I1L2T3 Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 No injunction needed. It's private property and the owners said the protesters were not welcome. Sorry Andy but you're incorrect. The owners had obtained a high court injunction which the police enforced by sealing up the square to prevent public access. It was widely reported at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Why would you need an injunction to close your own land? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 What , obstructing the public highways ? Yeah ,very important . Don't you want a fairer society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Why would you need an injunction to close your own land? Ask the stock exchange. They obviously felt they needed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Why would you need an injunction to close your own land? They did indeed get a last minute injunction to stop the protesters going onto the Stock Exchange. Ive tried googling it, for a link, but unfortunately all the top items are about the new injunction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/9896403 Police on Saturday prevented anti-capitalist activists from occupying the London Stock Exchange (LSE). Several hundred protesters, who had organised the event online, were bidding to replicate the huge demonstrations which have been taking place in New York's Wall Street. But police cordoned off Paternoster Square, where the Stock Exchange is located, as several hundred supporters of the Occupy London Stock Exchange movement tried to march in from adjacent St Paul's Cathedral. A notice was put up stating that the square is private property and access would be restricted. Police sources said a High Court injunction had been taken out to prevent members of the public from accessing the square. A spokesman for the protesters said: "We are doing this to challenge the bankers and the financial institutions which recklessly gambled our economy. This occupation and 20 other occupations all around the UK have been directly inspired by what's happening all across America and especially Wall Street." The spokesman added that the protesters' intentions were to gain access to Paternoster Square, where they planned to hold an assembly to decide the nature of the occupation in the heart of London's financial district. Activists carried banners with slogans such as "We are the 99%" and "Bankers got a bailout, we got sold out". Among them was Lorena Fuentes, 27, a charity worker originally from Vancouver, Canada. She said: "I'm here today because I can't see why you wouldn't be and I feel that this is one of the few moments in history where it's not a protest, it's an actual movement that's taken root. We're trying to challenge this myth that there are not enough resources to go around." After the attempt to occupy Paternoster Square failed, protesters returned to their previous position in front of St Paul's Cathedral. Police confirmed they had made one arrest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 They did indeed get a last minute injunction to stop the protesters going onto the Stock Exchange. Ive tried googling it, for a link, but unfortunately all the top items are about the new injunction. Mentioned here: linky "Authorities said that a High Court injunction had been taken out to prevent the public from accessing the area, while signs were put up saying the square was private property and access would be restricted." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 I wonder if part of the square is a public right of way, and that's why an injunction was needed then? It doesn't really matter though because, either way, the police prevented access. On a side note I wonder if stores such as Sainsburys and Starbucks will be compensated for the loss of trade while the square was closed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 I wonder if part of the square is a public right of way, and that's why an injunction was needed then? It doesn't really matter though because, either way, the police prevented access. On a side note I wonder if stores such as Sainsburys and Starbucks will be compensated for the loss of trade while the square was closed? Starbucks never closed all day, and i dont think Sainsburys was either, but i cant confirm that for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 I don't know what happened at the first weekend but on the first Monday, the police were not letting anyone into the square unless they had ID showing they worked for one of the firms based there. I wanted to go to Sainsburys but was not allowed in. I was wearing a suit but maybe they thought I was a protester in disguise?! The Starbucks I was talking about was the one actually inside the square, not the one next to the protest. There are a few other shops/bars in there too. (Edit - without wanting to give you ideas, if you'd all worn suits and arrived at around 7:30am on a weekday you would have been able to get into the square without a problem ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.