Anti-Wall Street Protests Spreading to Cities Large and Small

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

aren't the protesters unwittingly revealing problems in the church that where already there ,not causing them ?

There is that, yes.

Certainly- and perhaps unintentionally - they have caused the church to look at itself.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by martyh

aren't the protesters unwittingly revealing problems in the church that where already there ,not causing them ?

At the end of the day they have been asked to move on but they have refused , What else can the church do now but ask the courts to get involved. I don't know if that resignation would have happened if the protesters had not dumped themselves outside the church.

Originally Posted by Osem

Which is why I haven't claimed it was their intention. Their intention is irrelevant - their actions and refusal to move on voluntarily and peacefully from the Cathedral's grounds have, however, quite predictably caused chaos and a great deal of harm to an entirely innocent institution which has nothing whatsoever to do with their cause.

They haven't done a great deal of harm to the institution. Most of the harm has been self-inflicted, deciding that they had to close on health and safety concerns before going back on decision and internal disagreements on how to deal with the protesters.

The situation at St Pauls is being used, predictably, to vilify the protesters. There has yet to be any violence, any disorder, any damage at all done by this camp, they seem to be a good example of what a peaceful protest is all about.

---------- Post added at 22:46 ---------- Previous post was at 22:45 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

At the end of the day they have been asked to move on but they have refused , What else can the church do now but ask the courts to get involved. I don't know if that resignation would have happened if the protesters had not dumped themselves outside the church.

They have to protest somewhere. Their location of choice was denied as it was private property.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Sirius

At the end of the day they have been asked to move on but they have refused , What else can the church do now but ask the courts to get involved. I don't know if that resignation would have happened if the protesters had not dumped themselves outside the church.

It's much larger that getting the courts involved. Its about the fact that there are individuals within the church who are quite prepared to go against the teachings of Christ and endorse / allow the use of violence (their words, not mine).

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

It's much larger that getting the courts involved. Its about the fact that there are individuals within the church who are quite prepared to go against the teachings of Christ and endorse / allow the use of violence (their words, not mine).

Frankly, I'm more surprised that some of the people involved actually decide they can't square taking action against the protesters with their beliefs.

Hats off to them though

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

They haven't done a great deal of harm to the institution. Most of the harm has been self-inflicted, deciding that they had to close on health and safety concerns before going back on decision and internal disagreements on how to deal with the protesters.

The situation at St Pauls is being used, predictably, to vilify the protesters. There has yet to be any violence, any disorder, any damage at all done by this camp, they seem to be a good example of what a peaceful protest is all.

Directly and indirectly they've cost the church a lot of money (even more if the legal process is protracted) and, by all account, some good people their posts. Had they moved on when asked to do so none of that would've happened. That they haven't resorted to violence yet is fine but I've heard several protestors say there will be violence if the police try to move them. The police will clearly ask them to move and only if they refuse and obstruct or resist will there be any physical force used. They will be the ones reponsible for that not the police or the church.

Originally Posted by Osem

Directly and indirectly they've cost the church a lot of money (even more if the legal process is protracted) and, by all account, some good people their posts. Had they moved on when asked to do so none of that would've happened. That they haven't resorted to violence yet is fine but I've heard several protestors say there will be violence if the police try to move them. The police will clearly ask them to move and only if they refuse and obstruct or resist will there be any physical force used. They will be the ones reponsible for that.

One of the resignations was because he was opposed to the removal of the camp by force. He objected to that idea and said the camp was promoting the same goals as a church.

At the end of the day they are not being allowed to move onto anywhere else in the City. So they will stay there. I am all for that considering the good behaviour they have thus far shown. Considering the usual level of protest we have had in the City these people are showing how it should be done.

Maybe the government or city authorities should engage with them more instead of calling in the police. A good start would be to allow them into paternoster square if the agree not to encroach into the main walkways.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

One of the resignations was because he was opposed to the removal of the camp by force. He objected to that idea and said the camp was promoting the same goals as a church.

At the end of the day they are not being allowed to move onto anywhere else in the City. So they will stay there. I am all for that considering the good behaviour they have thus far shown. Considering the usual level of protest we have had in the City these people are showing how it should be done.

Maybe the government or city authorities should engage with them more instead of calling in the police. A good start would be to allow them into paternoster square if the agree not to encroach into the main walkways.

There'd be no removal by force or anything else if the protestors hadn't brought their dispute to St Pauls or refused to move as requested. I hope they continue to show 'how it should be done' when they're faced with the police who'll be trying to enforce the law.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Osem

There'd be no removal by force or anything else if the protestors hadn't brought their dispute to St Pauls or refused to move as requested. I hope they continue to show 'how it should be done' when they're faced with the police who'll be trying to enforce the law.

Their behaviour to date, having been entirely law abiding and peaceful, suggests that they will.

It's perhaps best not to prejudge them.

[danielf]

Out of interest: where are the supporters supposed to move to?

Presumably, the request to 'move' isn't simply a request to bugger off and end the protest?

Originally Posted by Osem

There'd be no removal by force or anything else if the protestors hadn't brought their dispute to St Pauls or refused to move as requested. I hope they continue to show 'how it should be done' when they're faced with the police who'll be trying to enforce the law.

They had no where else to bring it.

[Cobbydaler]

Aren't they just going to be asked to remove the tents? They're welcome to stay 'sans abode'?

Well seeing as no one is allowed to protest outside the House of Commons and Downing Street is gated against incomers and they were denied the chance to protest outside the Stock Exchange I'd like to know where exactly they should take their protest.

I truly want to hear the answer to this..because it goes to fundamental rights that many of our ancestors have fought for here, and abroad for generations.The freedom of speech is paramount to our society and some members here don't seem to understand that right.It's also the reason why the ordinary citizens in Libya went to war with their former ruler..they were denied a right to speak out or protest about any issues at all.
Freedom of speech = democracy.Denial of free speech=dictatorship.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Well seeing as no one is allowed to protest outside the House of Commons and Downing Street is gated against incomers and they were denied the chance to protest outside the Stock Exchange I'd like to know where exactly they should take their protest.

I truly want to hear the answer to this..because it goes to fundamental rights that many of our ancestors have fought for here, and abroad for generations.The freedom of speech is paramount to our society and some members here don't seem to understand that right.It's also the reason why the ordinary citizens in Libya went to war with their former ruler..they were denied a right to speak out or protest about any issues at all.
Freedom of speech = democracy.Denial of free speech=dictatorship.

Freedom of speech YES. The right to protest YES. The right to interfere in the daily business of that church who has had nothing to do with there protest NOT as far as i am concerned.

As for where do they go, Well thats there problem not the problem of the church, I have already said why dont they camp at the gates of downing street ???

Originally Posted by Sirius

Freedom of speech YES. The right to protest YES. The right to interfere in the daily business of that church who has had nothing to do with there protest NOT as far as i am concerned.

As for where do they go, Well thats there problem not the problem of the church, I have already said why dont they camp at the gates of downing street ???

You know full well why they haven't taken their protest to the gates of Downing Street, they wouldn't be allowed. Not only that but there is no room to do so there and their main target are the banks and the stock market located in the City.

Interfering with the business of the church was not their intention but it isn't good enough reason for them to be stopped, because you can use that card as often as you like, protestors will always be interfering with something when they protest.