• Home
  • News
  • Occupy London's reaction to Canary Wharf injunction

Occupy London's reaction to Canary Wharf injunction

 

Occupy London was intrigued to learn this morning that Canary Wharf Group plc has obtained a high court injunction preventing “any persons unknown remaining on the Canary Wharf estate in connection to protest action.” We understand that this court order will remain in place indefinitely.

We would like to take this opportunity to reassure Canary Wharf Group plc.

Occupy London has visited Canary Wharf on two separate occasions over the course of the occupation to date, organising public debates as part of its Tent City University about the state of our economic system with speakers from across the political spectrum, including James Meadway of the New Economics Foundation and Jonathan Portes, a former advisor to Gordon Brown.

On our visits to Canary Wharf, we have found it to be an absurdly over-securitised place, lacking all social amenities, save those of work and consumerism. Like much of London, Canary Wharf is privately owned, but its character is the result of a deliberate attempt to create a “public space” in which the public is not welcome.

Over the course of this week, Occupy London has engaged in productive discussion with St Paul’s Cathedral and the City of London Corporation, both of whom have recognised the vital role free speech and political participation play in a democratic society. We have conducted ourselves with order and dignity throughout, as has been recognised by all sides. Like their counterparts on Paternoster Square, the owners of Canary Wharf appear to be deeply afraid of legitimate debate: it is worth asking why this is so.

Notes:

[1] http://www.metro.co.uk/news/880548-court-bans-new-canary-wharf-camp-after-st-pauls-protest

 

63 Responses to “Occupy London's reaction to Canary Wharf injunction”

  1. Some new videos from this week at Occupy London:

    Anonymous UK: “British police admired worldwide” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baxtc_e94Uo

    CNN reporter fluffs her lines (repeatedly) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSZPnzTXeiU

    Who prints the money? – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CwHFmDnhj4

    The dean was right to resign – ITV News – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQEP9ijmnTk

    Does the Illuminati exist? – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5DF0UCWpus

    Peace

    http://www.youtube.com/justiciayauk

    @JY_UK

     
  2. Excellent, word-perfect statement! Thank you.

     
    • Word perfect nonsense! The owners of Canary Wharf have an obligation to ensure that those people going about their business there, are able to do so in a safe and secure environment. Their action is both understandable, and sensible.

      In addition to that, they probably don’t want a canvas slum on their property!!

       
      • JockStrap,
        ‘Word perfect nonsense!’ Right back at you.
        Canary wharf ,obliged, I dont think so.
        Safe and secure, dream on, I say again, 9/11, 7/7, glasgow airport
        ‘CANVAS’ slum,
        showing your age and behind the times thinking
        with YOUR word perfect nonsense.

         
  3. Might be worth remembering that the completion of Canary Wharf was underwritten by a hidden subsidy from taxpayers after the original developers went bust during the Lamont/Major property recession of the early 90’s.

     
    • Interesting and yes I recall that. There was a lot of local opposition from people living in the area and I seem to remember that Margret Thatcher got involved personally. The company who bought the site was Olympia & York, owned by two Canadian brothers who eventually filed for bankruptcy, but managed somehow to retain a share in the project. I’m not sure whether there was a taxpayer bail-out for the private sector? If so maybe an #odiousdebt? for someone to research? In the light of the injunction the Wikipedia page should be updated!

       
  4. Since it’s private property, I would like to know who sold it to them in first place.

     
    • The same organisation that allow your parents to have a nice family house, and to ensure you could go to school with peace and security.

       
  5. Interesting development and a good statement.

    Can someone who understand law better than I answer my question: who at the high court decided to grant this indefinite injunction? I guess it was a judge or judges. Do they have to make public information about the arguments used for this? Is there any sort of ‘defendant’ in cases like this?

    I was watching a vintage-aged Australian demonstrator from the 15th October rally in Sydney on you tube talk about the importance of ‘common law’ and being judged by your fellow citizens by jury, and that they can even call into question laws if they think that they are not just.

    I wonder if the court would have reached a similar decision had it been judged by 12 randomly selected members of the public? (I’m assuming this decision wasn’t reached by jury).

     
  6. Unless you were planning on rocking up and setting up camp, what exactly is your problem and why have a dig at the landlords of Paternoster Square and Canary Wharf? They own buildings and land – they didn’t cause the financial crisis! You guys really know how to pick your battles.

     
    • I think we do Jim,

      If your on here, blogging’ then we are doing battle with you !
      I consider that a battle picked.

      Or would you dis-agree with this as well ?

       
  7. >> Jim @12:26

    “They own buildings and land – they didn’t cause the financial crisis!” – Really, I guess you’ve looked into the directors of the company’s and know for a fact that they have no connections to banks and investment companies who did cause the crisis then.

    Personally I think they are a legitimate target as they rent to those businesses and I’m sure someone with more time to spare than me would be able to find those connections.

    I don’t have a problem with them owning buildings but any space, especially space for public access should be in public ownership.

     
  8. Canary wharf was designed as a place in which people can come to work in a safe and productive environment; it does exactly that. Its private property. Why should there be social ameneties other than those required by the majority of people working here be provided? After all there is pretty much anything you can think of within a couple of minutes on public transport. Or, by social amenities, do you think there should be a nice campsite for anyone that decided they haven’t got anything more pressing to do and want to rock up and have a moan about how awful the (mostly) hard working people here are?

    As for ‘over-securitised’ it may have escaped your notice but there are those that have a similar hatred of the businesses and people here but prefer to take more direct action. So whether you think we deserve it or not, I’m rather grateful the security is there and I can go about my work, providing for my family and contributing more than my fair share to the country, with a lessened risk of being killed or maimed by some lunatic with a bomb for doing so.

     
    • The security there is designed to stop exactly the kind of trespass you are your fellow unemployed campers seem to enjoy and to prevent attacks which have been carried out in the past.

      I don’t work there, but have been there for meetings and to have a coffee, great place, made all the better by the fact that people such as those camping in St Pauls aren’t there.

       
      • Joe
        As you like to make sweeping statements, I will now endeavor to live down to your estimations, don’t know if I will get there but I am sure you will judge me and let me know!

        YOU ARE A ‘PLUM’

        and so are your fellow 1%ers (sweeping assumption there in case you didn’t spot it, you plum)( I use the word plum as this is the most respectful way I can bring myself to describe you )

        “Security” ?

        9/11 !
        7/7 !

        You plum !

         
        • Yes, security. Unfortunately it is never going to be possible to prevent every single terrorist attack. However I am all for as much security as possible if it means even one bomb is prevent or a single life (it may, heaven forbid, not even be a bankers life – terrorists appear to be fairly indiscriminate). If it also means that my workplace remains an environment where there are no protests and I can go about my business in peace, all the better.

           
          • Andy
            Very calm response and sincere to, shame you ended it with a bout of selfishness (another word for greed I think).
            If you prefer a place without protest then why live in england / ‘the western world ?,
            I know Libya isn’t quite the peaceful place it used to be, but I hear Syria does pretty good at keeping protests, and the nuisance they cause, to a minimum.

            Are you getting where I am coming from yet ?

            Are you and your blog buddy Joe feeling like a pair of plums even more now ?

            Sorry I must stop the insults I know, How about you tell me you will stop insulting people who are NOT stopping you or anyone else for that matter going about their ‘business in peace’ They have been one of the most peaceful protests known have they not ?

            @Andy,
            open your ears PLEASE !
            Moaning about working people is not what they do or are about if you actually listenened before commenting.
            They ARE about Trying to get some of the ‘power’ and ‘wealth’ from the non-working, spread a little more evenly between the rest of us hard working workers (slaves to the 1%).
            As for canary wharf being a productive environment, are you referring to the production of that amazing product that no one can do without, DEBT ?

             
          • human of planet earth. Is it selfish or greedy to want and expect to be able to earn a living without having to endure unnecessary disruption to do so? I personally think not, but if that makes me in your eyes “Selfish, Greedy and a Plum” then so be it. I also didn’t say anywhere that I didn’t believe in the right to protest or have their say. I do however think that you express your views (of which I am still struggling to find exactly what your trying to say or any proposal to improve the situation),, throw some insults as that seems to be the way your inclined, and get on with life. As someone else posted on here – its an amazing privilege you have to be able to spend days / weeks camping out – most of the ‘99%’ you, rather arrogantly in my opinion, purpose to be representing, do not have such luxury – myself included.
            I also fail to see where I have been insulting, unless you class my holding different views to yourself as being an insult worthy of a very grown up name calling?
            Canary wharf is a productive environment for all manner of businesses – not just banking related. Not everyone that wears a suit works in finance and not everyone in finance is one of the top earners (in fact very, very few are). And while I on the point of ‘top earners’ I would imagine the vast majority of those are where they are though a lifetime of hard work, dedication and personal sacrifice; though tax and business growth (again not all are in the ailing banking industry) give a lot back to the country as a whole. Is it really fair that these people should give up their hard earned pennies to give to those that don’t work hard or would rather stay at home breeding, expecting the ‘state’ to care for them and their offspring? I personally don’t think so, but if you do then I fully support your right to say so and will refrain for calling you names for doing so.

             
          • you make me smile andy.you think its a luxury for the protesters to be camped out and on the streets protesting for the good of the world (been pretty cold out of late and in newyork)they are brave in my book.keep it up all you good people.the tide of history will change in time.money=false sense of security

             
          • Yes, S.Wright, A Luxury. Bit cold or damp is it? I’m sure those starving from famine, suffering real oppression, dying painfully from Aids in third world countries would feel very sorry for you. You are NOT campaigning for the ‘good of the world’ you are campaigning at what you believe is for the good of the world (as well as a hundred and one other things that you come up with to complain about). The two are, in my and I’m sure a large number of people’s opinions far from the same thing. Rather than going around in circles congratulating yourselves on such a great and how wonderful a ‘job’ your doing, why not come up with some actual (by that I mean sensible, viable and practical) solutions rather than concentrating on complaining what you feel to be all the wrongs in the world. Its very easy to say “its rubbish and its broken – someone should fix it”. Far more difficult to say “This is how things are, this is how things should be – this are the steps we need to get there”.

             
  9. The ‘occupy London’ movement seems to be getting dafter every day. Keep it up, the real 99 pecent will soon see what your organisation is really about!

     
    • Again a comment that hits the nail on the head ! I think the true reason for a sudden change of direction from the church etc, is simply that the authorities have realised that the “Occupy” movement is going to fall apart once people get bored with it. They are now struggling for events to “create” to keep themselves in the public eye & come Christmas most with have toddled off home to enjoy the parties with parents.

      The U.S. version is probably going to flounder at “Thanksgiving”. Better to just pack -up now and save the memories.

       
      • thanks for your comments.keep it up.you do realise this will make us even more determined.you might get bored of sleeping and eventually
        wake up.

         
        • So happy to read all positive comments from supporters and contribute mine, but concerned about the attention given by those who still feel so sceptical about what is so clearly a worldwide movement of justice and equality, one that wishes to see the better side of humanity in our organisations that have power over money food and property. Perhaps their attention is because they too feel a pull towards this movement but cannot yet reconcile their feelings?

           
          • loonah,
            very perceptive of you,
            just a pity the sceptics are not
            perhaps when they take off the blinkers and the ear muffs provided by the 1% they might realise the error of their thoughts.

             
      • Roger,

        Better to have tried and failed than to have never tried at all !

         
  10. If the land WAS publicly owned, you would have no right to prevent the REAL 99% who laugh at you every day, access to it, by illegally camping on it.

     
    • Indeed.

      Monopoly the land for one own cause and denying the right for other group to protest or campaigns. Clearly they don’t believe in democracy or sharing. They just want it all themselves!

       
  11. What is really stricking here is the vitriolic comments made at a group of people who are occupying a few square meters of pavement outside a church. Throughout history this is where people meet, congregate, debate etc. To peacefully discuss, engage, and to express a desire for a more equal, fairer society is surely a right we can tolerate as a supposed ‘democtatic’ nation that upholds ‘freedom’? Can people not be allowed to meet in the open and express distaste at what they see as a corrupt, unequal society – and at this point who would disagree – in the hope for some change? Strikes me as slightly dictatorial if the answer is no. Have we really reached the stage where we can only congregate unless we are actively ‘consuming’? Or, God forbid, make people who are actively consuming walk a couple more paces to do so- or even think before they do so! The only reason that I can see for this almost outright hatred towards those at St Pauls is that those making the comments must on some level agree that something must change, that there is a moral dilemma here. And this ridiculous notion the bankers etc ‘make’ anything other than profit for themselves and their company must also be put to bed. For if they did make anything other than profit they would quite rightly be fired. It should be pointed out here that if your business is purely based around ‘money’ and ‘investment’ it would be extraordinary if you didn’t ‘make money’ for yourselves- like a baker not being able to take bread home. But even here, it seems, the financial sector has failed, but rather like an addict can’t even begin to admit it has a problem. This is extraordinary. Supposedly intelligent, educated people who are invovled in the financial sector have indebted the western world to such a degree that it is virtually – if not actually – bankrupt. How anyone in the financial sector who doesn’t see that there are major problems that need radical reform can still claim to know anything about the business they are in leaves me bumbfounded.

     
  12. to Pat:

    What a brilliant observation. You nailed it in the sense that it is a sociological addiction – the profit.
    Much like a carrot we all pursue but never really get to it … at least in 99% of the cases.
    I also would like to clarify that my understanding on the movement is that it is about individuals who could not be silent anymore before the (overwelming) detrioration of societies and understand the globality and urgency to deal with the issue.
    So, not claiming to speak FOR the 99%, but raise their voices as one of the 99%.
    As for the answers – yet another consequence of decades of behavioural conditioning – the difficulty to recognize that change is in fact a process , the imediate , easy to chew solution would not work this time.
    So, the time NOW is for
    1 – Education – understand what we have today and how we got to this point
    2 – Get talking, engage especially when you disagree and BUILD on that so we can CREATIVELY explore concrete SOLUTIONS towards a balanced world based on RESPECT , for each other and the place we happen to exist in !!!!

     
  13. “Tell me and I’ll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I’ll understand.”
    Chinese proverb

     
  14. Not everyone who works at Canary Wharf or Paternoster Square makes millions; some people empty bins and clean toilets for minimum wage. Can someone from Occupy let me know if they appreciate just how privileged they are?
    Whether or not one agrees with their methods or their location it has not escaped me how much of a privilege it must to be able to camp out for days on end in such a protest. It is a privilege not to be forced to get up every morning to attend an unfulfilling job just to keep your family safe and warm, just to put food on the table and to avoid social welfare. It is a privilege to have the choice to protest like this. I have not yet seen or heard from one person taking part in the Occupation saying “you know what, I’m really lucky that my life lets me sit out here making my point”.
    Stop grumbling about those people who are not quite as privileged as you are and show some humility towards the hard workers being affected by your actions.

     
    • Well said!!!!

       
      • I would love to be able to be with the protesters but I am taking care of my family and growing my food, earning my money, I am grateful for all that I have, and it is enough, I have a roof and I have love. I am grateful that I have brothers and sisters who have by whatever means the ablility to be able to stand in London and express the views of many, to be abe for us to open the debate and empower us in our opinions of right and wrong, justice and injustice in the world because this debate definately needs an airing!

         
      • Sue,
        Need to pull you up on thoughtless statement of yours.

        “Stop grumbling about those people who are not quite as privileged as you are”

        I have been listening quite a lot these last couple of weeks and I have NEVER heard anyone grumbling about people who are less privileged than themselves.

        I am sure your ears are open, but they are not listening very well, obviously.

        Quite the contrary, I have only heard ‘grumbling’ about those who ARE quite privileged, actually OBSCENELY privileged, the 1%.

        The only ‘lucky’ ones around are the 1% ones who have been profiting from their ‘luck’ or rather greed, and they have been quite lucky getting away with it for as long as they have.

        Your life sounds like you were dealt a bad set of cards, but a set of cards is perfectly even before it is dealt, this movement for change wants to even up the hands that have been dealt.

         
        • well put about the cards h.o.p.e (infact bloody fantastic)
          i work and think the protestors in london and around the globe are doing a fantastic job raising awareness to all of the 99%

           
          • Thank you s.wright,
            Feel free to use it yourself, more than happy sharing what I can and certainly dont want to be greedy, and 🙂 ‘if we play our cards right’ 🙂 and spread the wealth we could all be a bit more content, just need to play the 🙂 ‘patience’ 🙂 game !!

            h.o.p.e.

             
    • @Sue – It seems to me you’ve missed the point of the protests entirely. These people are out there protesting ON BEHALF OF everyone who is “forced to get up every morning to attend and unfulfilling job just to keep [their] family safe and warm, just to put food on the table and avoid social welfare.”

      It boggles the mind how sleeping on the ground and going without all the comforts of home (including indoor plumbing) can be seen as a privilege one should be grateful for. If anything, these people should lauded for their devotion, not reviled. If you are unable to join the protesters because your work schedule and family obligations do not allow you sufficient time to do so, you should be grateful that so many others are out there doing it for you. Instead of accusing them of being over privileged and unappreciative, you, yourself, should consider how little gratitude you are showing and how inappropriate that behavior is. Have you thanked any of the people bravely manning those tents for the sacrifices they’re making ON YOUR BEHALF? I’m guessing the answer is no. Which leads me to ask, why not?

       
    • Sue said: “It is a privilege not to be forced to get up every morning to attend an unfulfilling job just to keep your family safe and warm, just to put food on the table and to avoid social welfare?”

      I’m not anti-capitalist, wealth or profit, but is it really sustainable to have a few hundred CEOs on gazillions and everyone else on minimum wage? (This seems like a natural endpoint.) I know it’s difficult in the global economy, but respect and dignity for the people generating your wealth might be worth a try.

      Also, I think this is a bit tasteless when the banks have engaged in predatory lending which has pushed housing costs up to obscene levels, and, adding insult to injury, were/are speculating on food and energy prices at the same time!

       
    • Dear Sue,
      Its is a privilege to have ANY job these days thanks to the greed of the 1%. It is a privilege to have a family, some of us don’t.

      Some of us would LOVE to have children but think this world, as it is, is no place for them. After all, babies are born into debt, whilst many of the elderly and frail have to choose whether to eat or heat their homes this winter.

      All the while energy companies are making record profits and the Fat Cats pay themselves bigger and bigger bonuses.

      The system is a disgrace. Don’t you see we have NO choice, we must stand together and make this world a better place for all.

       
    • Back in 2004, the cleaners working in Canary Wharf wanted to go on strike for higher pay.
      They were banned from marching. The Canary Wharf group placed an injunction against them.

      That act affects your right of protest. The same way that all these new laws affect every Britons right to complain about the current government.

      Before you criticise us, perhaps you should spend the night in the #OccupyLSX camp and see whether you find the accommodations luxurious.

       
  15. Just want to point out part of the reason for the security there is the bombing in 1996 which killed 1, caused 85m of damage, not to mention the economic damage.

    You lot may think that’s a joke, but other’s like me who have worked there, don’t think so.

    Me – i’m not one of the 1%, but you certainly don’t represent me. You do NOT represent the 99% – please keep in mind, that a large part of the population wants nothing to do with your group. By stating you are the 99%, you claim to be speaking on behalf of the majority, which, judging by the posts here, is certainly not the case.

     
    • @ oh dear,

      OH DEAR indeed !

      Canary Wharf is no more secure now than it was back then, terrorists have moved on, get your head out of the sand, i.e. 9/11 i.e. 7/7.

      AND,
      No-one is trying to represent you ( you are doing a great job of that here yourself ! ) re: the 99% issue you and some others are obviously having trouble getting your heads around. They are saying that THEY are part of the 99%, in the 99%, but NOT REPRESENTING all of the 99%.

      Feel free to join the 1% if your uncomfortable being controlled by them, just make sure you have billions of pounds for them or they may not be very welcoming.

       
      • @ human – i never stated anything about canary wharf being more secure now that it was – i just pointed out that the security is for a reason, something that has been ignored on the board. I worked there not long after the attack, and i have to say, i felt better for the security around. Sorry if you don’t like that – go ahead, insult away, tell me i need to get my head out of the sand, just like a grown up!

        Re: 99% – the banners, the constant chanting “We are the 99%” etc gives the perception that the group is attempting to represent the majority. Unfortunately in this world, perception is reality.

        Personally, i would love to be part of the 1% for the financial security it would provide.

        Would i like to see some changes? frak yes! Proportional representation for one – gives a better overall flavour to government, probably has the idea of keeping things a little more centre – the last lot in government introduced a staggering amount of debt – NOT including PPP’s which this mob are continuing to use, which does not appear on balance sheet yet – the actual level of debt in the UK is horrendous, and only a small fraction of that is due to the financial bailout. But just ignore that .. its Ok – facts don’t need to come into this.

        I’d also love to see a complete flat tax introduced, for corporations and personal- at around 15%, but, at the same time close every little loophole and deduction possible, as well as raise the minimum threshold. Of course, that would also reduce the number of public servants, which from the left would not be acceptable – all those job losses, all those ppl no longer needed.

        But, that’s probably to right wing for you to consider.

        I love your asinine remark about being controlled – typical response. I’m in control – for the most part – of my life – i’m sure you’d disagree, but that’s how i feel. Sorry about that ….

        Please don’t resort to petty insults or snide remarks – just makes you look like a tool.

         
        • Sue,
          Your comment was blatantly implying the security is there to prevent terrorism, I in return blatantly pointed out it wont, hence ‘get your head out of the sand’ WHICH you class as a childish comment………..are you also implying that children would understand this ?

          Your issue with the 99% thing and “perception is reality”………….your reading way too much into this are you not, do you HONESTLY think the vast majority op people capable of reading would perceive that this movement is made up of 99% of the population, your just looking for something to pick holes in I feel.

          Personally I would NOT love to be part of the1% as you would, as the 1% have more, obscenely more financial security than is needed by anyone, would you not agree ?
          You make some points about things you would like changed, which I can agree with as stepping stones of change, BUT THEN You claim I am ignoring facts, where and when please ?
          You mention the bail outs, you can hardly accuse anyone supporting ‘occupy’ of ignoring this fact, totally ridiculous.

          Again you proceed to highlight more changes you would like to see, again worthy ideas I think. BUT shamefully you seem to nearly gloat this would cost jobs and the ‘left’ would not be happy, and “all those ppl no longer needed”
          Those people would be people like you and me, NOT ‘ppl’ Shame on you !
          These ‘public servants’, your description not mine, who have worked for our benefit, you seem happy for them to be dispensed with far too easily, everyone should be able to contribute and should by working, I believe 99% of the population want to work. In case you were implying I am a ‘leftie’ think again, I have been self-employed all my life pretty much, made profits, have a mortgage etc etc.

          You also imply your changes to taxation I would regard as too right wing, I have already and would agree with them, but afraid to say this for fear of insulting you, but they sound very much like ‘leftist’ ideas. ( cant say for fact they are as I am not a ‘leftie’ ) are you confused ?

          No need to be sorry for how you feel when referring to being in control, but I would disagree that you are in control, the only control you have, and its the same for me I am not singling you out, is who we want to control us.

          As for petty insults and snide remarks, I would rather be a ‘tool’ (your words) than a fool, more useful would you ‘lot’ (your words) agree ?

          To finish, overall you leave me confused, you have a good few ideas of change, which is what this movement is about, yet you seem to be attacking them for protesting for change.

          http://www.google.com/moderator/#16/e=f76a0

           
  16. So protest is now illegal in one of the main power centres in the UK? And we’ve got a crowd of people here – who like many right-wingers would probably claim to believe in freedom – cheering them on.

    I note there hasn’t been much comment on it in the mainstream media either. ‘Protest now illegal in financial district’ – nah, that’s not important is it.

    The judge should be ashamed of himself for giving this. Hopefully it will be challenged in court at some point.

     
  17. I am not part of the camp, but I think your brief description of your dilemma is partly the reason why the camp is there. But I don’t think camping out in the hope of making our society fairer and more just is privileged. I am sure they would much rather not have to. Privileged, for example, is being in a business than even when it fails spectacularly somehow convinces the political classes that it, not the people, need support and a very large safety net (I still think how wise the Swedish Prime Minister was when, during a banking crisis in the 90s, was asked if the Swedish government was going to provide financial support to the banks: his response was that it is not the job of the government to prop up private financial institutions, but rather to provide schooling, hospitals etc for the people). Or a member of a family such as that of the The Duke of Westminster, who, it seems, will eternally be wealthy. Privileged is being among those few that inherit- I still find it extraordinary that in America – the supposed home of equal, free democracy and capitalism – over 70% (or is it 90%?) of wealth is inherited. Some really are privileged, but I doubt its those outside St Pauls.
    Unfortunately, again, we have a righteous, moral tone to an argument against a peaceful gathering (It can’t be more than a few square meters!) that purely seeks for us to discuss what we can do to make a fairer society. I can only assume it is because some realise there is a moral dilemma and it scares them. I mean, honestly, can it really be that upsetting? I think some of the ‘morally outraged’ should get out more as there are far more concerning matters that could do with their outrage.

     
    • Pat, I’m afraid you seem to have missed my point. I do not deny that the children of the Duke of Westminister will inherit weath or that successive Governments have spent billions bailing out financial institutions when perhaps they should have been more cautious with their own risky spending. My point is that most of us cannot spend our days camped out on the street because we have to get up and go to work in order to feed our children and pay our gas bills. To be in a position to spend days camping out rather than working or looking for work is, in my view, a very privileged position. I’m afraid your response has done nothing to convince me that the Occupation has any sense of what it is like living in the real world.

       
      • I’ve been down to St. Paul’s on a number of occasions and one thought that has never crossed my mind is how privileged the occupiers must feel (sleeping on concrete with ever decreasing temperatures). And where has this continually expressed ‘fact’ come from that ALL involved have no jobs, families or other commitments to deal with?

        The point is that the system has gone far beyond any acceptable limits of fairness or being remotely ‘just’. Enough is enough!

        For those not familiar, please do a little research into the history of banking and how it has evolved. You will find that it has always been self serving however, the boundaries being breached globally are ugly and incredible in scale. The groups that are responsible for the catastrophic breakdown of their own system (one they are paid pornographic sums supposedly for their incredible knowledge and expertise of) need to ‘pay’ for the incompetence/arrogance/selfishness/short-term thinking.

        You don’t need to be an economic expert, banker, stock broker or executive to know when you’ve been ‘effed’ in the ‘A’….it’s time for a change. I would urge anyone to go down to the site and talk to the people camping out there…you will find intelligent, articulate and forward thinking people who will listen to any comments and discuss, in depth, all manner of topics. I did and felt privileged to be in their company.

         
  18. Sue, I agree that it can be difficult to sympathise if you are struggling daily just trying to put bread on the table – I am not part of the occupy london crew by the way. But I just don’t see why a few tents are so upsetting? If memory serves me, there are almost three million unemployed who could also be classed as privileged if not working is privileged. Persoanlly, I find the ridiculous number of roadworks that seem to take forever far more upsetting. At the rate some of those contractors take to build a bit of pavement we could be enjoying watching the Egyption Pyramids being built!
    I just don’t understand where all this anger against the movement comes from? If a corporate had hired the pavement for some corporate advertising nobody would complain. That’s my point.

     
    • ….not wanting to go off on too much of a tangent but in line with Pat has just said, I find it curious that whenever a housing development is proposed a large degree of ‘anger’ arises, conversely those ugly, medium sized retail parks seem to get permission and appear all most overnight (you know the ones I mean, they usually have a carpet outlet, discount shoe shop and fast food joint).

      Which one of those creates more corporate money? I realise that housing brings with it other issues such as schools, utilities and the such but a home shouldn’t be a privilege or luxury but, it would seem, is becoming increasingly so?

       
      • Actually houses don’t shoot up more than retail parks. Ever heard of NIMBYism? You try build even one house and every Tom Dick and Harry gets on a bandwagon to object. So those who are busy Occupying London might think on about housing demands when in fact it is the average Joe who causes the trouble, not the 1%.

         
  19. Beautifully written -well put

     
  20. In his ES comment column the other day, Simon Jenkins proposed a massive march to Canary Wharf as a more appropriate response than the “camping” as he repeatedly put it. Obviously he’s not going to organise it – he was just having a bit of fun with words to pay the mortgage.

    Well, Simon, looks like you’ll be appearing in court on spurious terrorism charges some time soon!

     
  21. I am concerned about the letter of response you have posted. As part of the 99% myself, I was not consulted in its authoring, nor did I give consent to publish it. Can you please make sure that in future all publications on behalf of us, the British people, are made available for us to give you the nod first. Thanks.

     
    • How do you feel about the private corporation Canary Wharf Group, bailed out in the 90’s, with taxpayer money, now able to prevent British people from marching in Canary Wharf?

       
      • I for one am very happy. Thank you.

         
  22. maybe the land and property holders could be approached on account of their tenants causing a deathly noise.

     
  23. Just another much larger example of the paranoid ‘draw-bridge culture’ that wealth and power still tries to hide behind, and which is determined to try to shut its ears to the outrage its tenants have aroused amongst masses of ordinary people. The Occupy movement is now merely the tip of a very big iceberg. Injunctions might keep out the people you want to ignore, but the issues they want to raise with you and to remedy will not go away. Come out; stop skulking.

     
  24. It was irresponsible trading and lending that has led the world to the brink of chaos. Pure selfish greed, nothing more nothing less.
    Interesting comments above from some city workers having a pop at the protesters. I’m sure some of them will be on Finsbury Square tonight hurling abuse and waving money around.
    In obtaining an injunction , the owners of canary wharf have made a mistake, because they have challenged the more active activists who will now, no doubt , put the injunction to the test. It’s going to be a very interesting few months.

     
    • yes money is like an insane drug to them.the governments of this world do not represent me.i think alot of people on here would agree.

       

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in »

© 2012 Occupy London
Powered By DynamiX