Thread: Purgatory: St Paul's To Close Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000848
Posted by Big Oil (# 15713) on
:
This morning St Paul's Cathederal in London is threatening to close its doors to the public because a big street protest has set up in front of it.
Is anyone close enough to the scene to know exactly what the issue is? Surely our clergy should be supporting this protest and using them to get a radical Christian message to the public. I think to close down because of a few prophetic souls objecting to the injustice of the economic system, sends all the wrong messages.
quote:
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
[ 05. March 2012, 16:08: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
There's a big protest. Big protests in London have a habit of turning nasty. St Paul's doesn't want some group of tourists or schoolkids on a field trip getting caught in the middle of something like that, so they're thinking about closing while it's going on.
As for the churches supporting the 'prophetic' protesters: your biases are showing.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Big Oil:
Surely our clergy should be supporting this protest and using them to get a radical Christian message to the public. I think to close down because of a few prophetic souls objecting to the injustice of the economic system, sends all the wrong messages.
What radical Christian message are you proposing to get across? It strikes me that the protesters don't even themselves have a unified and focussed sense of what they're protesting against. One person's 'prophecy' is another person's nuisance.
It strikes me there are red-faces at St Paul's now. They moved police on at the weekend thus handing over the square to the protest camp without any thought for the consequences.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Yes - the same bias that Jesus had - a bias to the poor.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Yes - the same bias that Jesus had - a bias to the poor.
Not the protesters then...
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
It was the Canon Chancellor Giles Fraser who made the brave decision to allow the protestors to stay there unhindered. I'm reminded of the late Fr John Methuen who allowed a Sri Lankan asylum seeker to live in his church vestry for several months. No doubt at great inconvenience to the regular congregation and the day to day work of the church, but a prophetic gesture none the less.
That Canon Fraser's colleagues seem to have undermined him suggests that they are more interested in allowing the money-changers of the city back into the Temple than supporting those who challenge them, like Jesus himself. Sad but predictable. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Yes - the same bias that Jesus had - a bias to the poor.
Not the protesters then...
Indeed not. The protesters are anti- a lot of things, but I've yet to see them come out with a viable pro- anything proposal.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
I walk past St Pauls everyday on the way to work. The camp organisers do seem to be working with the Cathedral authorities to ensure that that their protest doesn’t get in the way of the daily life of the Cathedral – tents have been moved away from gates and the front steps have been cleared. It all seems reasonably well organised and good natured – but the police presence is quite noticeable and bits of the Square have been blocked off. That bit of my journey takes longer than it did. (Although that could be because I’ve been reading some of the artwork and chatting!)
Part of the problem is that although the understanding at first was that the camp was going to be a temporary thing, but they’ve now talking about staying for the long term. It all looks very organised – power, recycling facilities and a food kitchen etc. Which probably wasn’t quite what the Cathedral thought they were signing up for … The other problem is that however good and well behaved the majority of protestors are, there are always going to be some idiots who misbehave and wreak it. I’m not sure what long term effect it’s going to have on visitor figures. Some tourists and schools groups might think twice about going, but others will probably think, “Sod it” and go.
I don’t think it’s possible to see it in terms of Jesus would do this or that … Although everyone there seems to be in agreement that things are broken and that the voice of the 99% isn’t being heard due to the volume of the 1%, no one seems to be in agreement with how to fix things. Jesus would probably agree with some of what they say, but not all of it. And far be it for me to decide which bits those are!
Tubbs
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Although everyone there seems to be in agreement that things are broken and that the voice of the 99% isn’t being heard due to the volume of the 1%, no one seems to be in agreement with how to fix things.
This surely is precisely the problem. And there's no division into one per cent and 99 per cent - we are a much more divided society than that. I see the voices of the protesters as people who are drowning out the actual voices of those they claim to represent.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
It's inspired by the Occupy Wall Street protest which is spreading to several European countries.
Plus - what Angloid said.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I think the Christian way is doing quiet acts of mercy for the poor, without fanfare. Perhaps more, the Christian way is actually to be poor. I find any expectation that the Church join or support human political movements deeply suspect, especially when the movement, like this occupy whatever one, is founded on only the vaguest sense of injustice and motivated by the profoundest self indulgence. The Church exists to preach to the world its deep need for a relationship with Jesus Christ, revealed in the Bible, not to put the crown on the latest political cause.
Zach
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
It's inspired by the Occupy Wall Street protest which is spreading to several European countries.
Plus - what Angloid said.
Some news reports say the movement started in Spain and then spread to Wall Street and beyond.
Tubbs
[ 20. October 2011, 13:10: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by badman (# 9634) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Part of the problem is that although the understanding at first was that the camp was going to be a temporary thing, but they’ve now talking about staying for the long term. It all looks very organised – power, recycling facilities and a food kitchen etc."
I do think there's a difference between a protest and a permanent occupation.
The first work of the Cathedral is the worship of God. If, as the Cathedral now says, it may actually have to close, the occupiers are destroying the work of a body which has nothing to do with anything they are protesting about.
I would be surprised if it were actually that bad. The protesters are now more to the side of the Cathedral. But I still don't see the point of long term occupation of an area which is not a Bank, or the Stock Exchange. The people who will be affected by a long term closure of this public space are ordinary local workers and tourists, none of whom have any influence over whatever it is the protesters would like to happen or not happen.
These people are not defending their own homes, like the people at Dale Farm. They aren't trying to shame legislators on the spot, like the camp in Parliament Square. They aren't where the people they object to are, like the women of Greenham Common. They aren't doing anything which is properly thought through or properly targeted.
It looks irresponsible and it looks self indulgent. Those who look on them more kindly and sentimentally than I do are nicer people than I am, I must admit, and that is to their credit as Christians. But nice people can be taken advantage of and I think that is why the cathedral is the victim here. It's a soft touch.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
They aren't doing anything which is properly thought through or properly targeted.
They've seen what's happening in New York and thought "hey, that looks cool! Let's do it here as well!"
That's about the extent of their thinking, as far as I can tell.
But don't worry. They'll all bugger off again when the next cool thing goes viral on Facebook.
[ 20. October 2011, 13:36: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by Ellis Bell (# 16348) on
:
I think the movement took inspiration from lots of places, not just Spain, but also the "Arab Spring." I think you can certainly see that in the social media component to the protest.
I've found Occupy Wall Street very fascinating. I know lots of people want them to make demands for change, treating them like they're 1960s dirty hippies, but they aren't. I think by pointing to a problem without making demands they are elevating the debate in a way that we haven't seen for decades. American political discourse hasn't discussed wealth inequality in 80 years, and they have certainly injected that back into the mix. I also think it is very useful to point out, as they have done, that there have been few systemic changes to the Banking industry and we are still vulnerable to the disastrous effects of having institutions that are "too big to fail."
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
They aren't doing anything which is properly thought through or properly targeted.
They've seen what's happening in New York and thought "hey, that looks cool! Let's do it here as well!"
That's about the extent of their thinking, as far as I can tell.
But don't worry. They'll all bugger off again when the next cool thing goes viral on Facebook.
Or more likely when the weather goes cool.
That Giles Fraser sounds a bit of a mockney to me. I have heard of outreach but does it need to be so blokeish? A real gem of a geezer I am sure.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ellis Bell:
I think the movement took inspiration from lots of places, not just Spain, but also the "Arab Spring." I think you can certainly see that in the social media component to the protest.
I've found Occupy Wall Street very fascinating. I know lots of people want them to make demands for change, treating them like they're 1960s dirty hippies, but they aren't. I think by pointing to a problem without making demands they are elevating the debate in a way that we haven't seen for decades. American political discourse hasn't discussed wealth inequality in 80 years, and they have certainly injected that back into the mix. I also think it is very useful to point out, as they have done, that there have been few systemic changes to the Banking industry and we are still vulnerable to the disastrous effects of having institutions that are "too big to fail."
The Arab Spring my arse.
Posted by Ellis Bell (# 16348) on
:
quote:
They'll all bugger off again when the next cool thing goes viral on Facebook.
I rather think not. It is easy to dismiss them as the new millennium's stupid kids, but to do so would be very shortsighted. The people I've talked to at Zuccatti Park here in New York seemed very committed and very sophisticated. They are not out there at the whim and fancy of some Internet craze.
20,000 people converged on Times Square last Saturday, which can hardly be dismissed as something viral on Facebook, although I'm sure that Facebook was a tool in getting the word out. These folks are giving voice to a lot of anger--that there were no prosecutions for corruption and fraud, that finance eats up a disproportionate amount of wealth, that corporate dollars buy political influence, and that systemic flaws in the economy haven't been fixed.
Posted by Ellis Bell (# 16348) on
:
quote:
The Arab Spring my arse.
That is certainly how the major the three major TV Networks are reporting it. I can find you clips if you like.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
... there's no division into one per cent and 99 per cent - we are a much more divided society than that.
Yes we are divided This has a simple diagram showing just how the pie is divided in the USA I don't suppose it's much different anywhere else.
Anyone in the UK in the 50's and 60's would have known full employment. It was possible for 15 year olds to leave school with no qualifications and walk straight into a job. Those who stayed on in education knew their qualifications would be worth having. The same divisions were around but there was some common ground between capitalists and workers. Now that profit now comes largely from financial speculation and the service industries there's not much common ground between rich and poor.
I'm sure we'll see more protests of one sort or another in the next few years. The Church will need to stop sitting on the fence.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
I'm sure we'll see more protests of one sort or another in the next few years. The Church will need to stop sitting on the fence.
I don't think the Church is poor is it?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think the Christian way is doing quiet acts of mercy for the poor, without fanfare. Perhaps more, the Christian way is actually to be poor. I find any expectation that the Church join or support human political movements deeply suspect, especially when the movement, like this occupy whatever one, is founded on only the vaguest sense of injustice and motivated by the profoundest self indulgence. The Church exists to preach to the world its deep need for a relationship with Jesus Christ, revealed in the Bible, not to put the crown on the latest political cause.
Zach
Indeed ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
By contrast, St James' Cathedral in Toronto has accommodated the Occupy Bay Street campout quite congenially, even arranging for them to have hot water routed into the park.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think the Christian way is doing quiet acts of mercy for the poor, without fanfare. Perhaps more, the Christian way is actually to be poor. I find any expectation that the Church join or support human political movements deeply suspect, especially when the movement, like this occupy whatever one, is founded on only the vaguest sense of injustice and motivated by the profoundest self indulgence. The Church exists to preach to the world its deep need for a relationship with Jesus Christ, revealed in the Bible, not to put the crown on the latest political cause.
Zach
Indeed
Which is presumably why Canon Fraser was sufficiently guarded in his initial statement. He deliberately did not say that the Church supports the protest, but the right of free speech. Presumably the Cathedral was chosen by the protesters because it provided space for them to assemble that was not under the jurisdiction of the City of London or its police. Having said that of course, you wouldn't put yourself out to support free speech if you disagreed violently with what was being said. It's a question of nuance. Probably a very Anglican solution, whereas the threatened closure doesn't seem like that at all.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
there's no division into one per cent and 99 per cent - we are a much more divided society than that.
Which is, of course, no accident. "Divide and conquer" is an old strategy.
quote:
I see the voices of the protesters as people who are drowning out the actual voices of those they claim to represent.
Unless you are one of those they claim to represent and you feel yourself drowned out, how are you in a position to judge? To be fair, I'm probably not, either, however down-at-heel I may look, thanks to building up a nest egg for retirement that leaves me better off in theory than a great many. I'm fortunate. But the squeeze is on, it's only a matter of time. I'm certainly not among the 1% or even the 10%.
The important fact is that these demonstrations are burgeoning spontaneously in many places, whereas 5, 10, 20 years ago we had nothing of the kind. They protest an inequity of wealth unprecedented in American life (at least since the eve of the Great Depression). A good precedent was in the final years of the Roman Empire.
By and large, the 1% has long since found it too risky to parade its wealth in conspicuous consumption as did the industrial moguls of the Gilded Age. They now put their enclaves in somewhat more secluded spots than Fifth Avenue. For awhile such subtlety seems to have worked; but it is now plain to see that they can't fool all of the people all of the time. Ellis Bell and I call that progress.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Which is, of course, no accident. "Divide and conquer" is an old strategy.
Who do you think is operating this strategy of 'divide and rule'? Incompetent politicians, bungling shadowy security forces?
quote:
Unless you are one of those they claim to represent and you feel yourself drowned out, how are you in a position to judge? To be fair, I'm probably not, either, however down-at-heel I may look, thanks to building up a nest egg for retirement that leaves me better off in theory than a great many. I'm fortunate. But the squeeze is on, it's only a matter of time. I'm certainly not among the 1% or even the 10%.
The important fact is that these demonstrations are burgeoning spontaneously in many places, whereas 5, 10, 20 years ago we had nothing of the kind. They protest an inequity of wealth unprecedented in American life (at least since the eve of the Great Depression). A good precedent was in the final years of the Roman Empire.
Spontaneous? It may have begun spontaneously but that hardly describes the British protests. They're now just jumping on a bandwagon.
The crucial question is not whether I am in a position to judge but whether they are. They after all are the ones claiming to be representative. My point is to question that claim.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ellis Bell
I've found Occupy Wall Street very fascinating. I know lots of people want them to make demands for change, treating them like they're 1960s dirty hippies, but they aren't. I think by pointing to a problem without making demands they are elevating the debate in a way that we haven't seen for decades.
I 180° disagree. I've neither sympathy nor respect for anyone who says they want to change something, but doesn't accompany it with a clear programme of what they propose in stead and how to do it.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
But don't worry. They'll all bugger off again when the next cool thing goes viral on Facebook.
The weather turning cool - or wet - might do it.
Tangent and Rant Alert
quote:
From Big Oil's OP
I think to close down because of a few prophetic souls objecting to the injustice of the economic system, sends all the wrong messages.
Are we really saying these people are 'prophetic'?
To say something is prophetic is to say that God has the speaker's ear, and that the speaker has heard the specific voice of God to the occasion and passed it on.
It is not 'prophetic' just to be outspoken, controversial, or to say things that anyone can work out, but hasn't done, doesn't agree with or might find disturbing. It may be a good thing or a bad thing. It may be courageous. It may be stupid. But it is not 'prophetic'. It is a serious misuse of the word.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've neither sympathy nor respect for anyone who says they want to change something, but doesn't accompany it with a clear programme of what they propose in stead and how to do it.
I don't know how any of us mere mortals with no particular insight into how international finance operates, can be expected to have a 'clear programme' of how to deal with it. Maybe (in fact, probably almost certainly) national governments can't do this either. But surely as citizens in a democracy we have the right to protest when something's wrong and expect those with the ability to put things right to do so.
Isn't your suggestion a bit like saying we've no right to go to the doctor unless we can give an expert diagnosis and prescribe the right treatment? Knowing that something is wrong is not the same as being able to put it right.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've got Facebook contact with someone who is with the protestors and they've posted to say that we shouldn't believe what we read in the 'right-wing press' (as if we would ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
) because the cathedral authorities are working with the protestors and they've agreed some logistical adjustments so they don't disrupt access etc. Things may have moved on since he posted that.
I'm not as cynical about the motives of the protestors as some posters here, but I did cringe a bit at Giles Fraser's posturing to some extent. That said, I'd rather his sort of stance than some of the dorkish comments that some senior clergy of a more right-wing persuasion have come out with over the years - the Cumbrian floods as God's judgement on our society and all that sort of malarkey.
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on
:
I was down there on Tuesday (had a meeting in the City so was dressed in a suit but my friend and I kicked a football around with a few of the protestors for a while) and also have been in touch with a few people connected with the Dean & Chapter. I have heard there is some considerable tension within the Chapter who felt they had to go along with Giles Fraser's comments on Sunday, but are now facing a situation where they cannot win either way. If they allow the protestors to stay then they are risking access, the safety of visitors and some considerable income (which I heard has dropped off already this week). If the protestors decide not leave, they cannot risk the PR distaster of forcing them off.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've got Facebook contact with someone who is with the protestors and they've posted to say that we shouldn't believe what we read in the 'right-wing press' (as if we would ) because the cathedral authorities are working with the protestors and they've agreed some logistical adjustments so they don't disrupt access etc. Things may have moved on since he posted that.
I'm not as cynical about the motives of the protestors as some posters here, but I did cringe a bit at Giles Fraser's posturing to some extent. That said, I'd rather his sort of stance than some of the dorkish comments that some senior clergy of a more right-wing persuasion have come out with over the years - the Cumbrian floods as God's judgement on our society and all that sort of malarkey.
I don't know, I kind of enjoyed Giles Fraser's intervention at the weekend. He used to be a member of the SWP and I suspect he was probably quite enjoying a reminder of his protesting past. Strangely enough, his actions at the weekend may well have prevented the usual sort of violence that accompanies anti-capitalist protests. I think where his judgement went astray was in not taking account of the potentially long-term nature of this protest. If the camp stays at this site the numbers of protesters there must be limited to avoid encroaching on the ministry of St Paul's. I suspect that this is not what the organisers want or envisage and herein lies a potential problem. Nevertheless, these things usually run-out-of-steam in cold weather so the problems may not actually arise.
Like Giles Fraser, I welcome protest and see nothing wrong with the church offering a form of hospitality to it. But this hospitality must not compromise the church and be mistaken for agreement with specific policies. After all, the Church of England is broad - sheltering under its wing loopy charismatics, and frothing-at-mouth radicals.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
Prejudices against the left-wing and ones own biases expressed in this thread aside, I support the occupiers.
Of course, anything 'radical' is bound to piss some people off, but that's life.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But surely as citizens in a democracy we have the right to protest when something's wrong and expect those with the ability to put things right to do so.
Isn't your suggestion a bit like saying we've no right to go to the doctor unless we can give an expert diagnosis and prescribe the right treatment? Knowing that something is wrong is not the same as being able to put it right.
The people with the ability to put things right are trying to do so.
These protests are more like someone going to the doctor so she can cure their cancer, then complaining that she's doing it wrong because the chemotherapy makes their hair fall out.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The people with the ability to put things right are trying to do so.
These protests are more like someone going to the doctor so she can cure their cancer, then complaining that she's doing it wrong because the chemotherapy makes their hair fall out.
Yes, I agree with this. When I see the protests in Greece I wonder. If the government gave in to the protestors and had no austerity measures - what then?
It's the same here to a lesser extent.
I truly believe that there should be a way of redistributing wealth - but camping out on the streets isn't going to make it happen.
Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Boogie:
I truly believe that there should be a way of redistributing wealth - but camping out on the streets isn't going to make it happen.
But then what kind of protest does work? Shall we all write a letter to our MP?
Mass demonstrations in Eastern Europe and in the Arab worldhave been the catalyst for regime change. But of course mass demonstrations can't have a detailed programme, they can only be a more or less inchoate expression of popular feeling. Back in the days, that is why marxist parties were always seeking to lead demonstrations -- to supply the programme.
I don't have an answer to all this. I don't know what the Occupy protesters will achieve. Perhaps the best that they can do by being there and hanging on, is to express a fairly widespread feeling that something is wrong with the distribution of wealth and that people are unhappy about it and that they are continuing to be unhappy about it.
That may not be much, but it certainly is more than sitting at home doing nothing will achieve.
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
If I worked at the cathedral, I'd be worried that it might all turn nasty and then innocent bystanders would get kettled by the police.
My parents were meeting my nephew in front of St Paul's on Saturday morning (not knowing about the planned protest)and didn't stay there long for that very reason. I found it ironic that two law-abiding OAPs with pro-establishment views should be scared to stay somewhere because of the police, but my mother is very claustrophobic so there merest hint of kettling had her terrified.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally reloed by Angloid
I don't know how any of us mere mortals with no particular insight into how international finance operates, can be expected to have a 'clear programme' of how to deal with it. Maybe (in fact, probably almost certainly) national governments can't do this either. But surely as citizens in a democracy we have the right to protest when something's wrong and expect those with the ability to put things right to do so.
Isn't your suggestion a bit like saying we've no right to go to the doctor unless we can give an expert diagnosis and prescribe the right treatment? Knowing that something is wrong is not the same as being able to put it right.
No. By setting oneself up with an organised protest, one is advertising oneself as the doctor, rather than the sickness.
Just protesting, without being able to offer a persuasive programme is like standing on the street corner and shouting, 'You're all dying. There ought to be a cure, but we don't know what it is. It's the medical profession's fault for not finding it, not ours. So hard luck.'
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
If I worked at the cathedral, I'd be worried that it might all turn nasty and then innocent bystanders would get kettled by the police.
My parents were meeting my nephew in front of St Paul's on Saturday morning (not knowing about the planned protest)and didn't stay there long for that very reason. I found it ironic that two law-abiding OAPs with pro-establishment views should be scared to stay somewhere because of the police, but my mother is very claustrophobic so there merest hint of kettling had her terrified.
As someone who has worked in a cathedral and also gets claustrophobia, I would help the occupiers in any way I would, if I was working there.
Changes in society don't happen through e-petitions and letters to MP's (as helpful as they can sometimes be). Sometimes different things need to happen.
In any case, the people to blame for kettles are the police.
[ 21. October 2011, 12:54: Message edited by: Rosa Winkel ]
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on
:
I am afraid the protesters are arrogant.
What makes them think they are the only ones who would like to re-distribute capital more fairly ?
And that means reducing not only the Bankers Bonuses in the UK, but most of us would have to have some sort of cut including those of benefits.
Everyone is in favour of someone else having the cut in income but not them.
I am afraid most people in the UK want their 'HD ready plasma' TV and really couldn't care less how they get it. (No I don't have one or want one.)
This is not 'lets get out of Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya' type of campaign with a definite Christain message.
Its lets smash the Capitalist system ... and replace it with what ?
Time to move them on so St Pauls can get back to trading with the rich Tourists.
Pax et Bonum
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The people with the ability to put things right are trying to do so.
Who is that?
I reckon Giles Fraser is a bloody legend. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I am afraid the protesters are arrogant.
What makes them think they are the only ones who would like to re-distribute capital more fairly ?
And that means reducing not only the Bankers Bonuses in the UK, but most of us would have to have some sort of cut including those of benefits.
Everyone is in favour of someone else having the cut in income but not them.
I am afraid most people in the UK want their 'HD ready plasma' TV and really couldn't care less how they get it.
I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Can you quote one protester who thinks they are the only ones in favour of fairer distribution?
And the patronising put-down of ordinary people's aspirations implicit in that last sentence pisses me off. To those who live in multi-roomed mansions who have long been able to afford all the high-tech gizmos they might want, any 'cuts' they might be suffering are negligible. To people who have struggled and scrabbled all their life to attain a decent standard of living, let alone to those still struggling to keep a foothold in society, or unable to imagine what it is like to have a roof over their head, the posturing greed of the rich and the hypocrisy of 'we're all in it together' must be an added torture.
Why shouldn't ordinary people have a share in the nation's wealth? Why should young people be deprived of an education because they can't even afford to do A levels since the EMA has been cut, let alone the terrifying costs of a university degree? Why should art and music and literature become the preserve of the leisured rich instead of the heritage of all? Why should the health service be restructured for the benefit of multi-national drug companies?
There's so much to protest about, and to suggest that the problems are being addressed by the present government, instead of compounded, is to defy common sense and the evidence.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think the Christian way is doing quiet acts of mercy for the poor, without fanfare.
Like Jesus never did anything without fanfare? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Church exists to preach to the world its deep need for a relationship with Jesus Christ, revealed in the Bible, not to put the crown on the latest political cause.
Some people believe fighting unjust social structures and inequality of wealth and opportunity are expressions of a deep relationship with Jesus Christ.
And those that don't recognize that are right wing conservative winguts that would be more comfortable sitting with the Sadducees in council so as to preserve the status quo.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally reloed by Angloid
I don't know how any of us mere mortals with no particular insight into how international finance operates, can be expected to have a 'clear programme' of how to deal with it. Maybe (in fact, probably almost certainly) national governments can't do this either. But surely as citizens in a democracy we have the right to protest when something's wrong and expect those with the ability to put things right to do so.
Isn't your suggestion a bit like saying we've no right to go to the doctor unless we can give an expert diagnosis and prescribe the right treatment? Knowing that something is wrong is not the same as being able to put it right.
No. By setting oneself up with an organised protest, one is advertising oneself as the doctor, rather than the sickness.
I don't think this is true, necessarily. Eg, People who protest over the mal-administration of an A&E department that keeps patients waiting for 18 hours, or on a trolly for two days, are demonstrating that they'd like the people who are paid to see to the health of the nation do that more efficiently and accountably.
And bearing in mind that such appointments are made according to the processes and under the responsibility of those elected by the nation, this seems like an important freedom and a just one.
This case seems to be rather similar in principle. But it is regrettable that such protests will inevitably become popular with mere agitators and nuisance-makers as well as genuine protestors. It is wrong, however, to write off the legitimate objective of a protest because of those people.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Who do you think is operating this strategy of 'divide and rule'? Incompetent politicians, bungling shadowy security forces?
Or competent politicians in corporate pockets. One woman wrote to the newspaper that her primary reason to join the demonstration is the fact that corporations can buy congressmen. That's worth demonstrating about, it seems to me. And you could choose a dozen other equally worthy reasons.
Obviously, one favorite technique of politicians is to play off religious people against "secular humanists", or straight people against gay people. None of this should have much to do with how one is treated in law or in the economy. Another (in which the pundits and academe are glad to participate with good intentions) is to attribute poverty to racism, and to convince white people that they are all racists whether they intend to be or not. I agree that racial minorities have been severely disadvantaged, and to some extent still are, and we must be sensitive. But essentially nowadays these are all side shows and distractions. A lot of poor people today are white. Some of them have been poor for two or three generations, ever since they were pushed off their farms.
quote:
Spontaneous? It may have begun spontaneously but that hardly describes the British protests. They're now just jumping on a bandwagon.
Bandwagons, and jumping thereon, can be spontaneous. I doubt that in many cases these people are there because an organization with a mailing list or phone bank sent messages to its members to show up at such-and-such a place and time to demonstrate. That's a difference, isn't it?
[ 21. October 2011, 14:03: Message edited by: Alogon ]
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
Angloid: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
You have much more patience than I have.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Angloid:
You have much more patience than I have.
Age, dear boy*, age!
* despite your ship name I've always assumed you to be male. To accept my apologies if I'm wrong.
[ 21. October 2011, 14:18: Message edited by: Angloid ]
Posted by dv (# 15714) on
:
Message from the Dean and comrade Giles: "Cathedral closed. God'll have to wait" ... we've got more important 'elf n safety and trendy peripatetic protesters to support.
Posted by Ellis Bell (# 16348) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Enoch: Just protesting, without being able to offer a persuasive programme is like standing on the street corner and shouting, 'You're all dying. There ought to be a cure, but we don't know what it is. It's the medical profession's fault for not finding it, not ours.
This is precisely what ActUp did in the late '80s and early '90s with AIDS/HIV, although in their instance they blamed the State for not funding research as well as the medical establishment for ignoring the disease.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
... camping out on the streets isn't going to make it happen.
True. The sad fact is that the bosses take notice when people break things. Violent protests are genuinely more effective. Though they usually do very little good to the people actually protesting.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Some people believe fighting unjust social structures and inequality of wealth and opportunity are expressions of a deep relationship with Jesus Christ.
And those that don't recognize that are right wing conservative winguts that would be more comfortable sitting with the Sadducees in council so as to preserve the status quo.
Ever notice how the same people tend to keep getting into the same fights on the Ship, over and over and over again?
I've certainly noticed that you keep making the same logical errors over and over again, this time the "It's either only serve the poor, or not serve the poor at all" error. It is cute that you've accused me of being a "right wing conservative wingnut" that killed Jesus, when I actually strongly support social programs and vote for democrats. I just don't confuse that with serving God, and believe that liberal politics can be just as godless as conservative politics. Horrible things have been done with the excuse of "serving the greater good."
"And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not."
Zach
Posted by Ellis Bell (# 16348) on
:
quote:
Violent protests are genuinely more effective.
That certainly isn't the lesson from the Civil Rights Movement here in the states.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I doubt that in many cases these people are there because an organization with a mailing list or phone bank sent messages to its members to show up at such-and-such a place and time to demonstrate. That's a difference, isn't it?
Nope - the speed of Twitter and Facebook have changed all that. No need for a mailing list these days.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon
One woman wrote to the newspaper that her primary reason to join the demonstration is the fact that corporations can buy congressmen. That's worth demonstrating about, it seems to me.
Very laudable. I'm sure she feels better for it.
But what prospect do you think there is that as a result any corporation will not offer the bribe it was going to or any corrupt politician will not take it?
quote:
Responded by Ellis Bell to my previous post
This is precisely what ActUp did in the late '80s and early '90s with AIDS/HIV, although in their instance they blamed the State for not funding research as well as the medical establishment for ignoring the disease.
But I've never heard of ActUp. And I keep fairly up-to-date on current affairs. So I'm tempted to say that demonstrates my point. Who are they? Have they found a cure for AIDS?
Whoever they are, if all they ever did was say somebody else ought to, then I don't respect them.
Posted by Ellis Bell (# 16348) on
:
[QUOTE] But I've never heard of ActUp. And I keep fairly up-to-date on current affairs. [QUOTE]
Just because you're ignorant of Act Up's contribution doesn't deny the that fact that they made a significant impact. It just show's you're unaware. There's a Wikipedia article if you're interested.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
]I don't know, I kind of enjoyed Giles Fraser's intervention at the weekend. He used to be a member of the SWP [/QB]
Just about says it all.
Although it does raise the question as to why he did not become a Roman Catholic if he was into being brain washed.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
"Occupy Toronto Protest Chaplains"
That would be one way to go, but not a way that i fear the Dean and Chapter of St Pauls are mindful to go. Not yet.
Because the power is in money and that...in spite of our objections...is what drives the respectable mess that we wish to preserve.
Oh that someone would have the ooomph to think creatively here. This is an opportunity and it will pass all too soon. God Help the people in St Pauls as they pray tonight.
For without His help, then all that our country will see is a Cathedral responding to their own income being threatened,
The rest could be sorted, It's not beyond the ken of folk to sort safety. If there's a will . The problem is that there is no will.
The King is looking decidedly naked
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niminypiminy:
But then what kind of protest does work? Shall we all write a letter to our MP?
Mass demonstrations in Eastern Europe and in the Arab worldhave been the catalyst for regime change. But of course mass demonstrations can't have a detailed programme, they can only be a more or less inchoate expression of popular feeling. Back in the days, that is why marxist parties were always seeking to lead demonstrations -- to supply the programme.
Mass protests in Eastern Europe and the Arab world are a very different thing from the sort of protests we're talking about. Here if you want regime change you can vote. If you're living under tyranny mass protest is the only way you can change things.
quote:
I don't have an answer to all this. I don't know what the Occupy protesters will achieve. Perhaps the best that they can do by being there and hanging on, is to express a fairly widespread feeling that something is wrong with the distribution of wealth and that people are unhappy about it and that they are continuing to be unhappy about it.
That may not be much, but it certainly is more than sitting at home doing nothing will achieve.
They won't achieve anything because this is not a mass movement. It's not a mass movement because the aims are nonsense.
[ 21. October 2011, 16:05: Message edited by: Spawn ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
God Help the people in St Pauls as they pray tonight.
For without His help, then all that our country will see is a Cathedral responding to their own income being threatened,
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on
:
To Angloid..
No the present coalition Government is not trying to re-distribute wealth, they are trying to prevent a meltdown in a) UK economy b) European economy.
The Banks have lent too much money to individuals to buy houses ( eg 8 times gross salary) and too much money to Governments to spend.
I don't really think anyone knows how to go from here, but to suggest that we all take to the streets like the Greeks etc. and smash the whole system is totally irresponsible.
It would be nice to build a sustainable economy but from this point in time it doesn't seem achievable.
To quote an Irish joke....A man who was lost asked a local Irish man which way was Dublin.
He replied 'Well its not a good idea starting from here'.
Same with the economy.
Pax et Bonum
Posted by dv (# 15714) on
:
Damian Thompson has it about right:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100112826/st-pauls-to-close-what-would-the-apostle-paul-have-made-of-the-wim pish-c-of-e/
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
I endorse Damien Thompson
Health and Safety claims another victim.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
No the present coalition Government is not trying to re-distribute wealth, they are trying to prevent a meltdown in a) UK economy b) European economy.
If a meltdown is imminent surely the sensible thing is to move the things most likely to melt away from the fire first. The opposite seems to be happening.
quote:
The Banks have lent too much money to individuals to buy houses ( eg 8 times gross salary) and too much money to Governments to spend.
With the encouragement of all governments since Thatcher. Especially since she made it difficult or impossible to rent social housing and trumpeted home ownership as a desirable aim.
There is a strong case for governments investing in long-term projects in a time of recession, and borrowing in order to do so. The trouble is, much government spending has been frittering away plugging the holes that arise from short-term policies.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ellis Bell:
quote:
Violent protests are genuinely more effective.
That certainly isn't the lesson from the Civil Rights Movement here in the states.
Remind me, was it the Arkansas National Guard or the 101st Airborne that desegregated high schools in Little Rock?
Whoever it was it was certainly a credible threat of violence.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I endorse Damien Thompson
Don't worry, you'll grow out of it.
quote:
Health and Safety claims another victim.
Or rather the government have been putting the squeeze on some of the clergy to get them to sign up to their view of things.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Although it does raise the question as to why he did not become a Roman Catholic if he was into being brain washed.
That bigoted statement is unworthy of the Ship.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Or rather the government have been putting the squeeze on some of the clergy to get them to sign up to their view of things.
Surely this closure gives far more publicity to the campers?
Does St Paul's not have other doors they could use for public entrances?
I hope no weddings are planned for this weekend!
<typo>
[ 21. October 2011, 16:49: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Big Oil (# 15713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Tangent and Rant Alert
quote:
From Big Oil's OP
I think to close down because of a few prophetic souls objecting to the injustice of the economic system, sends all the wrong messages.
Are we really saying these people are 'prophetic'?
To say something is prophetic is to say that God has the speaker's ear, and that the speaker has heard the specific voice of God to the occasion and passed it on.
It is not 'prophetic' just to be outspoken, controversial, or to say things that anyone can work out, but hasn't done, doesn't agree with or might find disturbing. It may be a good thing or a bad thing. It may be courageous. It may be stupid. But it is not 'prophetic'. It is a serious misuse of the word.
By labeling them "prophetic" I was simply drawing attention to the striking parallel between some of their rhetoric and some of, say, Micah's rhetoric. There was a clear concern amongst the prophets for economic justice. Economic systems that made the lot of the poor more difficult and provided comfort for the powerful were condemned. If I understand these protestors correctly, they are saying the same of global capitalism. The world just got poorer, and we're all being asked to pay the bill. But those with power have made themselves immune to the consequences, threatening to run their banks from abroad if they're not allowed to keep their un-earned bonuses. Inflating their salaries ahead of inflation while they lay off junior staff and demand more from those left in work. If capitalism can't be made to right this kind of iniquity then it must be swept away by some kind of catastophy.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
Ken, what are you smoking today? Two ridiculous interventions in a row. I listen carefully to what you say on many subjects, but when it comes to politics your opinions are really unreliable.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Remind me, was it the Arkansas National Guard or the 101st Airborne that desegregated high schools in Little Rock?
Whoever it was it was certainly a credible threat of violence.
That was hardly the same thing as violent protest. The 101st Airborne desegregated the school on Presidential order.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Or rather the government have been putting the squeeze on some of the clergy to get them to sign up to their view of things.
You've been around long enough to know that is simply not what happens. Do you really reckon the Government is that worried about a few hundred protesters? In fact, the more violent protests there are, the more strikes there are the bigger the PR gain for the government's policies.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Ken, what are you smoking today? Two ridiculous interventions in a row. I listen carefully to what you say on many subjects, but when it comes to politics your opinions are really unreliable.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Remind me, was it the Arkansas National Guard or the 101st Airborne that desegregated high schools in Little Rock?
Whoever it was it was certainly a credible threat of violence.
That was hardly the same thing as violent protest. The 101st Airborne desegregated the school on Presidential order.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Or rather the government have been putting the squeeze on some of the clergy to get them to sign up to their view of things.
You've been around long enough to know that is simply not what happens. Do you really reckon the Government is that worried about a few hundred protesters? In fact, the more violent protests there are, the more strikes there are the bigger the PR gain for the government's policies.
I'll leave those quotes up in full. Just because you disagree with ken's politics (a separate question to whether you understand ken's politics, mind) doesn't mean that his analysis can simply be dismissed with reactionary, Tory clap-trap insults regarding his drug of choice. If he had too many Pimms, so what? Play the ball.
Firstly, the civil rights movement in the US was born and came of age in violence. Pretty much how our own indigenous civil rights movement was born, too. Peterloo massacre, General Strike, Cable Street - it runs like a thread throughout our history.
Secondly, I'm someone with a strike ballot form uncompleted in my in-tray. If I thought for a moment I was playing into the government's strategy by voting Yes, I'd vote No. But withdrawing my labour is pretty much the last thing I'm able to do, so, having discussed with my colleagues, we're voting to down tools. Then we'll have a bloody sight more than a couple of hundred protesters on the street.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ellis Bell:
quote:
Violent protests are genuinely more effective.
That certainly isn't the lesson from the Civil Rights Movement here in the states.
Remind me, was it the Arkansas National Guard or the 101st Airborne that desegregated high schools in Little Rock?
Whoever it was it was certainly a credible threat of violence.
and would they have even known to pay attention without the work of the peaceful protestors such as the Freedom Riders and on an on?
sometimes, someone needs to stand up and say the system isn't working. this doesn't mean that the one who stands up is beholden to have all the answers. I am not an economist, I don't know how to fix our economic problems. but I can definitively say that something is not working and that i and my family are suffering for it. since I have no solution, am I just to suck it up and deal? That's ridiculous.
if enough people stand up and say something is wrong, then the world pays attention. Like the national guard in alabama, the economists and politicians need to be told their is a problem by enough loud voices to realize how many people it is impacting and therefore that it needs fixing.
As for the protesters drowning out the voices of those who really need help - since when did the poor really have a voice anyway?
I make less than $12K a year and as Ship veterans know I spent a year homeless a few years back. my sons and I currently live on the charity of friends. I have something to say. But I can't exactly afford a plane ticket to Wall Street. I can't afford to take the time away from work. I have children to feed who can't be left alone as I go winging off to be "heard".
The protestors may not be me, but I'm quite thankful they are putting themselves out there while I can't.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'll leave those quotes up in full.
That's fine by me, but my understanding is that the hosts read every word. If I have transgressed, I don't think they'll need you to indicate it.
quote:
Just because you disagree with ken's politics (a separate question to whether you understand ken's politics, mind) doesn't mean that his analysis can simply be dismissed with reactionary, Tory clap-trap insults regarding his drug of choice. If he had too many Pimms, so what? Play the ball.
I'm not sure you're following your own advice with the gratuitous 'reactionary, Tory clap-trap'. I don't think he had too many Pimms I just think lefties tend to froth at the mouth rather than engage their brains. If I was guilty of playing the man, then I certainly played the ball as well and addressed the points he made.
quote:
Secondly, I'm someone with a strike ballot form uncompleted in my in-tray. If I thought for a moment I was playing into the government's strategy by voting Yes, I'd vote No. But withdrawing my labour is pretty much the last thing I'm able to do, so, having discussed with my colleagues, we're voting to down tools. Then we'll have a bloody sight more than a couple of hundred protesters on the street.
Yes for a day or two. And there'll be the inevitable violence and a huge amount of inconvenience to other struggling hard-working people and you'll have lost any chance of any public sympathy.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Mass protests in Eastern Europe and the Arab world are a very different thing from the sort of protests we're talking about. Here if you want regime change you can vote. If you're living under tyranny mass protest is the only way you can change things.
We certainly aren't suffering the way people in Libya have suffered under Qaddafi. But protest is an extremely important part of the political process in democratic republics. Voting may be how things ultimately change, but protest is sometimes what gets people thinking they need to vote a different way.
We aren't living "tyranny" here. But we do have a concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a remarkably small group of people, and it will take protests like the Occupy movement to get people off their asses and into the voting booths to change things.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Here if you want regime change you can vote.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
For which bunch of self-serving b****ds can run the capitalist system most efficiently! Anybody who hints at an alternative is silenced pretty effectively.
As for the Cathedral's excuse of health and safety - my a**e.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I wasn't suggesting you'd broken a Commandment. I was suggesting that Shippies could savour your missing the point a second time around.
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Secondly, I'm someone with a strike ballot form uncompleted in my in-tray. If I thought for a moment I was playing into the government's strategy by voting Yes, I'd vote No. But withdrawing my labour is pretty much the last thing I'm able to do, so, having discussed with my colleagues, we're voting to down tools. Then we'll have a bloody sight more than a couple of hundred protesters on the street.
Yes for a day or two. And there'll be the inevitable violence and a huge amount of inconvenience to other struggling hard-working people and you'll have lost any chance of any public sympathy.
Ah yes, the 'hard working people and the public sympathy card'.
I hate to break it to you, but we are the hard-working people and the public. Unison (of which I am a member) are the poor (quite literally) bastards who sweep your streets, look after your kids and your parents and lots of other low-paid jobs that mean we end up with (on average) an oh-so-gold plated pension of around three grand a year. For which, we are now informed, we have to work longer for and take a pay cut to achieve despite having already negotiated new fully-costed and entirely affordable pension arrangements only a couple of years back.
Of course, we're supposed to be grateful we still have jobs, so will take any amount of eroding our terms and conditions, wages and hours while our rulers shovel cash at the bankers who fucked it up in the first place.
Well, excuse me for thinking that's the wrong way round. Protest is supposed to cause inconvenience. Trade union rallies are usually very well stewarded, but if violence comes I'm sure we'll be prepared for it - thank you for your concern, but we'll be fine, thanks. (I might invest in a head-cam just in case, because that seems to be the only way of bringing the authorities to account these days.)
What I fail to grasp is why you don't get angry about this. I'm hardly a dyed-in-the-wool class warrior, and I'm livid.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
We certainly aren't suffering the way people in Libya have suffered under Qaddafi. But protest is an extremely important part of the political process in democratic republics.
That was my point. You can't realistically compare protest under a tyranny and protest in a democracy (though not all those who live in democracies live in 'republics').
quote:
Voting may be how things ultimately change, but protest is sometimes what gets people thinking they need to vote a different way.
Accepted, but protesters need to resist any attempts to prevail over the democratic will of the people as expressed through the ballot box. As I have pointed out such overreaching is counterproductive.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I...
You lost my sympathy here. You bloody lucky sod you'll still end up with a better pension than most people.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
For which bunch of self-serving b****ds can run the capitalist system most efficiently! Anybody who hints at an alternative is silenced pretty effectively.
No-one silences them, it's just that no-one agrees with them.
quote:
As for the Cathedral's excuse of health and safety - my a**e.
Here I agree with you.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I...
You lost my sympathy here. You bloody lucky sod you'll still end up with a better pension than most people.
Surprisingly enough, I care very little about your sympathy. If there was negative caring, I'd be there - God forbid you should ever agree with me about anything, because that'd be a sure sign I'm wrong.
So why don't you get off your arse, join a union and vote for a government that might let you save for a pension that will actually provide for your old age, rather than relying on the hard-working tax payers of the country to keep you?
Oh, that's right. It's too late for you. It's too late for me too, but I'm not crying into my Pimms and letting my kids shoulder the whole burden of a fucked-up economic system that systematically steals off the poor and gives to the rich.
See you at the barricades, comrade.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
This appeared in the comments of Angloid's link.
quote:
St Pauls Trustees:
Chairman
Sir John Stuttard PWC partner, Former Lord Mayor of London.
Trustees
The Right Reverend Graeme Knowles, Dean of St Paul’s
Dame Helen Alexander DBE Deputy chair of the CBI, director of Centrica plc
Lord Blair of Boughton Former Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Roger Gifford Investment banker, big in City of London
John Harvey – Not clearly identified
Joyce Hytner OBE – Theatre director
Gavin Ralston Global Head of Product and leading international asset manager at Schroder Investment Management
Carol Sergeant CBE – Chief Risk Director at Lloyds TSB, formerly Managing Director for Regulatory Process and Risk at the FSA
John Spence OBE – Former Managing Director, Business Banking, LloydsTSB
Thats not the church, that sounds rather like our target no?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
So St Pauls trustees are a load of bankers?
Who knew?
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Surprisingly enough, I care very little about your sympathy. If there was negative caring, I'd be there - God forbid you should ever agree with me about anything, because that'd be a sure sign I'm wrong.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Nice line. I like the bit about 'negative caring'.
quote:
Oh, that's right. It's too late for you. It's too late for me too, but I'm not crying into my Pimms and letting my kids shoulder the whole burden of a fucked-up economic system that systematically steals off the poor and gives to the rich.
What I'm doing for my kids is making sure by working that I pay down my mortgage so I can leave them something. I'll probably be working all my life but I have no problem with that. My problem with this government is that they're still borrowing too much to spend money they don't have.
I don't live my life in envy of the rich, I aspire for the sake of my family to be more comfortable financially. And if I ever get there, I won't have stolen from anybody.
[ 21. October 2011, 19:55: Message edited by: Spawn ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
For which bunch of self-serving b****ds can run the capitalist system most efficiently! Anybody who hints at an alternative is silenced pretty effectively.
No-one silences them, it's just that no-one agrees with them.
How easy is it for the alternative voice to get a hearing in our overwhelmingly right-wing media?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't live my life in envy of the rich
But you do - you want to be one of them.
And you also hope you won't need the capital in your property to keep you in your old age either. Ever wondered where that capital came from?
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
As for the Cathedral's excuse of health and safety - my a**e.
Here I agree with you.
And I with you. The cathedral should on the one hand endeavor to give them aid and comfort-- even sanctuary if it became necessary-- as long as they are peaceable; but on the other hand make it clear that nothing must interfere with worship or access of worshippers to the building. This activity is the mainspring or lifeblood for whatever sympathy may be extended. They should continue it steadfastly and invite all to participate. I am confident that some will who may never have done it before.
Not too long ago, someone here mentioned a certain inner-city church in Liverpool which had remained carefully untouched by rioters wreaking havoc with most other buildings in its neighborhood, because it had such a clear reputation of understanding their plight and ministering to the poor and exploited. Let us pray that St. Paul's Cathedral has earned enough of the same good will as to command similar respect. If not, it had better start now.
[ 21. October 2011, 20:18: Message edited by: Alogon ]
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on
:
What makes everyone think that because the press says something that everyone thinks like that.
The Pope says no contraception, english Catholics take an opposite view.
I find that people are not indoctrinated easily.. eg Soviet Russia/Zimbabwe/Libya etc.
Labour Politicians have nearly all been to
Public Schools and all know lots about off-shore accounts. John Prescott was middle class although he often played the 'working-class-lad' ploy.
If you don't like Capitalism free yourself from wanting all its outputs like 'Degrees' instead of Education, or Cars costing more than £7000, or HD ready plasma TVs.
Pax et Bonum
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
How easy is it for the alternative voice to get a hearing in our overwhelmingly right-wing media?
That's just unthinking. Take the media as a whole, and there are plenty of platforms for diverse views. I would describe the broadcasting media as overwhelmingly left-of-centre. This is to say nothing of Twitter, Facebook and blogs. No-one is being silenced. They simply don't persuade.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't live my life in envy of the rich
But you do - you want to be one of them.
No read what I said. I aspire to a level of comfort for my family, not riches. It is an aspiration to a life without worry, rather than one lived with wealth.
You are the one that envies the rich because you want to take what they have.
quote:
And you also hope you won't need the capital in your property to keep you in your old age either. Ever wondered where that capital came from?
I'm not sure what you mean? The capital in my house comes from the labour of myself and my wife.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Labour Politicians have nearly all been to
Public Schools and all know lots about off-shore accounts. John Prescott was middle class although he often played the 'working-class-lad' ploy.
And your point is?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't live my life in envy of the rich
But you do - you want to be one of them.
No read what I said. I aspire to a level of comfort for my family, not riches. It is an aspiration to a life without worry, rather than one lived with wealth.
You are the one that envies the rich because you want to take what they have.
Nope. I want them to stop stealing from us. I want them to stop manipulating the political system that's supposed to serve us and instead serves them. I want them to pay their share rather than hiding it from the tax man. I want them to take responsibility for what they've done.
If, like me, you believe in a final judgement, how could anyone possibly envy them?
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
And you also hope you won't need the capital in your property to keep you in your old age either. Ever wondered where that capital came from?
I'm not sure what you mean? The capital in my house comes from the labour of myself and my wife.
Nope. My house has 'earned' more money than I have in the 18 years we've lived in it. That had nothing to do with my labour. The increase in yours has nothing to do with your labour either. The capital of your house - the bit over and above what you paid for it - came out of the pockets of your children. And mine. And every poor bastard who'd like to buy a house but can't.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Nope. I want them to stop stealing from us. I want them to stop manipulating the political system that's supposed to serve us and instead serves them. I want them to pay their share rather than hiding it from the tax man. I want them to take responsibility for what they've done.
Hang on a second, you are repeating this point that someone is stealing from you and they have done something to you? How does that work? Are the rich getting something that is rightfully yours by underhand means? Are all the rich failing to pay their taxes? At the 50 per cent rate, I have no problem with them legally avoiding tax - that seems to me a cut-off point when the state is imposing penalities on wealth, rather than taxing reasonably.
quote:
If, like me, you believe in a final judgement, how could anyone possibly envy them?
What are you saying here? The rich (as a group) are not worthy of salvation? Are particularly deserving of condemnation?
quote:
Nope. My house has 'earned' more money than I have in the 18 years we've lived in it. That had nothing to do with my labour. The increase in yours has nothing to do with your labour either. The capital of your house - the bit over and above what you paid for it - came out of the pockets of your children. And mine. And every poor bastard who'd like to buy a house but can't.
I see what you mean. But it doesn't make sense. If you don't have a regulated free market (which we have at the moment), your alternatives are between a more regulated market and a planned economy. Given that the latter equals stagnation and ruination, you will still have the sort of situation you point to in rising house prices. They will however correct themselves from time to time. But no-one else is paying the price except me. The idea that because something rises in value, someone else is being cheated out of something of value is a very strange one. Seems to be born of a strange envy from someone who is evidently reasonably well-off both in housing and pension terms. What were you striking about again?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Dear Spawn,
I'm left with two options: either you're deliberately being obtuse, or you genuinely don't know how your own world works.
Anyway, congratulations on being a useful idiot for the plutocrats. I hope you'll be very happy together.
Oh, and you might want to dust the cobwebs off your Bible at some point and see what that bloke Jesus says about rich people. You appear to be a touch heterodox.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Dear Spawn,
I'm left with two options: either you're deliberately being obtuse, or you genuinely don't know how your own world works.
What's this with 'your own world'?
It strikes me that you're the one living in a fantasy land. In fact it's not just you, with your strange idea that the rich (as a group) are stealing from you. Other posts have suggested that alternative voices are being silenced, or that the govnerment is putting pressure on the dean and chapter of St Paul's, or that there are strategies of 'divide and rule' being operated. True paranoia.
quote:
Oh, and you might want to dust the cobwebs off your Bible at some point and see what that bloke Jesus says about rich people. You appear to be a touch heterodox.
It always strikes me as odd that so-called liberals become literalistic about certain passages in the Bible when they're so very free with the rest of it.
Posted by Ellis Bell (# 16348) on
:
According to the Occupy folks, Health and Safety had no contact with St. Pauls...."We have been advised by Health and Safety Manager Rachel Sambal that the City of London’s Health and Safety Team have had no contact with St Paul’s Cathedral regarding health and safety issues at the site."
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ellis Bell:
According to the Occupy folks, Health and Safety had no contact with St. Pauls...."We have been advised by Health and Safety Manager Rachel Sambal that the City of London’s Health and Safety Team have had no contact with St Paul’s Cathedral regarding health and safety issues at the site."
So it's an excuse?
Why close then?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
It always strikes me as odd that so-called liberals become literalistic about certain passages in the Bible when they're so very free with the rest of it.
It always strikes me that so-call evangelicals become very free with the word 'liberal' when someone else points out what's actually in the Bible.
I notice you have again magnificently avoided engaging with the point. What Jesus says about the rich and what you say about the rich are at odds. I'm sticking with the Nazarene, thanks.
(btw - I'm not a 'liberal'. I just disagree with you. No surprise there, then.)
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
There was an interview on the BBC R4 Today programme this morning with a representative of the Cathedral, not Giles Fraser (who I always thought was a good choice for Vicar of the church where the Putney debates were held). The health and safety issues were discussed in a meeting with the police and the Fire Service, and it was made clear that the Cathedral was required by law to obey their advice to close.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It always strikes me that so-call evangelicals become very free with the word 'liberal' when someone else points out what's actually in the Bible.
I notice you have again magnificently avoided engaging with the point. What Jesus says about the rich and what you say about the rich are at odds. I'm sticking with the Nazarene, thanks.
(btw - I'm not a 'liberal'. I just disagree with you. No surprise there, then.)
Sorry for calling you a 'liberal' - my mistake.
I'm well aware of what Jesus says about money, wealth and power. To my mind his teaching warns about the dangers of riches and wealth, and calls on the rich to make choices about their resources - even to the point of giving them up. I don't find very much that speaks to specific taxation policies or what we should do about structural injustice, regulation, the market-place. What do you find in the Gospels that influences your decision to withdraw labour, or backs up the Occupy Protests?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
It seems to me that when Jesus cleansed the temple, part of the reason was that the money-changers were obstructing and preventing the access to worship.
Ironically, those people who have been protesting against modern-day avaricious financial practices are now themselves the barrier to people entering a house of God.
They have made their point - it's time to go home now.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that when Jesus cleansed the temple, part of the reason was that the money-changers were obstructing and preventing the access to worship.
Which is exactly what (in 'normal' times) the money-changers do who sit at the doors of St Paul's demanding money to enter. Not preventing exactly: they point out a tiny chapel where one may pray, or (no doubt if you don't look too much like a tourist) you can enter at times of advertised services. But certainly obstructing the freedom of Christians and others to wander at will and be uplifted to God in God's house. Except of course it's run by bankers, so is more like a den of thieves.
Posted by dv (# 15714) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
modern-day avaricious financial practices are now themselves the barrier to people entering a house of God.
Although it has to be said that St Paul's does a pretty good job of that, itself, on a normal day with its £14.50 entry charge.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
There was an interview on the BBC R4 Today programme this morning with a representative of the Cathedral, not Giles Fraser (who I always thought was a good choice for Vicar of the church where the Putney debates were held). The health and safety issues were discussed in a meeting with the police and the Fire Service, and it was made clear that the Cathedral was required by law to obey their advice to close.
Has this advice been conveyed to the leaders of the demonstration? Because their understanding (quoted earlier) is that these authorities had not been in touch with the Cathedral, and that there were no serious health and safety worries. If that has now changed, and the demonstrators are aware of it, then it changes the direction of this debate.
I've expressed some anger at capitalist greed so far in this thread, and disappointment at the behaviour of the church, but have to admit that the Cathedral is not (and does not deserve to be) the main target of this protest. Would not a much lower-key encampment (like that of the late Brian Haw) be just as effective from now on, and maintain good relations with the cathedral authorities?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
...and trumpeted home ownership as a desirable aim.
Maybe because it is a desirable aim?
Posted by dv (# 15714) on
:
Hilarious post by Cranmer:
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/10/canon-giles-fraser-loses-st-pauls-20k.html
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
...and trumpeted home ownership as a desirable aim.
Maybe because it is a desirable aim?
Not necessarily.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
...and trumpeted home ownership as a desirable aim.
Maybe because it is a desirable aim?
Not necessarily.
I guess I value independence more than you.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
Because you've been taught to. On continental Europe, home-ownership is much less widespread (granted France has a housing crisis of its own, but that's a separate issue).
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
This appeared in the comments of Angloid's link.
quote:
St Pauls Trustees:
Chairman
Sir John Stuttard PWC partner, Former Lord Mayor of London.
Trustees
The Right Reverend Graeme Knowles, Dean of St Paul’s
Dame Helen Alexander DBE Deputy chair of the CBI, director of Centrica plc
Lord Blair of Boughton Former Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Roger Gifford Investment banker, big in City of London
John Harvey – Not clearly identified
Joyce Hytner OBE – Theatre director
Gavin Ralston Global Head of Product and leading international asset manager at Schroder Investment Management
Carol Sergeant CBE – Chief Risk Director at Lloyds TSB, formerly Managing Director for Regulatory Process and Risk at the FSA
John Spence OBE – Former Managing Director, Business Banking, LloydsTSB
Thats not the church, that sounds rather like our target no?
I missed this earlier - it's inaccurate nonsense. This list is the Foundation - who are a bunch of arm's length fundraisers for the Cathedral. The Cathedral is run by the Dean & Chapter.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I kind of enjoyed Giles Fraser's intervention at the weekend. He used to be a member of the SWP
I used to be a member of the Young Conservatives. People change.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Thank you Pete.
Some people will go to any length to misquote or misrepresent things.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Which is exactly what (in 'normal' times) the money-changers do who sit at the doors of St Paul's demanding money to enter. Not preventing exactly: they point out a tiny chapel where one may pray, or (no doubt if you don't look too much like a tourist) you can enter at times of advertised services. But certainly obstructing the freedom of Christians and others to wander at will and be uplifted to God in God's house. Except of course it's run by bankers, so is more like a den of thieves.
I had always understood that the money St. Paul's collects is used for the maintenance of the building and funding worship.
Are you saying they make a profit, and that this profit ends up in the hands of exploiters?
Moo
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dv:
Hilarious post by Cranmer:
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/10/canon-giles-fraser-loses-st-pauls-20k.html
Right. In previous times someone who referred to themselves in the third person would have been confined to furious correspondance in green ink once they started shouting on street corners.
I think conservative christianity of all stripes should be a million miles away from those who see Christianity as some form of Noble/Useful Lie.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Because you've been taught to. On continental Europe, home-ownership is much less widespread (granted France has a housing crisis of its own, but that's a separate issue).
Home ownership here is a relatively recent phenomenon. When my parents were growing up, many people rented. It didn't become a buyer's market until after the war. Now it's turning back into a renter's market, but there are some basic differences between renting here and in continental Europe.
My understanding (based on Germany, anyhow) is that you rent per square metre and it doesn't matter how many people you move into your flat. Also, you can paint it and put up pictures if you want. In England, you rent by the number of bedrooms and the tenancy is assigned to the named person or persons who sign the contract and no others. Anyone trying to move their family and pets into their flat and redecorating it here would probably get pretty short shrift and be in breach of their contract. Some landlords even have an explicit clause about how many nights per month you may have a guest to stay over.
This is why home ownership, at least in the UK, is seen as more desirable. It gets you out of what can often amount to a semi-institutionalized life and gives you independence. I don't know what it's like in continental Europe other than in Germany but I'm betting it's not as restrictive as it is here.
[ 22. October 2011, 12:39: Message edited by: Ariel ]
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by dv:
Hilarious post by Cranmer:
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/10/canon-giles-fraser-loses-st-pauls-20k.html
Right. In previous times someone who referred to themselves in the third person would have been confined to furious correspondance in green ink once they started shouting on street corners.
"Cranmer"'s pomposity knows no bounds. His Twitter name is His Grace. How arrogant of a right wing blogger to arrogate to himself the name of our greatest Archbishop! Definitely green ink brigade.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
Sorry for double post. Latest statement from Giles Fraser is here.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Except of course it's run by bankers, so is more like a den of thieves.
I had always understood that the money St. Paul's collects is used for the maintenance of the building and funding worship.
Are you saying they make a profit, and that this profit ends up in the hands of exploiters?
Moo
In the light of Pete173's clarification, I withdraw my statement that the cathedral is 'run' by bankers. I know that all cathedrals are faced with the dilemma of whether or not to impose entrance fees. But many have resisted. It just seems too easy for somewhere like St Paul's, knowing that there is an endless stream of inquisitive (and comparatively wealthy) tourists, to turn the place into a very expensive museum. Which rather destroys the possibility that people will discover God there and especially the message of the Gospel to the poor.
I wonder what proportion of their profits those wealthy financiers who make up the 'arms-length funding committee' donate to the running of the cathedral?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Meanwhile, while the cathedral is closed, where are the daily offices and eucharist taking place? Or have they been abandoned?
If I were Canon Fraser, I would set up an altar in the middle of the camp and invite the demonstrators to participate. What better sign?
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
They're still doing the offices etc. inside. And I think there's a wedding today. I would hope that they might think of leading prayers from the steps - one of my clergy was down there last night and led the protesters in the Lord's Prayer. But it must all
be the Dean & Chapter's call. You can't open a building for worship and tourism if you haven't got safe fire exits.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
It's probably a requirement of the Cathedral's public liability insurance that there is no obstruction to any fire exit. If they didn't close and there was any claim, not necessarily to do with fire exits or the protesters, the insurance may be invalidated.
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on
:
No Cathedral makes a charge to attend a service.
But I can't see why tourists who are there mainly for the History should not be asked for a donation (eg entry fee).
Most churches have a job to keep going and keep replacing the stolen lead of the roof etc.
I like the suggestion by Angloid of Rev Giles setting up a communion table outside and having an Al Fresoc Mass for the demonstators.
He could of course have a Baptism service for them which should ensure he sees none of them again.
Pax et Bonum
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
They could show their support by hosting night long change ringing marathons. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Zach
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
The closing of St Pauls shows that London now needs to close these protests and clear the center of London of protestors . This is an attack on one of the icons of London. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I like the suggestion by Angloid of Rev Giles setting up a communion table outside and having an Al Fresoc Mass for the demonstators.
If they're anything like their colleagues in Rome, they'd be less likely to attend Mass than to smash the place up.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
The closing of St Pauls shows that London now needs to close these protests and clear the center of London of protestors .
How? and by what authority?
[ 22. October 2011, 21:36: Message edited by: justlooking ]
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
The closing of St Pauls shows that London now needs to close these protests and clear the center of London of protestors . This is an attack on one of the icons of London.
This is a functioning church is it? Not a museum? If it's a museum¸clear away. If a functioning church, I suppose you can clear it on behalf of the money lenders.
I do have the sense that lots of old European churches have worship only as secondary function to their museum function, with tourism, concerts, preservation of artefacts and stained glass and graves, and general upkeep of very old architecture being the main focuses.
Nice to look at, if expensive, and in my experience in such temples, you are allowed to worship, but don't you dare try to linger or look around without paying a very large amount of money.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I wonder if, having paid your entrance fee as a tourist, and then being brought to your knees in wonder and prayer, you are entitled to claim your money back.
Posted by The Royal Spaniel (# 40) on
:
Well I don't know No Prophet, if this is a general European thing
You can enter Notre Dame free of charge - apart from the Tower - if you can take it. Stephansdom in Vienna is free ( although I think if you join a tour then you do pay)
There are quite a few cathedrals in England where you don't - eg Hereford
My beef with them is partly what they charge - £14.50 is quite a bit of dosh and London is such an expensive city.If you see the Abbey as well that's another £14.50 so you're talking of the best part of £30 on top of accommodation costs etc.
The other thing is - is it a charge or a donation? If it's a donation it should be voluntary and if push comes to shove you should be able to get into the cathedral gratis. If it's a charge then you should be able to get a VAT receipt I'd have thought
I am probably being unduly cynical in this respect. However I would say if you're looking for a quiet place to pray or even just sit still you could do a lot worse than go to one of the city churches which are open - my favourite is St.Pancras - where I'm more than willing to leave a donation and go there on Sunday, where - shock,horror!! - people actually talk to you!
Posted by The Royal Spaniel (# 40) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I wonder if, having paid your entrance fee as a tourist, and then being brought to your knees in wonder and prayer, you are entitled to claim your money back.
OMG!!!
I thought I was being cynical......... ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
The best thing about St. Paul's cathedral is the free loos. Not even many of the cafes in the city have loos. But as soon as there is a special event on in or around the cathedral, security is employed and the loos are out of bounds. As is the cafe and the adjacent gift shop.
I have enjoyed looking around St. Paul's Cathedral (and Westminster Abbey) once or twice in my life - and been willing to pay the entrance fee. But I far prefer the services, which is a living display of the faith. By allowing tourists to come in for free if they attend a service, who knows what insight into the faith they might 'catch' and take away with them. Sometimes we limit God, thinking he can't work like that.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
John Prescott was middle class although he often played the 'working-class-lad' ploy.
What does that mean? He worked as a seaman. His father worked on the railway. His father was a miner. If there is such a thing as the industrial working class they were it.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
I've never paid an entrance fee to get into a cathedral in England. But then I've never been inside St Paul's (or Westminster Abbey)
Posted by Traveller (# 1943) on
:
Most cathedrals (actually, all cathedrals in my experience) provide a leaflet to visitors explaining that their main function is the daily round of worship, but this takes place in an interesting historical building that costs a huge sum each year to maintain, for which the Dean and Chapter get no help from the state (Lottery funding! Yes, I know, there is some Lottery Funding for special repairs).
Before the days of charges for visitors, the London cathedrals used to get hordes of organised tour parties being charged significant sums by tour companies, who paid not one brass farthing to support the venues that were the source of their income. This was a major factor in their decisions to charge admission for visitors not attending a service.
I would rather the St Paul's staff preached the word to the protestors, not just assume that they are the dispossessed who, frankly, are taking advantage of the original goodwill.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
IIRC, someone recently suggested on these boards (a propos Westminster Abbey, but the same principle applies) that such places as St. Paul's and the Abbey should no longer be used for public worship (except perhaps on Grand State Occasions - which would be by invitation only, anyway), and given over wholly to the tourists. The daily round of Christian worship could then be carried on in local churches - which, in the City of London at least, might boost their congregations......
I'll get me coat......
Ian J.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Cathedrals have always had that touristy element, even in the middle ages. It was a place where the people of the community could exress their gratitude for what God has done for them, and the whole intent was for people to come and see the power of God in the affairs of humankind. It's difficult to hear sermons in just places, but that's not what cathedrals are about- it's about the gawking.
Zach
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Westminster Abbey costs £16 to get in these days. I haven't been there since I was a child; the last time I went some years ago I was faced not only with the entrance fee but also, if you wanted to see some of the side chapels there was an additional extra charge for those too which meant that one could quite easily end up spending more than expected, so I went somewhere else instead.
I think they used to let you in free of charge late on a Wednesday afternoon, though I never did. I don't know if they still do this. Other than that, the only time it's free is for services.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Perhaps this is the time to point out that there are two other excellent cathedrals in London within walking distance of St Paul's and the Abbey. Southwark Cathedral is historic, an attractive building (if not by an architect of genius like Wren), with a prayerful atmosphere and welcoming personnel. And they don't charge to go in. Similarly Westminster Cathedral is an awe-inspiring building which immediately impresses a visitor with the sense of being in the presence of God, and it feels as if the whole building is praying even when no service is in progress (and there often is). And again it is free to enter.
Certainly neither of them strike one as temples of mammon in the way that St Paul's does.
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Because you've been taught to. On continental Europe, home-ownership is much less widespread (granted France has a housing crisis of its own, but that's a separate issue).
On the continent (or at least the parts I'm familiar with), tenants are not treated like dirt for extortionate rents.
I never felt the desire to own a property until I was subjected to tenancy practices in England.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I wonder if, having paid your entrance fee as a tourist, and then being brought to your knees in wonder and prayer, you are entitled to claim your money back.
Only if you allow them to escort you, blindfolded, to whatever chapel is reserved for prayer.
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
Sorry this is a bit late in the thread but:
quote:
Hilarious post by Cranmer:
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/10/canon-giles-fraser-loses-st-pauls-20k.html
Hilarious it might be, but the basic premise appears to be wrong. Giles Fraser is the canon-chancellor, but that does not mean that "Judas-like" he is in charge of the purse. He is in charge of teaching office of the catheral, and director of the St Paul's Institute: Dean & Chapter.
I would disagree with Giles Fraser in a number of areas. But I like the way he speaks prophetically to the City. No kowtowing to money in him.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
I'd be worried that it might all turn nasty and then innocent bystanders would get kettled by the police.
(Gets on high horse) Blame a disproportionate Police reaction. Kettling should be made illegal - it probably is already anyway. (Dis - mount!)
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
They're still doing the offices etc. inside. And I think there's a wedding today. I would hope that they might think of leading prayers from the steps - one of my clergy was down there last night and led the protesters in the Lord's Prayer. But it must all
be the Dean & Chapter's call. You can't open a building for worship and tourism if you haven't got safe fire exits.
I thought the protesters and the cathedral staff had talked to the fire brigade - who were satisfied that there wasn't a fire hazard ?
[ 23. October 2011, 16:22: Message edited by: Think² ]
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
I'd be worried that it might all turn nasty and then innocent bystanders would get kettled by the police.
(Gets on high horse) Blame a disproportionate Police reaction. Kettling should be made illegal - it probably is already anyway. (Dis - mount!)
I would ban demostrations full stop. You can organise a big demonstration on line such as writing to your MP. When they get flooded with e-mails they take some notice. (eg 38 Degrees) Demos don't affect a thing and are for people who think they are important and want to get on TV.
No-one demoed over the Forestry Commission sell-off but it was soon stopped by 'the people'.
Pax et Bonum
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
/tangential rant alert/
I went on demonstrations in the mid-1980s to protest against the abolition of the Greater London Council. I didn't feel I myself was particularly important, although the cause was. As for TV, one march with 30,000+ people participating, got about 30 seconds on the BBC News - and that was mainly to tell Middle England that (shock! horror!) we'd caused a traffic hold-up in the City of London.....
.....and demonstrations have also served to prove to me that the police are often the tools of a fascist state.
/end of rant/
Ian J.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
/tangential rant alert/
.....and demonstrations have also served to prove to me that the police are often the tools of a fascist state.
/end of rant/
Ian J.
Agreed!
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
I do wish people wouldn't do that !
Facist is not just a synonym for repressive. To the best of my knowledge and belief the UK is not a Facist state. Nor is it Communist, socialist, feudal, totalitarian, autocratic, Stalinist, Maoist or Utilitarian.
There is a good argument to be made that it is overly repressive - it is some way off becoming a police state - and you could make a fair argument it is or is in danger of becoming an oligarchy rather than a true democracy.
What it is not; is a state that believes it can be entirely self-sufficient, believes its dominant ethnicity to be superior to all others, and attempting expansionist military empire building to create more space for its population.
Throwing the term around just makes it easier, for those wishing to, to hide the fact that the government is curtailing the rights of the people and kowtowing to commercial interests. It makes what would otherwise be meaningful critiques of this slide into repression sound hysterical.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Well if you can't get into St Paul's at the mo, you'd do no worse than to pop along to St James' Piccadilly to see how Canon Lucy Winkett is getting along these days. The building is much plainer, and there's not so much pansying about. But you don't have to pay to get in and they do some lovely free lunchtime concerts.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
I was working in the City this morning, so I strolled round to St Paul's just before 11am. As expected, the doors were closed, when normally it would be thronging with Sunday worshippers. This unprecedented state of affairs is the first time since the cathedral received severe bomb damage in WW2. I don't want to discuss the rights or wrongs of a protest against fat cat bankers and greedy capitalists, but only the forced closure of one of the world's iconic buildings.
St Paul's has been a Christian worshipping site since at leat the 7th century. It is Wren's masterpiece, and very much part of London's heritage. Worshippers and tourists alike flock there from all over the world. Now they can't. Even the stench which comes from this large encampment would be enough to close the cathedral on health and safety grounds. Conditions are hardly hygenic. Not to mention the reason given, of fire doors. Whatever beef these people have with the world, it isn't with St Paul's Cathedral. They have been asked to leave, so the cathedral can get on with its normal function. So far, they are refusing to do so. Like all pressure groups, they are only interested in their own point of view, and are quite selfish and insensitive to the views of those who value what the cathedral gives to London and the many people who come here.
If they can't be persuaded to see the sense of this, the cathedral authorities should go to court and obtain an injunction requiring these people to vacate the site and let others get on with their lives. Let them all go to Finsbury Park if they want. But get them away from a place where they are disrupting the lives of others who have no involvement in their conflict.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
I still haven't heard a plausible explanation of why they *had* to close. What were the protesters doing - rugby tackling the tourists ?
Posted by The Royal Spaniel (# 40) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I still haven't heard a plausible explanation of why they *had* to close. What were the protesters doing - rugby tackling the tourists ?
Hehe!!
Perhaps some of them were Welsh rugby fans having a pop at French tourists.......
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishop's Finger and agreed with by Exclamation Mark
and demonstrations have also served to prove to me that the police are often the tools of a fascist state.
This sort of language really annoys me.
Like you, I've many grumbles with the government of my own country. But unlike you two, I lived for some years in a totalitarian state - and it wasn't even a fascist one, just authoritarian. You don't know you're born.
In many other countries, by now, all the happy campers + quite a lot of innocent passers by, would be locked up, have severe bruising, bullet wounds or be dead.
In many other countries, demos don't happen because people know that.
I think most demos are a posturing nuisance and few get anywhere. I don't see why one person should think their opinion is more important than other peoples' convenience. But that's a different question from what governments are or are not fascist.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think:
I still haven't heard a plausible explanation of why they *had* to close. What were the protesters doing - rugby tackling the tourists ?
The camp is now so large that it effectively blocks the side exits and constitutes a fire hazard. Also, and I was there today, the whole area is starting to smell rank. No one has the right to exercise their freedom when it encroaches on the freedom of others. With freedom comes reponsibility, and this has now become irresponsible and should be moved on.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
I understood they had checked with the fire brigade, and the fire brigade did not feel there was an access issue.
(Sounds like it is starting to smell in period with the building. Isn't this what incense was originally for ? The altar rail was a fence to keep the animals away form the altar, and incense masked the smell of the people and the animals.)
[ 23. October 2011, 22:09: Message edited by: Think² ]
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If they can't be persuaded to see the sense of this, the cathedral authorities should go to court and obtain an injunction requiring these people to vacate the site.
I don't think it's that simple. There's been some discussion about this on a news report and it seems there's uncertainty about the boundaries which would make it difficult to show ownership of the site.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I think most demos are a posturing nuisance and few get anywhere. I don't see why one person should think their opinion is more important than other peoples' convenience.
They are meant to be a nuisance. Like strikes. And unfortunately they often inconvenience those who are not to blame for the grievance. Thatcher was forced to repeal the Poll Tax as a result of public anger. She won with the miners unfortunately but would you have wanted them to roll over without a murmur? In what is a very imperfect democracy (though not, of course, a fascist state) it is important for people to be able to show those in power what we feel.
For every person who is brave enough to camp out at St Paul's, there are very many (even hundreds, thousands) like me who are with them in spirit. Not in person [a] because I live a long way from London, [b] I have other commitments, [c] I'm not in the first flush of youth, and [d] I'm a bit of a wimp. We don't believe that the millions of hard-working or unemployed people of this country who are finding life an increasingly difficult struggle, should have to suffer unduly for the greed of the rich minority.
I suppose if we all wrote letters to the Times instead our grievances would be settled peacefully and swiftly. And pigs would be gathering on the dome of St Paul's.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Thatcher ... won with the miners unfortunately but would you have wanted them to roll over without a murmur? In what is a very imperfect democracy (though not, of course, a fascist state) it is important for people to be able to show those in power what we feel.
Well I think a lot of people would have wanted the miners to hold a vote on strike action. Even if you think our democracy imperfect, the NUM was capable of doing that, wasn't it?
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't see why one person should think their opinion is more important than other peoples' convenience.
the point is that it's not one person. if it was, it wouldn't be inconvenient.
as my man Arlo says... if 50 people walk in and sing a chorus of Alice's Restaurant, it's a movement.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Do only the 1% visit and worship at St. Paul's?
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
It is a major attraction in London. If I ever get opver I will visit it . It is also the seat of the Bishop of London .
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
She won with the miners unfortunately but would you have wanted them to roll over without a murmur?
Would anyome want coal to be a major source of energy when all politcians are trying to prove their green credentials? As Anglican't pointed out, Scargill didn't trust his own membership with a national ballot. He used a loophole in the law, by which a local strike can be called without a ballot, and hoped that its rolling effect would close the whole country.
In a democracy, there needs to be a right to withdraw labour and peacefully protest. Again it comes down to freedom and responsibility. When tube drivers, who earn on average at least £50k per annum go on strike, they keep millions of people away from work and cost the country billions of pounds. That is an irresponsible use of a disproportionate power, which should be limited by law.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
This incident gets ever more confusing.
I listened in to an hours phone in on Sat night. A spokesperson for the protestors was repeated asked to specify what their demands were. She repeatedly evaded the question. Eventually it turned out that they were protesting in the hope of forming a "democratic forum" which would then discuss what they should be demanding.
On the other hand St Paul's authorities closed on health and safety grounds after discussion with the fire service. The radio station phoned the fire service and got an assurance that the protestor's "camp" conformed with all safety regulations and St Pauls had been informed accordingly.
So it seems that the protestors are demonstrating against a bankrupt political system with no proposals to change. And St Paul's is making use of elf & safety fears - I am not sure to what purpose.
All very confusing.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I'm well aware of what Jesus says about money, wealth and power. To my mind his teaching warns about the dangers of riches and wealth, and calls on the rich to make choices about their resources - even to the point of giving them up. I don't find very much that speaks to specific taxation policies or what we should do about structural injustice, regulation, the market-place. What do you find in the Gospels that influences your decision to withdraw labour, or backs up the Occupy Protests?
Sorry it's taken me a while to get to this. My internets have been mostly down and entirely unreliable.
You're right that the gospels don't talk specifics - which was, of course, very wise of Our Lord as it leaves us to work out what 'fair and just' looks like in our own given situations, and furthermore, forces the likes of you and me to grudgingly acknowledge that we can both follow Jesus while one of us being crashingly wrong (that's you, by the way ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
Simply put - a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. That labour is rewarded is a deep gospel message and rooted in the the vision of the Kingdom - which is both now and to come, not just pie-in-the-sky.
I don't think I'd ever strike simply for more money, though if the company was profiting from my labour and enriching the CEO at the expense of the workforce, who were seeing their living standards deteriorate, perhaps.
Workplace safety - definitely. Terms and conditions we had signed up for being degraded - likewise. These things affect only the workers, and without meaningful negotiation (H&S in the workplace is barely negotiable), withdrawal of labour is the only tool we have left in the box.
I make most (!) of my money through self-employment, but I take my employed duties seriously. I've talked to my colleagues, and the feeling is that we've been left with no choice. We renegotiated our pension terms and conditions a couple of years back so that they would be sustainable and affordable in the the medium to long term, while we took a short term hit. Now, without agreement, the T&C are being changed again. It's simply an additional tax on public sector workers, the majority of whom (for my union at least) are below the average wage.
Just? Fair? In line with Kingdom principles? No.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You're right that the gospels don't talk specifics - which was, of course, very wise of Our Lord as it leaves us to work out what 'fair and just' looks like in our own given situations, and furthermore, forces the likes of you and me to grudgingly acknowledge that we can both follow Jesus while one of us being crashingly wrong (that's you, by the way )
I realise that there's a jocular tone here, but I have to point out that there's nothing grudging about my acceptance of your discipleship even as I think you're wrong about aspects of it. I'd just like to point out that on this thread - self-righteousness and accusations of bad faith have come from supporters of the protesters.
Back to the topic of St Paul's closure. I have no reason to doubt the good faith of the Dean and chapter in making what must feel like a terrible decision about closure. I accept that they believe they are discharging their responsibilities in the light of the advice they have been given.
It seems to me now that the the underlying issue is one of bureaucracy and over-regulation. Perhaps the left will now accept that excessive 'elf 'n' safety' does not lead to the promised land, it leads to ridiculous decisions like the St Paul's closure. I wish St Paul's had the courage to ignore the advice or take the opportunity to register criticism against the regulations which have closed it down.
I might myself man the barricades, if only there was a protest calling for freedom from heavy-handed government and policing, excessive red tape, and the legislative diaorrhea of both Westminster and Brussels.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Back to the topic of St Paul's closure. I have no reason to doubt the good faith of the Dean and chapter in making what must feel like a terrible decision about closure. I accept that they believe they are discharging their responsibilities in the light of the advice they have been given.
Despite what shamwari says above about what the fire service are saying? There is a disconnect here - either the fire brigade are saying two different things to the protesters and the Dean, or the Dean is getting different advice from a different set of people. Which is it?
quote:
It seems to me now that the the underlying issue is one of bureaucracy and over-regulation. Perhaps the left will now accept that excessive 'elf 'n' safety' does not lead to the promised land, it leads to ridiculous decisions like the St Paul's closure. I wish St Paul's had the courage to ignore the advice or take the opportunity to register criticism against the regulations which have closed it down.
I might myself man the barricades, if only there was a protest calling for freedom from heavy-handed government and policing, excessive red tape, and the legislative diaorrhea of both Westminster and Brussels.
This is just bollocks. Middle-class Tory bollocks. The idea the H&S is a leftist plot is a conspiracy touted entirely by the right who know that making things safe costs money. Heavy handed policing is aimed almost entirely at minorities and left-leaning protesters. And the lack of regulations is precisely why the bankers first lost, then stole more of, our money.
Double the size of HMRC and send them out in packs to hunt down tax evaders. That'll do for a start.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Back to the topic of St Paul's closure. I have no reason to doubt the good faith of the Dean and chapter in making what must feel like a terrible decision about closure. I accept that they believe they are discharging their responsibilities in the light of the advice they have been given.
Despite what shamwari says above about what the fire service are saying? There is a disconnect here - either the fire brigade are saying two different things to the protesters and the Dean, or the Dean is getting different advice from a different set of people. Which is it?
quote:
It seems to me now that the the underlying issue is one of bureaucracy and over-regulation. Perhaps the left will now accept that excessive 'elf 'n' safety' does not lead to the promised land, it leads to ridiculous decisions like the St Paul's closure. I wish St Paul's had the courage to ignore the advice or take the opportunity to register criticism against the regulations which have closed it down.
I might myself man the barricades, if only there was a protest calling for freedom from heavy-handed government and policing, excessive red tape, and the legislative diaorrhea of both Westminster and Brussels.
This is just bollocks. Middle-class Tory bollocks. The idea the H&S is a leftist plot is a conspiracy touted entirely by the right who know that making things safe costs money. Heavy handed policing is aimed almost entirely at minorities and left-leaning protesters. And the lack of regulations is precisely why the bankers first lost, then stole more of, our money.
Double the size of HMRC and send them out in packs to hunt down tax evaders. That'll do for a start.
Except the Left under Gordon Brown increased the complexity of the tax legislation to such an extent that the Revenue cannot administer the system let alone investigate tax evaders. It is why so many small tradesmen now do everything on a cash basis because there seems to be a failure to police the black market. I was pleasantly surprised recently when a plumber gave me an invoice with 30 days to pay as opposed to asking for cash - sadly I later learned that he had gone out of business.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Although it does raise the question as to why he did not become a Roman Catholic if he was into being brain washed.
That bigoted statement is unworthy of the Ship.
It was actually meant as a joke. I apologise as I forgot Americans read these posts.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Except the Left under Gordon Brown increased the complexity of the tax legislation to such an extent that the Revenue cannot administer the system let alone investigate tax evaders.
The tax system needs a radical overhaul. Complexity that supposedly cuts off loopholes simply creates more.
The reason my tax return takes ten minutes to fill in is because I don't play the allowances and reliefs game, paying an accountant and stuff like that. If I earned more, I hope I'd take exactly the same attitude.
It shouldn't be difficult. That it is is a failure in the system.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
I'm not surprised that there is a protest of this nature at this time, given the way global capitalism is screwing up the lives of ordinary people, but I am perplexed at the venue.
I'm sure people from the Square Mile worship at St Paul's but why aren't the protests at the Bank of England, Lloyds or one of the other market exchanges instead?
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
This is just bollocks. Middle-class Tory bollocks. The idea the H&S is a leftist plot is a conspiracy touted entirely by the right who know that making things safe costs money. Heavy handed policing is aimed almost entirely at minorities and left-leaning protesters. And the lack of regulations is precisely why the bankers first lost, then stole more of, our money.
Remind me, why is it that my church doesn't run a (very popular) firework display anymore? Is it because there were eventually so many legislative and bureaucratic H&S hoops to jump through that we gave up trying, or is it because we're a bunch of right wing bollock-headed bigots?
Wake up and smell the coffee (cooled to 80 degrees to avoid burning) Doc, H&S bureaucracy is not a myth.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm not surprised that there is a protest of this nature at this time, given the way global capitalism is screwing up the lives of ordinary people, but I am perplexed at the venue.
I'm sure people from the Square Mile worship at St Paul's but why aren't the protests at the Bank of England, Lloyds or one of the other market exchanges instead?
Is it just that they found a spot where they weren't initially moved on?
I want to know where their incomes come from? I couldn't afford to take a month off to camp out in London. If they are on benefits then wouldn't they be actively seeking work - lesving little time for a camping expidition?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Although it does raise the question as to why he did not become a Roman Catholic if he was into being brain washed.
That bigoted statement is unworthy of the Ship.
It was actually meant as a joke. I apologise as I forgot Americans read these posts.
Wow. Insult to injury!
I don't know why but I'm kind of encouraged that poor old St Paul's has got itself (or been dragged) into this messy business. Though I feel a bit sorry for the officials who have to cope with it!
It somehow reminds me of Jesus getting dragged into the arguments of the zealots and being pulled into the political fracas of rebellion against authorities. So it seems natural and appropriate that the Church is part of that - even incidentally or accidentally.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Remind me, why is it that my church doesn't run a (very popular) firework display anymore? Is it because there were eventually so many legislative and bureaucratic H&S hoops to jump through that we gave up trying, or is it because we're a bunch of right wing bollock-headed bigots?
Bzzt. Thank you for playing. Your church needs to check its public liability insurance and ask some questions as to why it suddenly cost ten times as much from one year to the next.
Hint: it's not to do with H&S.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
It seems to me now that the the underlying issue is one of bureaucracy and over-regulation. Perhaps the left will now accept that excessive 'elf 'n' safety' does not lead to the promised land, it leads to ridiculous decisions like the St Paul's closure. I wish St Paul's had the courage to ignore the advice or take the opportunity to register criticism against the regulations which have closed it down.
There is much nonsense written about health and safety, one of them being that health and safety regulation bans things or shuts things down. It doesn't. It requires you to be aware, to assess risk, to take responsibility, and to take appropriate action if necessary. If you conclude that action isn't necessary you don't take action, so blaming Health and Safety in most cases is just a convenient excuse for passing the buck about unpopular decisions. Or it's about company lawyers and insurers being completely risk averse.
Last year Lord Young, Mrs Thatcher's Trade & Industry Secretary (so no obvious fan of health and safety) produced a report. It does a good job at distinguishing the myth from the reality and pointing the finger at the actual problems. The following is from his Foreword: quote:
It’s [litigiousness] a climate of fear compounded by the actions of some health and safety consultants, many without any professional qualifications, who have a perverse incentive to take an overzealous approach to applying the health and safety regulations. As a consequence they employ a goal of eliminating all risk from the workplace instead of setting out the rational, proportionate approach that the Health and Safety at Work etc Act demands. It is a problem exacerbated by insurance companies, some of whom insist on costly and unnecessary health and safety risk assessments from external consultants before they will even consider offering accident insurance policies to small and medium sized businesses.
[ 24. October 2011, 13:02: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Remind me, why is it that my church doesn't run a (very popular) firework display anymore? Is it because there were eventually so many legislative and bureaucratic H&S hoops to jump through that we gave up trying, or is it because we're a bunch of right wing bollock-headed bigots?
Bzzt. Thank you for playing. Your church needs to check its public liability insurance and ask some questions as to why it suddenly cost ten times as much from one year to the next.
Hint: it's not to do with H&S.
Nope, no cigar for you. Better luck next time. Till then, you won't make a problem go away by covering your eyes and saying it's not there.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
Health and Safety probably has grown as a bureaucracy (haven't they all) but one can't help but think that it is usually used as an excuse for lazyness and inertia by petty officials. The real disaster is the culture of litigation which means that risk-aversion becomes an obsession.
I managed the freehold of a small London estate for some years which had in the communal gardens a small children's play area. I recall that we spent more time discussing the dangers of the children's swings than virtually anything else. In the end we were able to breath a sign of relief as no families with children could afford to live in the place.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
FWIW, a friend of mine works for the HSE. She and most of her department are severely pissed off at the amount of time HSE gets the blame for things being cancelled when it's nothing to do with them.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
[qb]Remind me, why is it that my church doesn't run a (very popular) firework display anymore? Is it because there were eventually so many legislative and bureaucratic H&S hoops to jump through
[ 24. October 2011, 13:48: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
(sorry, hosts. My internet connection died half-way through the posting process. I'll try again)
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Remind me, why is it that my church doesn't run a (very popular) firework display anymore? Is it because there were eventually so many legislative and bureaucratic H&S hoops to jump through that we gave up trying, or is it because we're a bunch of right wing bollock-headed bigots?
Bzzt. Thank you for playing. Your church needs to check its public liability insurance and ask some questions as to why it suddenly cost ten times as much from one year to the next.
Hint: it's not to do with H&S.
Nope, no cigar for you. Better luck next time. Till then, you won't make a problem go away by covering your eyes and saying it's not there.
Merely repeating right-wing shibboleths doesn't change why your fireworks display was cancelled.
Why don't you actually do some independent research? H&S legislation, as produced by government has nothing to do with it.
On the other hand, the effect of the rise (and rise) of the 'compensation culture', claims farms, fraud and greed in making up and exaggerating claims all have huge consequences for the cost of insuring things.
Previously, insurance has all been about the shared risk of an accident. Now, it is all about the shared risk of a complicated and expensive claim against that insurance. Which is why, when cars are safer than ever and there are fewer accidents and injuries than ever, car insurance is costing more and more.
Nothing to do with H&S.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
To be fair it is the managers at St Pauls Cathedral who are claiming the closure is due to Health and Safety - are they a right wing conspiracy?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Remind me, why is it that my church doesn't run a (very popular) firework display anymore? Is it because there were eventually so many legislative and bureaucratic H&S hoops to jump through that we gave up trying, or is it because we're a bunch of right wing bollock-headed bigots?
Plenty of places do have bonfires and fireworks. Why don't you ask them how they do it?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Although it does raise the question as to why he did not become a Roman Catholic if he was into being brain washed.
That bigoted statement is unworthy of the Ship.
It was actually meant as a joke. I apologise as I forgot Americans read these posts.
So after Catholics, Americans, left-wingers, the French, foreigners in general, evangelicals, unemployed people, political protestors, Irish Travellers, teachers, university lecturers and all intellectuals, the working classes, gays, Goths and government employees, who is going to get the Aumbry Flinch of Scorn next?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Remind me, why is it that my church doesn't run a (very popular) firework display anymore? Is it because there were eventually so many legislative and bureaucratic H&S hoops to jump through that we gave up trying, or is it because we're a bunch of right wing bollock-headed bigots?
Plenty of places do have bonfires and fireworks. Why don't you ask them how they do it?
Easy. Two possibilities - pay a lot of money for insurence, stewards, parking attendands, police support etc (and charge high ticket prices). Be told what you can and can't do, where you can and can't do it, as a result of yor own risk assessment which you have to submit to the Local Authority and a special committee comprising the Senior Local Policeman, Fire Officer, Ambulance Person etc. Pay for the privilege. Recognise that what you did for 20 years until last year, no longer applies.
Or, just do it without "permission" and see what happens. Be prepared to pay more in fines unless you happen to have a chum or a wife in a senior post in the council. Then it's all free.
Perhaps I'm glad I moved from between wood and water!
[ 24. October 2011, 14:24: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Although it does raise the question as to why he did not become a Roman Catholic if he was into being brain washed.
That bigoted statement is unworthy of the Ship.
It was actually meant as a joke. I apologise as I forgot Americans read these posts.
So after Catholics, Americans, left-wingers, the French, foreigners in general, evangelicals, unemployed people, political protestors, Irish Travellers, teachers, university lecturers and all intellectuals, the working classes, gays, Goths and government employees, who is going to get the Aumbry Flinch of Scorn next?
ESTATE AGENTS
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Although it does raise the question as to why he did not become a Roman Catholic if he was into being brain washed.
That bigoted statement is unworthy of the Ship.
It was actually meant as a joke. I apologise as I forgot Americans read these posts.
So after Catholics, Americans, left-wingers, the French, foreigners in general, evangelicals, unemployed people, political protestors, Irish Travellers, teachers, university lecturers and all intellectuals, the working classes, gays, Goths and government employees, who is going to get the Aumbry Flinch of Scorn next?
ESTATE AGENTS
Aumbries? Who needs that kind of Church furniture?
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
This is just bollocks. Middle-class Tory bollocks. The idea the H&S is a leftist plot is a conspiracy touted entirely by the right who know that making things safe costs money. Heavy handed policing is aimed almost entirely at minorities and left-leaning protesters. And the lack of regulations is precisely why the bankers first lost, then stole more of, our money.
Remind me, why is it that my church doesn't run a (very popular) firework display anymore? Is it because there were eventually so many legislative and bureaucratic H&S hoops to jump through that we gave up trying, or is it because we're a bunch of right wing bollock-headed bigots?
Wake up and smell the coffee (cooled to 80 degrees to avoid burning) Doc, H&S bureaucracy is not a myth.
It's political-correctness gone mad!
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
...and charge high ticket prices...
No admission charged here
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
For H&S bureaucracy, face it: it doesn't matter whether it's in the act or whether the act has merely encouraged the parasitic culture of petty bureaucracy or enabled a lazy official somewhere down the chain, the effect is the same for the end user, i.e. the guy at the bottom.
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
It's political-correctness gone mad!
Since that's got nothing to do with anything I posted, I have no idea what you're talking about unless you're making a cheap shot, trying to stereotype me rather than deal with the content of my posts. When I get to heaven, I'll tell Martin Luther King that you've been stereotyping and he'll get angry. If you're not careful, you'll make baby Jesus cry.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
For H&S bureaucracy, face it: it doesn't matter whether it's in the act or whether the act has merely encouraged the parasitic culture of petty bureaucracy or enabled a lazy official somewhere down the chain, the effect is the same for the end user, i.e. the guy at the bottom.
Well, it might not matter to you, because you'd much rather moan on about how the county's gone to the dogs...
There is an alternative, of course, which is to campaign to get claim farming made illegal, for insurance assessors to do their jobs properly, for frauds and cheats to be subject to civil or criminal prosecutions, which would drive insurance premiums down (be they for household contents, motoring or public liability).
But you're right, it sounds far too much like common sense and hard work to actually direct your ire in the right direction, as opposed towards the people who do their damnedest to stop us from being killed or maimed because some muppet has decided to cut corners because it's cheaper.
As you were...
So - back to the OP. What's probably happened is that St Paul's insurers have said they'll refuse liability if someone gets injured entering or leaving the building, despite that the fire service are happy with the arrangements made. Some clarification would be nice.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I listened in to an hours phone in on Sat night. A spokesperson for the protestors was repeated asked to specify what their demands were. She repeatedly evaded the question. Eventually it turned out that they were protesting in the hope of forming a "democratic forum" which would then discuss what they should be demanding.
Yes, that corresponds to what the Guardian reports here.
To be honest, despite my instinctive lefty urge to side with anyone protesting against the City, this seems pretty silly. I've no objection to people experimenting with alternative ways to organise society but I don't see why they should experiment at someone else's expense (in this case, St Paul's).
And if you're going to make demands from society - which is usually why you inconvenience them by means of a demo - then you should at least have some idea of what those demands are.
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
For H&S bureaucracy, face it: it doesn't matter whether it's in the act or whether the act has merely encouraged the parasitic culture of petty bureaucracy or enabled a lazy official somewhere down the chain, the effect is the same for the end user, i.e. the guy at the bottom.
But it does make a difference in this case, as I can see at least three possibilities:
- St Paul's has genuine well-founded H&S concerns, and the protesters are either lying or misrepresenting the situation. (e.g. The Fire Service could have told them that the camp isn't itself a fire hazard - in the sense that it's not going to burst into flame - but not that it doesn't obstruct the fire safety procedures of St Paul's. (I hope you can disentangle my double negatives there.))
- St Paul's Health and Safety officials are over-zealous.
- St Paul's are using Health and Safety as a face-saving excuse to justify forcing the protesters to move on.
If (1) is the case, then my vestigial sympathies with the protesters dissipate entirely.
Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
...I can see at least three possibilities:
- St Paul's has genuine well-founded H&S concerns, and the protesters are either lying or misrepresenting the situation. (e.g. The Fire Service could have told them that the camp isn't itself a fire hazard - in the sense that it's not going to burst into flame - but not that it doesn't obstruct the fire safety procedures of St Paul's. (I hope you can disentangle my double negatives there.))
- St Paul's Health and Safety officials are over-zealous.
- St Paul's are using Health and Safety as a face-saving excuse to justify forcing the protesters to move on.
If (1) is the case, then my vestigial sympathies with the protesters dissipate entirely.
It's a pity St Paul's doesn't make it entirely clear why they are claiming health and safety risk as the issue.
Everyone's quoting the Fire Brigade as saying there's no risk - but they aren't the arbiter of all risk, only of fire related risk. (You wouldn't call them in to check the risk of disease spreading in a flu outbreak, for example). The fact that the Fire Brigade has spoken on fire matters only covers off one possible aspect of risk.
(And of course health and safety concern isn't limited to what has been the subject of legislation: that's one of the weasel-word approaches to the question. Are people only to be concerned for the safety of others if the legislation says so? Could any Christian read the parable of the Good Samaritan, and then make that argument?)
It's actually far more likely that their insurer has told them they are not insured if they open in these circumstances, which isn't actually health and safety, but often confused with it - especially by insurance companies.
The question then would be why the insurance company said so.
And it doesn't take an awful lot of cynicism to suspect that the insurance company in question might have an interest in discrediting protests against the financial system....
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
For H&S bureaucracy, face it: it doesn't matter whether it's in the act or whether the act has merely encouraged the parasitic culture of petty bureaucracy or enabled a lazy official somewhere down the chain, the effect is the same for the end user, i.e. the guy at the bottom.
Well, it might not matter to you, because you'd much rather moan on about how the county's gone to the dogs...
Baseless insult in place of reason? It must be my lucky day My time's filled with doing quite enough things for other people for free, thankyouverymuch, made all the harder by people shoving paper under my nose, and by people who refuse to recognise that well-meaning laws and policies might just have unintended, undesirable consequences.
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on
:
I am struck by the attitude to business in Ireland and the Isle of Man.
Both are desperate for businesses to come there, and therefore the taxes are incredible low on profits.
The argument is that the firms will create jobs and that taxes will be paid on the earnings.
This view is shared by all, even if they are not well off.
Pax et Bonum
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
It's political-correctness gone mad!
Since that's got nothing to do with anything I posted, I have no idea what you're talking about unless you're making a cheap shot, trying to stereotype me rather than deal with the content of my posts. When I get to heaven, I'll tell Martin Luther King that you've been stereotyping and he'll get angry. If you're not careful, you'll make baby Jesus cry.
I do apologise. I gave the wrong link. I meant to link to this piece of stand-up by Stewart Lee where he talks about Health and Safety. I meant no bad will, just was offering a bit of humour.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Baseless insult in place of reason?
Baseless? Hardly. You were the one who weighed in with "H&S banned my firework display", when in all probability (as ken pointed out, other people still manage to run displays perfectly well) it has nothing to do with H&S laws.
If it makes you feel better, perhaps it was because they just hate Christians.
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Baseless insult in place of reason?
Baseless? Hardly. You were the one who weighed in with "H&S banned my firework display",
That's funny, you're quoting me but the words in the quotes aren't what I said. How did that happen? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I think we've seen exactly how much worth to assign to your contributions to this thread.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Baseless insult in place of reason?
Baseless? Hardly. You were the one who weighed in with "H&S banned my firework display",
That's funny, you're quoting me but the words in the quotes aren't what I said. How did that happen?
I think we've seen exactly how much worth to assign to your contributions to this thread.
Eh? You're smart enough to use a computer but not smart enough to spot a paraphrase?
quote:
Remind me, why is it that my church doesn't run a (very popular) firework display anymore? Is it because there were eventually so many legislative and bureaucratic H&S hoops to jump through that we gave up trying, or is it because we're a bunch of right wing bollock-headed bigots?
So, in summary: you said your church couldn't run its firework display any more and cited H&S legislation and bureaucracy. I said it was tosh and it was much more likely problems with obtaining appropriate public liability insurance which has nothing to do with the HSE or the legislation they enforce. You said yah boo sucks. I pointed out the reasons why public liability insurance (in common with other forms of insurance) costs so much. You said yah boo sucks again, and suddenly I've lost all credibility, even after a valiant attempt to drag the thread back on topic? Uh huh.
I'm reasonably certain we've both got better things to be doing on a Monday night. Whatever it is, enjoy.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
Is nolt the church free from anti establishment forces ? Remember without the establishment the civilizede world would descend into chaos . And I grew up the 1960s ?!!!!!!!!!! But even so the church must be respected or maybe we all go to the temple of the 18 holes on Sunday !!!!
Here's to a peaceful and safe resolution.
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Baseless insult in place of reason?
Baseless? Hardly. You were the one who weighed in with "H&S banned my firework display",
That's funny, you're quoting me but the words in the quotes aren't what I said. How did that happen?
I think we've seen exactly how much worth to assign to your contributions to this thread.
Eh? You're smart enough to use a computer but not smart enough to spot a paraphrase?
A paraphrase that contains a different meaning from the original? I suggest you stick to actual quotes in the future, your paraphrasing skills are somewhat lacking.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
hey Doc Tor and Dinghy Sailor - get a room. I can't see the otherwise interesting conversation with all of your pecker-waving.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
St Paul's churchyard has a long history as a place where public grievances could be aired
From the Guide to St Paul's
quote:
Near by, in the cathedral's north-east churchyard, a plaque marks the location of St Paul's Cross, a popular centre of news and comment, where during the reformation William Tyndale's New Testament was burned because it was in English, and where generations of Londoners played their role in fomenting public opinion.
So the camp is following a long tradition.
[ 25. October 2011, 10:32: Message edited by: justlooking ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
St Paul's churchyard has a long history as a place where public grievances could be aired
From the Guide to St Paul's
quote:
Near by, in the cathedral's north-east churchyard, a plaque marks the location of St Paul's Cross, a popular centre of news and comment, where during the reformation William Tyndale's New Testament was burned because it was in English, and where generations of Londoners played their role in fomenting public opinion.
So the camp is following a long tradition.
That's really interesting justlooking. I hope there won't be any Bible burning this time!
I have just heard on the radio that only one-in-ten of the tents are occupied at night. (According to police thermal imaging cameras) there is some discussion of police 'confiscating' the tents which are left unoccupied.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I am struck by the attitude to business in Ireland and the Isle of Man.
Both are desperate for businesses to come there, and therefore the taxes are incredible low on profits.
The argument is that the firms will create jobs and that taxes will be paid on the earnings.
This view is shared by all, even if they are not well off.
Pax et Bonum
Show me.
I'm tired of mere assertions on this board.
Posted by Big Oil (# 15713) on
:
They could always open the cathedral at night. Apparently, the protestors don't like sleeping out when it's cold! I wonder what time they show up for work.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Big Oil:
They could always open the cathedral at night. Apparently, the protestors don't like sleeping out when it's cold! I wonder what time they show up for work.
So, should the vacant tents be removed?
Posted by Big Oil (# 15713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
So, should the vacant tents be removed?
... and sold on ebay to plug the £16,000 per day hole in the cathedral's finances?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
When the BBC news this evening questioned a number of the happy campers this evening, including about whether they were popping home for warm showers or beds, it was surprising how many of the ones they spoke to clearly came from abroad.
This may just have been a quirk, or chance. But I for one have always taken the view that if you go and visit another country, you leave its politics to those who actually belong there. If you are staying or living somewhere as a foreigner, you are a guest. You do not dabble in your host nation's affairs. However, strongly you may feel about the issues, you do not campaign; you do not crusade; you do not get involved in demos. You have a choice. You either eschew politics, or you go back home and engage in them in your own country.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
When the BBC news this evening questioned a number of the happy campers this evening, including about whether they were popping home for warm showers or beds, it was surprising how many of the ones they spoke to clearly came from abroad.
This may just have been a quirk, or chance. But I for one have always taken the view that if you go and visit another country, you leave its politics to those who actually belong there. If you are staying or living somewhere as a foreigner, you are a guest. You do not dabble in your host nation's affairs. However, strongly you may feel about the issues, you do not campaign; you do not crusade; you do not get involved in demos. You have a choice. You either eschew politics, or you go back home and engage in them in your own country.
So you don't approve of James Maudsley's tireless work in Burma on behalf of is people and Aung San Suu Kyi?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Except that (to misquote Father Jack) this would be an international matter. It's international capitalism that has got us into this mess, and it will take much more than a single national government to drag us out of it. Even if this present one wasn't so mired in it already.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If you are staying or living somewhere as a foreigner, you are a guest. You do not dabble in your host nation's affairs.
Like the man said when asked why he robbed banks, that's where the money is. If you want to shout at bankers you need to go to where the banks are.
London is the capital of world money trading. If you live in England its where the banks buy and sell your money. If you live in America its where the banks buy and sell your money. If you live in Timbuctoo its where the banks buy and sell your money.
What's the point in protesting against them in Timbuctoo?
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on
:
My guess on the H&S issue is that it is the complex series of possibilities when combining a protest with tents, ropes, portaloos etc; a police presence at the camp; lots of tourists and schoolchildren coming and going. If something was to kick off on Cathedral property which meant that either the police moved in or it just got a bit nasty (think the extreme elements smashing up shops at the UK Uncut marches) and some visitors got caught up in, I suspect that the Cathedral's lawyers have suggested that they could be held partially liable.
Therefore by closing they are not 'inviting' anyone onto the property, reducing their liability.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally responded by Leo
So you don't approve of James Maudsley's tireless work in Burma on behalf of is people and Aung San Suu Kyi?
I don't want to criticise a particular person, or a particular case which I don't know that much about. But in general, yes, I would have reservations about this.
Burma has a nasty government. By all reports, it is oppressive, self seeking and unpleasant. Burma's politics and Burma's opposition though are for the Burmese. Non-Burmese may support and help, but if so, on the terms of the Burmese opposition. It rapidly becomes patronising or worse when foreigners engage with other peoples' struggles usually on their own foreign terms as to what they think the struggle should be about, and often without being aware that they are doing this.
quote:
Originally posted by Ken
London is the capital of world money trading. If you live in England its where the banks buy and sell your money. If you live in America its where the banks buy and sell your money. If you live in Timbuctoo its where the banks buy and sell your money.
What's the point in protesting against them in Timbuctoo?
Fair comment perhaps if the people interviewed had appeared to have come from Mali. However, as it happens, by their accents, there is a camp in Wall Street where they should have pitched their tents.
Posted by badcatholic (# 16737) on
:
I think we need to be careful about describing these protests in terms of recent politics. The current crises across europe is something few of us are old enough to have any meaningful experience. The stunning levels of youth unemployment, the alienation from established politics and shared worship, are without precedent.
I feel we should hold people who camp in our churchyards near to us. Maybe try and learn something. Amongst them there might one or two messages.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Fair comment perhaps if the people interviewed had appeared to have come from Mali. However, as it happens, by their accents, there is a camp in Wall Street where they should have pitched their tents.
There's an awful lot of American citizens domiciled in the UK. Do you suggest they shouldn't add their voice to this international campaign from where they currently are? It would be different if the protest was about possible British withdrawal from the EU, for example.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid
There's an awful lot of American citizens domiciled in the UK. Do you suggest they shouldn't add their voice to this international campaign from where they currently are?
Yes.
I'm English. I'm sure US, French or Malian people would resent it and think it was none of my business, if I were to take part in political action in New York, Paris or Timbuktu.
quote:
again as posted by Angloid
It would be different if the protest was about possible British withdrawal from the EU, for example.
In theory I can see that argument, but in practice I don't think the typical American, French person or Malian would regard it as relevant. So I don't think it makes any difference whether the issue is an international or domestic one.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
An international protest that only draws 300 protesters in London has already failed. The only thing they've accomplished so far is causing a headache for St. Paul's. It's silly.
In the Doug Schoen poll of one Occupy Wall Street encampment, 35% wanted to influence the Democratic Party the way the Tea Party influenced the Republican Party. Another 9% wanted to mobilize Progressives. In other words, they want Occupy Wall Street to be the left wing equivalent of the Tea Party. To do that, Occupy Wall Street needs to have a more coherent message and better organization.
I have no clue what protesters in London are hoping to accomplish. Doesn't seem like they do either. I do know that the 1% doesn't give a damn about 300 protesters camping out at St. Paul's.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I don't suppose the Roman Empire gave a damn about a dozen or so crazy Jewish followers of an executed criminal, either. So what?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
No, the Roman Empire didn't care about a few dozen followers of an executed criminal. The few dozen followers never really threatened the Roman Empire. In fact, the Roman Empire eventually managed to use the religion founded by the executed criminal to its benefit.
What's your point?
[ 25. October 2011, 22:38: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm tired of mere assertions on this board.
Except when you're the one making them, right?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid
There's an awful lot of American citizens domiciled in the UK. Do you suggest they shouldn't add their voice to this international campaign from where they currently are?
Yes.
I'm English. I'm sure US, French or Malian people would resent it and think it was none of my business, if I were to take part in political action in New York, Paris or Timbuktu.
Except as a tax-payer into that country's economy and presumably a voter wihin that political system, one does have a very serious franchise, whether one is American, Irish, French or Venutian.
If I lived in the US, paid my taxes to the US received my polling card to vote etc, I would sure as dammit consider myself qualified to hold a placard on Wall Street.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina
If I lived in the US, paid my taxes to the US received my polling card to vote etc, I would sure as dammit consider myself qualified to hold a placard on Wall Street.
Perhaps a US shipmate can answer this one.
It may logically follow. However, I'd be very surprised to discover that the US took the principle 'no taxation without representation' so far as to say that by being taxed, foreigners in the USA can vote.
States normally tax everyone within reach. They don't normally give tax-paying non-nationals a vote in return for their money.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
[/qb]
(According to police thermal imaging cameras) there is some discussion of police 'confiscating' the tents which are left unoccupied. [/QB][/QUOTE]
That's just theft plain and simple. When the Police get involved in this kind of thing at this kind of level why are they surprised when otherwise sane people accuse them of toadying up to political agendas?
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina
If I lived in the US, paid my taxes to the US received my polling card to vote etc, I would sure as dammit consider myself qualified to hold a placard on Wall Street.
Perhaps a US shipmate can answer this one.
It may logically follow. However, I'd be very surprised to discover that the US took the principle 'no taxation without representation' so far as to say that by being taxed, foreigners in the USA can vote.
perhaps not, but I'd say being taxed would be a perfectly good reason to be allowed to protest when you're getting screwed over. Especially when you can't vote.
[ 26. October 2011, 11:17: Message edited by: comet ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
According to this Giles Fraser is threatening to resign.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
According to this Giles Fraser is threatening to resign.
Well done Giles! If only our politicians would resign when they foul things up - or a few bankers. Go on - set an example.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
(According to police thermal imaging cameras) there is some discussion of police 'confiscating' the tents which are left unoccupied.
That's just theft plain and simple.
Rubbish. If people are leaving tents out unoccupied all night in a public place then the police have every right to remove them. Just as they have every right to perorm a controlled detonation on a suspicious unattended package or to tow away a car that's parked illegally.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina
If I lived in the US, paid my taxes to the US received my polling card to vote etc, I would sure as dammit consider myself qualified to hold a placard on Wall Street.
Perhaps a US shipmate can answer this one.
It may logically follow. However, I'd be very surprised to discover that the US took the principle 'no taxation without representation' so far as to say that by being taxed, foreigners in the USA can vote.
perhaps not, but I'd say being taxed would be a perfectly good reason to be allowed to protest when you're getting screwed over. Especially when you can't vote.
Also depends how long you've been there. I'm a taxed foreigner in the country where I live, and after I've been here an allotted amount of time, I will also be entitled to vote.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
According to this Giles Fraser is threatening to resign.
Well done Giles! If only our politicians would resign when they foul things up - or a few bankers. Go on - set an example.
Unless I've misread the article, he doesn't appear to be offering to resign because he's screwed up. I don't get the impression he thinks he has screwed up. It appears that it would be in protest of the treatment of the protestors.
Which would give a very different message to the one you seem to have in mind, and therefore not the example you imagine it to be at all.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
...I suspect that the Cathedral's lawyers have suggested that they could be held partially liable.
I'm sure your suspicions are correct but I'm not sure why this is so, or rather I wonder how we've allowed things to reach this point.
I'm not convinced that our present system of litigation and compensation can ever be just. I think I'd prefer to see this kind of thing separated into two systems such that wrong-doing including violation of H&S law is dealt with purely as a criminal matter, and compensation for no-fault injury is dealt with by a government-funded award payments scheme.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
According to this Giles Fraser is threatening to resign.
Well done Giles! If only our politicians would resign when they foul things up - or a few bankers. Go on - set an example.
Unless I've misread the article, he doesn't appear to be offering to resign because he's screwed up. I don't get the impression he thinks he has screwed up. It appears that it would be in protest of the treatment of the protestors.
Which would give a very different message to the one you seem to have in mind, and therefore not the example you imagine it to be at all.
True but he did screw up and if he resigned that would be a start. If he won't go then perhaps the Dean should tender his resignation as the whole affair has been woefully mishandled by the Church authorities.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
From Leo's link:
"The BBC reports that Giles Fraser’s resignation threat relates to “use of force” rather than the taking of legal action to remove the protestors."
The only problem here is that, if the cathedral authorities take legal action to remove the protesters, and they still refuse to go, which is quite likely, how can they be removed without force? This is the sort of publicity they are seeking, and I have no idea how to get rid of them without playing into their hands on this one.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This is the sort of publicity they are seeking, and I have no idea how to get rid of them without playing into their hands on this one.
That's purely conjecture.
This excellent article shows that transparency regarding the decisions taken by the Chapter is lacking, and that they are now not communicating with the protesters (outside of ultimatums), who have otherwise changed a lot of things regarding Health and Safety concerns and are open to dialogue:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/10/health-safety-cathedral-camp
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
(According to police thermal imaging cameras) there is some discussion of police 'confiscating' the tents which are left unoccupied.
That's just theft plain and simple.
Rubbish. If people are leaving tents out unoccupied all night in a public place then the police have every right to remove them. Just as they have every right to perorm a controlled detonation on a suspicious unattended package or to tow away a car that's parked illegally.
Great. Now we equate empty tents with car bombs and illegal parking.
The only rights the Police have are those given to them by others - ie the law makers.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I'm sure it could count as littering though ...
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
If you leave a tent lying around in the city centre you can expect it to be removed by the authorities. That wouldn't be theft - it would be tidying up.
Collect your tent from the nearest 'lost property' office.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The only rights the Police have are those given to them by others - ie the law makers.
And one of those rights is the right to take any lost or abandoned property to the police station, pending its owner coming to claim it.
Legally, I see little difference between someone leaving a tent in the middle of London and someone leaving a bag on a park bench. In both cases the police (or any concerned individual) would be perfectly within their rights to take the item into custody until the rightful owner claims it.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
According to this Giles Fraser is threatening to resign.
Well done Giles! If only our politicians would resign when they foul things up - or a few bankers. Go on - set an example.
He hasn't fouled anything up. he is trying to keep his integrity as his new-ish job seduces him further into the establishment and makes him lose all his ideals.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
...if ever a situation is crying out for sensible, open and honest communication....it is this one....
Come on St Pauls...step up....show some humanity....i can think of a few folk who Must by now have asked you if they can help...admit you need it and allow them to show you how it's done....
You won't loose face...the country will be thrilled...it's waiting...
The rest of us will pray...on our faces if necessary
( Lord have mercy )
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
Latest news is that St Paul's may be open again by the weekend. Apparently the protesters have agreed to rearrange their camp to comply with fire safety.
I think they'll be there for a long time, 'fomenting public opinion' in the grand old tradition of St Paul's Cross.
I know the original intention was to camp outside the Stock Exchange but I rather think the organisers must have known something of the history of St Paul's churchyard and also the fact that some of the land is unregistered. They may have always intended to have a presence at St Paul's.
It brings out my inner anarchist - I wish them well.
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on
:
I can't understand what the Protesters want...
They don't want irresponsible banks to loan money to irresponsible individuals or irresponsible governments who can't afford to pay it back ?!?
So how do they intend stopping stupid individuals and stupid Governments borrowing money that they well not be able to afford, or stupid banks lending it to them ?
Everyone knows how stupid the Country has been. So what ?
I think they are just protesting for the sake of it. Move on, get a life, get a job (there are 1000s out there) and stop trying to star in your own version of 'Britain hasn't got talent'.
Pax et Bonum
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
I suspect they want people earning more than x1000 times the minimum wage to be heavily taxed, windfall taxes on the massive hedge fund profits being made out of the recession, and an acknowledgment that the cuts are essentially a confidence trick.
They shave some fraction of a percent off the growing debt, their sole purpose is to convince international markets we're 'safe' so they continue to lend - so we can do what will actually have an impact, grow the economy. Its like putting on a hair shirt, no practical benefit but shows you are serious.
What a lot of people want to know, is why coked up profiteers get to run the world ? Why a market that acts like an emotional incontinent toddler is considered a guide to anything meaningful. Who died and made Stanard & Poors God ?
I think traders should be regulated like lorry drivers, must have statuary rest periods and drug tests. Short selling should be banned in places where it isn't already. And deliberately undermining a currency/economy for profit should be made an offense like insider trading.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
Oh and another thing, traders and ridiculously competitive business people always say its not about the money - its about keeping score. Which is fine - pay them £30,000 and give them their bonus in gold coloured stars, the person getting the most gold coloured stars is "winning".
[ 26. October 2011, 18:26: Message edited by: Think² ]
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on
:
Individuals owe the banks in the UK ...
£3,000,000,000,000 approximately and rising and
the UK Government owes the banks ......
£3,000,000,000,000 and rising by
£170,000,000,000 this year even with all the cuts.
Its becuase Governments have bribed voters with borrowed money to get votes for years. The Tories have gone quiet on the issue because they don't want even more confidence lost because we may well go into melt-down.
Melt-down is what happening in some countries in the EU where there is no money put into Government employees bank accounts at the end of the month, and they sometimes have to wait for weeks before it is..
We owe £15,504 for every man, woman and child in the UK
That's more than £33,819 for every person in employment
Every household will pay £2,114 this year, just to cover the interest.
You just can't keep borrowing or taxing more.
Taxing bankers wouldn't even scrath the surface but they would all move out of London, and the taxes on UK banks is already more than the cost of the NHS.
Its pay back time. Goodbye to the 'HD ready plasma screen' generation.
Pax et Bonum
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
The absolute figures are not the point, its percentage of GDP and percentage by which GDP is growing that matters.
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
The absolute figures are not the point, its percentage of GDP and percentage by which GDP is growing that matters.
I disagree (inflation caused by rising imported food, gas, oil and commodity prices are more important) but ..
All economists I have heard recently admit they don't know whats going to happen next.
The best guess I've heard is Germany growth 1%, UK flat, rest of EU minus 2%.
But as Europe and the UK have been paying themselves more than they earn for years, I can't see how anyone is going to generate anything to pay back the money owed let alone invest.
And why invest ? I've got an 8 year old car, - no rust, no problems, never failed the MOT why should I bother to buy a new one. Why should anyone else ?
I gather all the protesters don't want GDP to grow so where's all this new money coming from.
I forgot, we can borrow it from the banks !
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
You are forgetting that money isn't a real thing. Hence quantitative easing. Bear in mind that the economy wouldn't actually work if nobody borrowed any money either.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
Is anyone here part of " St Paul's in the Camp Flashmob Evensong".......?
Posted by Yangtze (# 4965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Is anyone here part of " St Paul's in the Camp Flashmob Evensong".......?
I attended it this evening. There was certainly one other Shippie there with me and I spotted a couple of familiar faces from Greenbelt, whether they are shipmates or not I don't know.
It was a lovely, if at times inaudible service and the good old BCP provided some great moments given the situation: "endue thy ministers with righteousness". Slightly odd to be faced with a battery of cameras mind you.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
Excellent stuff.
Posted by Big Oil (# 15713) on
:
Any mystery worshipers there?
Posted by Geneviève (# 9098) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
(According to police thermal imaging cameras) there is some discussion of police 'confiscating' the tents which are left unoccupied.
That's just theft plain and simple.
Rubbish. If people are leaving tents out unoccupied all night in a public place then the police have every right to remove them. Just as they have every right to perorm a controlled detonation on a suspicious unattended package or to tow away a car that's parked illegally.
Great. Now we equate empty tents with car bombs and illegal parking.
The only rights the Police have are those given to them by others - ie the law makers.
According to this story the cameras used to state that the tents are unoccupied haven't the capability to make such interpretations. Or to be succinct, "rubbish science."
And I really really would like the Church, here represented by St. Paul's, to show itself more than a stooge of the financial sector.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
This report contains a video of the Flashmob Evensong.
It seems that some kind of legal action to evict the camp is being considered by the Corporation of London but this is not supported by the Cathedral clergy. (+Chartres supports legal action, no surprise there) According to the report any such legal process would take three months. It could of course take very much longer and provide ongoing publicity - which would serve the purpose of Occupy London. So they're winners either way
Posted by Geneviève (# 9098) on
:
Justlooking--the articles I'm seeing (primarily on "Thinking Anglicans") say that +Chartres has not directly come out in favor of legal action. What he's saying behind the scenes may be different.
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
I'm confused; the Guardian is reporting that the Cathedral has (rather belatedly) worked out that they can open after having moved some of the tents and ensuring free passaged, and London Fire Service are saying they didn't say there was a fire risk. At the same time, the BBC is leading with Fraser's imminent resignation. I find this odd because it looks to me that Fraser's view of the world has held sway. Why is he going?
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Geneviève:
Justlooking--the articles I'm seeing (primarily on "Thinking Anglicans") say that +Chartres has not directly come out in favor of legal action. What he's saying behind the scenes may be different.
Actually, from the Telegraph report :
quote:
As St Paul’s remained closed for the sixth consecutive day, the cathedral’s clergy were locked in talks on how to deal with the protesters. Although the Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres, backed those who want to join the local authority in seeking an injunction, others are strongly against taking action.
opinion is divided among the cathedral's clergy. I'd read it as +Chartres' support for the local authority but it's support for those clergy who want legal action.
Anyone know if the cleric in the video clip is one of the cathedral clergy?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
At the same time, the BBC is leading with Fraser's imminent resignation.
If true - and it is not confirmed - I suspect his colleagues are leaning on him. And I suspect that someone else is leaning on them, even if only in an ever-so-polite old-boy sort of way.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
At the same time, the BBC is leading with Fraser's imminent resignation. I find this odd because it looks to me that Fraser's view of the world has held sway. Why is he going?
He has now resigned. A short announcement on the BBC. No doubt there'll be more information soon.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
BBC report on Fraser resignation
a friend was there yesterday, before the announcements about changes enabling safe access, and felt that there were already open routes into and out of the cathedral, and that the H&S arguments were not convincing. He was interested in a number of what he described as Radical Christian Anarchists on the steps. (Or possibly Christian Anarchist Radicals or another permutation. I'm afraid my internal Python kicked in while he was describing them).
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Because of what Ken said.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Sorry, that was a reply to Dyfrig.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
BBC report on Fraser resignation
a friend was there yesterday, before the announcements about changes enabling safe access, and felt that there were already open routes into and out of the cathedral, and that the H&S arguments were not convincing. ............
One of the comments on the BBC report suggests a reason for the closure may have been fear that the protesters could move inside the cathedral and claim 'sanctuary' if there was action to move them.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
a friend was there yesterday, before the announcements about changes enabling safe access, and felt that there were already open routes into and out of the cathedral, and that the H&S arguments were not convincing.
All Health and Safety arguments are addressed in this aforementioned article: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/10/health-safety-cathedral-camp
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
a friend was there yesterday, before the announcements about changes enabling safe access, and felt that there were already open routes into and out of the cathedral, and that the H&S arguments were not convincing.
All Health and Safety arguments are addressed in this aforementioned article: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/10/health-safety-cathedral-camp
Interesting article.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
As of this morning, after Dr Fraser's resignation, I think the main health and safety concern has to be the noticeable smell of a rat, emanating from the direction of the Dean and Chapter.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on
:
Giles Fraser resigned....look at me, look at me, I care about social justice...........
If his leadership role within the church is of the same Theological and Doctrinal views expressed by his vacuous drivel on 'thought for the day' and 'inclusive church', the church universal is better without him in a leadership position.
Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on
:
Dr Fraser's resignation keeps the rumour of G-d alive for me. I could cry.
So much that St Paul's and the bishop have said and done is, to me, literally God-less
Jesus of the gospels and the Gospel is always standing with the poor, the marginalised and the hurting.
Standing up to the principalities and powers
the spiritual wickedness in high places
Giles has taken a costly personal step ~
it is also e gospel message / enactment
to me
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Giles Fraser resigned....look at me, look at me, I care about social justice...........
This was my initial reaction. But the step was so costly for him there must be more beneath the surface. He was probably already considering it for other reasons.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Does this mean he's now homeless?
Will he take up camping?
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
At the same time, the BBC is leading with Fraser's imminent resignation.
If true - and it is not confirmed - I suspect his colleagues are leaning on him. And I suspect that someone else is leaning on them, even if only in an ever-so-polite old-boy sort of way.
If so, then I suspect that Giles will not keep quiet about it for long.
Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on
:
o what hidden depths
of love
of resolution
of hope against hope
and doing right because
it's Good ...
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Will he take up camping?
Well he does support the Christian LGBT movement......
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
a friend was there yesterday, before the announcements about changes enabling safe access, and felt that there were already open routes into and out of the cathedral, and that the H&S arguments were not convincing.
All Health and Safety arguments are addressed in this aforementioned article: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/10/health-safety-cathedral-camp
I've just read this, and to me things are getting smellier by the minute. This (from the linked article) set big alarm bells ringing in my head: quote:
I asked who compiled this list of [health & safety] issues. The vague response was "health and safety advisers". Who were these advisers? The Cathedral would not say. What are their qualifications and expertise? The Cathedral would not say. Are they external or internal? The Cathedral would not say.
...
What about the the Dean's express comment that "the legal requirements placed upon us by fire, health and safety issues". Surely the Cathedral can specify the "legal requirements"? But the Cathedral could not.
Now, I'm team leader of a hospital chaplaincy. One of my duties is to maintain a "risk register" of all identifiable risks - including health & safety - that exist in my department. Obviously, that includes risks pertaining to the use of the hospital chapel. The risks have to be assessed, and then quantified by reference to likelihood and seriousness.
The process by which this happens is auditable and transparent. My boss would be displeased to say the least if I included in the register vague, handwaving references to "health & safety issues" - the whole point of risk management is to be specific. Furthermore, if any third party wants to know how we manage risk, then they can find out.
Can it really be the case that the Dean and Chapter of St Paul's Cathedral are less clued-up about risk management than the chaplain of a provincial hospital?
Or is something else going on here?
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
An irony that the first scalp of the middle-class anti-capitalists should be a mockney old public schoolboy former trot now an unlikely cleric.
Doubtless he will find a new career at the BBC and no doubt much better paid too.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Now, I'm team leader of a hospital chaplaincy. One of my duties is to maintain a "risk register" of all identifiable risks - including health & safety - that exist in my department. Obviously, that includes risks pertaining to the use of the hospital chapel. The risks have to be assessed, and then quantified by reference to likelihood and seriousness.
Just out of interest, if a completely new and unforeseen risk situation sprung up overnight, requiring instant action to avoid the risk of lawsuits, and you had to make a snap decision in the interests of protecting the hospital, would you be able (and willing) to justify your decision - in meticulous detail and with names and qualifications of every advisor you managed to consult - to a muck-raking journalist whose primary aim is to make you look bad by whichever means necessary?
Because I co-ordinate the risk register for my employer as well, and I know damn well that if something like that happened to us I wouldn't be either willing or able to do so.
Of course, it may be that St Pauls really does have a specific "large crowd of protesters camping outside the doors for weeks" entry on its risk register, in which case they certainly should be able to give chapter and verse on why they reacted the way they did. But I doubt it.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Now, I'm team leader of a hospital chaplaincy. One of my duties is to maintain a "risk register" of all identifiable risks - including health & safety - that exist in my department. Obviously, that includes risks pertaining to the use of the hospital chapel. The risks have to be assessed, and then quantified by reference to likelihood and seriousness.
Just out of interest, if a completely new and unforeseen risk situation sprung up overnight, requiring instant action to avoid the risk of lawsuits, and you had to make a snap decision in the interests of protecting the hospital, would you be able (and willing) to justify your decision - in meticulous detail and with names and qualifications of every advisor you managed to consult - to a muck-raking journalist whose primary aim is to make you look bad by whichever means necessary?
Because I co-ordinate the risk register for my employer as well, and I know damn well that if something like that happened to us I wouldn't be either willing or able to do so.
Of course, it may be that St Pauls really does have a specific "large crowd of protesters camping outside the doors for weeks" entry on its risk register, in which case they certainly should be able to give chapter and verse on why they reacted the way they did. But I doubt it.
If the Dean and Chapter had taken authoritative advice on the issues, then that advice should have been specific and, to some extent, quantifiable. Notice that the journalist contacted the Cathedral several days after their original press releases, by which time something relating to the risk management should have been got down in writing. Notice also that the camp had been present for several days before the cathedral was closed, so it's not exactly an "overnight" event.
In similar circumstances (whathever they might be), would I be expected to come up with a risk analysis and management strategy within a week? Yes. Would it include any risks relating to communicating specific, quantifiable information to the public? Hell yes!
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Doubtless he will find a new career at the BBC and no doubt much better paid too.
If you live by the sword....
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Really these endless assertions without any reference to back them up are getting very tiresome.
[ 27. October 2011, 12:15: Message edited by: Rosa Winkel ]
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Doubtless he will find a new career at the BBC and no doubt much better paid too.
If you live by the sword....
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Really these endless assertions without any reference to back them up are getting very tiresome.
Hardly an assertion more of a prediction.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Giles Fraser resigned....look at me, look at me, I care about social justice...........
If his leadership role within the church is of the same Theological and Doctrinal views expressed by his vacuous drivel on 'thought for the day' and 'inclusive church', the church universal is better without him in a leadership position.
Whereas on the other hand, 'if' he does in fact have some good Christian competencies and abilities of which the Cathedral has some need, it is a pity for the sake of the ministry there he's gone, isn't it? I mean, that's actually what's important here, isn't it? That Christ's ministry is truthfully, faithfully and prophetcially represented in the actions and words of its ministers?
And do you think he cares so little for his family that he wishes to uproot them absolutely from their home and environment, for the sake of an ego trip? You know he's like that, do you?
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
I commented last week on the interview given by the spokesperson of the protestors who repeatedly refused to answer the question "what are your demands?".
11 days after the sit-in began she was asked the same question again on Radio 5 Live last night. She again didn't / couldn't answer. But she insisted that the Assembly (the protestors' decision-making body,) had worked hard to reach a consensus on major issues.
Asked by the interviewer to specify an issue on which progress had been achieved she answered, "We have decided, after long and anguished debate, to open a bank account with the Co-Op".
I lie not.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
But she insisted that the Assembly (the protestors' decision-making body,) had worked hard to reach a consensus on major issues.
Sounds rather like the Church?
In fact the Church could do to follow suit and move their banking to the co-op - at least they'd be banking ethically.
My bag and tent are packed and the dreadlocks are being cultivated as we speak. I've just heard the news that top bosses earned 46% higher salaries this year. They are taking the piss.
It's time to go camping.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Exactly like the Church.
Which is why it is a GOOD THING that the Church does not form the Govt.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Asked by the interviewer to specify an issue on which progress had been achieved she answered, "We have decided, after long and anguished debate, to open a bank account with the Co-Op".
I lie not.
Wow. 11 days of discussion and protest, and the only concrete proposal they have for how to actually improve things (as opposed to bitching on about how bad everything is) is "open an account at a different bank".
Well, I'm impressed. Clearly these protesters are true prophets for our times.
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
How about this?.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
How about this?.
It's about time.
So basically, they want to make the City of London corporation fully democratic. Good-o. One presumes that that means that everyone who lives inside the boundaries of the City should have a vote on who leads it? Well yes, fair enough - but how many of the protesters does that actually include? How many people are currently being denied that vote?
The police force thing is odd - both because I hadn't realised there was a separate force for the square mile and because I'm not sure what merging it with the Met would actually achieve.
Business and corporate block votes - I presume this refers to City elections rather than Greater London ones? But yeah, fair enough.
Abolition of the Lord Mayor, Sherrifs and Aldermen? Why? To what end?
One thought - it seems that most of these demands are aimed at a perceived democratic deficit within the City of London. If such a thing truly exists and residents are being denied their say in the running of the City then it should indeed be dealt with, but I was under the impression that these protests were supposed to be about the economy...
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
How about this?.
It's about time.
So basically, they want to make the City of London corporation fully democratic. Good-o. One presumes that that means that everyone who lives inside the boundaries of the City should have a vote on who leads it? Well yes, fair enough - but how many of the protesters does that actually include? How many people are currently being denied that vote?
The police force thing is odd - both because I hadn't realised there was a separate force for the square mile and because I'm not sure what merging it with the Met would actually achieve.
Business and corporate block votes - I presume this refers to City elections rather than Greater London ones? But yeah, fair enough.
Abolition of the Lord Mayor, Sherrifs and Aldermen? Why? To what end?
One thought - it seems that most of these demands are aimed at a perceived democratic deficit within the City of London. If such a thing truly exists and residents are being denied their say in the running of the City then it should indeed be dealt with, but I was under the impression that these protests were supposed to be about the economy...
I've known quite a few friends who lived in the City of London mostly in the Barbican and never heard them complaining about a lack of local democracy as the City Corporation carries out all the functions of local government with great efficiency and has also purchased and administers tracts of land in other boroughs to protect the environment and provide amenity land eg Hampstead Heath and Epping Forest.
The major difference is that candidates in Corporation elections do not stand on a party basis.
We need to make other councils more like the City of London Corporation and not the other way round.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
How about this?.
The police force thing is odd - both because I hadn't realised there was a separate force for the square mile and because I'm not sure what merging it with the Met would actually achieve.
They were really scraping the barrel when they came up with that one. Are they also calling for the abolition of the separate British Transport Police?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Are they also calling for the abolition of the separate British Transport Police?
They probably would if a lot of international businesses had their headquarters in railway stations!
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Are they also calling for the abolition of the separate British Transport Police?
They probably would if a lot of international businesses had their headquarters in railway stations!
Well Broadgate (Liverpool Street) is packed with them.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The major difference is that candidates in Corporation elections do not stand on a party basis.
You mean some of them are not Tories?
The incoherence of some of the 'spokespeople' for the protesters interviewed on TV is reassuring to my mind. It suggests that they aren't prepared to play the establishment game of slick PR persuaders.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
We need to make other councils more like the City of London Corporation and not the other way round.
This would be the Corporation of which it has been said quote:
The corporation is a group of hangers-on, who create what is known as the best dining club in the City ... a rotten borough.
I think the protesters' demands sound about right. Abolish the old boys' network whose business it has become to asset-strip UK plc for their own monetary benefit, and place the City on the same footing as any other local authority.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think the protesters' demands sound about right. Abolish the old boys' network whose business it has become to asset-strip UK plc for their own monetary benefit, and place the City on the same footing as any other local authority.
Absolutely. From your links it seems that the square mile has been suffering a democratic deficit for far too long, and I'm all for sorting that out. Companies having a vote in local elections is ridiculous.
Question is, why didn't the protesters just say that they were protesting against a democratic deficit that's preventing roughly 9,000 people from having a say in how their local authority is run, rather than giving the impression that they wanted changes to be made that would affect the whole country?
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
We need to make other councils more like the City of London Corporation and not the other way round.
This would be the Corporation of which it has been said quote:
The corporation is a group of hangers-on, who create what is known as the best dining club in the City ... a rotten borough.
I think the protesters' demands sound about right. Abolish the old boys' network whose business it has become to asset-strip UK plc for their own monetary benefit, and place the City on the same footing as any other local authority.
All that is is moaning by a Labour MP. All I can say is that I would rather live under the City Corporation than so many of the London Boroughs that are Labour Party fiefdoms with total inefficiency in the provision of services. I can see little particularly democratic (or effective) in the party based system of local government in Britain (or national government for that matter).
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Question is, why didn't the protesters just say that they were protesting against a democratic deficit that's preventing roughly 9,000 people from having a say in how their local authority is run, rather than giving the impression that they wanted changes to be made that would affect the whole country?
Because there is no coherency to these protests, it's just a camping holiday for angry hippies. There was some at first with the original Wall Street ones, but the copycat protests around the world have no coherent organisation and are mainly the work of professional agitators who are already well known to local police. Everybody with some random cause to push is getting involved and trying to hijack it for their pet purpose.
In Melbourne it was even noted that a large number of the protesters were going to work during the day, going to the protest for a few hours once done and then catching the last train of the night home to sleep in their own beds. From that it would seem that the real thing they are protesting is the poor quality of TV programming in the evening!
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
It is ironic that they want to dissolve the City of London Police and presumably integrate them into the Met. If the Met had had jurisdiction in the City there is nothing more they would have liked to do than give the protesters a good kettle followed by a bit of the old Blair Peach treatment.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
How about this?.
Thanks for this - very interesting. I'd no idea about how the special status worked out in practice. I suppose St Paul's is the Corporation's parish church. It has a list of corporate supporters whose members enjoy special privileges and events such as fine dining in the crypt.
The Green Party wants to abolish the special status and bring it into line with democratic government:
quote:
"The City of London Corporation is a medieval institution. It plays a key role in protecting offshore business that drains billions out of developing countries each year. What we have is a divided capital, and we need to abolish that division, and make the City of London more open and democratic."
I'm glad the article you linked to mentioned St Paul's Cross because if it turns into a battle based on historic rights the commoners have ancient rights too.
Giant Cheeseburger said quote:
In Melbourne it was even noted that a large number of the protesters were going to work during the day, going to the protest for a few hours once done and then catching the last train of the night home to sleep in their own beds. From that it would seem that the real thing they are protesting is the poor quality of TV programming in the evening!
I don't see anything wrong with people giving their spare time to support something they believe in. It doesn't make their protest any less valid.
[ 28. October 2011, 13:26: Message edited by: justlooking ]
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
I woulda thought God could deal with a bit of protestors around a cathedral. This thread makes it sound like God is simply not involved, beyond the machninations of the church hierarchy and a bit of ruminating about whether Jesus cared about the poor.
That and the idea that a protest has to fit into the modern management ideal of having a specific purpose and goal and plan is a little lame. Given people on here criticise the application of business practices to churches, I find it a bit hypocritical when they think its OK to apply that practice to a moral criticism of the business world.
Like saying God has to fit into the Pharisee box, but only the one from Sundays, while others have to fit into the work day box, but not on our turf.
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on
:
I have transferred my accounts from the Co-op because they give lots of their profits to left wing charities and the Labour Party.
They are only the Labour alternative to Tory banks. Just as un-ethical, and even more expensive.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
That and the idea that a protest has to fit into the modern management ideal of having a specific purpose and goal and plan is a little lame.
Modern management ideal my arse. "Rebel Without a Cause" may have been a mildly diverting movie, but "Protest Without a Cause" does seem to be a bit of a waste of everyone's time.
"What do we want?
WE DON'T KNOW!
When do we want it?
WHENEVER!"
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
....., but the copycat protests around the world have no coherent organisation and are mainly the work of professional agitators who are already well known to local police...... Everybody with some random cause to push is getting involved and trying to hijack it for their pet purpose.
In Melbourne it was even noted that a large number of the protesters were going to work during the day, going to the protest for a few hours once done and then catching the last train of the night home to sleep in their own beds. From that it would seem that the real thing they are protesting is the poor quality of TV programming in the evening!
Have you proof on your first allegation?
Like, seriously, prove that the people doing Occupy are all criminals known to the cops?
Oh...wait...your second point disproves it, if true.
So, what is it?
Are they thugs, or daytrippers?
Or do you just want to keep both talking points going as it suits your particular axe to grind?
******
I have no real opinion either way on why people are doing this and how effective it will all be. I do know there is a lot of disquiet in the world as we all wait for the next big recession.
But I get curious when people keep throwing out offbase unproven accusations at people who see to give a darn, like giving a darn is somehow a bad thing.
It makes me think some people are more worried about people protesting then about whether what they are protesting about has some validity.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dyfrig:
[qb] How about I suppose St Paul's is the Corporation's parish church.
.
St Lawrence Jewry is the Corporation's parish church.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
That and the idea that a protest has to fit into the modern management ideal of having a specific purpose and goal and plan is a little lame.
Modern management ideal my arse. "Rebel Without a Cause" may have been a mildly diverting movie, but "Protest Without a Cause" does seem to be a bit of a waste of everyone's time.
"What do we want?
WE DON'T KNOW!
When do we want it?
WHENEVER!"
And this is wrong why?
Because it doesn't fit into modern business practice? Then, why are we not applying with equal vigour such practices to our churches?
What do we want?
Whatever God wants!
When do we want it?
Whenever God decides!
Good enough for the church but not for a protest movement?
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
An irony that the first scalp of the middle-class anti-capitalists should be a mockney old public schoolboy former trot now an unlikely cleric.
Doubtless he will find a new career at the BBC and no doubt much better paid too.
You sound mighty pissed off that anyone born rich enough to know better should ever decide to keep the poor in mind. What treason!
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
Aumbry is our honorary Daily Mail editorialiser. The content serves to remind us of what we're up against.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
It makes me think some people are more worried about people protesting then about whether what they are protesting about has some validity.
Actually, I think you'll find that once the protesters actually managed to rustle up something to protest about I agreed with many of their points.
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
And this is wrong why?
If you haven't got anything to protest about, why bother protesting at all? Seriously, I just don't get it.
And if you have got something to protest about, why not just bloody well say what it is from the start?
quote:
Because it doesn't fit into modern business practice?
Because it doesn't make any bloody sense!
quote:
Good enough for the church but not for a protest movement?
A protest movement, by its very nature, needs something to actually protest. The clue is in the name.
A protest movement without any demands is like a strike without any grievance. For one thing, how the hell would it know when to stop?
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
"Not making sense!" comes from a judgement based on something. Its a standard practice now to judge effectiveness based on planning and having goals. And that mindset comes to us through business, probably from the armed forces, but definately mostly to us through business.
So, yes you are applying standard business practice to a critique of the Occupy movement, even if you are not aware of what you are doing.
Occupy is using a different paradigm, deliberately. I'm sure others on here can tell us where that paradigm has its genesis. But, it is not the one you use because they have chosen deliberately not to use that.
That and as I've said, its a tad hypocritical to say business practice should stay out of the church, but should be applied to a secular moral movement questioning business.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
If you're going to go to the length of spontaneously setting up camp outside a national landmark, then surely there must be some reason or motivation causing you to do so. Whatever "paradigm" you're using.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
An irony that the first scalp of the middle-class anti-capitalists should be a mockney old public schoolboy former trot now an unlikely cleric.
Doubtless he will find a new career at the BBC and no doubt much better paid too.
You sound mighty pissed off that anyone born rich enough to know better should ever decide to keep the poor in mind. What treason!
Not at all, the poor are the biggest victims of the middle class lefties.
But his persona seems to me a confection perhaps to give the clearly misleading view that he is a man of the people.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
"Not making sense!" comes from a judgement based on something. Its a standard practice now to judge effectiveness based on planning and having goals. And that mindset comes to us through business, probably from the armed forces, but definately mostly to us through business.
So, yes you are applying standard business practice to a critique of the Occupy movement, even if you are not aware of what you are doing.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Aumbry is our honorary Daily Mail editorialiser. The content serves to remind us of what we're up against.
We do not need to read the Daily Mail to know that your brave stand for the masses was to pour bile on Prince William and Kate Middleton before their wedding.
Such bravery, such a blow against the establishment!
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If you're going to go to the length of spontaneously setting up camp outside a national landmark, then surely there must be some reason or motivation causing you to do so. Whatever "paradigm" you're using.
Assorted reasons and motivations supplied here
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
But his persona seems to me a confection perhaps to give the clearly misleading view that he is a man of the people.
Evidence? He has worked in working-class parishes: even Putney is not uniformly upper-middle-class. You'd be the first to pour scorn on him if he went on about how he and his brothers had to sleep six in a bed, and they were out scavenging for coal before school every morning.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
From all that I can gather it seems like the protestors really want another way of doing politics. They refuse to come up with specific demands but talk insstead of "democratic assemblies and forums" with the aim of reaching consensus.
I have had experience of such since it is not a new idea.
I lived amongst the Shona people in Zimbabwe for 25 years. In rural areas it was the custom for the men to hold a "dare" ( whilst the women laboured in the fields!).
The dare was the assembly which was usually held under a big tree. The men sat around all day if necessary discussing the affairs of the village. And next day if necessary because only when a consensus was reached was any decision taken.
That was fine in a rural area where time mattered not and issues were not complex apart from the inter-personal ones.
Come the 20th Cent and the system, though laudable, simply didnt work.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
But his persona seems to me a confection perhaps to give the clearly misleading view that he is a man of the people.
Evidence? He has worked in working-class parishes: even Putney is not uniformly upper-middle-class. You'd be the first to pour scorn on him if he went on about how he and his brothers had to sleep six in a bed, and they were out scavenging for coal before school every morning.
Putney may not be uniformly upper middle class but I doubt whether the working class population could be such a powerful influence as to completely change the vicar's manner of elocution. But then perhaps he picked it up from his chums in the SWP - Peter Hitchens perhaps?
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by aumbry:
[qb]
You'd be the first to pour scorn on him if he went on about how he and his brothers had to sleep six in a bed, and they were out scavenging for coal before school every morning.
Yes - but only because it would be very unlikely to be true. As far as I recall Uppingham has gas central heating.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Oh, you're going on about his accent! Why should you assume it's phoney? Maybe he grew up with it and didn't let the public-school toffs mock it out of him. Anyway, even though Putney is fairly posh, you're more likely to hear a London (if not Bow Bells) accent there than in the City or many other parts.
You'd be the first to comment if I criticised Theresa May, who went to a comprehensive school, for talking like a toff. It's quite irrelevant.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
Good grief there's a lot of cheap pot shots going on here. How about going out for a breather? Walk the dog? Or eat something?
There doesn't "need" to be anything at all from the protesters. We might "want" an intellectual and reasoned argument. But they don't.
They just want to sit there and go "It Is NOT Fair".
What part of that do (some) people not understand?
On the contrary, I think that lots of people in the UK understand perfectly what is going on.
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The dare was the assembly which was usually held under a big tree. The men sat around all day if necessary discussing the affairs of the village. And next day if necessary because only when a consensus was reached was any decision taken.
That was fine in a rural area where time mattered not and issues were not complex apart from the inter-personal ones.
Come the 20th Cent and the system, though laudable, simply didnt work.
And the modern, western methods are working? Not to say that a direct transplant of something appropriate for a low population rural society would work, but perhaps there are some lessons to be learned from a slower, more concensual way of doing things.
[ 28. October 2011, 17:21: Message edited by: JonahMan ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
perhaps there are some lessons to be learned from a slower, more concensual way of doing things.
When whole banks succeed or fail on decisions made in nano seconds by traders and computers?
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
i have no problems with bankers making their nano second decisions...we appear to be where we are with that
it is the quite deliberate and well thought out decision to act in a manner that is w.r.o.n.g. that i and many other have problems with
anhyone with even half a working brain knows that silly salaries... in this present financial situation....is deeply offensive
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I have transferred my accounts from the Co-op because they give lots of their profits to left wing charities and the Labour Party.
So who did you think they were then?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by crynwrcymraeg:
Dr Fraser's resignation keeps the rumour of G-d alive for me. I could cry.
So much that St Paul's and the bishop have said and done is, to me, literally God-less
Jesus of the gospels and the Gospel is always standing with the poor, the marginalised and the hurting.
Having now read the protesters' demands, I wouldn't have said that the residents of the City of London were the "poor, the marginalised and the hurting" but that's an interesting viewpoint.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I have transferred my accounts from the Co-op because they give lots of their profits to left wing charities and the Labour Party.
Replied to by Ken
So who did you think they were then?
Yebbut, they're a co-operative. Shouldn't they be either distributing any profits to their account holders, or reducing interest or bank charges?
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on
:
Some decisions need to be taken quickly. Others are better done more reflectively. To use an analogy, a batsman in cricket has a fraction of a second to decide how (or whether) to hit the ball. But to change the laws of cricket requires concensus, deliberation and thought about consequences.
It may be that society as a whole would be better off if these nanosecond financial decisions were banned or reduced in scope, for example, or if the incentives for banks to take them were more proportionate. Just because the technology exists for finance to work in this way doesn't mean it should automatically happen. It is possible to regulate things so that society as a whole benefits. To use an another analogy, cars can easily be driven at 100mph or more, yet we have speed limits, recognising that there are other issues than the limits of our technology.
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
It does not surprise me that the Occupy movement has taken time to work out what it's demands are, because that's what human beings are like. Most people don't know what they want; the current feeling (and it mostly is a feeling) that there is something profoundly wrong with the system is not to be derided because it cannot be articulated. Capitalism didn't arise out of a plan; it sort of happened and people aren't entirely sure why. To insist that opponents of your opinions have to be more articulate and coherent than you yourself can manage is a little disingenuous.
It is a good thing that +Eyebrows has invited the protesters in for conversation; it is fatuous in the extreme for him to insist that they should then go away. I was reading recently of how the Taize community responded to the people turning up0 in the 60s; they weren't coherent, they weren't articulate, but they were welcomed and listened to. Ideas take years, generations to come into focus. The Incarnation wasn't noticed until people started talking about it thirty or forty years later.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
So...Occupy is going to camp out at St. Paul's for generations? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
I know you probably know I didn't say that, but in case you didn't, consider there to be a paragraph break before the sentence where "generations" appears.
[ 29. October 2011, 17:27: Message edited by: dyfrig ]
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
I was reading recently of how the Taize community responded to the people turning up0 in the 60s; they weren't coherent, they weren't articulate, but they were welcomed and listened to.
A very good point. I remember Br. Roger writing of how he heard so much anger in what they were saying, and that he did indeed (if I recall correctly) speak to them of things like love and humility.
He didn't get accuse them of all sorts and call the police in at any rate.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So...Occupy is going to camp out at St. Paul's for generations?
I would think God can handle the crowds.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Most people don't know what they want; the current feeling (and it mostly is a feeling) that there is something profoundly wrong with the system is not to be derided because it cannot be articulated.
I agree, and I'd add that this feeling, this mix of alienation and hope, is the mother to faith.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So...Occupy is going to camp out at St. Paul's for generations?
I would think God can handle the crowds.
I would hope the next generation could come up with something more productive to do than aimlessly camping outside a church.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So...Occupy is going to camp out at St. Paul's for generations?
I would think God can handle the crowds.
I would hope the next generation could come up with something more productive to do than aimlessly camping outside a church.
It seems they've successfully wound up quite a lot of people. It's a tiny, tiny demonstration, extremely polite and tidy, hardly liking to do anything as vulgar as make 'demands', utterly insignificant in terms of the political action we saw in the last century, but nonetheless many people are very unhappy about it.
I think it's fascinating, impressive and hugely encouraging.
Posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus (# 2515) on
:
It's not just that people don't know what they want.
Once they have decided what they want, they tend to behave in a way that is quite contrary to the desired outcome - to an astonishing degree.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I would hope the next generation could come up with something more productive to do than aimlessly camping outside a church.
Some of them might have jobs. As the cuts bite yet more deeply, there will be a large number of them without. And camping outside a cathedral, aimlessly or not, seems a more productive thing to do than getting stoned out of their minds or beating up old ladies.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus:
It's not just that people don't know what they want.
Once they have decided what they want, they tend to behave in a way that is quite contrary to the desired outcome - to an astonishing degree.
Do you really want to give such a huge vote of no confidence in people?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
They've ticked people off because they are aimlessly camping out in front of a church that happens to be a tourist destination.
Other than that...
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Aimlessness isn't a problem. I'm sitting aimlessly in a chair, wondering about going to bed but not finding the gumption to do so, and it's ticking no one off.
These demonstrators are felt as a very sharp irritant. I think it's because they are drawing attention to an immense problem that we are collectively trying not to think about. It's not their lack of demands, it's our collective lack of answers that is so hard to bear.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Apparently they've ticked you off, enough that you have to spend a significant amount of time being rude about them.
What part of the "1% vs 99%" don't you understand?
The actual method for dealing with the problem is going to take quite a lot of discussion and time to work out.
The Reagan solution to the problem of a prosperous nation has taken 30 years to come to fruition, and one could add the years from Goldwater's nomination to that. It'll take at least a generation to organise a better plan.
In the short term, a tax on trading activity would slow down the rate at which nanosecond deals cause havoc - at least there would be some tax revenue from all that totally non-productive activity!
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Sorry, my response was to Beeswax, not hatless.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
And now, reading the Guardian while waiting for my ship responses to actually go through, I come across Plan B which has enough sense to be a possible starter.
Of course, George Osborne's Plan A is a rubbish attempt to impoverish everyone down to the level the US is aiming for, so just about anything would be an improvement!
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
I don't think so.
The staff at St. Paul's want to make enough money to pay for the upkeep of the building. Tourists want to see the inside of St. Paul's. If I'd been saving my money for years to fly across the Atlantic to visit the UK and I really wanted to see St. Paul's, I would be annoyed if when I got there it was closed because I may never have the opportunity again. Perhaps, some of those who attend services at St. Pauls are likely annoyed the church is being shut down.
The 1%? I doubt the 1% care much about St. Paul's or what's happening there. If the 1% cared about St. Paul's, a Christian cathedral wouldn't be reduced to such a pathetic practice as charging admission.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
So you are grimly determined to support the 1%'s desire to turn the uS into Guatemala.
Good thing that's clear.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Wow...your comment was stupid on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
[...] These demonstrators are felt as a very sharp irritant. I think it's because they are drawing attention to an immense problem that we are collectively trying not to think about. It's not their lack of demands, it's our collective lack of answers that is so hard to bear.
I find that very insightful (seriously - no sarcasm intended). In blaming the protestors for not coming up with a solution, maybe society is scapegoating them?
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on
:
Fine historial summary in the BBC News magazine from our own Steve Tomkins.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Radio 4's 'World this Weekend' at noon today is from St Paul's discussing all these issues - should be interesting.
[ 30. October 2011, 12:34: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
They've ticked people off because they are aimlessly camping out in front of a church that happens to be a tourist destination.
Aimlessly? Not at all. There are many targets to the protest.
And by the way they seem to have annoyed some right-wingers, they are obviously hitting at least some of them.
This is politics, not some mild-mannered bring-and-share in a playgroup. If conservatives and right-wingers liked what they were doing they would be doing it wrong. The point is not to persuade them, it is to defeat them. Or at least expose them.
It looks like some of the St Paul's clergy had a "Which side are you on?" moment, and came down on different sides.
For what its worth, what comment there was on the issue at church yesterday came down entirely on the side of the protestors & the clerics who resigned. I think we worked out which side we were on.
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
They've ticked people off because they are aimlessly camping out in front of a church that happens to be a tourist destination.
Aimlessly? Not at all. There are many targets to the protest.
And by the way they seem to have annoyed some right-wingers, they are obviously hitting at least some of them.
This is politics, not some mild-mannered bring-and-share in a playgroup. If conservatives and right-wingers liked what they were doing they would be doing it wrong. The point is not to persuade them, it is to defeat them. Or at least expose them.
It looks like some of the St Paul's clergy had a "Which side are you on?" moment, and came down on different sides.
For what its worth, what comment there was on the issue at church yesterday came down entirely on the side of the protestors & the clerics who resigned. I think we worked out which side we were on.
Truth is, Jesus isn't on either side. He will rightly be calling everyone to greater generosity, grace, care and love. I think the protestors have a good point, but have no useful solutions that don't seem to involve spending other people's money. But Jesus calls me first to care for others, as he does everyone.
He would be found both camping with the protestors asking them challenging questions, and dining with the financiers and causing outrage with his true wisdom and challenge. That is all.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Aimlessness isn't a problem. I'm sitting aimlessly in a chair, wondering about going to bed but not finding the gumption to do so, and it's ticking no one off.
These demonstrators are felt as a very sharp irritant. I think it's because they are drawing attention to an immense problem that we are collectively trying not to think about. It's not their lack of demands, it's our collective lack of answers that is so hard to bear.
Well, in the US, the majority of the population support them from the polls that I've seen. It isn't the population at large that wants to avoid these questions, it is the political and economic elites who want to pretend that everything is fine because they are doing so well at the rest of the population's expense. The real danger to these slimeballs at the top is that a political movement might gel out of these protests that would topple their wildly undeserved privilege, and they know it. The cops are gassing the kids in Oakland because they may actually have an effect, not because they are "aimless."
--Tom Clune
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
He would be found both camping with the protestors asking them challenging questions, and dining with the financiers and causing outrage with his true wisdom and challenge. That is all.
I am humbly me and not Jesus. So I can't pull either of those off. But I can decide whose side I'm on and I saw those headlines about 50% pay increases and business as usual as inflammatory enough to make me take sides.
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
He would be found both camping with the protestors asking them challenging questions, and dining with the financiers and causing outrage with his true wisdom and challenge. That is all.
I am humbly me and not Jesus. So I can't pull either of those off. But I can decide whose side I'm on and I saw those headlines about 50% pay increases and business as usual as inflammatory enough to make me take sides.
Fine - just don't claim to speak on behalf of Jesus or the Church.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Should I be trying to?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by ken:
This is politics, not some mild-mannered bring-and-share in a playgroup. If conservatives and right-wingers liked what they were doing they would be doing it wrong. The point is not to persuade them, it is to defeat them. Or at least expose them.
Oh...the aim is to defeat right wingers? So much for all that stuff about speaking for the 99%. In the United States, the right wing thrives on left wing protests such as this. In the UK, leftists camping outside a church may be able topple the Cameron government...or the Lord Mayor of London...whichever it is they are trying to topple.
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
http://tinyurl.com/3la49c4
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on
:
The same latest news, from the BBC:
quote:
The Dean of St Paul's Cathedral Graeme Knowles has resigned, saying he felt his position had become untenable.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh...the aim is to defeat right wingers? So much for all that stuff about speaking for the 99%.
How do you get that? The contention is that the vast majority - metaphorically "the 99%" whether it is really 90% or 99.9% - are being ripped off by big business and big government and by the conservative politics that supports big business and big government. Some of that "99%" may vote for right-wing parties but they have been misled, they are in fact voting against their own interests.
You might disagree with that, you might think that those beliefs are false, but to the extent that the protestors are anarchists or left-wing socialists that is the kind of thing they are likely to actually believe. So as far as they are concerned opposing political conservatism is speaking for the 99%.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
The same latest news, from the BBC:
quote:
The Dean of St Paul's Cathedral Graeme Knowles has resigned, saying he felt his position had become untenable.
Car crash indeed! I feel for all those caught up in this unstoppable pile-up, most (or all) of whom never wished for any of this confrontation. It could have been easily avoided if the Cathedral authorities had negotiated with the protestors in the first place.
for St Paul's, for the mission of the Church, for the City to discover a conscience. For Dean Graeme, Canon Giles and the chaplain who has resigned, and for all the other staff considering their future.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
That and the idea that a protest has to fit into the modern management ideal of having a specific purpose and goal and plan is a little lame.
Modern management ideal my arse. "Rebel Without a Cause" may have been a mildly diverting movie, but "Protest Without a Cause" does seem to be a bit of a waste of everyone's time.
"What do we want?
WE DON'T KNOW!
When do we want it?
WHENEVER!"
More like
"What do we want?"
"Things to improve. People to pay their fair shares. No one to starve. Bankers to stop walking away with the treasury. And eventually a pony."
"How do we want it?"
"Democratically, in the most effective way possible."
"Why are you there then?"
"Because the longer we stay, the more people talk and think about it."
They are fairly clear about what they are objecting to and know they don't have detailed solutions. But the longer they stay, the more people are talking about it. The more people are awake. The more discussions go on like this that the current consensus just isn't right.
And while some have some solutions no one has all of it.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh...the aim is to defeat right wingers? So much for all that stuff about speaking for the 99%.
How do you get that? The contention is that the vast majority - metaphorically "the 99%" whether it is really 90% or 99.9% - are being ripped off by big business and big government and by the conservative politics that supports big business and big government. Some of that "99%" may vote for right-wing parties but they have been misled, they are in fact voting against their own interests.
You might disagree with that, you might think that those beliefs are false, but to the extent that the protestors are anarchists or left-wing socialists that is the kind of thing they are likely to actually believe. So as far as they are concerned opposing political conservatism is speaking for the 99%.
Agree entirely with the first paragraph. Big business and big government are ripping off most of the population. One, in the United States, conservatives are just as likely as progressives to oppose both big government and big business. Two, camping in public places and being a nuisance isn't going to fix anything or raise awareness to what most people already know. Three, effective political movements have a plan. Occupy Wall Street could become the Progressive answer to the Tea Party. Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party could find common ground the way populists on the left and right have been trying to do for decades. At minimum, Occupy could come up with a list of proposals to start a conversation. Four, change comes through winning election. In other words, you have to persuade those who disagree with you not just speak to the choir. Messages beginning, "you poor stupid saps don't know what's good for you," don't play in Peoria.
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on
:
If only Giles Fraser had said you may protest but don't put up a campsite outside the cathedral it would have been fine.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
I'm sad that the Dean felt he had to go. He's been a great colleague, always encouraging and full of camaraderie. It's a huge price to pay to try to give the Cathedral a fresh start on this debacle.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
...in the United States, conservatives are just as likely as progressives to oppose both big government and big business.
If that and also a commitment to liberty, then they aren't really conservatives
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
One, in the United States, conservatives are just as likely as progressives to oppose both big government and big business.
As ken points out, they are unlikely to be conservatives if they also have a commitment to liberty.
That said, a lot of conservatives say this, but their policy prescriptions are always about reducing big government, rather than curbing the powers of big business.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I wonder whether, if a Government minister had been in the Dean's place, he or she would have resigned. At least the church has got some principles.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
One, in the United States, conservatives are just as likely as progressives to oppose both big government and big business.
As ken points out, they are unlikely to be conservatives if they also have a commitment to liberty.
That said, a lot of conservatives say this, but their policy prescriptions are always about reducing big government, rather than curbing the powers of big business.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
That said, a lot of conservatives say this, but their policy prescriptions are always about reducing big government, rather than curbing the powers of big business.
Well, yeah. There's nothing wrong with tackling the bigger danger first, and leaving the smaller danger for later.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
That and the idea that a protest has to fit into the modern management ideal of having a specific purpose and goal and plan is a little lame.
Modern management ideal my arse. "Rebel Without a Cause" may have been a mildly diverting movie, but "Protest Without a Cause" does seem to be a bit of a waste of everyone's time.
"What do we want?
WE DON'T KNOW!
When do we want it?
WHENEVER!"
More like
"What do we want?"
"Things to improve. People to pay their fair shares. No one to starve. Bankers to stop walking away with the treasury. And eventually a pony."
"How do we want it?"
"Democratically, in the most effective way possible."
"Why are you there then?"
"Because the longer we stay, the more people talk and think about it."
They are fairly clear about what they are objecting to and know they don't have detailed solutions. But the longer they stay, the more people are talking about it. The more people are awake. The more discussions go on like this that the current consensus just isn't right.
And while some have some solutions no one has all of it.
So all the message is is that the indefensible is indefensible. Who do they think is out there that doesn't already think that some bankers and captains of industry are overpaid who will now think it because of this protest?
The only institution that seems to be suffering is the old sea-cucumber of the Church of England and not the vampire-squid of Goldman Sachs.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
That said, a lot of conservatives say this, but their policy prescriptions are always about reducing big government, rather than curbing the powers of big business.
Well, yeah. There's nothing wrong with tackling the bigger danger first, and leaving the smaller danger for later.
Given that the current collapse of the world's economy was due to the excesses of big business, your assumption that big business constitutes the lesser of the evils is at best questionable. The power of the nation state is in decline, with multinational corporations filling the power vacuum. I certainly would not want to suggest that big government has been blameless, but it has acted as an enabler, not as the prime mover in this fiasco.
--Tom Clune
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
So now the Dean and Canon Chancellor have resigned from St Pauls
The situation goes from tragedy to farce
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
So now the Dean and Canon Chancellor have resigned from St Pauls
The situation goes from tragedy to farce
Yes - I agree. I'm sure they made mistakes, but not offences worth resigning over.
I suspect huge rows behind the scenes at St Paul's - and that those supporting the 'establishment' and forcible removal of the protesters have won the day.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Two decent people, caught up in a situation not of their own making, feel that the only right thing to do is to resign their posts. I think 'tragedy' overstates it but 'farce' belittles it.
As Aumbry says, the indefensible is indefensible, and the protesters are pointing to the essential nakedness of the emperor of greed, much to the discomfiture of many who have been extolling the wonder of his clothes. In that much at least they are doing us a service.
Unfortunately it seems that big money can always find the means to defend even the indefensible, and St Paul's has been caught up in the backwash.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Given that the current collapse of the world's economy was due to the excesses of big business, your assumption that big business constitutes the lesser of the evils is at best questionable.
I was thinking in terms of personal freedom rather than economic wellbeing. Even the most powerful companies can't force me to buy their products or work in their offices. Governments have police officers and armies, and the proven willingness to use both to force their citizens to do what they say.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
BBC News channel has just mentioned that they will be speaking to the Bishop of Willesden on this shortly.
Posted by Yangtze (# 4965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It could have been easily avoided if the Cathedral authorities had negotiated with the protestors in the first place.
And/or* perhaps if instead of continuing to say morning and evening prayers behind closed doors they had come out and said them on the steps.
*if they truly and really felt that there would be massive legal implications that would threaten other aspects of the Cathedral's life of work and worship if they did come out and talk. Personally I think that even if this were the case they should have risked it (and it seems that's what Giles Fraser was thinking too) but I'm not the Dean and Chapter. But to say prayers behind locked doors....... ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I was thinking in terms of personal freedom rather than economic wellbeing.
That's going to be a painful divorce.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Even the most powerful companies can't force me to buy their products or work in their offices.
Actually they would if they could. Think of Microsoft's "embrace and extend" tactics. Or nestle's tactics selling formula. Or drug company marketing. Laws stop them going further.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Governments have police officers and armies, and the proven willingness to use both to force their citizens to do what they say.
But we can get rid of them by voting them out. How can I vote the banks out?
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I was thinking in terms of personal freedom rather than economic wellbeing. Even the most powerful companies can't force me to buy their products or work in their offices. Governments have police officers and armies, and the proven willingness to use both to force their citizens to do what they say.
Even a cursory glance at modern history should make plain that the most common use of state power against personal freedom has been in the service of monied interests, not in the service of political ends. The many banana republics in the world may use their force to prop up an illegitimate government, but the western powers don't engage in that sort of thing for the most part -- and the illegitimate banana republic governments are almost uniformly puppets of economic interests. In short, my point stands.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
That said, a lot of conservatives say this, but their policy prescriptions are always about reducing big government, rather than curbing the powers of big business.
Well, yeah. There's nothing wrong with tackling the bigger danger first, and leaving the smaller danger for later.
Exactly. That's why it should be the other way round. Which national government is 'big' enough to challenge the power of international capital?
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
That said, a lot of conservatives say this, but their policy prescriptions are always about reducing big government, rather than curbing the powers of big business.
Well, yeah. There's nothing wrong with tackling the bigger danger first, and leaving the smaller danger for later.
Exactly. That's why it should be the other way round. Which national government is 'big' enough to challenge the power of international capital?
You seem to overlook that the main culprits of international capital that were responsible for the credit crunch went bust and national governments had to step in to bail them out. The banks were too weak and not too powerful. The problem that led to the debacle was one of an over supply of cheap credit which had come about due to distortions in international trade and the Cult of Globalisation for which governments can equally take the blame.
[ 31. October 2011, 17:59: Message edited by: aumbry ]
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Angloid: quote:
for St Paul's, for the mission of the Church, for the City to discover a conscience. For Dean Graeme, Canon Giles and the chaplain who has resigned, and for all the other staff considering their future.
What he said.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
My sympathies are with those who have resigned.
FWIW I think the bankers and those who plunged us into economic chaos (Fred Goodwin and his like) should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent.
The (continuing) escalation in top salaries is obscene and should be capped. If they dont like it they can go elsewhere but elsewhere is a limited option these days.
The St Pauls protestors are idiots in that they cannot formulate any coherent list of demands. Naomi Colvin ( their spokesperson on radio) is tongue-tied whenever asked for specifics about their protest.
So, a plague on both their houses.
Evacuate the protestors. Bring in legal restrictions against the "fat cats". Let the Church be the Church. And let some modicum of common sense prevail.
Its not going to happen any time soon.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Our own Simon is on BBC News Channel talking about it right now
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
My sympathies are with those who have resigned.
FWIW I think the bankers and those who plunged us into economic chaos (Fred Goodwin and his like) should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent.
The (continuing) escalation in top salaries is obscene and should be capped. If they dont like it they can go elsewhere but elsewhere is a limited option these days.
The St Pauls protestors are idiots in that they cannot formulate any coherent list of demands. Naomi Colvin ( their spokesperson on radio) is tongue-tied whenever asked for specifics about their protest.
So, a plague on both their houses.
Evacuate the protestors. Bring in legal restrictions against the "fat cats". Let the Church be the Church. And let some modicum of common sense prevail.
Its not going to happen any time soon.
No no no no
Please let us not have any more 'the government must do something' reaction - we had enough of that under Blair and look where that got us in other sectors. It is time for Shareholders to flex their muscles more - and that is where the direct action ought to be focussed: equipping, educating and campaigning for corporate shareholders to vote against the salaries offered. And for people to vote with their wallets when it doesn't happen (e.g. move your bank account, change pension provider, use a different insure etc)
The truth is everyone who looked for good performing pension funds, endowment policies to pay off their mortgages, cheap, low-deposit mortgages or unrealistic remortgaging and endless 0% credit card deals are guilty of fuelling the sort of trading that led to this mess. It is too simplistic to blame the latest bogeymen.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Our own Simon is on BBC News Channel talking about it right now
I've just seen it. I think it was great - perhaps there'll be a link to it soon. Our very own Simon Jenkins of Ship of Fools on the Beeb! He was saying that the Occupy London protestors have come to church, albeit by accident, and that the church needs to talk with them and engage with what they're saying. He said that Jesus would have been with the protestors and
not consulting his lawyers about how to get rid of them. Simon was proclaiming the gospel of Christ on primetime TV news. Brilliant!
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The banks were too weak and not too powerful.
They were insufficiently regulated. To ask whether one regards that as too weak or too powerful is rather clumsy.
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
Goldman Sachs was strong enough to cook Greece's books and help them deceive fellow EU nations .
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on
:
Simon was superb on BBC News 24.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
For those of us who missed the boat, has it been youtubed yet?
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
Here's the Dean on Youtube:
http://tinyurl.com/3sqse5n
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
Having well missed the edit time, I hasten to remark, now having watched the whole thing, that this very lengthy video is a press conference about the resignation.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
As someone has said "Its a national joke" referring to the CofE.
Too true
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
You seem to overlook that the main culprits of international capital that were responsible for the credit crunch went bust and national governments had to step in to bail them out. The banks were too weak and not too powerful.
Alternatively, they were powerful enough to cause the crisis to start with, and then managed to get bailed out by threatening to crash the global economy when they needed their losses to be socialised.
Additionally, they were able to dictate the terms of the bailout - no Swedish style solution for GS and others, and they carried on as before.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Here's the Dean on Youtube:
http://tinyurl.com/3sqse5n
That's not the Dean, that's the Major-General.
Posted by Late Quartet (# 1207) on
:
Fascinating piece by George Monbiot analysing the power & principality that is the Corporation of London. Their weight cannot be easily underestimated. (Link anyone?)
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Quartet:
Fascinating piece by George Monbiot analysing the power & principality that is the Corporation of London. Their weight cannot be easily underestimated. (Link anyone?)
Link
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
It all sounds like a disproportionate failure of nerve to me. God knows what they'd have done in a real crisis - and may He defend them from any such.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
That said, a lot of conservatives say this, but their policy prescriptions are always about reducing big government, rather than curbing the powers of big business.
[/QB]
Roll your eyes all you want; but in the American scene (which I assume you are talking about) even the paleo-conservatives mostly campaign against welfare for the poor even as they benefit from corporate welfare.
If you are going to tackle the those who have their snouts in the trough of government, it makes logical sense to go after the fatter pigs first.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Paleos support abolition of both most welfare for corporations and individuals. Far more US conservatives are concerned with both big business and big corporations. On the left, Kirkpatrick Sale comes to mind. Other than that...
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The banks were too weak and not too powerful.
They were insufficiently regulated. To ask whether one regards that as too weak or too powerful is rather clumsy.
The banks had too many friends (or there were too many weak leaders) in high places. Having had to kowtow to the FSA in another sphere, I know how picky they can be about a return being a day late. They seem rather less worried about the figures being cooked up than they did about an MFS1 arriving on the 8th not the 7th.
There has always been a constant lobbying process going on - don't forget that even with the FSA in place it is still effectively self regulation. ALL the inspectors and most FSA staff are from the banks: they have a vested interest esp as their contracts were short term not permanent and many would hope to return to a bank career later. You're not going to mess in your own nest are you?
Given a few wacky ideas, lax regulation and a group of chums (MP's and Royalty included - yes they played their part too in it), you have a recipe for exactly what happened. Deregulate and anything goes, until it goes wrong. Trouble is with finance and big numbers, when it goes wrong it does so with a vengence.
[ 01. November 2011, 07:11: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
Good news: St Paul's suspends legal action (and Bishop Chatres wants to connect the 'financial with the ethical')
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Even a cursory glance at modern history should make plain that the most common use of state power against personal freedom has been in the service of monied interests, not in the service of political ends.
Yes, of course. Not that the two are separate anyway. In most places and most times the political arrangements tend on the whole to support the rich and the powerful against the poor and the helpless. That's one of the things we mean when we say "rich and powerful".
And Martin is wrong in detail anyway.
For one thing, in the world as it is now its a lot easier to stop being a citizen of the UK or the USA than it is to stop being a customer of IBM or Shell or Unilever or Panasonic or Procter & Gamble or Barclay's Bank (even if only indirectly because they are suppliers of the thing you use that are sold by other companies).
For another, both private companies and rich individuals can and do employ armed men to enforce their way of doing things. In rich countries with functioning governments they tend to be thought of as "protecting property" but it all comes to much the same thing in the end.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Well, the whole St Paul's business settles one issue for me. Next time I visit St Paul's, I'll be quite happy to pay an entrance fee. You expect to pay fees for ancient monuments, stately homes, museums. You don't pay entrance fees for churches. For me, now, St Paul's falls into the first category: it really can't call itself a church any more.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
So all the message is is that the indefensible is indefensible. Who do they think is out there that doesn't already think that some bankers and captains of industry are overpaid who will now think it because of this protest?
Not many people. The point is keeping it up there in the public consciousness - rather than having the next round of celebrity gossip distract everyone. And meeting and trying to get further on what can be done.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Given that the current collapse of the world's economy was due to the excesses of big business, your assumption that big business constitutes the lesser of the evils is at best questionable.
I was thinking in terms of personal freedom rather than economic wellbeing.
The difference being?
quote:
Even the most powerful companies can't force me to buy their products
Apparently Microsoft don't exist.
quote:
or work in their offices.
That's not for want of trying - look up Company Towns. Or what Chinese corporations do to their workers.
quote:
Governments have police officers and armies, and the proven willingness to use both to force their citizens to do what they say.
Democratic governments can get voted out. As they do when they overreach. Corporations on the other hand aren't responsible to anyone. And if we didn't kick them down and keep them down, they'd behave the way they did in the 19th century. Setting up monopolies and company towns. Stealing from and short changing everyone. Using force where they thought they could get away with it.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
Link
Wow. And here was I thinking the Channel Islands were a bit grubby. Can anyone not from the Grauniad side of the Ship offer any defence of this?
If the legal action intended brings the City of London Corporation into the spotlight, perhaps the protestors will have actually achieved something worthwhile?
[ETA x-post. I don't think this was the kind of Corporation Justinian had in mind, but if the shoe fits...]
[ 01. November 2011, 14:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I was thinking in terms of personal freedom rather than economic wellbeing.
The difference being?
It's the difference between having to obey a law and choosing to work (or not work) for a company.
quote:
quote:
Even the most powerful companies can't force me to buy their products
Apparently Microsoft don't exist.
Apparently Apple, Linux, Unix, etc. (not to mention the choice to not buy a computer at all) don't exist in your world.
Sure, lots of people choose to buy Microsoft products, and I'm sure Microsoft would like to get everybody buying them. But last time I looked nobody could be arrested and sent to jail for choosing not to do so.
quote:
quote:
or work in their offices.
That's not for want of trying - look up Company Towns. Or what Chinese corporations do to their workers.
I'm not aware that people from company towns were prohibited from moving out, or marched into the factories at gunpoint. And isn't most industry in China government-owned?
quote:
Democratic governments can get voted out. As they do when they overreach. Corporations on the other hand aren't responsible to anyone.
And the trade-off for that is the fact that governments can force people to do what they say, but companies can only try to persuade. No matter how powerful a company becomes, it cannot have me imprisoned for refusing to buy its product. The largest and most powerful company in the world right now (whichever one that is) cannot do squat to me if I choose not to engage with it.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
Link
Wow. And here was I thinking the Channel Islands were a bit grubby. Can anyone not from the Grauniad side of the Ship offer any defence of this?
He seems not to realise that the Lord Mayor and Aldermen are ceremonial posts only.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Is he wrong, then, about the aldermen being the body which approves or otherwise applications to become freemen? If not, it is much more than merely honorary since it carries the power to shape the electorate.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
I have a prediction. The LCC will have these people clkeared from St Paul's before the 2012 Olympics . Otherwise they are a security hazard for visitors.HUH !!! ok I doubt That factoid would be true but I see the fiorst happening in the USA right now . Of course the OCCUPY movement could flee intpo St Paul's and claim sanctuary. Now sorting that out would be a massive headache for the Bishop of London.
Let there be peace\
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
He seems not to realise that the Lord Mayor and Aldermen are ceremonial posts only.
That's what I thought too, but a quick glance through this and this suggest otherwise.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Is he wrong, then, about the aldermen being the body which approves or otherwise applications to become freemen? If not, it is much more than merely honorary since it carries the power to shape the electorate.
From the City of London Corporation website it looks as though Aldermen are the body which decides who becomes a Freeman
Looking at the roles of Sherrifs and Aldermen I'd say they're more than simply honorary positions.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
Double posting to say that the City of London Corporation has now suspended its plan to take legal action.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Let me look down here... ooh, it's a pair of balls
Posted by Yangtze (# 4965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And isn't most industry in China government-owned?
Not any more. I don't have the figures handy but ever since Deng Xiaoping's southern tour in the 1992 China has followed his maxim that it doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.
State owned enterprises have been closed at a rate of knots. Private businesses are booming. The days of the iron rice bowl are long gone.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
The freemen of the City are purely honorary. The electorate are the residents and (this is unique to the City of London) the businesses.
Just for information.
I was at St Paul's on Saturday. Some protestors had put up a notice saying "the church people have been brilliant and we continue in dialogue."
Big pity about Graham Knowles - unlike many Deans of St Paul's he was concerned to make it the church of the diocese of London.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The freemen of the City are purely honorary. The electorate are the residents and (this is unique to the City of London) the businesses.
Source for that first bit? In the Grauniad article it says (emphasis mine)
quote:
There are 25 electoral wards in the Square Mile. In four of them, the 9,000 people who live within its boundaries are permitted to vote. In the remaining 21, the votes are controlled by corporations, mostly banks and other financial companies. The bigger the business, the bigger the vote: a company with 10 workers gets two votes, the biggest employers, 79. It's not the workers who decide how the votes are cast, but the bosses, who "appoint" the voters.
(...)
There are four layers of elected representatives in the Corporation: common councilmen, aldermen, sheriffs and the Lord Mayor. To qualify for any of these offices, you must be a freeman of the City of London
Can anyone disprove the assertion that this is a local government being elected by appointees of companies and that its officers have to be freemen?
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on
:
My club is in the City, my business partner and two of his housemates are Freemen, and I wil probably be nominated next year. One of these people also serves on the Common Council.
"Freeman of the City' is an entirely honorary thing. It confers no power within the Corporation and is a separate thing to the elected positions within the corporation. However, I suspect it may be correct that someone needs to be appointment Freeman before they can be elected, as it is the expression of their standing within the City - bearing in mind that everyone stands as an individual with no party affiliation.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
So if between us we have this correct, the electorate of this "local authority" is dominated by corporate appointees who can be expected to vote in line with company policy, while its candidates for office consist only of those co-opted by existing officers?
"Corporation" is right. Should I seek out my tent, or am I too late to the party?
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So if between us we have this correct, the electorate of this "local authority" is dominated by corporate appointees who can be expected to vote in line with company policy, while its candidates for office consist only of those co-opted by existing officers?
"Corporation" is right. Should I seek out my tent, or am I too late to the party?
The Worshipful Company of Spectacle Makers has a booklet to download which explains how you can join.
One qualification you need for any of these livery companies is money. You have to pay an initial 'fine', £750 in the case of the specmakers, plus an annual fee.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Is there a Worshipful Company of Cheesemakers?
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Is there a Worshipful Company of Cheesemakers?
Not according to ths list of City Livery companies. No dairy products at all.
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
Simon was superb on BBC News 24.
Just heard 'im in a 4-minute interview on The World Today, BBC World Service, 05.16am GMT, last item before the Shipping (not of Fools) Forecast on then Radio 4.
Will post a link to Listen Again soon.
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Our own Simon is on BBC News Channel talking about it right now
What programme was that, and is there a link to iPlayer, please?
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So if between us we have this correct, the electorate of this "local authority" is dominated by corporate appointees who can be expected to vote in line with company policy, while its candidates for office consist only of those co-opted by existing officers?
"Corporation" is right. Should I seek out my tent, or am I too late to the party?
I don't see what the problem is - I don't hear ay complaints from the 9,000 residents of the City on how their bins are emptied, planning regs or any of the other mundane activity that the Corporation carries out. The businesses are regulated through the appropriate body (FSA, Bank of England etc), not through the Corporation that is only concerned with municipal affairs - and seems to do a pretty good job.
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
Simon was superb on BBC News 24.
Just heard 'im in a 4-minute interview on The World Today, BBC World Service, 05.16am GMT, last item before the Shipping (not of Fools) Forecast on then Radio 4. [...]
World Service link posted in Styx.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I don't see what the problem is - I don't hear ay complaints from the 9,000 residents of the City on how their bins are emptied, planning regs or any of the other mundane activity that the Corporation carries out. The businesses are regulated through the appropriate body (FSA, Bank of England etc), not through the Corporation that is only concerned with municipal affairs - and seems to do a pretty good job.
So you'd be perfectly happy for every council in the land to adopt similar practices and disenfranchise their electorates, allowing only company bosses with the special handshake to have any say in the running of that council - just as long as the bins were emptied on time...
Uh-huh. Remind me again why we have democracy?
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I don't see what the problem is - I don't hear ay complaints from the 9,000 residents of the City on how their bins are emptied, planning regs or any of the other mundane activity that the Corporation carries out. The businesses are regulated through the appropriate body (FSA, Bank of England etc), not through the Corporation that is only concerned with municipal affairs - and seems to do a pretty good job.
So you'd be perfectly happy for every council in the land to adopt similar practices and disenfranchise their electorates, allowing only company bosses with the special handshake to have any say in the running of that council - just as long as the bins were emptied on time...
Uh-huh. Remind me again why we have democracy?
No. The City is different. It is unique in its demographic and make-up. There is no evidence or campaign by the residents of the City of London to change it, and commercial organisations pay the most taxes and make up the majority of the population of the place. It is a district dedicated to commercial activity and is unique in this. The system isn't broke, I don't know of anyone who lives there who finds it undemocratic - do you have evidence to the contrary?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I wonder why they backed down from evicting the campers?
Could it be because they don't want the spotlight to fall on them, as it did on St Pauls?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
No. The City is different. It is unique in its demographic and make-up. There is no evidence or campaign by the residents of the City of London to change it, and commercial organisations pay the most taxes and make up the majority of the population of the place. It is a district dedicated to commercial activity and is unique in this. The system isn't broke, I don't know of anyone who lives there who finds it undemocratic - do you have evidence to the contrary?
I appreciate that it's early, but I fail to see how your description of the workings of the Corporation fits any reasonable definition of 'democratic'. Of the 20-odd wards, only 4 have voting by the people who live there.
The system is clearly broke. It's a medieval fiefdom with its own man to sit behind the Speaker of the House of Commons, that connives to cheat the tax payers out of billions in lost revenue, thwart criminal investigations into fraud and circumvent financial regulations the world over.
Pleading special circumstances isn't going to wash.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
The system isn't broke, I don't know of anyone who lives there who finds it undemocratic - do you have evidence to the contrary?
It not being broke(n) is not in and of itself evidence of democratic operation.
Given the demographics, I suppose special pleading might be allowed in terms of companies forming part of the electorate. However, the main evidence I see of it being undemocratic is that as I understand it, to be eligible to stand for office you have to have been co-opted by an existing officer (you also have to be a freeman, which demonstrates that despite protestations to the contrary on this thread, this is more than a "purely honorary" position).
There are plenty of organisations that are run that way (including, I suspect, lots of churches) and plenty of arguments in favour of it, but it's hardly democratic in the way that one (perhaps naively) expects a local authority to be.
[x-post with Doc Tor]
[ 02. November 2011, 08:01: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Quartet:
Fascinating piece by George Monbiot analysing the power & principality that is the Corporation of London. Their weight cannot be easily underestimated. (Link anyone?)
Link
I think I'd like to know what this quote means: quote:
As Nicholas Shaxson explains in his fascinating book Treasure Islands, the Corporation exists outside many of the laws and democratic controls which govern the rest of the United Kingdom. The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority.
Shocking stuff, but the only example it gives is the role of the remembrancer, who, in the final reckoning, is just a lobbyist who could be ignored if Parliament had the will.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
quote:
Even the most powerful companies can't force me to buy their products
Apparently Microsoft don't exist.
Apparently Apple, Linux, Unix, etc. (not to mention the choice to not buy a computer at all) don't exist in your world.
Sure, lots of people choose to buy Microsoft products, and I'm sure Microsoft would like to get everybody buying them. But last time I looked nobody could be arrested and sent to jail for choosing not to do so.
There are a heck of a lot of jobs advertised that say "must be proficient in MS Office". And my IT GCSE - not to mention the ECDL - wasn't really about learning to use computers; it was about learning to use Microsoft products.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Shocking stuff, but the only example it gives is the role of the remembrancer, who, in the final reckoning, is just a lobbyist who could be ignored if Parliament had the will.
Unlike Prince Charles. I'd start a Hell thread on this if I could face it; anyone else prefer to do so?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sure, lots of people choose to buy Microsoft products, and I'm sure Microsoft would like to get everybody buying them. But last time I looked nobody could be arrested and sent to jail for choosing not to do so.
There are a heck of a lot of jobs advertised that say "must be proficient in MS Office". And my IT GCSE - not to mention the ECDL - wasn't really about learning to use computers; it was about learning to use Microsoft products.
I never said the choice was without consequences, merely that it is each person's to make if they wish.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I don't see what the problem is - I don't hear ay complaints from the 9,000 residents of the City on how their bins are emptied, planning regs or any of the other mundane activity that the Corporation carries out. The businesses are regulated through the appropriate body (FSA, Bank of England etc), not through the Corporation that is only concerned with municipal affairs - and seems to do a pretty good job.
I'm sure they do, but to claim they are only concerned with municipal affairs is a statement that is naive in the extreme. They control the City Cash, a vast pool of liquid reserves from their enormous property empire, that is entirely secret, and what they do with it isn't subject to any form of transparency or accountability to anyone but themselves. To claim they use this vast capital, coupled with their unique lobbying powers built right into the heart of government, just to ensure the bins are collected on time is extraordinarily gullible.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
A serious comment by a theologian (Luke Bretherton of King's College) who seems to know more about what these protests are than many clerics who have opened their mouths and put their feet inthem: The Real Battle of St Paul's Cathedral: The Occupy Movement and Millennial Politics.
[ 02. November 2011, 12:02: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
This post on Christianity and Contemporary Politics seems to be the original article. The Fulcrum link now has something by Graham Kings.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
ken - your link seems to bring up another article.
Try this link.
(ETA crossposted with Dave M)
[ 02. November 2011, 12:18: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I never said the choice was without consequences, merely that it is each person's to make if they wish.
By that logic you have the choice to break the laws set by government, accepting the consequences of fines or prison sentences.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I never said the choice was without consequences, merely that it is each person's to make if they wish.
By that logic you have the choice to break the laws set by government, accepting the consequences of fines or prison sentences.
It depends on how you define freedom, I guess.
I'm referring to self-imposed consequences of a choice (such as "if I choose not to use Microsoft products that will reduce my ability to compete in the job market"), rather than externally-imposed consequences (such as "if you choose not to obey our law we will throw you in jail").
It all comes down to the line between passive and active consequences - the difference between someone doing something to you and someone not doing something to you. Not being offered a job is, to me, categorically different in terms of consequences to being locked up - the latter is a loss of freedom while the former is not.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Or to put it another way, the consequences of one are not freedom-limiting, while the consequences of the other are.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Hmmm - not having a job has seriously limited my freedom in all sorts of ways. I agree there is a difference between not being offered a job, and being locked up, but I'm not usre we've found the right terms yet.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Hmmm - not having a job has seriously limited my freedom in all sorts of ways.
That's one of the buggers with freedom - it cuts both ways. A prisoner is not free, but because of that lack of freedom he makes moral demands of his jailor - the jailor is beholden to provide him with warmth, food and protection. A free man is prisoner to no other man - but no other man is beholden to him either. A free man, by virtue of that very freedom, can make no moral demands of any other man.
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A free man, by virtue of that very freedom, can make no moral demands of any other man.
That sounds like an Ayn Rand soundbite.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Confession time - I've never read a single word of Ayn Rand. And to think I call myself a right-winger
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Confession time - I've never read a single word of Ayn Rand. And to think I call myself a right-winger
Careful. Could be aversion therapy.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A free man is prisoner to no other man - but no other man is beholden to him either. A free man, by virtue of that very freedom, can make no moral demands of any other man.
A lot of modern moral and political philosophy is based on the idea that the basic human condition is that of a man i.e. an adult male.
Consider what happens if we replace 'man' in the above sentence with 'small child' or 'pregnant woman', or for that matter, if we think of the representative man as being elderly or having some disability.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0