Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

#occupy London....

So far:

Please quote and add to this list below:

1. How about occupying libraries or other services under threat of closure?

  • Both tempoary and permenant actions/occupations/blockades of selected buildings/organisations to draw attention to planned closures.
2. How can people how are not able to attend meetings/the camps have a greater say in where the protest/occupation is going in order to make it more representative of the 99%?

  • A meeting each week solely for watching/reading the suggestions/views of people off of site to reflect and discuss them.
3. Can the livestream be improved?

4. How does the occupation consider gaining union support?

5. Does the occupation recognise that the struggle against cuts and job losses opposed by the unions are relevant to the cause of the 99?

6. How do we engage and involve our street/homeless community on a level parity and use this campaign to highlight blatant poverty issues?

  • Occupy London already has links with groups like Shelter. What more can they do?
7. How can the media attention on the camps be used to swing the focus on to the reasons for the protest rather than the protest itself?

8. Liberty want to end the confrontation caused by the occupation, but when you disagree with the people in power, confrontation is likely and probably useful. Ignore Liberty.

9. The formal structures of the camp limit the ways people interact and take up a lot of energy. These will not be the long-term legacy of the occupation so try to reduce the amount of time spent on them.
 
Okay people...I have a list of nine points to relay. :)

Please look at the list above and make suggestions as to how any of them may be achieved/done?

I think that would be a more constructive way to present these points to the occupiers.
 
It would seem that the dean of St.Paul's is going to offer the camp to continue the debate on the excesses of capitalism inside the cathedral itself under the aegis of the church authorities; this in exchange for the camp to disband and leave (R4 news). This strikes me as merely a ploy to be rid of the camp. My advice (for what it's worth), politely decline.
 
Interesting front page from the Independent on Sunday...

Cover-up at St Paul's

A highly critical report into the moral standards of bankers has been suppressed by St Paul's Cathedral amid fears that it would inflame tensions over the Occupy London tent protest.

The report, based on a survey of 500 City workers who were asked whether they thought they were worth their lucrative salaries and bonuses, was due to be published last Thursday, the day that the Canon Chancellor of St Paul's, Giles Fraser, resigned in protest at the church's tough stance.

But publication of the report, by the St Paul's Institute, has been delayed in an apparent acknowledgement that it would leave the impression that the cathedral was on the side of the protesters.
Click to expand...
 
Rutita1 said:
Okay people...I have a list of nine points to relay. :)

Please look at the list above and make suggestions as to how any of them may be achieved/done?

I think that would be a more constructive way to present these points to the occupiers.
Click to expand...
Absolutely ....good on ya sis xxxxxx
 
Rutita1 said:
So far:

Please quote and add to this list below:
Click to expand...

Having been up there a few times etc Id like to know if there is a rough timescale for the occupation.

Will it disband once the point has been made?

Or is it there for as long as possible?

Also what happened to the "we are the 99%"?

This ( as someone pointed put to me) has gradually gone into the background. I heard one of the campers being interviewed about what he was there for.He said Global Justice. All very well but the main thrust of OL initially was that the 1% and bankers had screwed up the economy and the rest of us are suffering not them.

The "We are the 99%" slogan was inclusive. It meant a wide range of people and opinions could join up to support occupation.

Are the Occupations now moving to a green environmental solution to the economic crisis rather than keeping to the 99% slogan?

I did get this feeling from the visiting last Saturday.
 
Please quote and add to this list below:

1. How about occupying libraries or other services under threat of closure?

  • Both tempoary and permenant actions/occupations/blockades of selected buildings/organisations to draw attention to planned closures.
2. How can people how are not able to attend meetings/the camps have a greater say in where the protest/occupation is going in order to make it more representative of the 99%?

  • A meeting each week solely for watching/reading the suggestions/views of people off of site to reflect and discuss them.
3. Can the livestream be improved?

4. How does the occupation consider gaining union support?

5. Does the occupation recognise that the struggle against cuts and job losses opposed by the unions are relevant to the cause of the 99?

6. How do we engage and involve our street/homeless community on a level parity and use this campaign to highlight blatant poverty issues?

  • Occupy London already has links with groups like Shelter. What more can they do?
7. How can the media attention on the camps be used to swing the focus on to the reasons for the protest rather than the protest itself?

8. Liberty want to end the confrontation caused by the occupation, but when you disagree with the people in power, confrontation is likely and probably useful. Ignore Liberty.

9. The formal structures of the camp limit the ways people interact and take up a lot of energy. These will not be the long-term legacy of the occupation so try to reduce the amount of time spent on them.

10. Will it disband once the point has been made? Or is it there for as long as possible?

11. The "We are the 99%" slogan was inclusive. It meant a wide range of people and opinions could join up to support occupation. Also what happened to the "we are the 99%"?

12. Are the Occupations now moving to a green environmental solution to the economic crisis rather than keeping to the 99% slogan?
 
Gramsci said:
On a practical note if there are 2 Assemblies a day - at one and seven- then a lot of time is a spent on meetings. Eats into a lot of the day.
Click to expand...
It's worse than that, because before every Assembly there is a 'process meeting' premeeting to discuss agenda and facilitation, so if you really want to be involved in the running of it all you have to go to four meetings a day, plus probably at least one other working group, some of which are meeting once a day. This is way over the top for what is actually necessary to run a camp of that size, even if you are organising horizontally.

Some things this means:
it is very difficult to get involved just turning up from time to time
the people who have most power are those who are there full time and can bear endless meetings
a lot of energy is being expended on this that will lead to burnout

I like the occupations but this way of doing things doesn't make sense to me.
 
Brainaddict said:
It's worse than that, because before every Assembly there is a 'process meeting' premeeting to discuss agenda and facilitation, so if you really want to be involved in the running of it all you have to go to four meetings a day, plus probably at least one other working group, some of which are meeting once a day. This is way over the top for what is actually necessary to run a camp of that size, even if you are organising horizontally.

Some things this means:
it is very difficult to get involved just turning up from time to time
the people who have most power are those who are there full time and can bear endless meetings
a lot of energy is being expended on this that will lead to burnout

I like the occupations but this way of doing things doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

I've done it myself, it's all about making sure a small group with stamina and a shared agenda can maintain control, especially if consensus is used (I assume it is).

Democracy lol.
 
Brainaddict said:
It's worse than that, because before every Assembly there is a 'process meeting' premeeting to discuss agenda and facilitation, so if you really want to be involved in the running of it all you have to go to four meetings a day, plus probably at least one other working group, some of which are meeting once a day. This is way over the top for what is actually necessary to run a camp of that size, even if you are organising horizontally.
Click to expand...
NOt true, you can get involved by only attending one meeting. Either the GA to make suggestions/shout outs etc...and/or the process one to get involved in setting the agenda/make suggestions.

Those in the process meetings and working groups change near on daily...they are not all resident on site full time, far from it.

This is why they are calling out for more volunteers to get involved in any way they can. They don't want the same people doing it all the time, they want to avoid burnout and to allow/facilitate others having their say/input.
 
What sort of things are the church covering in this report covering when they say moral standards? Not going to church, swearing, etc?
 
Rutita1 said:
NOt true, you can get involved by only attending one meeting. Either the GA to make suggestions/shout outs etc...and/or the process one to get involved in setting the agenda/make suggestions.

Those in the process meetings and working groups change near on daily...they are not all resident on site full time, far from it.

This is why they are calling out for more volunteers to get involved in any way they can. They don't want the same people doing it all the time, they want to avoid burnout and to allow/facilitate others having their say/input.
Click to expand...

I didnt follow the reasoning behind the process meetings . In meetings there is usually a standard agenda. ( agree previous meeting, reports , items requested to be on agenda for discussion and AOB).

Perhaps the evening GAs are different.

Also concerning is that at one point some took it on themselves to disregard a GA decision when it came to the crunch. This quote from Occupied Times:

There have been some key moments along the way; St. Paul’s initial backing was crucial, and were it
not for some ‘direct action’ when the general assembly granted police permission to erect a barrier
along the shop side of the camp, it might not feel as homely. This was not, though, a failing of the GA.
Although the initial decision was eventually overturned, the second consensus meeting - held while a
group blocked the police barrier

http://theoccupiedtimes.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/the-occupied-times-of-london_small.pdf

At the moment , from what ive seen, people there are working well together. Consensus is obtainable. The threats from outside ( legal action) have given people there a solidarity in the face of an external threat. Shows how tactically poor the Church has been.

I also noticed in Occupied Times ( which is well produced mag). that the Finsbury sq "occupation was mostly organised by the OccupyLSX direct action group". I wonder if the second occupation was partly due to differences of opinion in the occupiers.
 
Silly question - and maybe a little bit late. But why St Pauls? The bankers are in Canary Wharf these days. There's no major bank around there (assuming that the goal is to protest against the banking system)..

As much as i despise the christian church I can't quite figure out the connection here.
 
gabi said:
Silly question - and maybe a little bit late. But why St Pauls? The bankers are in Canary Wharf these days. There's no major bank around there (assuming that the goal is to protest against the banking system)..

As much as i despise the christian church I can't quite figure out the connection here.
Click to expand...
They wanted to go to paternoster square but were blocked by police and ended up by St Pauls (which I think was the assembly point).. City of London & stock exchange is why that area rather than Canary Wharf..
 
But the City is no longer in the City in reality. They're in Canary Wharf. That's where all the major investment banks are based. Why not there?

Seems a bit nuts to target the christians, but whatever. Always pleased to see a reverend squirming on telly :D
 
treelover said:
they are missing open goals such as the 49% rise in directors pay, the public would side with them on that...
Click to expand...

In there defence a lot of the talk in media and from the City is that they dont have alternatives. Looks to me like the OC at St Pauls and Finsbury are in for the long haul. They are trying to get speakers in from outside and have debates. Also working groups- some of which are to develop alternatives.

The issue of directors pay has been around for years. Labour did nothing about it. Its a symptom of an unequal system. I think the OCLSX want to look at the system rather than just say directors pay is to high.

Something the mainstream parties are not doing.

They also have been caught up in a discussion with the CofE about the role of the church. I noticed the issue of directors "remuneration" came up on the Livestream this morning when the Church leaders were questioned.
 
gabi said:
But the City is no longer in the City in reality. They're in Canary Wharf. That's where all the major investment banks are based. Why not there?

Seems a bit nuts to target the christians, but whatever. Always pleased to see a reverend squirming on telly :D
Click to expand...

Problem is , as I posted on the Finsbury sq thread, this is private land. There has been an increasing move to privatise space as well as the economy.

Being on Church land is causing the Church a lot of problems. Finsbury sq is Islington Council owned.

See here article by Anna Minton on the privatisation of space:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/private-spaces-protest-occupy-london
 
Surprisingly good article by Rawnsley in Observer:

Who is truly the more adult: the protesters or an establishment that regards itself as older and wiser? The protesters have largely been very decorously behaved. They have thus far displayed no propensity to riot or to loot. Their tents are erected in rather neat rows. They hold laboriously consensus-seeking meetings at which they keep minutes and take votes. Their spokespeople are polite and articulate. If they do not have all the answers, they are at least posing some of the right questions. I don't see why they should be criticised for the absence of a manifesto when the leaders of Europe spent months quarrelling and flailing over the euro crisis before scrabbling together an expensively botched compromise.​
The protesters shun formal leaders and hierarchies – and I also don't see why they should be criticised for this at a time when conventional leaders and hierarchies have been so conspicuously useless​

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/30/andrew-rawnsley-occupy-protesters-grown-up
 
Gramsci said:
Surprisingly good article by Rawnsley in Observer:
...
Who is truly the more adult: the protesters or an establishment that regards itself as older and wiser? The protesters have largely been very decorously behaved. They have thus far displayed no propensity to riot or to loot.
Click to expand...

Rawnsley likes them because 1. they make journalists and politicians feel important/special 2. currently pose no threat to anything (not a criticism btw).

If/When the police attack them, he will criticise the protestors for being violent.
+
I couldn't stay for a meeting, some people there dismissed proposal from me for collective hunger strikes like in Beijing '89.

My observation was 'green'ish radical element as the bedrock - middle-class, well-off parents but committed to activism (not a criticism). No one is sure where to move next - including me.

It does feel like two cities within London. Transport fares are so expensive to get there from further afield. I am not sure what those on the outside should be doing 'in support' apart from the obvious.
 
gabi said:
Seems a bit nuts to target the christians, but whatever.
Click to expand...
I've not been following the whole thing particularly closely, but I'm sure I read in an account of Rev Giles Fraser's resignation that they were initially 'invited' to use the land?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

stethoscope
London Anarchist Bookfair 2024
2 3 4 5
Replies
147
Views
6K
redsquirrel
R
Cloo
Trans Kids Deserve Better occupying Dept of Education
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Cloo
Cloo
J
Calling all women and allies in Brixton! London
Replies
16
Views
887
Gramsci
Gramsci
C
Land Justice Fair-Make London a Commons! July 21st
Replies
11
Views
693
Sasaferrato
Sasaferrato
steeplejack
London Anarchist Bookfair 2023/24
23 24 25 26 27
Replies
800
Views
38K
smokedout
S
Back
Top Bottom