[Penistone999]

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

and find a single derogatory comment towards the cathedral, prior to the cathedrals public condemnation of occupy or court action against occupy.

How did you expect the cathedral to respond to unwanted squatters on their front lawn , who they politely asked many times to leave ,but were ignored .?

The cathedral had EVERY right to condemn OS ,and EVERY right to take the court action they took against OS, because they wanted the squatters off their land. A reasonable request in my opinion.

[Penistone999]

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

The other potential source for the general public was to go down and communicate with the occupiers.

Many posters on here tried to do just that ,but found an empty camp every time ,as the photos kindly posted on here showed . Its very difficult to communicate with an empty camp.

[alchemist]

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

The other potential source for the general public was to go down and communicate with the occupiers.

I did, which is a prime reason why I know that the cathedral was not a target of the protest.

But can you accept that the VASY majority of the general public didn't and so there has to be some questions asked about the way occupy was going about getting its message across.

Oh and I did go down a number of times to try and talk with them and was ignored whenever there was anyone there, which wasn't that often. So again it does make one question the actual willingness for the occupiers to want to get across a message that they were not anti-cathedral

[alchemist]

Originally Posted by Penistone999

Many posters on here tried to do just that ,but found an empty camp every time ,as the photos kindly posted on here showed . Its very difficult to communicate with an empty camp.

No penistone, you and myself (who posted the pictures) got it MASSIVELY wrong, they were really hundreds there but they were all hiding in the tents

[Badlittlepup]

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va38YkbfKtY

Given his general attitude and mastery of the "dismissive hand gesture" (which is just plain rude), I think the atmosphere was pretty respectful.

Clearly he's there to talk, and has no interest in answering questions- obviously a couple of people did have some questions.

All things considered, he was well supported in his initial statement by the occupiers, receiving applause at various points.

Any little bits of disrespect he did recieve, as far as i can see, where pretty understandable given his obvious contempt towards a couple of the occupiers.

The sound is better on this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z19xp...eature=related

He comes out with a neutral air just to make a statement which he begins but is interuppted after he's started and shouted down extremely rudely by a protester who points and laughs with another protester, continues to heckle and tells him 'we've got more people coming so you'll have to repeat it to them then'. As though he has been invited there by Occupy to address them at their convenience.

Another Occupier tells him that he can't speak (in his own place of work) unless he uses their 'system' and gets their permission to speak by them allowing him to use their loud hailer, which she refuses to let him use but says she will speak through on his behalf.

The GM continues he says he is not giving them permission to stay there but if they're going to anyway would like to request they obey some rules. The same protester interrupts him again and all the occupiers laugh at him and heckle him.

He agrees to wait a minute longer, more Occupiers make rude facetious remarks and laugh at him. He says 'it would help' if the Occupiers stopped talking over him. More nasty sarcastic remarks from the Occupiers like 'Aaah, bless him'. 'Sorry teacher' and 'What, can't hear you'.

He tries to talk individually to the organiser who is rude, refuses to turn of the camera and despite the fact the GM is being shouted down and prevented from making his address refuses to speak to him privately. He asls for an amicable conversation another occupier (I think Nicoracle) comes along and aggressively says to him they don't want to speak to him because when they turned up the day before (without an appointment, without any notice and demanded to see the cathedral staff without them having had any opportunity to take advice on their position) they didn't speak to them so they don't want to speak to them now.

At this point on the video you've posted the sound (conveniently) switches off but on the one I've posted it continues and the GM says to Nicoracle that OS has been misrepresenting the cathedral online and at public meetings by claiming they have spoken to the cathedral when they have not and attributing quotes to the cathedral staff they have not said and have been putting false information on the net.

He continues to try and make his statement, there is a smattering of applause when he says that if they occupy anyway he doesn't want them to block the gates, but when he makes it clear that this is NOT giving permission it stops and degenerates into heckling again. He makes some sympathetic statements about their aims which are again heckled. He mentions their work with the Archer Project which is again heckled and the heckles are loudly applauded. He is given a small amount of applause at the end.

He begins to request that the camp is only put up in one area and somebody who sounds like Nicoracle (who incidentally is conducting herself like a pig) screams 'We haven't got anything more to say to you guys lets get on with it' which is loudly cheered.

Generally Occupy are rude, belligerent and disrespectful, especially considerign they are the uninvited guests but they have chosen to behave like they should be treated like privileged visitors who owe no politeness to the church but demand extreme consideration for themselves.

It wasn't 'pretty respectful' and when you consider the fact that most places would have had the lot of you turfed out by security by this point the odd dismissive hand gesture in the face of such unpleasant, nastiness, particularly from Nicoracle, is quite restrained to be honest.

[Badlittlepup]

Why should ANYBODY, ANYBODY, have to go in to their work and be treated like that when they do a job for a not for profit religious body and charity which has not harmed anybody.

That might be the way Nicoracle gets away with speaking to drunks in the Roxy but it's not the way anybody else deserves to be treated when they have done nothing wrong except not allow her to bully them.

[Penistone999]

Originally Posted by alchemist

No penistone, you and myself (who posted the pictures) got it MASSIVELY wrong, they were really hundreds there but they were all hiding in the tents

Ah , that explains it then . They were all busy painting banners and placards in the tents . Silly us.

[Anna B]

Originally Posted by Longcol

Really? Can't see Bankers bonuses, A4E or MP's expenses being mentioned here;

https://occupysheffield.org/2011/11/...ial-statement/

or here;

https://occupysheffield.org/publicity/

What do you call these taken from your own links:

iii) 'We refuse to pay for the banks crisis'

vii) 'We are against Corporate profits for the rich...'

iv) 'End our democracy representing Corporations instead of people')

v) 'Call for independent regulation...' etc

There are many Corporations just as dodgy as A4e but strangely reference them in posts, and A4e, have been pulled from the forum. The Emma Harrison thread has been pulled, as has another thread about A4e. Without explanation.
This is the sort of thing Occupy is up against. They are taking on some very rich and powerful and well connected opponents who also have the media in their pocket, so it's no surprise that most reporting has been negative.

[Shoesme]

Originally Posted by Badlittlepup

The sound is better on this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z19xp...eature=related

He comes out with a neutral air just to make a statement which he begins but is interuppted after he's started and shouted down extremely rudely by a protester who points and laughs with another protester, continues to heckle and tells him 'we've got more people coming so you'll have to repeat it to them then'. As though he has been invited there by Occupy to address them at their convenience.

Another Occupier tells him that he can't speak (in his own place of work) unless he uses their 'system' and gets their permission to speak by them allowing him to use their loud hailer, which she refuses to let him use but says she will speak through on his behalf.

The GM continues he says he is not giving them permission to stay there but if they're going to anyway would like to request they obey some rules. The same protester interrupts him again and all the occupiers laugh at him and heckle him.

He agrees to wait a minute longer, more Occupiers make rude facetious remarks and laugh at him. He says 'it would help' if the Occupiers stopped talking over him. More nasty sarcastic remarks from the Occupiers like 'Aaah, bless him'. 'Sorry teacher' and 'What, can't hear you'.

He tries to talk individually to the organiser who is rude, refuses to turn of the camera and despite the fact the GM is being shouted down and prevented from making his address refuses to speak to him privately. He asls for an amicable conversation another occupier (I think Nicoracle) comes along and aggressively says to him they don't want to speak to him because when they turned up the day before (without an appointment, without any notice and demanded to see the cathedral staff without them having had any opportunity to take advice on their position) they didn't speak to them so they don't want to speak to them now.

At this point on the video you've posted the sound (conveniently) switches off but on the one I've posted it continues and the GM says to Nicoracle that OS has been misrepresenting the cathedral online and at public meetings by claiming they have spoken to the cathedral when they have not and attributing quotes to the cathedral staff they have not said and have been putting false information on the net.

He continues to try and make his statement, there is a smattering of applause when he says that if they occupy anyway he doesn't want them to block the gates, but when he makes it clear that this is NOT giving permission it stops and degenerates into heckling again. He makes some sympathetic statements about their aims which are again heckled. He mentions their work with the Archer Project which is again heckled and the heckles are loudly applauded. He is given a small amount of applause at the end.

He begins to request that the camp is only put up in one area and somebody who sounds like Nicoracle (who incidentally is conducting herself like a pig) screams 'We haven't got anything more to say to you guys lets get on with it' which is loudly cheered.

Generally Occupy are rude, belligerent and disrespectful, especially considerign they are the uninvited guests but they have chosen to behave like they should be treated like privileged visitors who owe no politeness to the church but demand extreme consideration for themselves.

It wasn't 'pretty respectful' and when you consider the fact that most places would have had the lot of you turfed out by security by this point the odd dismissive hand gesture in the face of such unpleasant, nastiness, particularly from Nicoracle, is quite restrained to be honest.

What absolute idiots.

[Longcol]

Originally Posted by Anna B

What do you call these taken from your own links:

iii) 'We refuse to pay for the banks crisis'

vii) 'We are against Corporate profits for the rich...'

iv) 'End our democracy representing Corporations instead of people')

v) 'Call for independent regulation...' etc

Just very vague statements you could hear in any pub - not exclusive to OS by any means.

[onewheeldave]

Originally Posted by Badlittlepup

The sound is better on this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z19xp...eature=related

He comes out with a neutral air just to make a statement which he begins but is interuppted after he's started and shouted down extremely rudely by a protester who points and laughs with another protester, continues to heckle and tells him 'we've got more people coming so you'll have to repeat it to them then'. As though he has been invited there by Occupy to address them at their convenience.

The occupier asks him "can you hang on a minute mate....cos more people are coming who might want to hear you?" in a perfectly polite way- no shouting and no rudeness.

Who's this announcement supposed to be to? If it's to the occupiers, it would make sense to wait till they're all there, and, it would be perfectly reasonable to inform the announcer that there were more coming.

The announcer then turns towards the occupier and gestures in some way- can't really be seen but looks like he may be putting a finger to his lips, in the kind of 'be quiet' gesture generally used with small children, which, if so, is downright rude, and would explain the mild laughter/heckling which follows.

Originally Posted by Badlittlepup

The sound is better on this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z19xp...eature=related



Another Occupier tells him that he can't speak (in his own place of work) unless he uses their 'system' and gets their permission to speak by them allowing him to use their loud hailer, which she refuses to let him use but says she will speak through on his behalf.

.

??? are we listening to the same video? She is actually offering to use a method known as the 'peoples microphone' to assist him in getting his announcement across.

This is not a 'loud hailer', but a method used by occupiers to address crowds of people, where the announcer speaks one sentence at a time, and the 'human microphone' repeats the exact same words, so the entire crowd can hear.

(She also most definitly does not tell him 'he can't speak).

Now, given that you know nothing of how occupy operates, it's totally understandable that you totally misunderstand what she is actually offering- however, the fact that she's being so polite i.e. she ends with "thank you very much" should indicate that your interpretation is a little off.

And, IMO, that's pretty much the case throughout. Thank you for posting the vid with better sound quality, but, what little rudeness does occur on the vid, is, IMO, pretty equal from both sides.

[Longcol]

Originally Posted by Longcol

Just very vague statements you could hear in any pub - not exclusive to OS by any means.

Just to add;

And ones you could have heard well before Occupy was even dreamt of.

OS was a pretty bad copycat of Occupy London / St Pauls which was a pretty bad copycat of the US "original" copied from Egypt etc. OS was not innovative in any shape or form.

[Darth Vader]

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

The occupier asks him "can you hang on a minute mate....cos more people are coming who might want to hear you?" in a perfectly polite way- no shouting and no rudeness.

Who's this announcement supposed to be to? If it's to the occupiers, it would make sense to wait till they're all there, and, it would be perfectly reasonable to inform the announcer that there were more coming.

The announcer then turns towards the occupier and gestures in some way- can't really be seen but looks like he may be putting a finger to his lips, in the kind of 'be quiet' gesture generally used with small children, which, if so, is downright rude, and would explain the mild laughter/heckling which follows.



??? are we listening to the same video? She is actually offering to use a method known as the 'peoples microphone' to assist him in getting his announcement across.

This is not a 'loud hailer', but a method used by occupiers to address crowds of people, where the announcer speaks one sentence at a time, and the 'human microphone' repeats the exact same words, so the entire crowd can hear.

(She also most definitly does not tell him 'he can't speak).

Now, given that you know nothing of how occupy operates, it's totally understandable that you totally misunderstand what she is actually offering- however, the fact that she's being so polite i.e. she ends with "thank you very much" should indicate that your interpretation is a little off.

And, IMO, that's pretty much the case throughout. Thank you for posting the vid with better sound quality, but, what little rudeness does occur on the vid, is, IMO, pretty equal from both sides.

I would say that yours is a pretty accurate description of events. I think Badlittlepup's account is somewhat off the mark in a few places. Anyone who didn't know would think you were describing two different events. It does prove though, that people will see what they want to see.

I admire your perseverance and faith onewheeldave.

[Penistone999]

Originally Posted by alchemist

But can you accept that the VASY majority of the general public didn't and so there has to be some questions asked about the way occupy was going about getting its message across.

Oh and I did go down a number of times to try and talk with them and was ignored whenever there was anyone there, which wasn't that often. So again it does make one question the actual willingness for the occupiers to want to get across a message that they were not anti-cathedral

They have gone very quiet since legging it from the cathedral over to the death trap building. Could it be the case that , now they arnt squatting at the cathedral , the Original target for their protest is no longer there , IE ,the cathedral, so now they have nothing to say anymore. ?

[Badlittlepup]

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

The occupier asks him "can you hang on a minute mate....cos more people are coming who might want to hear you?" in a perfectly polite way- no shouting and no rudeness.

Who's this announcement supposed to be to? If it's to the occupiers, it would make sense to wait till they're all there, and, it would be perfectly reasonable to inform the announcer that there were more coming.

The announcer then turns towards the occupier and gestures in some way- can't really be seen but looks like he may be putting a finger to his lips, in the kind of 'be quiet' gesture generally used with small children, which, if so, is downright rude, and would explain the mild laughter/heckling which follows.



??? are we listening to the same video? She is actually offering to use a method known as the 'peoples microphone' to assist him in getting his announcement across.

This is not a 'loud hailer', but a method used by occupiers to address crowds of people, where the announcer speaks one sentence at a time, and the 'human microphone' repeats the exact same words, so the entire crowd can hear.

(She also most definitly does not tell him 'he can't speak).

Now, given that you know nothing of how occupy operates, it's totally understandable that you totally misunderstand what she is actually offering- however, the fact that she's being so polite i.e. she ends with "thank you very much" should indicate that your interpretation is a little off.

And, IMO, that's pretty much the case throughout. Thank you for posting the vid with better sound quality, but, what little rudeness does occur on the vid, is, IMO, pretty equal from both sides.

I didn't realise that their wasn't an actual microphone or loud hailer but she is still telling him he has to speak using THEIR system in his own place of work and implies he won't be listened to unless he does.

To be honest if you interrupt people you can't complain if you are shushed like a naughty child.

And you've chosen to ignore all the other heckling and Nicoracle screeching and behaving like a brat and trying to bully the GM.

Factor into this the GM has every right to be pretty cheesed off and Occupy should really be treating him politely and with some respect rather than turning up to HIS work, being rude and then demanding respect back from him.

If he was actually a banker or part of the 1% it might be possible to sympathise that he deserved how he was being treated, but he's not. He's an ordinary man doing what is a relatively poorly paid job in a not for profit organisation who has nothing to do with the financial crash and is being treated like s*** for no good reason other than not doing exactly what OSC wanted him to do and jumping when they tell him to.

[Badlittlepup]

Originally Posted by Penistone999

They have gone very quiet since legging it from the cathedral over to the death trap building. Could it be the case that , now they arnt squatting at the cathedral , the Original target for their protest is no longer there , IE ,the cathedral, so now they have nothing to say anymore. ?

No updates to the website, no press releases, everything has quietened down.

They are doing the odd event like a swap shop or coffee morning but they don't seem to be half as enthusiastic now there isn't the cathedral to fight with. Anybody would think that they'd actually been enjoying the fight....

[Badlittlepup]

Originally Posted by Anna B

What do you call these taken from your own links:

iii) 'We refuse to pay for the banks crisis'

vii) 'We are against Corporate profits for the rich...'

iv) 'End our democracy representing Corporations instead of people')

v) 'Call for independent regulation...' etc

There are many Corporations just as dodgy as A4e but strangely reference them in posts, and A4e, have been pulled from the forum. The Emma Harrison thread has been pulled, as has another thread about A4e. Without explanation.
This is the sort of thing Occupy is up against. They are taking on some very rich and powerful and well connected opponents who also have the media in their pocket, so it's no surprise that most reporting has been negative.

That's ridiculous. I actually had to explain to one of Occupiers supporters who A4E were and now they're getting a hugely bad press you're jumping on the bandwagon claiming that you were protesting against them all along?

Sorry, that's ridiculous, it just won't wash. All the threads on here about A4E were nothing to do with Occupy so the removal of them is no big conspiracy Occupy are battling against.

AND the reporting about them has been getting steadily worse with that bastion of Occupy values the Daily Mail leading the charge for quite some time now.

Claiming after the fact that you were protesting against something you were never protesting against just because it is now unpopular just makes you look silly.

[truman]

Originally Posted by Anna B

Of course the Cathedral wasn't the target of Occupy.

If you think that, you understand nothing.

Big businesses involved with the government like Emma Harrison's A4e were the targets, along with MPs guilty of expenses fraud who have not been brought to justice, and Banker's bonuses.

The Cathedral were only involved inasmuch as Occupy was camped on their land because no other place was viable.

Could you define "viable"?

[onewheeldave]

Originally Posted by Badlittlepup

I didn't realise that their wasn't an actual microphone or loud hailer but she is still telling him he has to speak using THEIR system in his own place of work and implies he won't be listened to unless he does.

No she isn't! She's offering to help him speak to the crowd. It's a shame you're picking on probably the most polite occupier there, and making out she's saying stuff that she's not.

Originally Posted by Badlittlepup

To be honest if you interrupt people you can't complain if you are shushed like a naughty child.

And you've chosen to ignore all the other heckling and Nicoracle screeching and behaving like a brat and trying to bully the GM.

But it's the cathedral rep who's interupting the initial protestor, who's simply informing him that not everyone has arrived yet.

As for shushing people like naughty children, that's not just rude, it's unproductive in the context of trying to communicate with a crowd.

They are not at 'his work'- they're in a public space.

Part of the problem is that he's clearly out of his depth when it comes to communicating with a group of people he's not familiar with. That's understandable- I'm sure this kind of thing was never in his job description.

He's chosen, like petty-officials tend to do, to use an authoratative and condescending tone, which, admittedly, probably works well with most of the people he encounters in his working day, but, which is clearly innapropriate here.

That aside, under the circumstances, there's not that much rudeness, and, what little there is, comes from both sides.

[Bladesman]

Originally Posted by Badlittlepup

That's ridiculous. I actually had to explain to one of Occupiers supporters who A4E were and now they're getting a hugely bad press you're jumping on the bandwagon claiming that you were protesting against them all along?

Sorry, that's ridiculous, it just won't wash. All the threads on here about A4E were nothing to do with Occupy so the removal of them is no big conspiracy Occupy are battling against.

AND the reporting about them has been getting steadily worse with that bastion of Occupy values the Daily Mail leading the charge for quite some time now.

Claiming after the fact that you were protesting against something you were never protesting against just because it is now unpopular just makes you look silly.

True a bit late jumping on the a4e bandwagon.

The complaints on here alone about a4e date back to pre recession times. Even the BBC have contacted me personally in the past about my experience of a4e.

Occupy will claim they had something to do with everything wont they?