Parents meet-up at St Pauls/Occupy London?

[zelda200]

Hello all - would anyone be interested in meeting up at St Pauls on Wednesday 26th under a parents-for-change sort of banner?

I went to the start of the protest on Sat 15th (with my two kids, 3.5 and 1.5), and was struck by the need for more so-called ordinary people to be there, as otherwise it might get dismissed as just the "usual suspects" (far-left agitators etc). I think just from talking around that a lot of parents think this is important for our kids' future. I would like to take a stand against the growing inequality in this country.

Anyone interested in meeting?

Thanks

Zelda, interesting post. I guess the recurrent point on this thread is that many don't have any beef with the protest per se, but inconveniencing the wrong target is the wrong approach. And that's their main problem with the media; well some of it anyway. The usual polarisation is in place. Hyperbolic 'hateful rabble' headlines on the front of the Express are to be expected, as are the contortions in the Graun which seems determined to paint St Paul's as the villain. None of it is remotely helpful to anybody, but I don't think this arm of the Occupy movement is helping itself one bit. I've said before I had been quite keen to go down with DD & DS until the effect on the Cathedral became apparent (and I'm sceptical about the closure being politically motivated) & I felt the protesters' response was wrong-headed. Watching developments with interest

zelda - a couple of points

3. businesses losing custom - reason people are posting this is because a cafe owner did a piece to camera in his open, but empty, business and stated his takings were down 40%. Is he wrong?

4. the camp is reported as (finally) rearranging itself to clear the fire paths (this is more than just the immediate areas of the doors), and if fire service concerns are met, then the Cathedral will reopen on Friday. Are you a fireman, or are you directly quoting one with the relevant expertise about the current situation?

5. in exactly the same way - but at the Finsbury Square site.

Lemon it IS personal as you've been pathetically hounding me on this thread coercing me to answer you inconsequential questions as if the replies could prove something of your preconceived notions of this entire movement. I'm not a spokesperson for the Occupation and am not involved in this one directly. I've refused to be drawn by you and your petty little tactics into answering as I didn't wanto fall into a trap of you then shrieking: Loook! She's a lefty! Look! The entire movement can be reduced to one poster's replies on a silly little forum.

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.

meditrina the LFB have stated categorically there's no fire hazard. Yours is so much flimflam to aviod the core issues of why the protesters are there at great personal discomfort. If you'd been in Egypt would you have maintained Tahrir Sq was an 'elf and safety issue as authorities tried to there initially? And I've noticed ALL your posts on here tow the authority line even insinuating other posters are at risk of prosecution with their allegations. (Thread on In the News re. St. Paul's.) Why do that?

And before all the usual suspects fire back their predictable replies attacking ME and not what I've posted answer this: how should people protest meaningfully in this day and age?

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/26/occupy-london-tents-rubbish-science

Dacre is one of the 1% I think

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

A quick question: if St Paul's hadn't shut down, would those here against this protest still be against the protest?

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

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

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.

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...

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

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

"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

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.)

@glasnost - I had been planning to go tomorrow (Tues 1 Nov) but we now have to go to Yorkshire tomorrow until Wednesday, so I wouldn't be able to make it until Thursday at the earliest, by which time it might have disbanded. If it's not disbanded, I might go then.
I don't think there's a MN group going - I haven't heard from anyone else about going.

BandB - that letter was from The Times.

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.

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.

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.