The Church of England and Wonga - a tale of hypocrisy

[andygardener]

That's a very naive and somewhat ignorant viewpoint Rupert.

The Occupy movement was/is a disparate group of individuals with a shared agenda but little in the way of power, structure or wealth - the Church has all of these in spades.

 

Your assumption that those who supported the Occupy movement didn't or don't contribute in the kinds of ways you're suggesting is naive.

 

It also strikes me that you're actually complaining about people complaining without actually considering what they were complaining about.

 

If we reduce this (for the sake of discussion) to its very simplest terms the Occupy movement is a call for a fairer society. Surely that's an ideal all but the most selfish and cynical would support?

 

You can carp from the sidelines about what they didn't do and about what they should/could do - but how about actually recognising that their aims are worthwhile and have made a valid and useful contribution to the national consciousness?

 

There was huge coverage of OSC on here, many of us went and met with them and they were found wanting, or more usually absent and certainly corrupt.

 

So support OSC does not equal support a fair society. It equals support those people.

 

I'm sure you do not support islamism. But just because the EDL oppose islamism it does not follow that you must support the EDL. Ditto those of us who support many of the vague concepts raised by occupy and OSC did not invalidate our views on those matters by not supporting OSC on account of their actions.

[Staunton]

wanting, ... corrupt.

 

I wonder if you could substantiate such strong claims?

[andygardener]

I wonder if you could substantiate such strong claims?

 

There are 2 huge consecutive threads about them on here which back up both. And many of the contributors, myself included, still post here. So yes, we proved both found wanting as to their claimed aims and corrupt beyond any possible doubt a long while ago so not going to redo it now. Feel free to use the search function.

[Staunton]

There are 2 huge consecutive threads about them on here which back up both. And many of the contributors, myself included, still post here. So yes, we proved both found wanting as to their claimed aims and corrupt beyond any possible doubt a long while ago so not going to redo it now. Feel free to use the search function.

 

That's a no then.

 

Perhaps you might care to outline the manner in which you have demonstrated your support for a fairer society?

[andygardener]

That's a no then.

 

Perhaps you might care to outline the manner in which you have demonstrated your support for a fairer society?

 

It's very clearly not a no. Go read through the two OSC megathreads, we provided the evidence for both in spades on them.

[Staunton]

It's very clearly not a no. Go read through the two OSC megathreads, we provided the evidence for both in spades on them.

 

That's a no and another no.

[andygardener]

That's a no and another no.

 

Claiming black was white despite all the evidence was one of the major OSC themes as I recall.

[Staunton]

Claiming black was white despite all the evidence was one of the major OSC themes as I recall.

 

As I said on lipschitz's 'Do we really need all the “stuff” we have in life?' post: Occupy were right – it is as simple as that.

 

Citing Andrew Haldane of the Bank of England's financial policy committee, who acknowledged that the Occupy movement was correct in its attack on the international financial system.

 

Haldane remarked that 'Occupy has been successful in its efforts to popularise the problems of the global financial system for one very simple reason; they are right'.

 

But, try as they might, they met with much indifference, and sometimes scorn, as they tried to raise public awareness of these issues.

 

It seems that andygardener would rather engage in this scorn pouring, and cast vague allegations, than take the effort to support any initiative that might bring about a fairer world.

[andygardener]

As I said on lipschitz's 'Do we really need all the “stuff” we have in life?' post: Occupy were right – it is as simple as that.

 

Citing Andrew Haldane of the Bank of England's financial policy committee, who acknowledged that the Occupy movement was correct in its attack on the international financial system.

 

Haldane remarked that 'Occupy has been successful in its efforts to popularise the problems of the global financial system for one very simple reason; they are right'.

 

But, try as they might, they met with much indifference, and sometimes scorn, as they tried to raise public awareness of these issues.

 

It seems that andygardener would rather engage in this scorn pouring, and cast vague allegations, than take the effort to support any initiative that might bring about a fairer world.

 

"Occupy were right"? Yes they wanted things to be better, just like the EDL want the evil of islamism banished from the land. But wanting a perfectly reasonable thing is not equal to A) knowing how to achieve it and B) being the best method of achieving it. Occupy were neither, ditto the EDL.

[Staunton]

So support OSC does not equal support a fair society. It equals support those people.

 

It is clear that you did not support Occupy Sheffield. However, your words imply that you do support the notion of a 'fair society'. Can you explain what you consider to be a fair society or how you support the struggle for its establishment?