1. David Preiser (USA) says:

    I’m watching Nanny Bloomberg’s press conference about this right now.  I haven’t listened to the Today segment, but will when this is over. Basically, he says he’s ended the Occupation for two main reasons: public health & safety, and they continued to violate everyone else’s rights in favor of their own.

    I thought taking their generators and heating fuel the day before the recent big snow storm was pretty low, and was obviously timed with the weather.  Bloomberg cited health and fire hazard at the time.  But now things are clearly different.  Not only have there been enough sexual assualts in the park that the Occupiers felt they needed to set up a women-only tent to protect themselves, but something like TB (“Zuccotti lung”) has been making the rounds for the last couple weeks. TB and parasites have been found in other Occupier encampments, so it was only a matter of time. They may have the right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, but they don’t have the right to spread disease.

    Yesterday’s counter-protest by the local business owners showed that the Occupiers have been continually violating the rights of everyone around the park, and of everyone who wasn’t a supporter.  Chanting and drumming long into the night, occupying the restrooms of local businesses, litter, soiling the sidewalk, etc., all were factors.

    Stuck record time:  Your rights end where mine begin.

    Add to that the fact that there was plenty of illegal activity going on at the park, and Bloomberg basically had to act. I believe he acted against his own personal desires.  Bloomberg is a social Liberal, as wet as they come, but knows BS when he sees it. So – weeks too late in my opinon – he ended an occupation by extremists who were violating everyone else’s rights in pursuit of forcing their own desires on the public.

    The Occupiers can come back and spend as much time in the park as they like, but they can no longer bring tents (which was illegal in the first place, but permitted out of sympathy and, quite frankly, squeamishness).

    Bloomberg spoke one line with which I wholeheartedly agree, and it’s one of the most intelligent, useful, profound things I’ve ever heard him say:

    “No right is absolute, and with every right comes responsibility.”

    By responsibility, he means that of one citizen to another.  As I’ve been saying all along, the Occupiers do not respect the rights of others. Indeed, they’ve proven over and over again that they believe their own rights to supercede those of everyone else because they believe their own cause to be just.  Various BBC employees have spoken in support of this ideal.

    Now some idiot “journalist” just asked Bloomberg, “Do you feel bad” about removing the “protesters”. So he didn’t listen to the speech at all.  Just about all the questions from “journalists” are similarly moronic.  It’s as if none of these dopes understand the law, or understand how civil liberties work.  Must be something in the industry.

    Now I’m going to listen to the Today segment.  I’m sure the Beeboids and most of their audience will be shocked by all this tyranny, but that’s only because the BBC has censored nearly all news of the negative aspects of the Occupier movement.  Most people will have no idea about any of the stuff I’ve mentioned.


  2. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Now listening to the Today segment.  How absolutely disgusting to use the “Tahrir Square” quote.  The accompanying blurb is also a typical BBC half-truth.

    If the Occupiers try to take Central Park, it’s going to get very, very ugly.  Like I’ve been saying all along.

    Good for Evan Davis to ask the Occupier about disturbing the local businesses. The Occupier said he took the point but didn’t care because, clearly, his own rights superceded those of others.

    There is no oppression of the First Amendment in the case of the Occupiers. What a fantasy. Here’s how we see the divisiveness, the destructive behavior of these people. The BBC has misrepresented them the whole time, and now we’re going to see who’s been right about them.

    What a joke.


    • Grant says:

      Don’t expect that buffoon, Boris Johnson to take any similar action in London.


      • John Anderson says:

        To be fair to Boris – St Paul’s comes under the City of London Corporation


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          The News Channel just now reported that the City of London Corp. is starting “legal action” against the Occupiers.  What are they doing to do – issue a group ASBO?


        • Grant says:

          Sorry, I am not familiar with the intracacies of London Governance.  Just assumed Boris might have some influence if he chose to use it.


      • Martin says:

        Yes I don’t think Boris could do anything about it, but I suspect he had a say in moving on the dross that tried to camp in Trafalgar square.


      • LJ says:

        St Pauls is private land – remember they refused to allow the police to evict, so that guy resigned? ie. The protestors have been given permission by the landowner to stay there, makes it difficult for the cops.


        • ian says:

          ‘Elf ‘n’ Safety rules could get them out, and the wets could say it was for their own good. 


  3. George R says:

    While BBC-Democrat (Mardell, Kay, etc, etc) spend their time and our money on still supporting the few illegal and vaguely anti-capitalist campers, BBC-Democrat really misses the big economic picture.

    Allow Prof Niall Ferguson to explain:

    “Harvard Prof. Predicts EU Crisis Will Consume America…and Why You Should Care”



  4. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Laura Trevelyan’s over-excited report from the scene reveals her deepest sympathy for the Occupiers. She and Davis are clearly dejected.  Poor dears.  
    But who called Trevelyan at 2am to alert her?  Is this a clue that she’s been in close communication with the Occupiers, perhaps another media figure who is consulting with them and giving them advice and succor?  
    Time for an FOI request.


  5. Louis Robinson says:

    Thorlin Caristo (the random interviewee in the Today clip) is an interesting chap. Described by the Washington Times as “a trained electrical engineer who runs an antiques shop in Plainfield, Conn”, you’d think he was a fellow capitalist. But here he is in September 2011 talking about being “on leave” from his “boss” and also being a student at Columbia State University.

    He is also identified as an “organic farmer” by Alan Knight of wordpress.com 


    AP calls him simply “a leader of the movement’s “web outreach”.



  6. Louis Robinson says:

    PART 2

    Then there’s this from the Brooklyn Link: 


    $40,000 in equipment!

    Publicity savvy, (note his subtle image changes) Caristo indeed has a live stream channel (http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/thorin+caristo) and has been used before by the BBC:



    and its print version The Guardian



  7. Louis Robinson says:

    PART 3

    His “outreach” includes every form of web platform including JDate –  a jewish dating site. He is a very busy boy. His also a would-be singer/songwriter (

     and makes himself available to the media (

     at the drop of a hat.

    So who is he? He isn’t (as implied by the Today interview) some random protester. He is articulate, talented, experienced, :cute”, smart and FUNDED! So is the BBC interested in finding out who funds him? I guess not.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Good catch, Louis.  And what’s this about being a “leader of the movement’s web outreach”?  I thought this was a leaderless movement…..


      • Louis Robinson says:

        Yup, David. That’s why all the people interviewed in the media are NEVER identified with a title other than “protester”.  To say “leader’ or “organizer” or “official spokesman” is to admit that the movement is not random. Anyway, isn’t the whole thing organized from Canada?


        • My Site (click to edit) says:

          the people interviewed in the media are NEVER identified with a title other than “protester”.’

          But isn’t that any halfway responsible, professional media’s job?

          I’m not keen on lazy wingist handles, but this kind of context is entrely germane to the story.

          Acting as a PR outlet alone seems… unique.

          At the genesis of the St. Pauls Occupy, a PR forum I am on was spammed by a fellow seeking (free) support to coordinate messages with sympathetic media.

          Stunk then. More so now as it’s clear how the message is being mangaged… with media complicity.


  8. cjhartnett says:

    Saw a piece on George Harrison the other day.
    In the “summer of love” in 1967, he went to Haight Ashbury,…and was disappointed that the children of Aquarius weren`t all where his head was at …a drag as he says!
    He also invited a few Hells Angels to pop by the Apple Studio when next they were in England. They did…that was a drag too-even nastier.
    If you substitute the “City Hall moochers” and “Islamic nutjobs” for the above victims of the Man in 67…you see that we`re still not learning…as if Harrison and McCartney have gone viral in the body politic.
    Still, at least I learned one thing…shouting Hare Krishna, Harry Ramsden at a psychopath doesn`t make him drop his stone-carved angels wing…if it wasn`t all so funny, it would be tragic!
    Cameron is the new Ted Heath-we`ll be due our Altamont if we don`t watch it!


  9. David Preiser (USA) says:

    The BBC website has a full spread of photos and video of the cops clearing out the Occupiers.  100% sympathy.  
    The News Channel right now is showing a live feed from Zuccotti Park, where a bunch of Occupiers have come back with a new banner and new round of shouting.  Laura Trevelyan on the scene says they’re concerned about “the gap between the rich and poor”.  Funny how she doesn’t manage to find a non-Occupier to interview.  None of those local business owners who protested against the protesters last night available, I guess, as they’re probably too busy trying to run their businesses.  But the disgusting BBC could have sent a runner over to ask one of them. I mean, they’re all right there a few yards away.  
    The BBC continues to be the press organ of the Occupiers, sanitizing and spreading their message.  At your expense.  
    The Occupiers will now try to defile Central Park  
    The News Channel has now moved on to giving air time to one of the St. Paul’s Occupiers listing their demands that the City of London Corp. declare their financial interests and which corporations are influencing them.  
    He’s now waffling on that his group’s “general assembly, our sovereign body” is having diffuclty communicating with the CoL Corp. because of the latter’s “secrecy”.  
    Now more free air time for this Occupier to declare that we’re seeing in New York and Denver and Portland “a cleansing” of peaceful people trying to fix things and create a more just society.  
    “We’re open for dialogue when you’re ready, but you need to be transparent”.  In other words, these people have no desire to act within the bounds of law, or human decency. They believe themselves to be superior to everyone around them, and they can dictate terms.  Typical.