St Pauls Eviction Tonight!!!!

[trt]

Why did it take so long?

[emmie]

Nox, they do and i agree that we shouldn't go down the route of stopping them, however can you or anyone tell me what has been achieved by their protest, is it to highlight capitalism, greedy bankers, has anyone been down there and talked to them. I did but didn't come away with the feeling they had a specific point or would make any difference to the banking system, capitalism, or indeed anything that has made a difference to anyone's life
lot's of publicity, but they all seem to have their own agenda.

[B00]

"people have a right to protest."

But they obviously didn't. It was illegal, so therefore they got evicted.

[NOX]

The question was Boo ' Why did the eviction take so long'.
The answer is because everyone has the right to protest. If people disagree about the nature of any protest then it goes to court for the judiciary to decide what ought to happen- and in this eventuality they decided that the protestor's ought to move from their current location- doesn't mean that their initial protest was illegal or that we have no right to protest.

[ojread2]

A few windows, gromit?
You didn't see it then - it was a disgusting way for apparently intelligent people to behave
That is the kind of protest that should not be allowed, the same as St Pauls
Cant recall exact figures but police alone costs were in the tens of thousands
Clean up costs took it way over that
Dont forget those who were subsequently prosecuted for their behaviour
Despicable - it's not protest is sheer stupidity

[naomi24]

//Ummm is right shoplifters put up our daily shop and erring motorists put up our insurance and road tax.//

There’s no logic in that analogy. On the one hand you’re talking about lawful protest, and on the other criminal behaviour. I can’t see the connection. Yes, both cost society dearly, but two wrongs don’t make a right. Protest is a democratic right, but that right should not encroach upon the rights or the freedom of others by creating disruption long term.
Like others here, I’d like to know what they’ve achieved too. From the interviews I’ve listened to, should the protest have succeeded, none of these people offered a viable alternative to the system they were apparently trying to destroy. In fact they didn’t appear to know what they were trying to achieve. The whole thing was a farce.

[NOX]

It's only relevant Naomi, because trt was making a point of the money aspect being more important than the right to democratic protest. There is no correlation other than explaining to him that the world is imperfect and he needs to deal with that.

[Snafu03]

All its done is to highlight how unrealistic and ignorant these people are. Most sane people realise capitalism is fundamental in Western society. Money trickles down, albeit not as much or fast as we'd like it too - but thats capitalism for you!

[Gromit]

Ojread2

I saw what you did there. You went from the students causing £millions of damage, to policing costs being tens £thousands. Not condoning the damage (which was mostly done by professional anarchists rather than students) but most of the costs for damage such as broken widows will have been met by Insurance claims

[Gromit]

Apolgies to broken widows.

Should be *Broken windows*.

[naomi24]

Nox, //the world is imperfect and he needs to deal with that.//

And so do people like these protesters. This wasn't a legitimate protest. They were 'avin a larf!

[NOX]

If you say so Naomi, I strongly disagree.

[cathfromsaron]

glad we live in a democracy BUT they have had their say! x

[naomi24]

So what alternative did they suggest, and how did they intend to implement it?

[Gromit]

The state of the world economy and several countries teetering on bankruptcy is largely due to the greed of capitalists. It has adversely affected hundreds of millions of people. Somehow, a letter to the paper or a comment on a blog seems like a very weak response. Even the anti-capitalist protests are rather tame considering the damage these people have done.

[Brenden]

gromit these costs paid for by insurance companies then trickle down with increased premiums for the tax payer.

[NOX]

Perhaps some of the people who protest about wsuch things might be tax payers too? I know I certianly bl00dy am.

[jomifl]

If you have ever tried to camp by the siide of the road you will be moved on within a day by force of law. I cannot see why the high court had to be involved, unless the land belonged to the church so an eviction was required.

[naomi24]

Nox, //Perhaps some of the people who protest about wsuch things might be tax payers too? I know I certianly bl00dy am. //

Me too, but I've seen the alternative many times - and I certainly wouldn't want that.

[emmie]

as a Londoner, and long time tax payer i have witnessed riots, protests by the bucketload, by all unsundry, often the march/protest has nothing at all to do with Britain, and i wonder who picks up the tab each time for policing these marches, protests, riots and the damage that is caused, the taxpayer i expect, so i am still footing the bill, alongside millions of law abiding joe bloggs who live here, who i am sure just want to work, get on with their lives, and go home to their families. If the St Paul's protesters have a legitimate aim, to change the system, then better to become involved in local politics, become a councillor, and try and implement change in that way. Peaceful protest or not, they have had no cohesive agenda, not from day one.

[venator]

There seem to be quite a few people for whom protesting is a way of life.

Like the "travellers" New Age hippies etc etc, they will move on to another location.

Perhaps we should designate a protest area just as we provide "gipsy" sites?