Vicar: Occupy Southend protesters must leave now (From Southend Standard)

bloody squatters, why don't they just call themselves SKIPP as that's basically who they are

I assume a "cementary" is where cement is manufactured, so why is a vicar sticking his nose in things.

Surely the message must sink in now? MOVE
Mark and the other out spoken skipp memebers who seem to be the ones present at this camp cried when southend council evicted them from cuckoo corner, and accused the council of being a bully when the attached costs to the eviction. oh btw they where evicted maybe not by bailiffs but by the law!!
If the church wardens from St Marys are reading this please feel free to start a collection to cover the costs of eviction many will happily give to such a cause.
I do believe that the church of england still have some of the best legal representation going and will swiftly have this in court.
question of the day How comes only a couple of people made the decision to move into the church yard/grave yard yet it takes a public meeting to decide IF they will stay or go?

the other option is everyone turns up Saturday and votes for them to go. According to LSX General Assembly guidelines anyone can speak and vote

At last.

The Church must be one of the 1% I reckon.

Ross this is the anti southend council group SKIPP hiding behind the occupy name.
They are upset still that the Local elected council gave them a beating in court last time hence why they are trying their luck with the Church.

the other option is everyone turns up Saturday and votes for them to go. According to LSX General Assembly guidelines anyone can speak and vote

sorry that was posted twice

Goodbye & good riddance occupy skipp. Don't come back.

So the Diocese of Chelmsford and now the Vicar of St Mary's have both said leave now...

Will they respect the church and begin dismantling the illegal camp....

Whilst I can see them still being there on Saturday I have a funny feeling that they might leave before saying something along the lines of

“We respect the church and their wishes our camp has won many supporters across Southend and further afield, the camp has succeeded in highlighting the injustices throughout the United Kingdom that the rich are in control and that the system needs to change”


They need to try and save face and some of the little dignity that they have left, none of the people taking part in the camp have done their causes any favours by setting up this unwanted camp in the church grounds.


IF they are still there Saturday I think they will vote to leave as they would have woken up and smelt the coffee and realised just how much the people of Southend are disgusted by the action of a small band of serial protesters in invading, seizing and illegally occupying the churchyard.

http://www.chelmsfor
d.anglican.org/lette
r_occupy_southend.ht
ml?searched=shaun&ad
vsearch=allwords&hig
hlight=ajaxSearch_hi
ghlight+ajaxSearch_h
ighlight1

the above is the url to the letter Fr Shaun sent to occupy southend. It makes intresting and accurate reading as it shows his feeling from the outset of this occupation.
This letter highlights the diffrence of St Marys church yard and the steps of St Pauls.
This is land for burial and as such is covered and protected by LAW (some of the oldest in the land) I hope this time that mark sharpe, patsy link, shona walker, and the others who several months ago told everyone they acted for the majority finally get hit with some legal costs that will prevent them from EVER protesting in this anti social way!

Have they gone yet?

Nebs wrote:
Have they gone yet?

Don't be silly

southendmechanic wrote:
the above is the url to the letter Fr Shaun sent to occupy southend. It makes intresting and accurate reading as it shows his feeling from the outset of this occupation. This letter highlights the diffrence of St Marys church yard and the steps of St Pauls. This is land for burial and as such is covered and protected by LAW (some of the oldest in the land) I hope this time that mark sharpe, patsy link, shona walker, and the others who several months ago told everyone they acted for the majority finally get hit with some legal costs that will prevent them from EVER protesting in this anti social way!

Thanks for posting the link,

Reading that it reads as if in the eyes of the law the church are actually breaking the law through no fault of their own, but through the actions of others.

occupy and its serial protester supporters must be able to see that their actions are unlawful unwanted and time to bring to an end, not Saturday but NOW.

People of Southend read the letter for yourself, and decide do you support the actions of people who are quite happy to criminalise the good good people of St Mary’s Church?

The only option for these campers is admit they are in the wrong admit they made one whopping big mistake, admit that they have failed to achieve any good with this latest action and leave St Mary’s Church to become the peaceful place of remembrance it was before they set up.

I agree with southendmechanic if the church need to take the legal route and needs funds I will be more than happy to chip in a few quid.

thought gods home was everyones home or is it only when it suites or your handing over money to them for the roof fund ? would not of thought the church would turn people away ?

SKIPP (AKA Occupy Southend) (AKA Southend protest against anything group) supporters are suggesting the church is sympathetic.
They might be towards a couple of the issues they believe to be protesting about, but SKIPP have made a big mistake this time...
Is it coincidence that the pub they use is just across the road too???

Bumper that may very well be the case with the church's attitude in relation to the steps of st pauls but this involves a church burial site and as such is protected by Law. Usally this law isnt needed to be used as Moral understaning is respect the dead and those they leave behind.
St Marys have to seek permision for any changes to the church yard like moving footpaths,installing flood lighting, or even cctv.
So to turn up pitch your tent and expect a welcome is niave and possibly best discribed as stupid. But nicely Fr shaun has pointed out the errors of their ways in using the church grounds and asked them to move. For some reason Occupy Southend has denied this and are trying to make the general public believe they are in talks with the vicar.

Strange that the supporters of the camp have gone very quiet, could it be that they are packing away over night so by the time the sun rises in the morning and the first rays of the new day streak across the sky the camp and its inhabitants would have vanished into the night never to be seen again...

Well not until the next thing they want to moan about!

meanwhile over on facebook ocuupy southend supporters have turned against the vicar! funny that.

Biggest turnout St Mary's has had in years...

Pig shyt is the answer !

sadly the waffle coming out from them shows the real level of respect they have for situation they have put St Marys in. If this is their feelings then sadly the vote on saturday will prolong the suffering of the St marys

Think the few remaining nutured "friends" in the area will be all totally alienated once they set up loudspeakers as threatened to broadcast their opinions.

Think the few remaining nurtured "friends" in the area will be all totally alienated once they set up loudspeakers as threatened to broadcast their opinions.

How about some echo photos of the protesters, so they can be named and shamed.

The christian church supports corporate greed and corruption and has turned it's back on the weak and the poor.

Max Impact wrote:
So the Diocese of Chelmsford and now the Vicar of St Mary's have both said leave now...

Will they respect the church and begin dismantling the illegal camp....

Whilst I can see them still being there on Saturday I have a funny feeling that they might leave before saying something along the lines of

“We respect the church and their wishes our camp has won many supporters across Southend and further afield, the camp has succeeded in highlighting the injustices throughout the United Kingdom that the rich are in control and that the system needs to change”


They need to try and save face and some of the little dignity that they have left, none of the people taking part in the camp have done their causes any favours by setting up this unwanted camp in the church grounds.


IF they are still there Saturday I think they will vote to leave as they would have woken up and smelt the coffee and realised just how much the people of Southend are disgusted by the action of a small band of serial protesters in invading, seizing and illegally occupying the churchyard.

Funny how Max Impact the Tory Lickspittle seems to think half a dozen rigyht-wing no-marks on this websire represent 'the people of Southend'. You need to pull your head out of Holdcroft's pants, remove his appendage from your throat, and take a look around. People have had enough of the tories and the condom they use to shaft us, the LibDems.

aduksquack wrote:

Max Impact wrote:
So the Diocese of Chelmsford and now the Vicar of St Mary's have both said leave now...

Will they respect the church and begin dismantling the illegal camp....

Whilst I can see them still being there on Saturday I have a funny feeling that they might leave before saying something along the lines of

“We respect the church and their wishes our camp has won many supporters across Southend and further afield, the camp has succeeded in highlighting the injustices throughout the United Kingdom that the rich are in control and that the system needs to change”


They need to try and save face and some of the little dignity that they have left, none of the people taking part in the camp have done their causes any favours by setting up this unwanted camp in the church grounds.


IF they are still there Saturday I think they will vote to leave as they would have woken up and smelt the coffee and realised just how much the people of Southend are disgusted by the action of a small band of serial protesters in invading, seizing and illegally occupying the churchyard.

Funny how Max Impact the Tory Lickspittle seems to think half a dozen rigyht-wing no-marks on this websire represent 'the people of Southend'. You need to pull your head out of Holdcroft's pants, remove his appendage from your throat, and take a look around. People have had enough of the tories and the condom they use to shaft us, the LibDems.

You do realise that the more posts YOU make like that the more likely hood there is that this thread will be locked and the messages scrubbed let’s leave those remarks in your head.

They are pointless and slanderous there is absolutely ne need for them really is there.

In your mind people are not permitted to have a differing view to you are point old mistakes people make against the council. Let’s just keep on subject shall we. I will not mention you being a Lib Dem!

aducksquack the camp is illegal the actions are criminal you can not deny those facts, nor can you deny the fact the actions of occupy and those members of skipp that have joined the camp are currently making criminals of the church (read the letter above) do you serious believe those are the actions of people being respectful towards the church?


I believe in the right to protest but not when that protest becomes a criminal act which the camp site currently is, if it is alright to break the laws you see fit to get what you want, what is stopping bank robbers making the same excuse
“Oh I robbed the bank because I wanted to change my financial situation”
yes it’s a bit of a drastic example but we all live by the same laws (or most of us do) we can not and must not have a society where we pick and choose what laws we obey and what laws we ignore, if that opinion wrong and you think it is alright to pick and choose what laws to follow and what laws to break, then you seriously need to take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself where your life has gone so badly wrong the same go’s for those in the camp.

Either obey the law or live life outside the law don’t pick and choose those that do clearly have no respect for the vast majority that do live within the letter of the law each and every day.

Have you considered that, having lost the argument, aducksquack may be making those comments solely to get the thread locked and the comments removed. It is a tactic that has been used before by others.

Max, it would be illegal wherever they go. Protests are only legal now if they follow carefully defined rules and camping is ilegal pretty everywhere except campsites. Truth is they're taking care to minimise any damage whilst they say what the vast majority of people are saying, that pay differentials have spiralled way out of control and it's time to inject a bit of morality and fairness into the system. So what is your problem with that?

the occupy movement are not anti-capitalist! anti-capitalists are the ones smashing windows and burning the place up! also referred to as anarchists. the occupy movement are protesting for responsible capitalism.

an anti-capitalist would be a person or group against a global free market.

I do wish the echo would at least do one bit of journalistic research prior to publication. or at least stop cutting and pasting every diatribe, Tory gutter press release that originates from the deepest recesses of the civic centre..

at the heart of this there are real issues that need real solutions and i don't think any one side of the arguing parties has the means off stopping, or starting a change in the way we conduct commerce and trade on the global scale.

here is a little bit of political education for everyone (and the echo)

communism; shared poverty.
capitalism; divided wealth with lots and lots of poverty.
socialism; shared wealth a good idea that over time becomes capitalism again anyway.
fascism; shared poverty but if the government ask you about it you have to say you are rich and that you didn't like food that much anyway! always gets overthrown for capitalism in a bitter war.
Marxism; enhanced shared poverty, the factories in every town are always at full production but you never get any of the goods or food produced there!!.

that's just a few but most of the political ideologies follow the narrow constraints and limitations imposed on humanity by greed..

whilst i agree they are not anti capitalists and shouldnt be labelled as such, to label this as a council press release is ridiculous. I actually havent heard a single council officer or councillor comment on this, probably because they are so small and the protest insignificant

Couldnt god just move them? oh wait, hes mysterious isnt he, so much confidance in the divine he needs the law to move them on. ridiculas

Psalm 70: "But I am poor and needy: make haste unto me, O God: thou art my help and my deliverer; O LORD, make no tarrying." - so where's the church's role in this?

I believe that the church itself is open to everybody for prayer, and in extreme cases, shelter, but to protest or release one's vengeances within it's property is not acceptable. If they don't move this morning, nuke 'em!

Proverbs 17:5: Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard.

The Vicar should get his boss on them like thunderbolts, plague, frogs, locust etc

jayman wrote:
here is a little bit of political education for everyone (and the echo) communism; shared poverty. capitalism; divided wealth with lots and lots of poverty. socialism; shared wealth a good idea that over time becomes capitalism again anyway. fascism; shared poverty but if the government ask you about it you have to say you are rich and that you didn't like food that much anyway! always gets overthrown for capitalism in a bitter war. Marxism; enhanced shared poverty, the factories in every town are always at full production but you never get any of the goods or food produced there!!. that's just a few but most of the political ideologies follow the narrow constraints and limitations imposed on humanity by greed..

Bit more education:-

SOCIALISM: You have 2 cows, and you give one to your neighbour.

COMMUNISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and gives you some milk.

FASCISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and sells you some milk.

NAZISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and shoots you.

BUREAUCRATISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both, shoots one, milks the
other, then throws the milk away.

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the
income.

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take
harmonica lessons.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the
other to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you hire a consultant to
analyze why the cow has dropped dead.

A FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike, organize a riot,
and block the roads, because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are
one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.

A GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live
for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows, but you don't know where they
are. You decide to have lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have
five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them
again and learn you have 2 cows. You stop counting cows and open another
bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION: You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you. You
charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity, and
arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You worship them.

A BRITISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. Both are mad.

AN IRAQI CORPORATION: Everyone thinks you have lots of cows. You tell them
that you have none. No-one believes you, so they bomb you and invade your
country. You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of a
Democracy.

A WELSH CORPORATION: You have two cows. The one on the left looks very
attractive.

aduksquack wrote:
The christian church supports corporate greed and corruption and has turned it's back on the weak and the poor.

That would be an ecumenical matter.

aduksquack wrote:
The christian church supports corporate greed and corruption and has turned it's back on the weak and the poor.

lol ducksack maybe you should offer the "protesters" your front garden instead.

tophatdt wrote:
I believe that the church itself is open to everybody for prayer, and in extreme cases, shelter, but to protest or release one's vengeances within it's property is not acceptable. If they don't move this morning, nuke 'em!

I think 'christians' have forgotten that the first church protester was Jesus.

Jesus would have been an occupy protester, standing up for the poor and vulnerable.

It is no wonder church attendances are falling, the Church of England has turned its back on the poor and now supports greed and corruption.

why aren't you down there with your brethren apluckofbacksackandc
rack? the poor and the needy not a good enough cause for you?

Psalm 12:5: For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.

Occupy Southend really aren't doing themselves any favours. Setting up camp in a churchyard without permission isn't going to endear them to many people - especially as they want the support of the locals.

Max Impact wrote:
So the Diocese of Chelmsford and now the Vicar of St Mary's have both said leave now...

Will they respect the church and begin dismantling the illegal camp....

Whilst I can see them still being there on Saturday I have a funny feeling that they might leave before saying something along the lines of

“We respect the church and their wishes our camp has won many supporters across Southend and further afield, the camp has succeeded in highlighting the injustices throughout the United Kingdom that the rich are in control and that the system needs to change”


They need to try and save face and some of the little dignity that they have left, none of the people taking part in the camp have done their causes any favours by setting up this unwanted camp in the church grounds.


IF they are still there Saturday I think they will vote to leave as they would have woken up and smelt the coffee and realised just how much the people of Southend are disgusted by the action of a small band of serial protesters in invading, seizing and illegally occupying the churchyard.

Max Impact
I refer to, if I may, another post to which you participated on this same subject

A particular interesting point you put forward was……
‘What the protesters seem to have forgotten is that people have loved one’s buried there people still have funeral services carried out at the church’.
I say a particular interesting point because it goes very much against your view and adamant support for the Airport runway extension on the very door step of the ancient church of St Lawrence, Eastwood.
What you Max seem to have forgotten is that people have loved ones buried there and funeral services are still carried out at that church also.
Have you been recently and taken a look around the area of that church, now set in a wind swept barren wilderness. Trees and hedgerows needlessly ripped out and bulldozed within the grave yard its self to make, it would seem but only easy access to the Airport parameter fence leaving a stark view across the whole of the airfield.
Mud, piles of wood chippings and other debris encroaching on some graves and some memorial pieces scattered are a reminder of the disrespect to those dead and those living by heavy handed progress.
Max I urge you to take time to go there and have a look for yourself. You see Max what you supported wasn’t just a runway extension, which possibly might prove worthwhile, time will tell, but also the desecration of an idyllic scene and the surrounding area.
Max you appear to have quite a considerable knowledge of matters regarding this town and possibly contacts in local government perhaps you could find out who ordered and carried out this particular action. Or indeed has anyone on here have this particular information.

keep on smiling of westcliff wrote:
At last.

WOW what difficult little life you must lead if something like this can impact on it so much!

timmus wrote:
The Church must be one of the 1% I reckon.

The church knows where its manna comes from and it isn't from heaven.

Max Impact wrote:
So the Diocese of Chelmsford and now the Vicar of St Mary's have both said leave now...

Will they respect the church and begin dismantling the illegal camp....

Whilst I can see them still being there on Saturday I have a funny feeling that they might leave before saying something along the lines of

“We respect the church and their wishes our camp has won many supporters across Southend and further afield, the camp has succeeded in highlighting the injustices throughout the United Kingdom that the rich are in control and that the system needs to change”


They need to try and save face and some of the little dignity that they have left, none of the people taking part in the camp have done their causes any favours by setting up this unwanted camp in the church grounds.


IF they are still there Saturday I think they will vote to leave as they would have woken up and smelt the coffee and realised just how much the people of Southend are disgusted by the action of a small band of serial protesters in invading, seizing and illegally occupying the churchyard.

Can you foretell the lotto numbers as well?

southendmechanic wrote:
Bumper that may very well be the case with the church's attitude in relation to the steps of st pauls but this involves a church burial site and as such is protected by Law. Usally this law isnt needed to be used as Moral understaning is respect the dead and those they leave behind.
St Marys have to seek permision for any changes to the church yard like moving footpaths,installing flood lighting, or even cctv.
So to turn up pitch your tent and expect a welcome is niave and possibly best discribed as stupid. But nicely Fr shaun has pointed out the errors of their ways in using the church grounds and asked them to move. For some reason Occupy Southend has denied this and are trying to make the general public believe they are in talks with the vicar.

The next fete to recruit money for the vicars whims will be held atop of the same graves as are now suddenly sacrosanct.

Broadway watch st lawrence had the changes made with full permission consultation and with all facalties needed granted. The church of england has long established that it needs to evolve with the towns and communities that it supports. This process of change is protected to minumise loss to worshipers and the fabric of the buildings. In st lawrences case church and airport needed co existance and the works went through evangelical court and had parish church council back (the elected council of church members) so how does your argument on st marys compare with the execution of the correct process to change appearence or use of concercrated ground?

Broadway watch st lawrence had the changes made with full permission consultation and with all facalties needed granted. The church of england has long established that it needs to evolve with the towns and communities that it supports. This process of change is protected to minumise loss to worshipers and the fabric of the buildings. In st lawrences case church and airport needed co existance and the works went through evangelical court and had parish church council back (the elected council of church members) so how does your argument on st marys compare with the execution of the correct process to change appearence or use of concercrated ground?

Nebs wrote:
Have you considered that, having lost the argument, aducksquack may be making those comments solely to get the thread locked and the comments removed. It is a tactic that has been used before by others.

duk wont be reporting threads or looking to get things locked, he has learnt his lesson!

Btw, Who decides if an argument is lost? The person you are arguing with?

jayman wrote:
the occupy movement are not anti-capitalist! anti-capitalists are the ones smashing windows and burning the place up! also referred to as anarchists. the occupy movement are protesting for responsible capitalism.

an anti-capitalist would be a person or group against a global free market.

I do wish the echo would at least do one bit of journalistic research prior to publication. or at least stop cutting and pasting every diatribe, Tory gutter press release that originates from the deepest recesses of the civic centre..

at the heart of this there are real issues that need real solutions and i don't think any one side of the arguing parties has the means off stopping, or starting a change in the way we conduct commerce and trade on the global scale.

The Echo KNOW what they are doing, its not through lack of research or by mistake.

southendmechanic wrote:
Broadway watch st lawrence had the changes made with full permission consultation and with all facalties needed granted. The church of england has long established that it needs to evolve with the towns and communities that it supports. This process of change is protected to minumise loss to worshipers and the fabric of the buildings. In st lawrences case church and airport needed co existance and the works went through evangelical court and had parish church council back (the elected council of church members) so how does your argument on st marys compare with the execution of the correct process to change appearence or use of concercrated ground?

I am not aware that I was putting forth an agrument but more a statement, a point of 'view' However, there was no such facalty at the time of the hearing that I am aware of that allowed for the removal of the hedgerow on the eastern boundry. If one was sought and obtained afterwards I am in no position to say. However, I still think I have a right to say what I have regarding the landscape and the disgusting state
the contracters, who ever they may be, left that side of the graveyard.

southendmechanic wrote:
Broadway watch st lawrence had the changes made with full permission consultation and with all facalties needed granted. The church of england has long established that it needs to evolve with the towns and communities that it supports. This process of change is protected to minumise loss to worshipers and the fabric of the buildings. In st lawrences case church and airport needed co existance and the works went through evangelical court and had parish church council back (the elected council of church members) so how does your argument on st marys compare with the execution of the correct process to change appearence or use of concercrated ground?

I am not aware that I was putting forth an agrument but more a statement, a point of 'view' However, there was no such facalty at the time of the hearing that I am aware of that allowed for the removal of the hedgerow on the eastern boundry. If one was sought and obtained afterwards I am in no position to say. However, I still think I have a right to say what I have regarding the landscape and the disgusting state
the contracters, who ever they may be, left that side of the graveyard.

bassobob wrote:
Couldnt god just move them? oh wait, hes mysterious isnt he, so much confidance in the divine he needs the law to move them on. ridiculas

God only speaks to certain people within mankind, The pope, archbishops presidents etc in fact all those who have the power over us, power given to them not by god but by man using god. What will future vicars do when the addiction to religion has died off? Get real jobs? lol

Katch22 that area of grass and some other areas are indeed used for the summer fair weddding remembrance sunday and church activitys. These are carried out for the purpose of raising money to support the upkeep of the building and grounds. The consencrated ground is useable for such uses as is holding fetes and events inside the building. The rights and wrongs are for the pcc and clergy to worry about. If you have fault with their decision then take them to court as they have plainly said they are responsable for proper use of the land and building as THEY are the church. If you think for one minute that its ok to put a tent in a church yard and then attempt to issue a priest with a legal squatters rights notice, then deny you have been told to leave, oh and then try to use emotional blackmail to be left there is ok than you have a serious lack of emotional and common sense and possible could be described as lacking.

tophatdt wrote:
I believe that the church itself is open to everybody for prayer, and in extreme cases, shelter, but to protest or release one's vengeances within it's property is not acceptable. If they don't move this morning, nuke 'em!

And perhaps the vicar will bless the nukes? After all isn't god always on the side of every army. Humanity the most preposterous creatures to walk the land. If it wasn't for the fact we can dominate, other creatures would stand up on their hind legs, point and laugh at us. Such is our worth!

southendmechanic wrote:
Broadway watch st lawrence had the changes made with full permission consultation and with all facalties needed granted. The church of england has long established that it needs to evolve with the towns and communities that it supports. This process of change is protected to minumise loss to worshipers and the fabric of the buildings. In st lawrences case church and airport needed co existance and the works went through evangelical court and had parish church council back (the elected council of church members) so how does your argument on st marys compare with the execution of the correct process to change appearence or use of concercrated ground?

You beat me to it,

also nobody set up an illegal camp in St Lawrence Church, nobody set up bogs in St Lawrence Church and it was legal! with the FULL blessing of the church.

So your argument is blown clear out the water, check your facts before making yourself look silly.


I have a funny fealing that come Monday the camp will be well on the way to being removed as occupy and the members of that serial protest group will have finally seen that this protest is wrong on so many levels and the fact that the vast majority of Southend hates what they are doing to the church and the disrespect they have and continue to show towards the church.

Hopefully this dispicable action will have opened peoples eyes to what these people actually think of us and the church the majority have said leave the church but so far they have failed to listen, as has been said the occupy rules said anyone can vote so if enough people go to their meeting and vote fot them to leave then we can finally rid Southend of this illegal embarrassment blighting our church and our town.

Support dwindles for thos einvolved in thos camp lets hope when it is finally cleard we never hear from any of them ever again.

sash bore buoy wrote:

aduksquack wrote:
The christian church supports corporate greed and corruption and has turned it's back on the weak and the poor.

lol ducksack maybe you should offer the "protesters" your front garden instead.

It took a while but the most unoriginal post you could expect has finally made its appearance, well dont that man!

Blind Haze wrote:
Occupy Southend really aren't doing themselves any favours. Setting up camp in a churchyard without permission isn't going to endear them to many people - especially as they want the support of the locals.

Are they actually looking for support or high ligthing something?

katch22 wrote:

Blind Haze wrote: Occupy Southend really aren't doing themselves any favours. Setting up camp in a churchyard without permission isn't going to endear them to many people - especially as they want the support of the locals.

Are they actually looking for support or high ligthing something?

I would assume that they'd want the support of the local community. After all, the more people that follow their cause the louder the voice.

Broadwaywatch wrote:

Max Impact wrote:
So the Diocese of Chelmsford and now the Vicar of St Mary's have both said leave now...

Will they respect the church and begin dismantling the illegal camp....

Whilst I can see them still being there on Saturday I have a funny feeling that they might leave before saying something along the lines of

“We respect the church and their wishes our camp has won many supporters across Southend and further afield, the camp has succeeded in highlighting the injustices throughout the United Kingdom that the rich are in control and that the system needs to change”


They need to try and save face and some of the little dignity that they have left, none of the people taking part in the camp have done their causes any favours by setting up this unwanted camp in the church grounds.


IF they are still there Saturday I think they will vote to leave as they would have woken up and smelt the coffee and realised just how much the people of Southend are disgusted by the action of a small band of serial protesters in invading, seizing and illegally occupying the churchyard.

Max Impact
I refer to, if I may, another post to which you participated on this same subject

A particular interesting point you put forward was……
‘What the protesters seem to have forgotten is that people have loved one’s buried there people still have funeral services carried out at the church’.
I say a particular interesting point because it goes very much against your view and adamant support for the Airport runway extension on the very door step of the ancient church of St Lawrence, Eastwood.
What you Max seem to have forgotten is that people have loved ones buried there and funeral services are still carried out at that church also.
Have you been recently and taken a look around the area of that church, now set in a wind swept barren wilderness. Trees and hedgerows needlessly ripped out and bulldozed within the grave yard its self to make, it would seem but only easy access to the Airport parameter fence leaving a stark view across the whole of the airfield.
Mud, piles of wood chippings and other debris encroaching on some graves and some memorial pieces scattered are a reminder of the disrespect to those dead and those living by heavy handed progress.
Max I urge you to take time to go there and have a look for yourself. You see Max what you supported wasn’t just a runway extension, which possibly might prove worthwhile, time will tell, but also the desecration of an idyllic scene and the surrounding area.
Max you appear to have quite a considerable knowledge of matters regarding this town and possibly contacts in local government perhaps you could find out who ordered and carried out this particular action. Or indeed has anyone on here have this particular information.

Well spotted and posted. I think many have decided just who and what Max Impact is.

southendmechanic wrote:
Broadway watch st lawrence had the changes made with full permission consultation and with all facalties needed granted. The church of england has long established that it needs to evolve with the towns and communities that it supports. This process of change is protected to minumise loss to worshipers and the fabric of the buildings. In st lawrences case church and airport needed co existance and the works went through evangelical court and had parish church council back (the elected council of church members) so how does your argument on st marys compare with the execution of the correct process to change appearence or use of concercrated ground?

If the church is to move with the times it needs to get used to protests as they will be the norm for the next few decades.

southendmechanic wrote:
Katch22 that area of grass and some other areas are indeed used for the summer fair weddding remembrance sunday and church activitys. These are carried out for the purpose of raising money to support the upkeep of the building and grounds. The consencrated ground is useable for such uses as is holding fetes and events inside the building. The rights and wrongs are for the pcc and clergy to worry about. If you have fault with their decision then take them to court as they have plainly said they are responsable for proper use of the land and building as THEY are the church. If you think for one minute that its ok to put a tent in a church yard and then attempt to issue a priest with a legal squatters rights notice, then deny you have been told to leave, oh and then try to use emotional blackmail to be left there is ok than you have a serious lack of emotional and common sense and possible could be described as lacking.

YES the ground is used that should be end of! But of course it isn't!

I have no need to resort to law, im not there but support those who are in their right to protest, let the church resort to law!

The events at and by the church are not just held "inside the building" methinks you are being a little devious to try suggest that.

negotiations take many forms and each party will play to their strengths, are we surprised the church threaten legal action? Some will be.

"if you think" IF is the operative word.

You are far far too emotional about the whole issue and thus unable to give an unbiased view that isn't tinged with mild hysteria!

im sure id rather be considered "lacking" than a lackey

Rev Shaun Conlon i thought god door was open to everyone or is it only when it suites when your getting money for the roof fund??

we are all gods children is this not what you preach ?

Max Impact wrote:

southendmechanic wrote:
Broadway watch st lawrence had the changes made with full permission consultation and with all facalties needed granted. The church of england has long established that it needs to evolve with the towns and communities that it supports. This process of change is protected to minumise loss to worshipers and the fabric of the buildings. In st lawrences case church and airport needed co existance and the works went through evangelical court and had parish church council back (the elected council of church members) so how does your argument on st marys compare with the execution of the correct process to change appearence or use of concercrated ground?

You beat me to it,

also nobody set up an illegal camp in St Lawrence Church, nobody set up bogs in St Lawrence Church and it was legal! with the FULL blessing of the church.

So your argument is blown clear out the water, check your facts before making yourself look silly.


I have a funny fealing that come Monday the camp will be well on the way to being removed as occupy and the members of that serial protest group will have finally seen that this protest is wrong on so many levels and the fact that the vast majority of Southend hates what they are doing to the church and the disrespect they have and continue to show towards the church.

Hopefully this dispicable action will have opened peoples eyes to what these people actually think of us and the church the majority have said leave the church but so far they have failed to listen, as has been said the occupy rules said anyone can vote so if enough people go to their meeting and vote fot them to leave then we can finally rid Southend of this illegal embarrassment blighting our church and our town.

Support dwindles for thos einvolved in thos camp lets hope when it is finally cleard we never hear from any of them ever again.

" the fact that the vast majority of Southend hates what they are doing to the church and the disrespect they have and continue to show towards the church"

Any evidence of this?

Doesn't always follow that bringing something to the attention of others has to be supported to make the message louder. Word of mouth from those who are made aware can suffice. The fact people are here commenting on this seems to support that! How many reading this and who havent commented are passing on word of the occupy? The very fact this is being debated and even contested means getting the issue into the awareness of the public is a success! The occupy might only be the envelope the message comes in. It could be they might like to thank you for helping to pass on the awareness.

katch22 wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

southendmechanic wrote: Broadway watch st lawrence had the changes made with full permission consultation and with all facalties needed granted. The church of england has long established that it needs to evolve with the towns and communities that it supports. This process of change is protected to minumise loss to worshipers and the fabric of the buildings. In st lawrences case church and airport needed co existance and the works went through evangelical court and had parish church council back (the elected council of church members) so how does your argument on st marys compare with the execution of the correct process to change appearence or use of concercrated ground?

You beat me to it, also nobody set up an illegal camp in St Lawrence Church, nobody set up bogs in St Lawrence Church and it was legal! with the FULL blessing of the church. So your argument is blown clear out the water, check your facts before making yourself look silly. I have a funny fealing that come Monday the camp will be well on the way to being removed as occupy and the members of that serial protest group will have finally seen that this protest is wrong on so many levels and the fact that the vast majority of Southend hates what they are doing to the church and the disrespect they have and continue to show towards the church. Hopefully this dispicable action will have opened peoples eyes to what these people actually think of us and the church the majority have said leave the church but so far they have failed to listen, as has been said the occupy rules said anyone can vote so if enough people go to their meeting and vote fot them to leave then we can finally rid Southend of this illegal embarrassment blighting our church and our town. Support dwindles for thos einvolved in thos camp lets hope when it is finally cleard we never hear from any of them ever again.

" the fact that the vast majority of Southend hates what they are doing to the church and the disrespect they have and continue to show towards the church" Any evidence of this?

Read the Echo read the comments on here more and more people are telling them to LEAVE and not stay.

So are you happy with having people break the law? of so where should the line be drawn, or can we break any law we see it to get what we want?

Katch22 the fact you seem to want to have a go at the members of two local churches which obviously you are not included in from your rants over the use and upkeep of their buildings. I would like to say that it seems the church are well into the legal process into protecting themselves from the likes of selfish people who feel they have a right to dictate how a church conduct themselves. If you want to change a church or hold it to question join it and then become an elected member of the council. But then again it seems that this is what this perticular occupy group have issues with, elected councils carrying out duties on the behalf of the majority who voted i am more than happy with how my own parish church council and those of other churches conduct themselves whilst being interactive with the wider community.

Katch22 the fact you seem to want to have a go at the members of two local churches which obviously you are not included in from your rants over the use and upkeep of their buildings. I would like to say that it seems the church are well into the legal process into protecting themselves from the likes of selfish people who feel they have a right to dictate how a church conduct themselves. If you want to change a church or hold it to question join it and then become an elected member of the council. But then again it seems that this is what this perticular occupy group have issues with, elected councils carrying out duties on the behalf of the majority who voted i am more than happy with how my own parish church council and those of other churches conduct themselves whilst being interactive with the wider community.

when will these morons realise they do not act for the majority as they so often claim to do. Supposidly they are martyrs for their cause and doing this so nobody else has to, however the simple fact is that others (the majority) simply have better things to worry about or just plain arent that bothered. If these peoples ideas were so popular why not go the normal, legal route to gain sufficient power to actually make a change, but the feeling i have suggests they have to resort to massivley unpopular stunts like this and camp bling to gain any sort of acknowledgement due to their unpopularity. From my recollection no recent elections have been won or lost on any of the points SKIPP have been fighting for/against.

Max Impact wrote:

katch22 wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

southendmechanic wrote: Broadway watch st lawrence had the changes made with full permission consultation and with all facalties needed granted. The church of england has long established that it needs to evolve with the towns and communities that it supports. This process of change is protected to minumise loss to worshipers and the fabric of the buildings. In st lawrences case church and airport needed co existance and the works went through evangelical court and had parish church council back (the elected council of church members) so how does your argument on st marys compare with the execution of the correct process to change appearence or use of concercrated ground?

You beat me to it, also nobody set up an illegal camp in St Lawrence Church, nobody set up bogs in St Lawrence Church and it was legal! with the FULL blessing of the church. So your argument is blown clear out the water, check your facts before making yourself look silly. I have a funny fealing that come Monday the camp will be well on the way to being removed as occupy and the members of that serial protest group will have finally seen that this protest is wrong on so many levels and the fact that the vast majority of Southend hates what they are doing to the church and the disrespect they have and continue to show towards the church. Hopefully this dispicable action will have opened peoples eyes to what these people actually think of us and the church the majority have said leave the church but so far they have failed to listen, as has been said the occupy rules said anyone can vote so if enough people go to their meeting and vote fot them to leave then we can finally rid Southend of this illegal embarrassment blighting our church and our town. Support dwindles for thos einvolved in thos camp lets hope when it is finally cleard we never hear from any of them ever again.

" the fact that the vast majority of Southend hates what they are doing to the church and the disrespect they have and continue to show towards the church" Any evidence of this?

Read the Echo read the comments on here more and more people are telling them to LEAVE and not stay.

So are you happy with having people break the law? of so where should the line be drawn, or can we break any law we see it to get what we want?

Those who have posted comments on here are not the "vast majority of Southend" Im sure you would accept that, which makes your post vacuous of truth!

Have they broke the law? which law?

southendmechanic wrote:
Katch22 the fact you seem to want to have a go at the members of two local churches which obviously you are not included in from your rants over the use and upkeep of their buildings. I would like to say that it seems the church are well into the legal process into protecting themselves from the likes of selfish people who feel they have a right to dictate how a church conduct themselves. If you want to change a church or hold it to question join it and then become an elected member of the council. But then again it seems that this is what this perticular occupy group have issues with, elected councils carrying out duties on the behalf of the majority who voted i am more than happy with how my own parish church council and those of other churches conduct themselves whilst being interactive with the wider community.

Please dont assume what i want!

I reply only to posters on here not to the congregation of two churches.

To describe my post as rants really is nudging the vicar as he is drinking the wine! Your post would fit the description as ably as mine!

"If" Is the operative word in your post. If the hedgehog used the zebra crossing he now wouldn't be part of the road!

Im happy you are happy, pray for me.

I would have thought there was plenty of time to lay down in a cemetary later in life. "Take up thy bed and walk!

saddo99 wrote:
I would have thought there was plenty of time to lay down in a cemetary later in life. "Take up thy bed and walk!

did you know apluckofbacksackandc
rack has got a leg razor and a bottle of EPO pills?

I find the position of the Church rather disturbing, bearing in mind the for centuries the Church has given shelter to poeple like the protestors and continues to claim to do so, at least on paper anyway.

I would have wished for a more considerate approach, rather then threatening legal action.

Sorry to say, my respect for any Church has received yet another crushing blow.

Don't bother tearing this comment apart, I am highly unlikely to return to this page anyway.

And to the editors of the local fish wrapper: Maybe talk to the protestors first and then create yet another Daily Mail lookalike mini article.

katch22 wrote:
Doesn't always follow that bringing something to the attention of others has to be supported to make the message louder. Word of mouth from those who are made aware can suffice. The fact people are here commenting on this seems to support that! How many reading this and who havent commented are passing on word of the occupy? The very fact this is being debated and even contested means getting the issue into the awareness of the public is a success! The occupy might only be the envelope the message comes in. It could be they might like to thank you for helping to pass on the awareness.

I have to partly disagree with you on this one katch22. Just because something is in the public's knowledge doesn't necessarily mean that your voice is being listened to. As an example, and please be assured I am in NO WAY comparing the 2 causes, I'm sure many people only became aware of groups like Al Qaeda until after 9/11 and there was instant hatred - even today, how many people from the general public know about what they are 'fighting' for now?

I apologise for the simile, I and everyone else knows that there's no comparison in between Occupy and Al Qaeda although I'm just trying to highlight the fact that just because people know about Occupy, it doesn't mean they will get the support or any ears that are required to make a change - not all publicity is good publicity.

Blind Haze wrote:

katch22 wrote: Doesn't always follow that bringing something to the attention of others has to be supported to make the message louder. Word of mouth from those who are made aware can suffice. The fact people are here commenting on this seems to support that! How many reading this and who havent commented are passing on word of the occupy? The very fact this is being debated and even contested means getting the issue into the awareness of the public is a success! The occupy might only be the envelope the message comes in. It could be they might like to thank you for helping to pass on the awareness.

I have to partly disagree with you on this one katch22. Just because something is in the public's knowledge doesn't necessarily mean that your voice is being listened to. As an example, and please be assured I am in NO WAY comparing the 2 causes, I'm sure many people only became aware of groups like Al Qaeda until after 9/11 and there was instant hatred - even today, how many people from the general public know about what they are 'fighting' for now? I apologise for the simile, I and everyone else knows that there's no comparison in between Occupy and Al Qaeda although I'm just trying to highlight the fact that just because people know about Occupy, it doesn't mean they will get the support or any ears that are required to make a change - not all publicity is good publicity.

The reason I put this to you is that you seem knowledgable and logical to people who put their views forward without trying to insult people based on 'what they reckon'.

UK Fan wrote:
I find the position of the Church rather disturbing, bearing in mind the for centuries the Church has given shelter to poeple like the protestors and continues to claim to do so, at least on paper anyway.

I would have wished for a more considerate approach, rather then threatening legal action.

Sorry to say, my respect for any Church has received yet another crushing blow.

Don't bother tearing this comment apart, I am highly unlikely to return to this page anyway.

And to the editors of the local fish wrapper: Maybe talk to the protestors first and then create yet another Daily Mail lookalike mini article.

" the local fish wrapper "
My brother you are a true Christian but give too much credit to the Echo.

Who ever is occupying the church matters not , the fact is they are at least doing something to highlight the fact that The Iluminarte are riding rough shod over you the writer of comments, you are the people that are paying for the big cats to get bigger, if you dont agree with making a stand of any type then shorley you support the banks paying out to staff, and accept without question that you are happy to pay out through your bank, you cant really oppose both principles , I agree that a more democratic approch would be the most appropriate but who will listen the only voice you have in todays world is the words you write, and lets face it like mine dont mean an awful lot , none of us want to identifey who we are , which just proves a point we are all closet protesters in or own way. I feel we should not condem those that are prepaired to state what we all really think. Maybe if everybody that opposes the payouts were to band together it would lesson the need for activist protesting ,I dont agree with the bank bonuses, I dont agree with my greviences being ignored so therefore I must support the protest, maybe its time to get real with, the state of the uk at present maybe it just something we all will have to get used to, One further point I wonder how much the church pardray is driven by money , I wonder if weddings, funerals, and baptisms are being affected , I doubt if the vicar would threaten in such a way as he should have compasion and indeed offer support to the needy and he is not qulified to pass judjment, its quit obvious he has had orders from above ,Chelmsford not God
( my opinion of course)

Well it seems from what i hear that paper work is to be issues soon to the occupy southend campers and it seems that it will like southend councils eviction of skipp have named occupants rather than be the collective group. The group have every right to protest just not on private or consecrated land. At least it seems the church wont lend up out of pockets as the costs of ANY action can be recovered

Blind Haze wrote:

Blind Haze wrote:

katch22 wrote: Doesn't always follow that bringing something to the attention of others has to be supported to make the message louder. Word of mouth from those who are made aware can suffice. The fact people are here commenting on this seems to support that! How many reading this and who havent commented are passing on word of the occupy? The very fact this is being debated and even contested means getting the issue into the awareness of the public is a success! The occupy might only be the envelope the message comes in. It could be they might like to thank you for helping to pass on the awareness.

I have to partly disagree with you on this one katch22. Just because something is in the public's knowledge doesn't necessarily mean that your voice is being listened to. As an example, and please be assured I am in NO WAY comparing the 2 causes, I'm sure many people only became aware of groups like Al Qaeda until after 9/11 and there was instant hatred - even today, how many people from the general public know about what they are 'fighting' for now? I apologise for the simile, I and everyone else knows that there's no comparison in between Occupy and Al Qaeda although I'm just trying to highlight the fact that just because people know about Occupy, it doesn't mean they will get the support or any ears that are required to make a change - not all publicity is good publicity.

The reason I put this to you is that you seem knowledgable and logical to people who put their views forward without trying to insult people based on 'what they reckon'.

Your the first one to sugget that! I hope you have your tin helmet on! lol.

southendmechanic wrote:
Well it seems from what i hear that paper work is to be issues soon to the occupy southend campers and it seems that it will like southend councils eviction of skipp have named occupants rather than be the collective group. The group have every right to protest just not on private or consecrated land. At least it seems the church wont lend up out of pockets as the costs of ANY action can be recovered

The vicar has Gods earhole so why doesn't he just put it into Gods hands?

Ah yes, I was getting the church mixed up with christianity earlier... I remember that doctrine from school, when we were taught that obscene inequalities were part of 'all things bright and beautiful':
"The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, God made them, high or lowly, And ordered their estate."
- Cecil Frances Alexander
'All Things Bright and Beautiful' (1848) - things have moved on since christ's times...