Two wrongs do make something right

The ‘occupation’ of St Pauls throws up a wodge of questions.

One of the most basic tenets of British Democracy is the right to peaceful protest and the protest in the City of London has been peaceful.
But another is the right of every Briton to go about their business without hindrance or let and the Cathedral authorities claim that the protesters are causing a hindrance to their trade and the ability of their parishioners to access the cathedral for prayer and sightseeing was based on that.

Then there is the question of ownership of the land they are protesting upon. The protesters would not have been allowed to pitch their tents outside the Stock Exchange or the Bank of England so they found a convenient open space nearby, asked permission to set up camp and put up their tents. If they hadn’t asked permission they would be trespassing but they did ask and that permission was granted by a cleric who had the right to do so. Therefore they aren’t trespassing but they have outstayed their welcome and the Church decided to go to the courts to get them removed. (Kind of the same as offering to put someone up on the couch for a couple of nights and then finding they’ve moved in). That they have now decided that forcible removal of the protesters is ‘unChristian’ seems to be more about saving face than anything else.

At which point should the protesters go?
At the moment they are the ones in control, the ones with the power.
The church authorities are putting up with them for a while but I cannot see that lasting if, as expected, the numbers start to grow. If the authorities do manage to get an injunction to move them on will they move before the bailiffs arrive?
Being dragged away will be good for the ego and the revolutionary credentials but moving out under their own steam will do a lot more for the public perception of the protest.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out but my money is on ego and internationalrevolutionaryzeal points.

By the way, where is Church treatment of the homeless in all this – the average ‘tramp’ is still not given a bed in Westminster Cathedral or St Pauls unless the press are there. When will they decide to join the protest do you think?

The fallout from this and from other ‘occupations’ such as this or the peace camp in Parliament Square or even the Greenham Common Peace Camp of the eighties could be a dangerous interference in civil liberties.
Listening to the rhetoric of the last few days there are:

·         A number of the usual idiots calling for a blanket ban on ‘mass’ protests:
How many constitutes a Mass – more than 1? Is two a mass or is twenty two or is it only a mass when it is in three figures?  

·         A few very rational sounding proposals to ban camping in London:
Does that include camping out for Wimbledon tickets or the Harrods Sale – how about Hyde Park festivals?

·         Another few rational ideas around zoning areas for temporary occupation where you would have to obtain a license:
Who obtains the license? If there are a hundred protesters do they all have to hold a license? How about a few thousand? Can you only get a license if you are part of an organisation of some kind? Who issues these licences – local council? What if the protest sits on the border of two councils? Who pays for policing of the licenses?

·         Quite a few calls for all protest to be limited to a designated place in London:
What happens if I don’t want to be tucked away in Trafalgar Square – how will the bankers see my placards if I am miles away from the city? Is anyone happy about the idea of losing one of the London parks for permanent protests?

·         A fair few suggesting that protests should be time limited:
Are we licensing again?

Every one of them has a fatal flaw – or two or three or more but at least it shows that the great British public is thinking and talking about the issues, which kind of proves the point of the protest in the first place.
If a protest can stimulate rational argument it is a good thing.

I personally think that the protesters argument is so fatally flawed it collapses but that isn’t the point. The fact that they are there and that they have an argument forced me to think about my own views and that is definitely a good thing.

One other thing to think about though.

There is a saying that if you poke a sleeping bear once it will roll over but if you continue to poke it, it will roll over you.

Ken Livingstone found this out many years back when he put a banner counting the number of unemployed in London on the roof of County Hall directly opposite parliament. It was a bit of an annoyance for a few days but after it had been there for months and updated weekly it so aggravated the PM (Maggie Thatcher) that she abolished the GLC, sold off County Hall and all to screw Ken Livingstone.

It took years to get a London Mayor and the GLA in place and look at what an appalling mess that is. County Hall (originally a gift to the people of London) is now a Marriot, a Premier Inn, a few presentation rooms and an aquarium (as well as a whole load of unused rooms) and the replacement building cost many millions of taxpayers money to build.

The protesters have made a point and got people talking and thinking but now it is time to move on before the bear rolls back over and we all have to suffer the consequences.