St Paul's Closes

[Martin]

What a change from this to this.

How sad that the Church cannot align itself with a protest against the exploitation of capitalism.

[AndrewF]

Sad indeed - but as the second clip points out the Cathedral is itself a capitalist enterprise...  Could this be why?
Having said that, biblically there is nothing intrinsically wrong with capitalism. It is not money in and of itself which is the root of evil, but the love of money - so it is quite possible for a restrained capitalism to go hand-in-hand with helping the 'least of these'. The trouble is that it ain't restrained!

[AndyHB]

As I understand it the cathedral would have been closed for a lot of today anyway, because of the wedding being held there.  Would be interested to see how they coped with the situation!!  I heard an interview with one of the protesters on BBC Breakfast this morning and - along with various other interviews I've heard with protesters both here and elsewhere - find it a bit hard to know what they want.  Yes, they want to do away with capitalism - at least in its current form - but I have yet to hear a replacement being suggested or, at least, coherently suggested.

Could this be why the church doesn't want to put its weight behind the campaign, especially when its Bishops seem to be doing a sterling job of challenging the Government at every turn in the House of Lords!!

[Martin]

[Boudi]

I wonder what axe the protesters have to grind with the church, especially since it has been supportive.

Rather than being Capitalist, i think the church is realistic, in that it needs financial support to keep open and to do its job.  The 16k may be profit, but what happens to that profit?  Is there a fat cat at the top (speaking on the eathly plane), or is it spent on running costs and providing a service for it's day to day attendees?

[AndyHB]

[Martin]

But that is a massive 'aim', Martin.  There is very little in the way of concrete policy and practice that they are suggesting.  There would need to be a huge mindset change - not merely on the behalf of politicians and bankers, but on the behalf of the ordinary citizen as well for this to happen.  In the West, we have become so accustomed to low prices of food and textiles, etc. and I can't see us willingly giving these up so that the world's economy can be better.  If you think about it, what we are now experiencing in the West is no different to what the developing nations have been experiencing at the hands of the West for the past century or more - the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor.

The abolition of tax havens, rules to prevent banks awarding bonuses for failure, a clawback from those who have benefited hugely from those bonuses which were wrongly awarded, a reduction in the size of banks so that they can no longer hold whole countries to ransom.   I expect all of these are concrete policies that the protesters would support.

I don't see how, a better regulated banking system and a redistribution of wealth from fat cat to ordinary working person will cause the problems you seem to think it will.  Let's face it, the problems we have got have been caused by the greed of the bankers operating in an system aof unregulated capitalism.  In such a system it is inevitable that the rich get richer and the poor poorer.  Though we vote for governments who promise a fairer deal for all, what we get are governments who are the servants of the rich and powerful. 

But I agree with you that the change required is a massive one, from the point of view of actually achieving it.  The protesters will protest, but my bet is that nothing will change.  It certainly won't while enough people like you keep insisting that there are no concrete proposals for change!
 

[AndrewF]

Just because it is a lot to ask for does not mean we should not try! That argument delayed the abolition of the (legal) slave trade for a few generations I expect....

[AndyHB]

The abolition of tax havens, rules to prevent banks awarding bonuses for failure, a clawback from those who have benefited hugely from those bonuses which were wrongly awarded, a reduction in the size of banks so that they can no longer hold whole countries to ransom.   I expect all of these are concrete policies that the protesters would support.

But which would do precious little to improve the problems since they would mostly be retrospective actions.

It certainly won't while enough people like you keep insisting that there are no concrete proposals for change! 

It's just that during the various anti-capitalist demonstrations during the past 10-12 years, very little has been proposed by the demonstrators, and when it has - the more violent elements of the demonstrators have often attacked the very people having the ideas, since what 'they' want is merely anarchy.

I'm all for banning banks for rewarding failure - I wrote to Gordon Brown and then Alistair Darling several times during the noughties asking them in their respective tenancies of 11 Downing St. to action such legislation, but  nowt came of it.  However, along with these relatively small actions, I happen to believe that the huge personal debt that many people in the UK carry - largely of their own making - also needs to be addressed.  We have far too much of a 'Have it now and pay later' culture.

Finally, a lot of the problem has to do with the global issues - such as the Eurozone debacle and the problems in the US.  Our economy was damaged by Gordon Brown prior to the 2007/8 financial melt-down, and therefore we are having to climb an even steeper hill to recovery that we would otherwise have had.

[Boudi]

I can see why people strive for a better and fairer world, but i'M very unsure how shutting a church down can help.  Isn't it like kicking a cow in order to get world peace?

[Martin]

Well the protesters didn't shut the church, did they?  That was the work of the Dean of St Pauls, who wanted to put pressure on them to go away.

It looks as though St Paul's is set to re-open despite the tents - they got them to reshuffle them a bit and apparently they are no longer the 'grave danger to staff and visitors' that they were previously.

Also it seems that the canon chancellor, Giles Fraser, the man in the first clip above, who, I guess, has been as supportive as he can, reportedly vowed to resign in the event of any use of force to remove protesters.

[Martin]

And indeed Giles has resigned his post.  It sets the scene for the police to move in and forcibly remove the protesters at the request of the church.

As the money changers continued their business after the disruption, the curtain in the temple was rent in two, and inside the Holy of Holies there was nothing, no Ark, no Mercy Seat - the seat, stained with the blood of offerings, where Yahweh was supposed to sit, no Angels either side, just an empty space.

The stone was rolled away, and inside was the the bloodstained place where Love had lain. At either end an Angel, but he was not there.  Why do you seek him here?  Why do you seek the living among the dead?

[Boudi]

But they have deliberately disrupted the church, when it would have perhaps been better to draw attention to a more useful target

[Martin]

But they have deliberately disrupted the church, when it would have perhaps been better to draw attention to a more useful target

No they haven't 'deliberately disrupted the church' they've set up camp on a suitable bit of land next door to the London Stock Exchange, which happens to be the grounds of St Paul's.

[AndyHB]

In fact, the protesters didn't choose this plot of land, they were told to set up camp here by the police.  It also appears that they are moving off anyway following an allegation that someone was **** (something I heard on a new bulletin, but can't find anywhere on the BBC website).  Can anyone clarify?