Inspired by the Occupy Wall Street protest at Zuccotti Park in New York, the camp was started late last year amid a deep economic slowdown, with jobs being lost and social services being cut even as Britain’s investment bankers sought large bonuses.
After months of protest, around 50 tents remained in the camp as the bailiffs and police moved across a plaza in front of St. Paul’s.
A handful of protesters resisted, and police officials said 20 people were arrested after they clambered atop a rickety wooden structure for a final, noisy protest, lofting banners and rattling tambourines. But riot police surrounded the platform and bailiffs dismantled it, witnesses said.
St. Paul’s was quickly accused by Occupiers of “betraying” the protest by giving London’s police the authority to carry out the eviction, but the church’s acquiescence with law enforcement should not be mistaken for resolve. As soon as the camp had been dismantled, the church authorities rushed to reiterate their death-wish, expressing remorse for the end of a sit-in that was described by the Telegraph as having become “basically a holding camp for the mentally ill,” and claiming common cause with the protesters:
In a statement Tuesday, the cathedral authorities said the protest had forced a re-examination of “important issues about social and economic justice and the role the cathedral can play.”
“We regret the camp had to be removed by bailiffs,” the cathedral authorities said, promising to continue to promote the issues raised by the encampment.
The Anglican church’s attitude toward Occupy has been incomprehensible to many, especially given that the camp was directly threatening its livelihood and the upkeep of its signature cathedral. As I noted last year,
as the crowd has grown to 2,000 strong, access to the landmark has been gradually blocked, forcing St. Paul’s to close its doors for the first time since 1940, when German bombs rained indiscriminately down on the city during the Blitz
The upshot of this was that,
the closure is having a real impact on what is one of Britain’s finest pieces of Restoration architecture. Each day that it is shuttered, St. Paul’s loses between £16,000 and £23,000 in revenues ($26,000 to $37,000), a crippling blow to a glorious 300-year-old building that receives little financial support from the state. And then there is the fire risk: “Health, Safety and Fire officers have pointed out that access to and from the Cathedral is seriously limited. With so many stoves and fires and lots of different types of fuel around, there is a clear fire hazard,” wrote the dean in a press release explaining his decision. No doubt the irony that St. Paul’s was the grand centerpiece of the rebuilding program after 1666’s devastating Great Fire has not been lost on observers.
(This is not to mention the subsequent defecation and graffiti inside the building.)
The rump occupation that was left in place after the winter’s cold was undoubtedly less of a threat to St. Paul’s than the 2,000 strong throng that assembled in October; but that it was run and maintained by many of the same people who had shown such disrespect in the face of an initial kindness and caused the Right Reverend Knowles to resign should have been enough for church authorities to recognize that the people sitting outside their building did not return the love they had been shown.
I fear that it won't be too much longer before St. Paul's is nothing more than a state run museaum.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe church authorities who approved this harebrained scheme were not seeking to feed the hungry and aid the sick. They are greedy hacks who opened the doors of their church to a bloodthirsty mob in an effort to get favorable publicity from the media.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse" . . . a sit-in that was described by the Telegraph as having become 'basically a holding camp for the mentally ill' . . . "
How dare you, sir!
The mentally ill deserve more respect than being compare to the OWS London crowd.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSurely the people in charge of St. Paul's can best decide what is best for St. Paul's?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am shocked that the Anglicans finally kicked the Occupy protestors out.
I can only surmise that the protestors' lack of cleanliness became offensive to local Muslims, making the Archbishop of Canterbury feel compelled to take action.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"In a statement Tuesday, the cathedral authorities said the protest had forced a re-examination of “important issues about social and economic justice and the role the cathedral can play.”"
If those cathedral authorities had felt so strongly about the issue, they could have dedicated their fund-raising efforts to house, feed, and clothe those moochers in a facility of their own making. Chances are very good that the protestors come from a multiple-generation history of dependence on the government dole.
These church authorities have a skewed thinking if they see their mission as one of encouraging anarchy, vandalism, and sloth. They have not been good stewards of the architectural treasure that should be open to all while encouraging intimidation, a health and safety hazard, and lawlessness. Were they working as assiduously in pointing out the futility of envy in changing one's lot in life?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was in London last December right after the Occupy encampment outside of Parliament had been dismantled and the grounds cleaned up. The whole area - well cleaned up - was obviously both functional for all kinds of folks and sheer delight for the tourists like me. Then I went to St Paul's and there was the Occupy site - nasty, smelly, obstructing worshippers and every one else. It was obviously sited smack-dab on Cathedral property right in front of the entrance. I remember wondering why in the world simple, basic courtesy was being extended to folks in the area of the Houses of Parliament but not in the area of St Paul's. Still don't know the answer. But I'm glad to hear that worshippers are finally being extended simple basic courtesy at their own House of Worship.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse