Jump to content

Protesters camped at St Pauls


Should the protester move away from St Pauls, bearing in mind that the chur  

90 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the protester move away from St Pauls, bearing in mind that the chur

    • Yes
      49
    • No
      41


Recommended Posts

One of the issues the protesters have helped to highlight is the status of the City of London Corporation. I'm very pleased they've done this, I didn't know about it before.

 

What I have learned is that unlike other local councils in this country, the Corporation is predominantly elected by businesses. There are 25 electoral wards but residents can only vote in 4 of them. In the other 21 only business get a vote, proportionate to the number of employees, but they are not obliged to consult their employees about how they use their votes and most of their employees don't live in the City anyway.

 

So it's a local council with it's own police force, elected by companies rather than people. That's wrong.

 

What's worse is that the Corporation internally elects (no say in it for residents) someone to the office of the Remembrancer. According to the Corporation's own website

 

 

 

In other words someone with daily access to parliament (he has a seat behind the Speaker) who acts as an internal lobbyist for the financial companies who put him there. Contrast that to the leaders and elected members of more democratically elected local councils who have no such access and influence. Notice that they talk about their 'rights' and not their interests. There's privilege for you.

 

Vested interests working through an anti-democratic Old Boy's network based on a medieval guild system with daily access to policy makers. It's got to go.

 

It is also what these companies represent. It is renowned as the biggest tax haven in the world, the head of a network that spans all over the old British Empire, which covers in secrecy tax avoidance and drug money. How it has been allowed to get away with it for so long, is an embarrassment to the British people and more over the taxpayer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's scandalous that anybody, whether in their right mind or not, should expect the Church to take sides on any sort of political issue

 

Er, doesn't the CoE have guaranteed seats in Parliament? Yes it does.

 

The whole point is that the Church always takes sides, it's their job.

 

What would be scandalous is if the Church took the side of the money-lenders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be scandalous is if the Church took the side of the money-lenders.

 

St Pauls seemed to have a real problem deciding. It would be fascinating to see the minutes of the chapter meetings where they made their decisions about proceeding with getting an injunction. How did they vote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's been two weeks now and still the world's banks have yet to be brought to their knees by this massive global protest. Why, in some countries as many as 0.00000001% of the population have been taking part in these protests!

 

What are the banks waiting for, why haven't they seen the error of their ways?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.