to occupy or not?

[Happy Face 29]

The fact they weren't protesting 2 years ago, and the fact that (as I've already pointed out) half of them are in full time employment suggests not in my view.

 

Think it's pretty clear you've made your mind up about them though. I only bumped the thread because the pepper spraying is a disgrace, whether the peaceful protesters are employed, informed, organised, on message or not.

 

If we're talking the st Paul's lot, that clearly isn't the case. I've actually been down there and interviewed them mate. These are not currently employed - or arguably employable - people.

 

I just dont see how a bunch of crusties camped in tents in a church square with no united voice or message will change anything. Unless they mobilise and form a political movement they're unlikely to be viewed as anything except an eye sore. The lack of a coherent political message or a clear understanding of the issues at hand will almost certainly prevent that happening.

 

That said, I think the US police actions against the occupy movement there was a disgrace. You don't often see that level of police brutality here.

 

David Craig interviews Newcastle fans outside the club shop too. I'd hate to think they were representative though.

[Matt 0]

That's the problem exactly. Elections offer only the illusion of choice. It's very difficult to get someone representing the 99% into the White House when the self-interested 1% have the media, government and wall street sewn up, breaking that stranglehold with an ill-informed electorate is nigh on impossible, especially if you engage in the democratic process that has been so polluted by money and interest groups.

 

And what they are doing now is more likely to work? How will anyone hear about them if the media are sewn up?

 

I'm struggling to get my head round the whole concept. Surely a movement with such wide support would be able to enlist great thinkers and do-ers to put some kind of practical proposal in place.

[Happy Face 29]

That's the problem exactly. Elections offer only the illusion of choice. It's very difficult to get someone representing the 99% into the White House when the self-interested 1% have the media, government and wall street sewn up, breaking that stranglehold with an ill-informed electorate is nigh on impossible, especially if you engage in the democratic process that has been so polluted by money and interest groups.

 

And what they are doing now is more likely to work? How will anyone hear about them if the media are sewn up?

 

I'm struggling to get my head round the whole concept. Surely a movement with such wide support would be able to enlist great thinkers and do-ers to put some kind of practical proposal in place.

 

They aren't doing anything but complaining, so it won't "work" in any terms other than embarrassing those in power. In the absence of a watchdog media keeping the government on their toes, it's to their credit imo. Most people sit at home watching telly and playing on the internet complaining about EXACTLY what these people are complaining about.

 

As the powers that be get more embarrassed we're seeing more violent methods to silence the truth of the matter....which can only strengthen the movement.

[ewerk 26348]

Which powers have been embarrassed by this so far?

[Monkeys Fist 38767]

[hostile_statue 0]

The acts that led to the financial crisis should be seen as criminal, and investigated as such.

That should be the way forward for the movement - make demands that the U.S. banking system and other responsible parties pay for their crimes and make sure that the market be regulated to prevent it from happening again.

Edited November 21, 2011 by hostile_statue

[Happy Face 29]

The acts that led to the financial crisis should be seen as criminal, and investigated as such.

That should be the way forward for the movement - make demands that the U.S. banking system and other responsible parties pay for their crimes and make sure that the market be regulated to prevent it from happening again.

 

The Obama government are currently negotiating a deal for blanket immunity from prosectution for the banks.

 

Why would they do any different, given Wall Street are their biggest financial supporters?

[Happy Face 29]

Which powers have been embarrassed by this so far?

 

Linda Katehi

[hostile_statue 0]

The acts that led to the financial crisis should be seen as criminal, and investigated as such.

That should be the way forward for the movement - make demands that the U.S. banking system and other responsible parties pay for their crimes and make sure that the market be regulated to prevent it from happening again.

 

The Obama government are currently negotiating a deal for blanket immunity from prosectution for the banks.

 

Why would they do any different, given Wall Street are their biggest financial supporters?

 

I have this weird opinion that a democratically elected government should serve democracy.

[Happy Face 29]

The acts that led to the financial crisis should be seen as criminal, and investigated as such.

That should be the way forward for the movement - make demands that the U.S. banking system and other responsible parties pay for their crimes and make sure that the market be regulated to prevent it from happening again.

 

The Obama government are currently negotiating a deal for blanket immunity from prosectution for the banks.

 

Why would they do any different, given Wall Street are their biggest financial supporters?

 

I have this weird opinion that a democratically elected government should serve democracy.

 

Key word there being "should".

 

Protesting the government to punish and regulate the banks is like protesting for Llambias to sort out Ashley.

[Matt 0]

The acts that led to the financial crisis should be seen as criminal, and investigated as such.

That should be the way forward for the movement - make demands that the U.S. banking system and other responsible parties pay for their crimes and make sure that the market be regulated to prevent it from happening again.

 

Why investigate these acts? You've already decided they were criminal.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Matt

[hostile_statue 0]

The acts that led to the financial crisis should be seen as criminal, and investigated as such.

That should be the way forward for the movement - make demands that the U.S. banking system and other responsible parties pay for their crimes and make sure that the market be regulated to prevent it from happening again.

 

Why investigate these acts? You've already decided they were criminal.

 

Eh? Do you stop investigating something because you know it's a criminal act? No you don't.

[hostile_statue 0]

The acts that led to the financial crisis should be seen as criminal, and investigated as such.

That should be the way forward for the movement - make demands that the U.S. banking system and other responsible parties pay for their crimes and make sure that the market be regulated to prevent it from happening again.

 

The Obama government are currently negotiating a deal for blanket immunity from prosectution for the banks.

 

Why would they do any different, given Wall Street are their biggest financial supporters?

 

I have this weird opinion that a democratically elected government should serve democracy.

 

Key word there being "should".

 

Protesting the government to punish and regulate the banks is like protesting for Llambias to sort out Ashley.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, the thought that the world's most powerful democratic government is to corrupt to even bother protesting against is very sad, though.

So what's the answer then? The Cantona method - withdraw all your money?

[Matt 0]

The acts that led to the financial crisis should be seen as criminal, and investigated as such.

That should be the way forward for the movement - make demands that the U.S. banking system and other responsible parties pay for their crimes and make sure that the market be regulated to prevent it from happening again.

 

Why investigate these acts? You've already decided they were criminal.

 

Eh? Do you stop investigating something because you know it's a criminal act? No you don't.

 

Well, you've seem to have decided that for such a crisis to occur, something criminal must have been at the root of it. If it only it were, things would be much easier to resolve.

[Happy Face 29]

The acts that led to the financial crisis should be seen as criminal, and investigated as such.

That should be the way forward for the movement - make demands that the U.S. banking system and other responsible parties pay for their crimes and make sure that the market be regulated to prevent it from happening again.

 

The Obama government are currently negotiating a deal for blanket immunity from prosectution for the banks.

 

Why would they do any different, given Wall Street are their biggest financial supporters?

 

I have this weird opinion that a democratically elected government should serve democracy.

 

Key word there being "should".

 

Protesting the government to punish and regulate the banks is like protesting for Llambias to sort out Ashley.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, the thought that the world's most powerful democratic government is to corrupt to even bother protesting against is very sad, though.

So what's the answer then? The Cantona method - withdraw all your money?

 

As Brewster would say "none of the above".

[hostile_statue 0]

The acts that led to the financial crisis should be seen as criminal, and investigated as such.

That should be the way forward for the movement - make demands that the U.S. banking system and other responsible parties pay for their crimes and make sure that the market be regulated to prevent it from happening again.

 

Why investigate these acts? You've already decided they were criminal.

 

Eh? Do you stop investigating something because you know it's a criminal act? No you don't.

 

Well, you've seem to have decided that for such a crisis to occur, something criminal must have been at the root of it. If it only it were, things would be much easier to resolve.

 

No that's not what I said, I'm only talking about this particular case, the crisis that started back in 2008.

[hostile_statue 0]

The acts that led to the financial crisis should be seen as criminal, and investigated as such.

That should be the way forward for the movement - make demands that the U.S. banking system and other responsible parties pay for their crimes and make sure that the market be regulated to prevent it from happening again.

 

The Obama government are currently negotiating a deal for blanket immunity from prosectution for the banks.

 

Why would they do any different, given Wall Street are their biggest financial supporters?

 

I have this weird opinion that a democratically elected government should serve democracy.

 

Key word there being "should".

 

Protesting the government to punish and regulate the banks is like protesting for Llambias to sort out Ashley.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, the thought that the world's most powerful democratic government is to corrupt to even bother protesting against is very sad, though.

So what's the answer then? The Cantona method - withdraw all your money?

 

As Brewster would say "none of the above".

 

No ideas then?

[Happy Face 29]

The acts that led to the financial crisis should be seen as criminal, and investigated as such.

That should be the way forward for the movement - make demands that the U.S. banking system and other responsible parties pay for their crimes and make sure that the market be regulated to prevent it from happening again.

 

The Obama government are currently negotiating a deal for blanket immunity from prosectution for the banks.

 

Why would they do any different, given Wall Street are their biggest financial supporters?

 

I have this weird opinion that a democratically elected government should serve democracy.

 

Key word there being "should".

 

Protesting the government to punish and regulate the banks is like protesting for Llambias to sort out Ashley.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, the thought that the world's most powerful democratic government is to corrupt to even bother protesting against is very sad, though.

So what's the answer then? The Cantona method - withdraw all your money?

 

As Brewster would say "none of the above".

 

No ideas then?

 

I'm the one supporting what the occupy people are doing as something proactive. It's up to those belittling it to suggest something better.

[ChezGiven 0]

Get a job?

[ewerk 26348]

Something better than pitching a tent at St. Paul's?

[Happy Face 29]

Get a job?

 

I think that's part of the problem they're protesting.

[Happy Face 29]

Something better than pitching a tent at St. Paul's?

 

There's been half a million in donations to the Occupy Wall Street shebang like, so it's a bit more than a tent....and even if it was just the odd tent, Brian Haw was recognised as Most Inspiring Political Figure for sitting in a tent.

[ewerk 26348]

If you're using Brian Haw as an example of change then you know you're fighting a losing battle.

[Happy Face 29]

If you're using Brian Haw as an example of change then you know you're fighting a losing battle.

 

Usually it's the most inspiring people that are fighting losing battles in their own time.

 

Discarding principles and perpetuating the status quo is the easy option and majority position.

[ewerk 26348]

No one has a problem with their cause but they're adding nothing to it by camping out.

 

Take Fathers 4 Justice, they did something similar with their superhero stunts but they actually furthered a cause that wasn't getting much attention. These idiots are drawing attention to a subject that already makes up most of our news.