|
If most of the tents are empty, what's to prevent someone taking them to a local police station and saying 'I found this'?
|
The City of London Corporation is saying people can protest there, but not live there.
Seems reasonable to me.
Perhaps Bromptonaut will cycle past on his way home tonight and give us an update of the situation.
Last edited by: Iffy on Mon 31 Oct 11 at 15:52
|
|
How do they get the tent pegs into the flag stones?
|
|
Another question - most if not all the interviews I heard on the BBC with the happy campers were with people with foreign accents.....why ?
|
One piece tents which flick open like an umbrella?
I think they only need to be weighed down.
|
>> One piece tents which flick open like an umbrella?
>> I think they only need to be weighed down.
About 10 tonnes of cement ought to do it.
|
I don't always go along with the governmental way of dealing with protests and demos (I think kettling youngish schoolchildren is over the top for example).
But we do have a right to demonstrate and protest freely. Anyone who doesn't think that is a precious tradition should try living in Bahrain or Syria or indeed many other places where you might get shot for expressing anti-government or anti-capitalist opinions.
However I find I am in agreement with the prime minister on the subject of pitching tents. I didn't mind about that sort of thing when I was younger but now it makes me scowl when people make a scruffy mess outside the houses of parliament or St. Paul's. They are overstepping the mark. We don't have a right to turn tourist and administrative centres into travellers' sites. It's just damn offensive cheek. Life and the business of the country must go on.
|
|
That's remarkably main stream of you AC. One might even say an establishment standpoint. You'll be dining with the local squire next. Country living is changing you for the better.
|
|
Raspberry. And I bet you agree too.
|
|
Oh I do, but then I am right wing establishment, lunch with the squire dontcha know.
|
|
AC has moved? Missed that!
|
Pitching tents for more than a day or two crosses a line. Particularly if 'authority' appear to acquiesce.
Mid nineties homelessness protestors were not prevented fromcamping out in Lincoln's Inn Fields. The whole place turned into London's equivalent of a squatter camp. No coffee shop, no summer band and no office girls playing netball.
Petty crime a problem and rats galore.
Took years to get the place back to normal.
|
Im not sure they have pitched their tents in the right place, they should be outside RBS or something, which prob means they are just content with being a pain in the backside to someone rather than causing the disruption to the people they say they dont like.
If they were genuine, they wouldnt be turning it into some kind of holiday, they would be on the steps of banks hassling bankers every hour of every day, instead they are just irritating the clergy - normally id say go for it, but in this case it seems they are too spineless to pick on the real culprits.
Move em on.
|
>> instead
>> they are just irritating the clergy - normally id say go for it, but in
>> this case it seems they are too spineless to pick on the real culprits.
>>
>> Move em on.
>>
The clergy are moving on. Lots of them have resigned.
|
You would think that the Cathederal being a place of sanctuary, protection and full of good-will towards all men, would have allowed them to pitch their "Campus" inside!
That way, the protesters wouldn`t be able to drum-up support or add to the ranks as easily, plus it would have kept the "public face" of the place serene, to most of the passers-by. Only if you entered the building would you know about the evils of capitalism. ;-)
P.S
Why are the Clergy resigning? - sounds like they are jumping ship before the Mana hits the fan for some reason!
|
|
They are resigning because they don't want to see violence and bloodshed on the steps of the nations most prominent church. And that's likely to happen if the protesters are moved on forcibly.
|
It will be like the eviction of the money lenders from the temple but sort of in reverse
"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves"
Never sure what he had against dove sellers though
|
>> It will be like the eviction of the money lenders from the temple but sort
>> of in reverse
Oh dear.
You misquote the gospels as they were money changers, not money lenders. And even then he wasn't complaining about the trading. A shocking misuse of the bible.
In order to buy sacred animals for sacrifice, you had to use sacred money. The Roman money was stamped with the heads of idols (Roman emperors) so obviously you could not use that. Therefore a necessary part of the temple's activities was using money changers. Not least as people came from far and wide to make sacrifices and therefore a whole range of currencies were in use.
Jesus threw them out of the temple because he was making a statement about sacrifice in general, symbolically ending the Jewish practice. Christianity does not have - and never has had - the sacrifice of animals, it has instead the sacrifice of the Mass whereby Christ's ultimate sacrifice - of his life - is re-enacted. He was not making any point at all about capitalism in the Temple.
And because he was against animal sacrifice, that's why the dove sellers went with the money changers; you make a very good point indeed.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 1 Nov 11 at 14:50
|
|
Another "U" Turn. I understand that the Church was initiating legal proceedings to move the non-travellers on? As at 1515 they have announced that this action is called off and they are to engage directly and constructively without the threat of forcible eviction. I wonder what the plan will be tomorrow, assuming all the top neddies haven't resigned?
|
|
The dear old C of E never could decide whether it was on the side of the poor and oppressed or was just a branch of the Conservative party.
|
>> C of E never could decide whether it was on the side of the poor and oppressed or was just a >> branch of the Conservative party.
It tries to be both of course, if you stretch Conservative Party to include the other parties, Whitehall and the monarchy. Hence the occasional bout of clucking and running about. Being a national church can't always be easy. Imagine being a well-meaning Orthodox priest in the Serbia of the 1990s. Or a Catholic one during the Rwandan genocide.
For non-Terrorflag readers, allow me to recommend a quick Google of today's front-page Matt cartoon. If you don't think it's funny you're something rather feeble. Clever boy that, seldom misses, going to be a national treasure before he's 60.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 1 Nov 11 at 16:02
|
My favourite Matt cartoon, from 3 years ago... still pertinent.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/?cartoon=3514914&cc=3517812
|
>>The dear old C of E never could decide whether it was on the side of the poor and oppressed or was just a branch of the Conservative party.<<
Even the earliest incarnations of the Conservative Party are 150 younger than the C of E, so if anything, the Conservative party is infact the political arm of the Church, although the christian influence runs through the veins of a large majority of western politics, across the spectrum.
|
"You misquote the gospels "
I think you will find that whilst I referred to money lenders the text I quoted is straight from the King James bible"
Whilst I don't wish to turn the forum into a biblical discussion group I think you will find that your interpretation is exactly that an interpretation. Like so many things in the bible it is open to multiple meanings but the majority view is that Jesus was objecting to trade of all descriptions taking place in the temple including that of flogging pigeons.
|
This King James Bible?
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,"
bible.cc/matthew/21-12.htm
www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-21-12/
Or a different one unknown to the rest of mankind apart from you?
No doubt your rather patronising reference to an alleged "majority view" is based on similar intellectual analysis.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 1 Nov 11 at 16:37
|
|
No need to argue about it nastily - I'll check with a relative who studied the Bible in Greek - I always understood it to be money-lenders as well - but I'll stand corrected.
|
|
Right - checked this out with an expert. The Bilble - all English Language versions refer to money-changers as does the Greek (near as damnit original) - but as he points out this has been interpreted wrongly, they would change money, but they also lent money at extortionate rates. Sounds familiar ?
|
I think its safe to assume they didn't do it for nothing, or for the love of god.
They were making money somewhere.
There is of course a modern parallel, and the reason the clergy are resigning,
The church board want the protesters away, because they can not make money from the church while they are there. The clergy are therefore in a theological bind that mirrors the money changing scenario perfectly.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 1 Nov 11 at 17:17
|
|
Talking with the chap I spoke to, he's of the same view, the Bishop of London is a Tory, the clergy clearly forgot that, and went down the Christian Socialist route - which has proved a tad confusing for the true blues. The Archbishop of Canterbury was viewed as a Leftie as Archbishop of Wales - all very confusing for the poor dears. Maybe some of them need to re-read their Bibles.
|
|
Maybe it's time that the clergy of the C of E realised they are irrelevant.
|
Money was certainly being made - and that mostly by the Temple which was selling:
1. Cash sacrifices - i.e. donations to the temple.
2. Animals for sacrifice for the wealthier.
Whether the money changers were making money for themselves or the Temple is unclear to me. But the profit making activities were perfectly normal for the Temple - like any other religious building it cost money to run.
Zero writes>>The clergy are therefore in a theological bind that mirrors the money
>>changing scenario perfectly.
How so, as there is no theological reason why the protestors are there. They are there for secular purposes (if any purpose at all...).
re the Bishop of London. The day-to-day running of the cathedral isn't anything to do with him. The dean is in charge of a cathedral. The cathedral is where the bishop's seat, the cathedra sits, but the bishop has no say over the running of the cathedral - which is done by the dean and chapter.
Closing the cathedral (why?) and citing health and safety just showed the chapter up as a bunch of old women.
|
>> Zero writes>>The clergy are therefore in a theological bind that mirrors the money
>> >>changing scenario perfectly.
>>
>> How so, as there is no theological reason why the protestors are there. They are
>> there for secular purposes (if any purpose at all...).
The money changers/lenders and them that sells doves, are the Bankers and particularly the London stock exchange, the people are protesting, peacefully, about those excesses and lack of morals, and spilling onto the steps of the church. From a humanitarian standpoint theologically the protest is a just one.
Then the board of the church, for purely financial reasons, want the still peaceful protest, forcibly broken up, and therefore are emulating those who would profit from the church.
Any of the real clergy within the church must surely find such a position untenable, given the money changers story in the bible.
|
|
I think I know what the original St Paul would have said about it (in a letter of course)
|
>>Then the board of the church, for purely financial reasons, want the still peaceful protest,
>>forcibly broken up, and therefore are emulating those who would profit from the church.
I don't think I agree there.
1. It's not for financial reasons they want the protest to go away. Surely. The lost entry fees are a red herring. (It costs a huge amount of money to maintain a church like St Paul's, and that has to come from somewhere.)
2. "still peaceful protest". Ugh. A shanty town in the middle of the square mile. No sympathy however "peaceful" it might be.
3. "emulating those who would profit from the church". I've not the foggiest what you mean. Who is profiting, and what does it have to do with the church?
>>Any of the real clergy within the church must surely find such a position untenable, given
>>the money changers story in the bible.
No, the (biblical) action was symbolic and had nothing to do with the straightforward act of selling, and everything to do with the symbolism behind what they were selling. The financial whizzkids aren't in St Paul's, they are in the stock exchange/Goldmans etc.
|
|
Trouble is the Church has failed to be careful in its response - it's sent out a very mixed and confused message - the teachings of Christ, whether people believe in Him or not, have set a baseline - and the Church has got to be seen to at least pay lip service to them - the impression is that the SMT are a bunch of dogmatic old duffers and that the "youngsters" thought they were applying a Christian approach. Gives the CoE something to think about - a real practical problem with the big nasty real world has camped on their doorstep. I think that JC might have looked for a real and surprising solution. I say again the old duffers should re-visit the Bible and pray for guidance !
Last edited by: R.P. on Tue 1 Nov 11 at 19:12
|
Senior Management Team !
This is what JC would do !
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFG5sDcv7bo
From my boyhood memories the religious establishment hated and feared him as well...
Last edited by: R.P. on Tue 1 Nov 11 at 19:17
|
>
>> 1. It's not for financial reasons they want the protest to go away. Surely. The
>> lost entry fees are a red herring. (It costs a huge amount of money to
>> maintain a church like St Paul's, and that has to come from somewhere.)
Surely yes it is. Money Has to come from somewhere?, yes normally visitors
>>
>> 2. "still peaceful protest". Ugh. A shanty town in the middle of the square mile.
>> No sympathy however "peaceful" it might be.
Dont care how distasteful you find it, you cant argue its not still peaceful.
>>
>> 3. "emulating those who would profit from the church". I've not the foggiest what you
>> mean. Who is profiting, and what does it have to do with the church?
The church was profiting, suddenly people are waking up to the fact that its not a place of worship, but a cash cow, via payments from tourists and payments from the worshipful companies of the City of London and the various financial institutions.
The people the protesters are protesting about.
>>
>> >>Any of the real clergy within the church must surely find such a position untenable,
>> given
>> >>the money changers story in the bible.
>>
>> No, the (biblical) action was symbolic and had nothing to do with the straightforward act
>> of selling, and everything to do with the symbolism behind what they were selling. The
>> financial whizzkids aren't in St Paul's, they are in the stock exchange/Goldmans etc.>
see above
As the clergy of note are resigning for that very principal, I will take their theological view over yours, I think they are more qualified than you.
|
"Or a different one unknown to the rest of mankind apart from you?"
My quote:
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves"
Your quote
"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,"
They seem identical to me. Apology accepted.
|
|
Quite. Even with the benefit of the correct text in front of you, you still managed to misquote it!
|
>>Never sure what he had against dove sellers though <<
Neither can I, being the son of a Carpenter I would have thought he would liked to have seen Dove-tails in the joint!!
|
Surely Jesus was a social revolutionary, who used religious symbolism to further his aims?
The "Son of God" religious stuff and the whole panoply of believe, obey and grovel or suffer in hell (for the control of the masses) was created quite a few years after he was executed as an anti-government troublemaker.
|
Funny thing about faith. I dont think I believe in God as such, but at the lowest points of depression, ive found myself praying, so maybe my subconscious does.
How delightful to have a difference of opinion with ones subconscious.
|
>>ive found myself praying, so maybe my subconscious does.
The "need" to seek solace from a "comforting place/being" is a natural part of Human make-up, everyone needs to believe in something, even subconsiously.
If you have no beliefs, the "end" may as well be nigh!
Reminds me of the story about the Mayan cleric teaching his student:
cleric: "why have you only done your calender up till 2012?
student: because i was tired and couldnt be bovvered!
cleric: can you imagine the speculation and rubbish theories that your tardiness may cause? Thank God this will never be seen in the future!
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 4 Nov 11 at 10:42
|
St Paul's cathedral protesters - Iffy
