Occupy London - live coverage of St Paul's protests
St Paul's to reopen for first time in a week
Corporation of London holds meeting to discuss next move
Former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey criticises church 'mismanagement'
Occupy protesters outside St Paul's draw up first list of demands
11.44am: The Corporation of London's planning and transport committee has voted overwhelmingly to begin legal moves to evict the Occupy London protesters.
Riazat Butt's source in the corporation says the committee voted 17-3 in favour of "the commencement of proceedings to remove the encampment".
11.22am: And now news of something put together by our multimedia team and our US operation a playlist on the Guardian's YouTube channel of videos from Occupy protesters around the world explaining why they are taking part. They're looking for contributions from protesters everywhere. Here's the background, and how you can be involved:
As Occupy protests have spread from New York, across the US and around the world, the two big questions have been: who are the protesters and what do they want?
The Guardian thought that one way to answer these questions was to give the protesters the chance to speak for themselves - and to each other, whichever city they happened to be occupying.
We want to help build a global video conversation between occupy protesters and offer a chance for readers to find out more about who is taking part in these demonstrations and why.
Kicking things off are George Machado, Sara Hake and Sidy Toure, who recorded their videos in New York last week. We've posted their videos in a playlist on the Guardian's YouTube channel.
Already, Bernie Sanders, the independent senator for Vermont who has been championing many of the causes the Occupy protesters care about for years, has posted his video response to the whyoccupy debate.
To join in the conversation and respond to George, Sara, Sidy and Senator Sanders, just upload your video to YouTube using the tag or keyword whyoccupy. Then post the link to the video in the comments below this blog and we'll add them to the whyoccupy playlist on the Guardian YouTube channel.
11.11am: Again, just in case you've not seen it, here is Steve Bell's view of the way the church is handling matters. No, he's not very impressed.
11.02am: While the cathedral and corporation have, at times, been very shaky with their PR, the Occupy protesters have, largely, been very clever. Ahead of the St Paul's re-opening they've been busy tweeting photos of activists making sure the cathedral is clean and tidy for its big moment, as with the one above.
10.55am: PA now have some fuller Cameron quotes, at a press conference in Perth:
I'm very concerned about the continuation of this protest, meaning St Paul's is not open to the public.
It's a key national site, it's a key tourist site, it's very important in the whole history and psyche of our country, and I think it's very concerning that it's not open.
I hope that it can be resolved and I hope that the authorities, the church, the mayor, the police, the Home Office, everyone can work together to make sure this happens.
Again, this all sounds a bit odd. Perhaps Cameron was on a plane all yesterday, but someone ought to have told him that the cathedral is re-opening. It's possible he's talking more of the wider disruption; either way, it sounds like another nudge towards eventual action to evict the camp.
10.51! am: Shiv Malik has just called in from the Corporation of London's planning meeting (see 10.31am and 10.39am) to say that while officially open to the public, it quickly went into private session after a 12 to four vote of members. This was apparently due to legal advice.
Quite a few Occupy London activists were in the public gallery in the Guildhall, but left peacefully, he adds.
10.49am: David Cameron is now getting involved, speaking about the protest at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Australia. I missed the comments, but the Press Association has this snippet:
Prime Minister David Cameron said today at a press conference in Perth, Australia, that he was "very concerned" that St Paul's Cathedral was still not open to the public because of the continuing protest and called for the matter to be resolved.
The obvious response, I suppose, is that St Paul's is opening in about 90 minutes, in fact so there's no need for the PM to worry. But we'll see when we get more quotes.
10.39am: Riazat's information (see below, 10.31am) is fascinating. To sum up, there's two main points:
It seems very likely that the Corporation is to seek an injunction to remove the protesters.
It's the tents that are the problem oddly, if the activists were to stage a continuous, 24-hour standing up protest it would be tolerated. Now that would be tough during winter.
10.31am: My colleague Riazat Butt has been talking to people about this morning's meeting due to start more or less now of the Corporation of London about t! he Occup y camp. To be precise, it's a special meeting of its planning and transportation committee.
I have more information on the report that will form the basis of the discussion (and vote on whether to seek an injunction to remove protesters) of this morning's committee and the background to it. These are some of their concerns:
It's about balancing the right to peaceful protest with a reasonable user of the highway. If this [Occupy London] were not a camped protest it would constitute a reasonable user of the highway. The highway is the ground around St Paul's and the highway is maintained at public expense. The City of London Corporation is not seeking to prevent protest but to limit the exact nature and form of protest it has chosen. A 24-hour non-camped protest would be permissible in this location. The issue is the tents. You need to have planning permission. There are 248 tents, they do not have consent to be there. Most of the case law [in the report] concerns Parliament Square and the European Court of Human Rights. Freedom of expression but subject to the formalities and restrictions prescribed by law. Walking through the grounds around St Paul's in February 2011, on one day between 12.45 and 13.45, were 2,610 pedestrians. On 25 October, between 12.45 and 13.45, there were 1,750 pedestrians. We're also looking at the harm to visual impact of St Paul's. There is food waste. People urinating and placing excrement in the bins. Although the camp is well organised the reasonable conclusion is that this [protest] is an unlawful obstruction of the highway.
A City source also told me:
The Corporation is legally obliged, under Section 130 of the Highways Act, to remove obstructions. The committee is, in all likelihood, going to seek an order telling protesters to go. The Corporation believes it would be failing in its duty if it didn't. As for police involvement, the last thing the force wants is pictures of protesters being taken away. There are s! ome elem ents within the Corporation that would like the police to go in with water cannons but this view has been firmly squashed.
10.22am: In case you've not seen this, here's some news which will do little to damage Occupy London's case: total earnings for directors in FTSE 100 companies rose by 49% last year, research says. Pay deals for the bulk of workers in the private sector are, by contract, running at about 2.6%
10.01am: My colleague, Shiv Malik, has seen the document containing the first list of actual demands from Occupy London, drawn up over the past few days and which will be put to the movement's lunchtime meeting for ratification. His story is here, but this is a taste:
The page-long list of demands says that democratic reform of the City of London Corporation is "urgently needed" and describes city institutions as "unconstitutional and unfair".The statement, which has been authored by more than 17 people during the last six days, also calls for an end to the corporation's own police force and judicial system which give the square mile vast amounts of latitude to run it's own affairs.
"The risk taking of the banks has made our lives precarious - they are accountable to no-one but themselves, unduly influencing government policy across the centuries both at home and abroad. This is not democracy," it continues.
The list called for:
An end to business and corporate block-votes in all council elections which can be used to outvote local residents.
Abolition of existing "secrecy practices" within the City and total and transparent reform of its institutions in order to end corporate tax evasion.
The decommissioning of the City of London police with officers being brought under the jurisdiction o! f the Me tropolitan Police Force.
Abolition of the offices of Lord Mayor of London, the sheriffs and the aldermen.
A truth and reconciliation commission to examine corruption within the City and its institutions
This is interesting. A lot of media reports, the BBC among them, have referred to the activists, rather lazily, as "anti-capitalist protesters", allowing critics (like publicity-addicted, humour-challenged Tory MP Louise Mensch on Have I Got News For You) to condemn them for the supposed hypocrisy of owning mobile phones and drinking coffee. This list shows a much more nuanced, specific set of ideals. You might not agree with it, but some thinking has gone on.
9.30am: Today's Daily Telegraph carries a fascinating article by George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury. While managing some kind words for both the protesters ("Like many others in the Church, I have a great deal of sympathy for [their] raw idealism") he is ultimately very damning of them, and is little more sympathetic to authorities at St Paul's. Here's a flavour:
One moment the church was reclaiming a valuable role in hosting public protest and scrutiny, the next it was looking in turns like the temple which Jesus cleansed, or the officious risk-averse 'elf 'n safety bureaucracy of urban legend. How could the dean and chapter at St Paul's have let themselves get into such a position?
And what of the protesters themselves in this sorry story? Their intransigence, once the cathedral stopped welcoming them with open arms and began to plead with them to leave, did them no favours. Ironically, they started off fulsomely thanking the Church for allowing them to stay, but then repaid that generosity by refusing to leave when asked.
Also:
It wou! ld be a tragedy now if, by the mismanagement of the St Paul's authorities and the self-indulgence of the protesters, the right of peaceful protest and the urgency of widespread public debate became the subject of even greater cynicism and apathy.
Carey also, unfortunately, repeats as fact the story that only 10% of the tents are occupied at night, one that was subsequently found to be based purely on anecdote. He takes this as the basis for his most stinging attack on the campers:
As the story developed, thermal images of empty tents seemed to illustrate the hollow nature of the protest movement. The emerging picture of spoilt middle-class children returning home at night for a shower and a warm bed begged questions about their commitment to their cause. It also seemed to suggest that the cathedral authorities in their initial welcome had been duped.
It's a shame. You'd have hoped one of our more cerebral retired churchmen would have done more research.
9.19am: A brief rundown first of our coverage in today's paper, which focuses on the announcement by the St Paul's canon chancellor, Giles Fraser, to step down rather than be complicit in possible moves to forcibly evict the protesters:
This is our main rundown of yesterday's events, including Fraser's evocative quote that he did not want to see "Dale Farm on the steps of St Paul's".
We also have a full interview with Fraser, by Alan Rusbridger.
Stephen Bates who will be at the 12.30pm service has more on the splits over the issue within the Church of England. Sam Jones, meanwhile, goes through the ways St Paul's and the camp differ over the supposed health and safety issues which brought the cathedral's closure.
Finally, Lizzy Davies was at the camp to hear protester's reactions to everything that happened.
9.05am: Good morning and welcome to what promises to be another fascinating day in the still-not-two-week-old life of the Occupy London protest.
St Paul's cathedral, against whose western walls the movement's activists have pitched their tents for the past 13 days, is due to open this lunchtime after a week-long closure, now church authorities are happy that what they believed were safety issues with the camp have been sorted out. It all begins with the Eucharist service at 12.30pm, which will include prayers for the protesters.
Separately, debates within the church and the Corporation of London, which between them own the land on which the protesters are based, continues over what to do with the camp; whether to let it remain indefinitely or take steps to force its removal. The Corporation, which administers London's financial district, is due to hold a meeting at 10.30am to discuss its next move.
Meanwhile, as I write this, the movement's Twitter feed tells me, activists outside the church are holding their own assembly all decisions are by mass consensus about what happens now. The group has drafted an initial set of demands, which we'll have news on soon. This is an interesting step, given that critics of t! he wider Occupy movement say it is good at opposing things but has had little positive thus far to contribute in the way of alternatives. Additionally, it seems that Shami Chakrabarti, the head of human rights group Liberty, is currently at the camp as there is a plan for her to negotiate with the church on behalf of the protesters.
Comments