Treacle Toes
Time
Cheers.
Not much detail though - was it mentioned what the EDL wanted, what their beef was etc?
Boredom? May have noticed a brown face on site? Smash the left? No idea.
Cheers.
Not much detail though - was it mentioned what the EDL wanted, what their beef was etc?
Cheers.
Not much detail though - was it mentioned what the EDL wanted, what their beef was etc?
That was interesting thanks for that link. Did you film these?
Weird.
Seems they've got it in for any protest that's not fully in support of racism.
Church may take legal action to move St Paul's protesters
The City of London Corporation is poised to take legal action to remove protesters at St Paul’s after the activists vowed to maintain their occupation until after Christmas.
The authority has taken advice from lawyers and is holding an urgent meeting with the church today as the occupation becomes ever more entrenched.
Hopes had been high that the camp would disband voluntarily after the management at St Paul’s closed the cathedral and asked them to leave.
But the 300-or so protesters voted almost unanimously to stay for the foreseeable future and an overflow camp was set up just a few hundred yards away in Finsbury Square.
Now the authorities are waking up to the fact they have a real problem on their hands as the occupation could cost them millions of pounds in lost revenue.
Sir Christopher Wren’s masterpiece, alone, stands to lose more than a £1million in the run up to Christmas and the bars, restaurants and shops of nearby Paternoster Square have seen revenues collapse since the protest began 10 days ago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...legal-action-to-move-St-Pauls-protesters.html
it's not weird. it's the far right. EDL may claim to be non-fash who are simply anti islam but like every other far right rabble before them they attack anything percieved to be left wing as well as people who are the wrong skin tone.
What "legal action" is available if they were invited onto Church land in the first place, and I have no idea what this has to do with the City of London Corporation?
All I've seen so far is faff and guff - not a single line about the actual legal position.
A source for the City of London Corporation said that they were ready to take action but it was really up to the church to take the lead as they had invited the protesters to stay in the first place.
“The legal process will move slowly but we need to start it as soon as possible,” they said.
“We have said all along that protest is fine but a campsite is not.”
The process to remove the protesters is further complicated by confusion over who owns the land.
Ancient deeds show that the churchyard is a patchwork of different plots and this will need disentangling before court action can proceed.
at least we're not fucking stupid? there's no apostrophe in 'americans'
Well it seems there's some confusion over who actually owns the land, from the Telegraph article...
Which sounds promising.
yes mate.
I was up there yesterday and had a chat with some people. A young lady who is part of the on-site support crew told me that she is a bank worker, commuting to work each day. She didn't know how many other City workers are there, but she said she didn't think she's the only one.
the crew that are on site to support people.What is the on site support crew?
I was wondering how long it would take for talk of action to close the camp(s)....
From the few things that everythingEDL snapped from some of the pages of Newcastle EDL it looked like they viewed the occupiers as unwashed lefty scum.
http://twitpic.com/74od30
http://twitpic.com/74nsi6 < she seems to think that they are UAF..
http://twitpic.com/74oba1
http://twitpic.com/74o9g6
http://twitpic.com/74o73x
http://twitpic.com/74o4ta
Any wetherspoons?