into the theory that there's anything behind the requests for them to move other than the protesters causing genuine trouble for what is a sympathetic group.

Thanks for posting the one press article in which mentions an unnamed spokeswoman repudiating the Fire Service advice.

I wonder what has been going on here. And why it has taken nearly a week for this comment to emerge (and indeed whether it has been made to other media - it's not on the Fire Service website).

And if it's not a safety issue, why did Occupy London confirm they were reconfiguring to comply with safety requirements?

Does anyone know if the reconfiguration has taken place, and if the Cathedral can open tomorrow?

And the Cathedral is NOT trying to 'stop the protests going ahead' That is disingenuous in the extreme. It's displayed every sympathy but asked if it can be moved elsewhere. There is a world of difference.

bob - wining the enduring support of the Cathedral, the protest would never have happened. For it was only their intercession that stopped the police moving them on.

This is why any protest that harms the Cathedral is repugnant, under the general principle of "biting the hand that feeds".

And as the camp has had no real presence in UK except by reference to St Pauls, it will continue to be a spectacular "fail".

Better to move, reinvigorate, and try again - with the campsite itself either harming the intended target, or harming no-one. It'll take quite some effort to get over the alienation they have caused thus far, but it might yet be possible.

"wining" - and I haven't even been on the wine yet - I meant "without":

As in "the sine qua non of this camp is the Cathedral".

Don't disagree meditrina, wine or no wine

Thanks hilltop. Very useful to have someone who has actually been there. I do hope everyone has read your post.

They are just a bunch of losers who haven't got anything better to do with their lives but sit in a tent outside a venue which isn't related to what they are complaining about. From what I've seen they just seem to be a group of people who moan but don't have anything constructive to say about what they would do instead and so show banners with vague statements which really could mean almost anything.

bned - actually it is you and me and the rest of the UK too who are the losers, thanks to what has been allowed to happen. We will all pay for this some way or other.

meditrina according to the Church Times "The cathedral was closed last Friday after advice from a health and safety official. " - I imagine the Guardian asked the London Fire Service press office what advice they gave and discovered they hadn't advised closure, but they may have picked it up from the link below.

More confirmation that the advice was not from the London Fire Service here www.u.tv/News/Occupy-London-protest-at-St-Pauls-faces-action-from-City-officials/06b0138b-42f3-41c0-8e23-8ed693b71ecf

Well, as the camp has finally made the required adjustments and the Cathedral has reopened, it's no longer a key question.

It's reflects poorly on the camp that it took so long to meet these concerns.

What concerns? Can you not read medetrina that no concerns were expressed?

If the Daily Mail told you there were dangerous aliens living in your roofspace and you must move into your shed immediately, would you just do it, no questions asked?