# Why is St Paul's closed?



## JHE (Oct 23, 2011)

Could someone - preferably someone who has visited the cathedral since the start of the protest - please explain why St Paul's has closed?

The news media, or the bits I have read and heard, have not been at all clear about this.  When the protest started, the people who run St Paul's were reported not to be opposed to the protest.  Later, when St Paul's closed, I heard on the radio that the problem was that visitors (tourists and worshippers, I suppose) to the cathedral didn't like walking through the protesters.  Now, I hear on R4 that the people who run St Paul's believe they have had to close the cathedral to the public for "health and safety reasons", though those supposed reasons were not reported.  What hazards, if any, are created by the protest?

Is there any good reason for closing St Paul's?  Are the people who have made the decision to close St Paul's being disingenuous?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 23, 2011)

The reasons given are health and safety are they not?

Which I call 'bollocks' on


----------



## smokedout (Oct 23, 2011)

because it was offending muslims


----------



## JHE (Oct 23, 2011)

The phrase "health and safety" has been used, as I mentioned above, but the H&S reasons have either not been given or not reported on R4.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 23, 2011)

the protesters are asking exactly this question. It's complete bollocks.


----------



## JHE (Oct 23, 2011)

smokedout said:


> because it was offending muslims


How do occultists feel about it?


----------



## 19sixtysix (Oct 23, 2011)

The clerics fancied a few Sunday's in bed.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 23, 2011)

Someone interviewed on the radio yesterday was calling bullshit on the H&S line thats been given.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 23, 2011)

it is very anglican to initially welcome a bit, then dither and change mind, then come out with a crap excuse.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 23, 2011)

I'd say they are disingenuous, to show that the occupation is 'detrimental' to the cathedral and is ruining London for tourists.


----------



## baldrick (Oct 23, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> I'd say they are disingenuous, to show that the occupation is 'detrimental' to the cathedral and is ruining London for tourists.


because tourism is what is important, right?

i think it's obvious to a lot of people that this excuse is mealy-mouthed and disingenous.  had the shock of my life when i was reading the comments on the BBC news site about the story yesterday, no one agreed with the stance of St Paul's cathedral and a lot of comments along the lines of it not being the kind of thing Christians should do.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 23, 2011)

because if the Luftwaffe bombed St Paul's with tourists inside, they'd all run out screaming and waving their arms above their head in a mad panic and trip over tents and that could get messy


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 23, 2011)

Yes.  We're not supposed to upset the tourists.  Look we had to shut St Pauls because of the protesters.  The protesters are driving away tourists.  Tourism brings in X amount of money to the UK each year.  The protesters are destroying our economy.  Or summat.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 23, 2011)

The reasons given on Friday were:

_"With so many stoves and fires and lots of different types of fuel around, there is a clear fire hazard._
_"Then there is the public health aspect, which speaks for itself._

Do they really think that the presence of a few camping stoves outside the cathedral poses a danger to visitors? How come campsites up and down the country are allowed to stay open? And as for "the public health aspect", do they think the protesters aren't house trained and are going to shit all over the cathedral steps?


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 23, 2011)

It's a wonder festivals ever get permission to be held.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 23, 2011)

Hasn't St Pauls got close links with 'the corporation of the city of london'? Like receives large charitibable donations from them.
I imagine this bollocks is the result of pressure from these quarters.
And the investeture of the new lord mayor of london is sposed to happen in a few weeks and part of that involves the cathedral.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 23, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> The reasons given on Friday were:
> 
> _"With so many stoves and fires and lots of different types of fuel around, there is a clear fire hazard._
> _"Then there is the public health aspect, which speaks for itself._
> ...



The Luftwaffe had more fire power than a few stoves and fires


----------



## LJo (Oct 23, 2011)

I was there yesterday and walked with ease through the protesters and up to the main doors. I did not spontaneously combust and was not harrassed by evil anarchists, though I was slightly disturbed by the sight of a Morris dancer with bare legs. It was quite chilly for those sorts of goings-on.


----------



## JHE (Oct 23, 2011)

OK, R4 has now broadcast the supposed H&S reasons.  They are "sanitation and access for firefighters".  The second strikes me as bollocks.  If fire engines and firefighters turned up to put out a fire in the cathedral or elsewhere nearby, I'm sure the protesters would either get out of the way PDQ or be pushed out of the way.  The question of sanitation is more interesting.  Can people who have vistited the protest please let us know what the arrangements are?  Are there adequate toilets at the protest or very near it?  I doubt the protesters are shitting or pissing in the street, but I would like to know a little more.  Are there any grounds for claiming that the sanitation arrangements are a hazard?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 23, 2011)

I wonder if it ever occured to the Luftwaffe to shit bomb London?  

All that waste could be pretty hazardous


----------



## maldwyn (Oct 23, 2011)

There's no way the protesters are blocking emergency exits. The building survived being showered with incendiary bombs, a camping gas stove shouldn't really be too difficult to deal with.

I hope they keep a camp there as the church has obviously shown which side they belong to.


----------



## joevsimp (Oct 23, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Hasn't St Pauls got close links with 'the corporation of the city of london'? Like receives large charitibable donations from them.
> I imagine this bollocks is the result of pressure from these quarters.
> And the investeture of the new lord mayor of london is sposed to happen in a few weeks and part of that involves the cathedral.



that could be interesting, although the Lord Mayor's Parade is one of thos things that's supposed to be all colourful and family friendly so the press will be all over them for that being called off

its the Sat 12th November btw, it's interesting that there's no other large square in the financial area to be occupied though, unless they go all out and try to rush the guildhall


----------



## LJo (Oct 23, 2011)

JHE said:


> OK, R4 has now broadcast the supposed H&S reasons. They are "sanitation and access for firefighters". The second strikes me as bollocks. If fire engines and firefighters turned up to put out a fire in the cathedral or elsewhere nearby, I'm sure the protesters would either get out of the way PDQ or be pushed out of the way. The question of sanitation is more interesting. Can people who have vistited the protest please let us know what the arrangements are? Are there adequate toilets at the protest or very near it? I doubt the protesters are shitting or pissing in the street, but I would like to know a little more. Are there any grounds for claiming that the sanitation arrangements are a hazard?



I saw two portaloos in the main camp but they both had signs all over them saying that they were closed and to use toilets in pubs, etc. I didn't see anyone using the portaloos when I was there. There was a sign on the door of one of the cafes nearby saying that the toilet was out of order 'due to the problems earlier' or something.

I did see someone throwing up into a drain but if that's a sanitation hazard, then so is pretty much every single pavement outside every single pub/nightclub in the UK. Didn't see any shit or smell any piss, so wherever they're doing it, I assume it's not obvious.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 23, 2011)

starbucks bogs? it was noticed with disdain by Louise uberMensh on HIGNFY that these anti-capitalists were indulging in 'all the things it has to offer' by way of large queues for starbucks shit coffee. oh the decadance.

someone else on here mentioned that it is likely the nearest toilet facility?


----------



## rover07 (Oct 23, 2011)

All they need is a bucket and a quick stroll down to the Thames.


----------



## purenarcotic (Oct 23, 2011)

The 'fire risks' originally raised were immediately resolved by the protestors, after which the Fire Service expressed no further concerns or worries, which is the primary point confusing the protestors (or so one said on a BBC News interview).

My mum was down there on Thursday and told me that she couldn't see any issues with where it was whatsoever, that everything seemed friendly and she certainly didn't think anybody could not walk through and get access to the Cathedral.

It really does seem to have bemused absolutely everybody bar the Dean of the Cathedral, who said protestors had made their point and it was time to go.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Oct 23, 2011)

I think it's odd how the media complains about the camp site outside, at first the Pastor/Victor said it was o.k. and welcomes it. Slowly now "they" are saying (I'm assuming from pressure outside) saying the camp site is getting too big. Well in my eyes compare to earlier it has gotten smaller and now the "doors" are shut...  very odd then you think the place have huge doors from both north, south, east and west. Why not open one of those doors? Hmmmm.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 23, 2011)

I don't know about pressure from 'outside' so much. It looks like the dress wearer in charge that day gave them his blessing and then was convinced of the error of his ways by someone(s) in the church hierarchy. The anglican equivalent of bishop brennan maybe.

/specualtion


----------



## shaman75 (Oct 23, 2011)

As far as I'm concerned, the Cathedral's council is full of ex bankers and I would say there is a great deal of expectation from their chums round the corner, that they will get rid of this camp by whatever means possible and get a nice xmas bonus.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2011)

JHE said:


> It really does seem to have bemused absolutely everybody bar the Dean of the Cathedral, who said protestors had made their point and it was time to go.


it's my recollection that st simeon stylites spent some considerable time atop a pillar,  many years in fact. if doing that was appropriate for a saint, why isn't sitting outside st paul's considered similarly? if someone had gone along to stylites and told him to bugger off because the owner of the pillar, previously happy, had decided for health and safety reasons to close something near the pillar he would have had a better case than the clergy of st paul's, who don't seem to have a leg to stand on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> As far as I'm concerned, the Cathedral's council is full of ex bankers and I would say there is a great deal of expectation from their chums round the corner, that they will get rid of this camp by whatever means possible and get a nice xmas bonus.



this is an interesting point which - if true - could be worth bearing in mind for the students on 9/11


----------



## LJo (Oct 23, 2011)

Apparently, Jesus once attempted to throw down the tables of the moneylenders in the temple. How awful. I mean, tables have got really sharp corners. Could have someone's eye out. Not to mention the very real risk of splinters.


----------



## joevsimp (Oct 23, 2011)

what's hapenning on the 9th of november?


----------



## purenarcotic (Oct 23, 2011)

joevsimp said:


> what's hapenning on the 9th of november?



National Campaign Against Fees & Cuts in conjunction with the NUS and some other unions are staging a mass protest.  Similar to the protests that happened last year.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 23, 2011)

LJo said:


> Apparently, Jesus once attempted to throw down the tables of the moneylenders in the temple. How awful. I mean, tables have got really sharp corners. Could have someone's eye out. Not to mention the very real risk of splinters.



Luckily his scourge with which he scourged said moneylenders had undergone full PAT testing and H&S anlaysis


----------



## Maggot (Oct 23, 2011)

Zoe Williams piece in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/21/st-pauls-cathedral-protesters?intcmp=239



> You would see, by a factor of 100, more people obstructing one another if you walked three minutes to the tube station.



I am getting sick of anti-protest stories: Yesterday the Radio news was saying that a wedding at the cathedral had to be cancelled, which turned out not to be true.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2011)

Maggot said:


> Zoe Williams piece in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/21/st-pauls-cathedral-protesters?intcmp=239
> 
> I am getting sick of anti-protest stories: Yesterday the Radio news was saying that a wedding at the cathedral had to be cancelled, which turned out not to be tru.


i am sorry that you expect the truth from the news


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2011)

joevsimp said:


> what's hapenning on the 9th of november?


student demo > the city


----------



## joevsimp (Oct 23, 2011)

Maggot said:


> Zoe Williams piece in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/21/st-pauls-cathedral-protesters?intcmp=239
> 
> I am getting sick of anti-protest stories: Yesterday the Radio news was saying that a wedding at the cathedral had to be cancelled, which turned out not to be true.



anyone important enough to get married at st pauls can clearly go suck a fuck


----------



## maldwyn (Oct 23, 2011)

Toilets really shouldn't be an issues the nearest ones are in the crypt cafe of course, but obviously closed now. There's a huge block of underground public toilets in Paternoster Square, though the police were stopping access yesterday, perhaps they're closed too, plus a couple of those automatic self-cleaning bogs on the south side St Paul's coach park.


----------



## maldwyn (Oct 23, 2011)

joevsimp said:


> anyone important enough to get married at st pauls can clearly go suck a fuck


They looked a lovely couple, I watched them being ushered out of a side entrance and into a horse-drawn carriage  which in turn was accompanied by a couple of Rolls Royces.

Don't you have to be related to someone honored by the Queen before being allowed to get married there?


----------



## girasol (Oct 23, 2011)

I think they are trying to get the protesters to leave, as mentioned earlier, by trying to manipulate public opinion.

Except it may backfire, because even more conservative people are begining to see the system only benefits a very small minority.


----------



## joevsimp (Oct 23, 2011)

maldwyn said:


> They looked a lovely couple, I watched them being ushered out of a side entrance and into a horse-drawn carriage which in turn was accompanied by a couple of Rolls Royces.
> 
> Don't you have to be related to someone honored by the Queen before being allowed to get married there?



Dunno, my cousin's father-in-law is a Freeman of the City, and knows Jimmy Choo, but since he's not a massive pretentious wanker, the wedding was at a parish church in bedfordshire, (although the marquee was more expensive than my parents' house )


----------



## maldwyn (Oct 23, 2011)

> *Who can get married at St Paul's Cathedral?*
> Only members of the Order of St Michael and St George, the Order of the British Empire, holders of the British Empire Medal, and members of the Imperial Society of Knights Bachelor and their children.


----------



## dessiato (Oct 23, 2011)

I liked this from the Guardian article.



> James Mercer, the vicar of All Saints' church in Harrow Weald, north-west London.
> Mercer told me: "What I would say is that in the gospels, Jesus makes a courageous and subversive stand against the corruption of the powers that be, and against the implicit assumption that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. You feel Jesus's anger in his protest, which actually wasn't that peaceful. The heart of the gospel is one of outrageous generosity – and the greed that is protested here is not generous. That's why I say: 'Go for it, guys.'"


----------



## JHE (Oct 23, 2011)

girasol said:


> ...even more conservative people are begining to see the system only benefits a very small minority.



In the last couple of days, I have come across two pieces of evidence to support that.  One is an article in the Spectator, a Conservative-aligned mag.  Ross Clark, a keen supporter of capitalism, worries that the way the system is working at the moment risks losing popular support.  The second is an item on the World at One this afternoon.  As part of their report on the protest at St Paul's, a Tory MP expressed worries similar to Clark's and said that the protesters had a point.

Personally, I can see virtually no evidence of a resurgent left.  Still, it is interesting to hear Tories worrying that there is going to be one.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 23, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> starbucks bogs? it was noticed with disdain by Louise uberMensh on HIGNFY that these anti-capitalists were indulging in 'all the things it has to offer' by way of large queues for starbucks shit coffee. oh the decadance.
> 
> someone else on here mentioned that it is likely the nearest toilet facility?



Was good to see that vapid and vacuous horse snorting bitch beaten to a pulp on that show. As for starbucks, their macchiatos are a joke.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 24, 2011)

Picking through the statements from St Paul's, it appears that they're claiming the closure was forced by Health & Safety legislation, following independent advice.

Which does nothing to explain why St Paul's haven't made public the specific grounds that they say forced the closure, giving the protesters chance to comply: nor, it seems, have they opened negotiations with the protesters to see if a compromise can be reached. Jumping to closure and calls for the camp to decamp is a tactic that can only escalate tensions.

In short, the problem seems to come from the two sides not talking, and the fault appears to lie with the leadership @ St Paul's.

Lots of fun is being had with comparisons between Jesus and the moneylenders. Beyond the obvious, the gospels portray that as part of a theme of Jesus fighting for access to places of worship, something St Paul's are restricting, without being clear about why.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

The protesters have apparently asked specifically what the problem is so that they can remedy it. It's clearly utter bollocks that there is any h&s issue at all.

Hello azrael.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 24, 2011)

Hey. 

Yeah, unless the camp's told the issue, and are given a chance to negotiate on it, it looks like a pretext, & a shabby one at that. It wouldn't be hard: they seem to have assemblies frequently enough. Someone from St Paul's could get themselves along to one of those.

I was heartened when the dean made the protesters welcome the other weekend, but it was accompanied by a suspicion that it was too good to be true, which has been fulfilled more dramatically than even I pessimist like me could've predicted. Christianity's ethical idealism is always in tension with the institution tasked with implementing it, but this is just amateur!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 24, 2011)

Why are the media reporting that St Pauls turned away worshippers today when in fact they held a public mass and the Cannon came out and blessed/prayed for the protesters too?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 24, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Why are the media reporting that St Pauls turned away worshippers today when in fact they held a public mass and the Cannon came out and blessed/prayed for the protesters too?



Retired reverend on the protestors' side

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/discord-at-st-pauls-over-protest-camp-2375100.html


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 24, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Why are the media reporting that St Pauls turned away worshippers today when in fact they held a public mass and the Cannon came out and blessed/prayed for the protesters too?



Have you contacted the media you saw this reported on to ask them why?

If they have a twitter account it's worth asking them there too.


----------



## Riklet (Oct 24, 2011)

On the news i was watching earlier (think it was Russia Today) they mentioned head of the 'board'/council who are in charge of the Cathedral is headed by a (former) key City bod, and the rest of them seem to work in the city too, by the sounds of it.

Very Christian the way they're behaving...


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 24, 2011)

So if the doors were shut was it more likely to be to prepare for a wedding?


----------



## Belushi (Oct 24, 2011)

Azrael said:


> Hey.
> 
> Yeah, unless the camp's told the issue, and are given a chance to negotiate on it, it looks like a pretext, & a shabby one at that. It wouldn't be hard: they seem to have assemblies frequently enough. Someone from St Paul's could get themselves along to one of those.
> 
> I was heartened when the dean made the protesters welcome the other weekend, but it was accompanied by a suspicion that it was too good to be true, which has been fulfilled more dramatically than even I pessimist like me could've predicted. Christianity's ethical idealism is always in tension with the institution tasked with implementing it, but this is just amateur!



Nice to see you back Azrael! Hope you'll be sticking around


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 24, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> So if the doors were shut was it more likely to be to prepare for a wedding?



Maybe it was for this:



> Inside the cathedral there was only a private holy communion for clergy, organised to comply with an Anglican statute requiring all cathedrals to hold such a service every week.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 24, 2011)

Belushi said:


> Nice to see you back Azrael! Hope you'll be sticking around


Ta.


----------



## story (Oct 24, 2011)

BBC local London news giving a camp-sympathetic report about this. I'll see if I can find it and post it up.

I reckon that clip posted by shaman75 should be sent to the Beeb.

Can't embed it, apparently...

Here it is, anyway

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15432152


----------



## Azrael (Oct 24, 2011)

St Paul's have made a bollocks of the PR & no mistake. Their position is untenable until they make their advice public, disclose the source, and open a dialogue with the protesters.

If the dean & chapter keep up their childish silence, pressure should be put on the Bishop of London to step in and broker a solution to a simple situation that St Paul's is making needlessly complicated.

The longer this drags on, the more bizarre St Paul's motives appear.


----------



## ddraig (Oct 24, 2011)

story said:


> BBC local London news giving a camp-sympathetic report about this. I'll see if I can find it and post it up.
> 
> I reckon that clip posted by shaman75 should be sent to the Beeb.
> 
> ...


love that, thanks


----------



## Azrael (Oct 24, 2011)

" 'For I hungered, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.'

"Then shall they also answer him, saying, 'Lord, when saw we thee hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?'

Then shall he answer them, saying, 'Verily, I say unto you: inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.' "


----------



## Azrael (Oct 26, 2011)

*update*

Apparent climbdown by St Paul's: a statement that the Cathedral's likely to reopen on Friday " following significant changes to the layout of those dwelling in tents outside of the Cathedral which was achieved [Wednesday] afternoon". There's some face-saving crap about taking "legal advice on a range of options including court action" and a repeat of the request for the protesters to leave, but it reads hollow in light of the reopening.

After articles like this from the Staggers, shredding St Paul's cod-legal claims, it's little wonder that they've reconsidered. (*nods to thinkinganglicans.org.uk for the link*)

PR own-goal par excellence from St Paul's. And +Chartres, who rolled out a statement backing St Paul's, no reason given. Whited sepulchers, all of 'em.


----------



## OneStrike (Oct 26, 2011)

Yea, it did feel like David Green published his piece and they immediately shifted gear! (as he say's, he doesn't even support occupylsx).  They closed for fear that there was a serious risk of life, yet wouldn't tell the protesters in danger of death what the risks were


----------



## Azrael (Oct 26, 2011)

OneStrike said:


> Yea, it did feel like David Green published his piece and they immediately shifted gear! (as he say's, he doesn't even support occupylsx). They closed for fear that there was a serious risk of life, yet wouldn't tell the protesters in danger of death what the risks were


Yeah, that point nailed 'em. Health and Safety generally implies some concern about health and safety.

Green's piece was a total


----------



## miss giggles (Oct 26, 2011)

I think you're being a bit harsh on st Pauls!
Part of the problem working for the church is that you're expected to keep everybody happy whilst similtaniously offending nobody. I expect in their hearts they'd like to keep the church open and have the camp. They're certainly sympathetic to it's cause.
Health and safety legislation is a complete nightmare, but the biggest nightmare of all is Westminster council and their paranoid hatred of anything related to homelessness, which in Westminster, is basically 'banned'. I bet the sight of those tents gave them kittens...
I bet St Pauls are under enormous pressure from them, and no doubt they'll be screaming about 'professional beggers' infiltrating the camp, causing crime in the borough blah blah blah... in fact, it wouldn't surprise me if that's the line they use to get the police in there, oh I loathe them...


----------



## Azrael (Oct 26, 2011)

I'd be a lot less harsh on 'em if they'd kept talking to the protesters and had reached deadlock on a reasonable issue.

Cutting lines of communication, refusing to release their H&S advice, & issuing diktats is shabby behavior. If Westminster Council's been on their backs, we've yet to hear of it. St Paul's will keep more people happy by transparency and reasonableness, & the unhappy will have less cause to be PO'd with 'em. They've got a reasonable bunch of protesters on their doorstep, & have needlessly soured relations with 'em with cackhanded brinkmanship that's now backfired.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2011)

miss giggles said:


> I think you're being a bit harsh on st Pauls!
> Part of the problem working for the church is that you're expected to keep everybody happy whilst similtaniously offending nobody. I expect in their hearts they'd like to keep the church open and have the camp. They're certainly sympathetic to it's cause.
> Health and safety legislation is a complete nightmare, but the biggest nightmare of all is Westminster council and their paranoid hatred of anything related to homelessness, which in Westminster, is basically 'banned'. I bet the sight of those tents gave them kittens...
> I bet St Pauls are under enormous pressure from them, and no doubt they'll be screaming about 'professional beggers' infiltrating the camp, causing crime in the borough blah blah blah... in fact, it wouldn't surprise me if that's the line they use to get the police in there, oh I loathe them...





Azrael said:


> I'd be a lot less harsh on 'em if they'd kept talking to the protesters and had reached deadlock on a reasonable issue.
> 
> Cutting lines of communication, refusing to release their H&S advice, & issuing diktats is shabby behavior. If Westminster Council's been on their backs, we've yet to hear of it. St Paul's will keep more people happy by transparency and reasonableness, & the unhappy will have less cause to be PO'd with 'em. They've got a reasonable bunch of protesters on their doorstep, & have needlessly soured relations with 'em with cackhanded brinkmanship that's now backfired.


why the fuck are you on about westminster council? they have fuck all to do with this.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 26, 2011)

Wasn't sure about that, either. St Paul's is in the City, so the Corporation would be the guys involved.


----------



## miss giggles (Oct 26, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> why the fuck are you on about westminster council? they have fuck all to do with this.



How do you know? How do you know who they're talking to? I'd be absolutely amazed if Westminster council didn't have something to say about this. A church with that size of congregation has to talk to the council, and the police, in order to do anything at all, and they have to keep them happy. Even a church fete would be a nightmare... My guess is (and it's only a guess) they probably don't know what to do. It would be great if they could let them stay, but the job of the church is to respond to the needs of ALL the people. It would be so much easier if they were just called to help some, but their not. Whatever they do, some people will be unhappy.


----------



## stuff_it (Oct 26, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> The reasons given on Friday were:
> 
> _"With so many stoves and fires and lots of different types of fuel around, there is a clear fire hazard._
> _"Then there is the public health aspect, which speaks for itself._
> ...


Yes, or that they may run inside and try to claim sanctuary or summat if the rozzers come in with sticks.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 26, 2011)

miss giggles said:


> How do you know? How do you know who they're talking to? I'd be absolutely amazed if Westminster council didn't have something to say about this. A church with that size of congregation has to talk to the council, and the police, in order to do anything at all, and they have to keep them happy. Even a church fete would be a nightmare... My guess is (and it's only a guess) they probably don't know what to do. It would be great if they could let them stay, but the job of the church is to respond to the needs of ALL the people. It would be so much easier if they were just called to help some, but their not. Whatever they do, some people will be unhappy.


Why Westminster, tho? St Paul's is well over the boundary line. 

The Grauniad says the Corporation may take eviction action, which St Paul's haven't joined (yet).


----------



## miss giggles (Oct 26, 2011)

Azrael said:


> Why Westminster, tho? St Paul's is well over the boundary line.
> 
> The Grauniad says the Corporation may take eviction action, which St Paul's haven't joined (yet).



I work with street people in waterloo, in the borough of Lambeth, well away from them. They are a nightmare. Councils have to work together and it's a headache. They will most certainly have an opinion on it believe me and it will be based long the lines of 'impact' ie, 'oh no, if you do that it sends out a conflicting message which contradicts our policy of blah blah blah...'

Anyhow, that aside, I would suggest having  read of the press statement on St Paul's website. It makes their feelings very clear.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2011)

miss giggles said:


> How do you know?


because st paul's cathedral is in the city of london, the city of westminster is a different city entirely.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 26, 2011)

miss giggles said:


> I work with street people in waterloo, in the borough of Lambeth, well away from them. They are a nightmare. Councils have to work together and it's a headache. They will most certainly have an opinion on it believe me and it will be based long the lines of 'impact' ie, 'oh no, if you do that it sends out a conflicting message which contradicts our policy of blah blah blah...'
> 
> Anyhow, that aside, I would suggest having read of the press statement on St Paul's website. It makes their feelings very clear.


Not only read it, linked to it! (tho the first link's gone dead)

Their feelings -- or at least the ones they've made public -- are clear enough. Their actions leave a lot to be desired in the clarity stakes.

If Westminster have form for boundary-hopping, fair enough, but can't comment on any involvement they have on this til there's some record of it.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 27, 2011)

St Paul's Canon Chanellor Giles Fraser has resigned over plans to force the protestors to leave - according to ticker on the gruan.


----------



## albionism (Oct 27, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15472362
This don't bode well

^ ah, Kaka already mentioned it.


----------



## miss giggles (Oct 27, 2011)

albionism said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15472362
> This don't bode well
> 
> ^ ah, Kaka already mentioned it.



Oh that is really sad...


----------



## Shifter (Oct 27, 2011)

been over a couple of times for a look. no pedestrian access issues as far as i can see, i walked all the way up to teh steps, listened to a very bored copper talking to a tourist.

Heard again, on the radio, this morning that the camp presents a challenge to emergency services. Whilst common sense tells me that in the insanely unlikely event that St Pauls was on fire all the protesters would get out of the way pretty sharpish I can also kind of see why the church would be freaked out.

edit below..

----hmmm... there is a part time fireman who works for our company in the next office, might have a word with him about what his thoughts are.


----------



## Shifter (Oct 27, 2011)

just spoken to my fireman mate... obv i could only show him a few piccys from teh web but some of his words were "depends where the seat of the fire was", "people everywhere in the risk area" and "nightmare". One of my other colleagues heard teh convo and they were talking about it too. One other concern he had was obstruction and fear of attack....


----------



## gabi (Oct 27, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> St Paul's Canon Chanellor Giles Fraser has resigned over plans to force the protestors to leave - according to ticker on the gruan.





> The canon chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, the Rev Dr Giles Fraser, has resigned in protest at plans to forcibly remove protesters from its steps, saying he could not support the possibility of *"violence in the name of the church".*



Um... er... dont know quite where to go with that one. You're a fucking *CHRISTIAN!* Your whole religion is built on violence  It's taken this issue for the tipping point to come?


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 27, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> St Paul's Canon Chanellor Giles Fraser has resigned over plans to force the protestors to leave - according to ticker on the gruan.





albionism said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15472362
> This don't bode well
> 
> ^ ah, Kaka already mentioned it.





> *Statement regarding resignation of Reverend Canon Dr Giles Fraser*
> 
> Posted on *October 27, 2011* by *occupylsx*
> 30​
> ...



"He is man of great personal integrity..." - he is indeed and as albionism posted it doesn't bode well, as according to this rant in the Daily Fail - The protesters have damaged their valid cause by setting up camp outside St Paul's -



> But others among the cathedral clergy quickly took a different view. The Dean, the Rt Rev Graeme Knowles — a more senior figure than Dr Fraser —asked the protesters to leave, which they declined to do.
> 
> He and the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, apparently support the injunctions, which the City of London Corporation and, it seems, St Paul’s are seeking in order to have the protesters removed. Dr Fraser had reportedly threatened to resign if his colleagues try to evict the campers.


Considering how the closing of St. Pauls has totally backfired on the church and produced fuckloads of extra media coverage for the protest, I fail to see how the Mail can claim the protesters have damaged their cause. At least they accept they have a valid cause, mind you, it would be impossible for even the Mail to deny that.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 27, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> "He is man of great personal integrity..." - he is indeed and as albionism posted it doesn't bode well, as according to this rant in the Daily Fail - The protesters have damaged their valid cause by setting up camp outside St Paul's -



Did anyone proof-read that statement?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 27, 2011)

jumped or was pushed?


----------



## teqniq (Oct 27, 2011)

pushed I reckon


----------



## gabi (Oct 27, 2011)

im sure there'll be a lucrative constructive dismissal lawsuit coming


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 27, 2011)

gabi said:


> Um... er... dont know quite where to go with that one. You're a fucking *CHRISTIAN!* Your whole religion is built on violence  It's taken this issue for the tipping point to come?



Don't be facile. Have you not noticed that  there is a very strong tradtion within chrisitiainity of non-violent dissent and pacifism? Martin Luther King? The Quakers? Christian Socialism?
Broad church is broad.


----------



## OneStrike (Oct 27, 2011)

*St Paul’s chancellor resigns after committing act of tolerance The newsthump take on things*


Speaking of the protesters, who have occupied the area around St Paul’s for the last 12 days, Reverend Knowles issued further criticism.
“I mean look at them,” he blasted.
“Long hair, beards, sandals, acting all preachy.”
“Who’s going to take any notice of anything they say?”


----------



## miss giggles (Oct 27, 2011)

I think this is a crying shame. He obviously didn't get the support he needed from those close to him.
I think it's also a shame that local authorities and Boris fucking Johnson are pressureising the church, how dare they.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 27, 2011)

Listening to him on the radio now he does - Im afraid - come accross as you'd expect: a handwringing liberal. He was refusing to slag of the ridiculous actions of the catherdral authorities and was definintiely not standing up for the protestors.
His resignation seem to more about washing his hands of any nasty business, whilst not actually doing anything to oppose it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 27, 2011)

Doing a pilate lol


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 27, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Listening to him on the radio now he does - Im afraid - come accross as you'd expect: a handwringing liberal. He was refusing to slag of the ridiculous actions of the catherdral authorities and was definintiely not standing up for the protestors.
> His resignation seem to more about washing his hands of any nasty business, whilst not actually doing anything to oppose it.



I assume, whilst having done his bit in expressing support at the start, he has come under a lot of pressure, resulting in him resigning because he didn't like the direction the church was heading on this, but at the same time doesn't want to cause further problems for the church, because he's likely to be offered another position.

I can't blame him for that, he's a church man not a hardcore protester, he did his bit, he helped the camp to take hold, I wouldn't expect more from him TBH.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 27, 2011)

_Guardian_ interview about Rev-Dr Fraser's resignation.


> I support the right to protest and in a perfect world we could have negotiated. But our legal advice was that this would have implied consent. ... I cannot countenance the idea that this would be about Dale Farm on the steps of St Paul's. I would want to have negotiated down the size of the camp and appeal to those there to help us keep the cathedral going, and if that mean that I was thereby granting them some legal right to stay then that is the position I would have had to wear.


Resigning from such a prestigious job on principle takes courage. All respect to Fraser for doing it.

St Paul's is now reopening for Friday midday Eucharist.

So St Paul's has flip-flopped, been forced into a humiliating climbdown, and has lost its chancellor in the process. What a debacle.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 27, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Broad church is broad.


Totally. Like you say, there's a long tradition of Christian pacifism and dissent. With the competing themes in the New Testament, it's not surprising.


DotCommunist said:


> Doing a pilate lol


Pilate didn't resign.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 27, 2011)

Azrael said:


> _Guardian_ interview about Rev-Dr Fraser's resignation.
> 
> 
> 
> > *But our legal advice was that this would have implied consent. ...*



This I so believe, over and above the bollocks concerning health & [fire] safety, I doubt they received any independent health & [fire] safety advice, hence they couldn't produce it to the campers despite claiming the campers were at risk.

They received legal advice, from lawyers covering their arses and waffling on about possible health & [fire] safety issues, and that fitted nicely into what the ones higher up in the church wanted to hear*, resulting in them rushing into closing St Pauls.

Fucking muppets all round. 

EDIT: *combined with pressure from the City of London Corporation and other interested parties, of course.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 27, 2011)

I also think it's bloody ironic that the protesters never actually planned to camp at St Pauls, it was basically an accident caused by the authorities stopping them getting to the Stock Exchange, yet it's turned-out so bloody well, giving the authorities a far bigger problem.

Real life pwnage.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 27, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Listening to him on the radio now he does - Im afraid - come accross as you'd expect: a handwringing liberal.


Well he is CoE, that's their speciality.


----------

