The Dean of St Pauls has said that:
he had met members of the chapter that governs St Paul's on Thursday evening. As a result of that meeting, and reports received today from our independent health, safety and fire officers, I have written an open letter to the protestors this afternoon advising them that we have no lawful alternative but to close St Paul's cathedral until further notice.
Hmmm, let's see the sort of people who govern St Paul's. Of course there are the clergy. They're listed in here.
But the St Paul's Foundation gives more clue about who really influence things. It's trustees are:
Chairman
Sir John Stuttard
Trustees
The Right Reverend Graeme Knowles, Dean of St Paul's
Dame Helen Alexander DBE
Lord Blair of Boughton
Roger Gifford
John Harvey
Joyce Hytner OBE
Gavin Ralston
Carol Sergeant CBE
John Spence OBE
According to the Dean these are the people who will be replying to #occupylondon.
So let's see what they do:
Chairman
Sir John Stuttard PWC partner, Former Lord Mayor of London.
Trustees
The Right Reverend Graeme Knowles, Dean of St Paul's
Dame Helen Alexander DBE Deputy chair of the CBI, director of Centrica plc
Lord Blair of Boughton Former Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Roger Gifford Investment banker, big in City of London
John Harvey - Not clearly identified
Joyce Hytner OBE - Theatre director
Gavin Ralston Global Head of Product and leading international asset manager at Schroder Investment Management
Carol Sergeant CBE - Chief Risk Director at Lloyds TSB, formerly Managing Director for Regulatory Process and Risk at the FSA
John Spence OBE - Former Managing Director, Business Banking, LloydsTSB
Now it's not for me to judge.
But that looks like a very high association rate with the 1% to me.
And the St Paul's Foundation is going to provide an objective report on the protests in the City? I have my doubts.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
[…] Richard Murphy shows governors at St Paul’s who informed the Cathedral’s decision draw overwhelmingly from […]
The “protestors” are committing criminal tresspass so the Dean has no choice.
Do you want the Dean and Chapter to break the law?
No one knows who owns that land
How is being there a criminal respass?
And why are they criminal trespassers when anyone walking across is not?
It’s been turned into an ‘elf ‘n’ safety issue – not land ownership.
Trespass is a civil offence not a criminal offence. If the Church continues to welcome the camp there is no trespass.
The land is owned by no-one. Like the rest of the living beings on Earth we have access to it. If we abuse it nature will turn on us, simple law and effect.
The king said it’s his land, with his army of muscle to force you to accept. I say it’s no ones better learn to share or die being greedy
Well said Jason
“when the Pope owns 51% of General Motors;
and the stock exchange is the only thing he’s qualified to quote us”
– George Harrison 1970.
Don’t be bloody stupid – of course the Land Registry knows who owns the land!
I was going to apologise for misunderstanding the problem: it appears that it is a Health and Safety issue (the Chapter are overlooking the criminal trespass) but you don’t deserve an apology after that stupid comment.
Respectfully – vast amounts of land is unregistered – and the ownership is entirely unknown
You are, very politely, wrong in your assumption
this appears to be the law involved
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/trespass_and_nuisance_on_land/
it’s a bit risky if the church authorites are wrong. and of course there are huge areas of land unregistered.
Isn’t it worrying that large amounts of land is quasi public – i.e. appears to be public and is normally used as such except free speech and right to protest don’t exist on it since it is actually private.
Richard Murphy is right, there is plenty of unregistered land in the UK and it is very difficult to ascertain ownership. I have a case right on my doorstep of a cemetry – its wall is falling down and a danger to passing traffic and pedestrians, yet the council cannot force the owners to fix it as it is impossible to find out who does own it.
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
If the folk at St Paul’s are in the pay of the 1%, why did they stop the police from moving the protesters on, back when Occupy London first started?
The explanation the Dean has given seems reasonable to me – they tried their best to accommodate the protesters, but with the camp continuing to grow the situation is fast becoming intolerable.
In any case the front of St Paul’s isn’t a very sensible location for a protest against the capitalist elite. Occupy London would be better off simply moving somewhere else – perhaps a local park, where there’ll be more room, and even some grass to pitch tents on.
And respectfully, I disagree with all of your claims
“why did they stop the police from moving the protesters on”
Because the canon put his Christian principles before commercial interests until he had his wrists slapped on the Monday by the trustees who clealry seemed to have told him the latter always trumps the former.
After listening to some involved discussing the issue on radio 4 it seems the Dean is only willing to issue orders from behind the scenes but was yet to explain his position – as for the h&s issues they mentioned it is actually safer as usually there are quadruple the amount of tourists and passage across the square and into st pauls is notoriously difficult – one would hope that as far as I understand Jesus – think he should get a mention in this affair – was quite against profiteering – something about turning tables over wasn’t it – so one would hope that as the people are calling for the tide of endemic greed to be halted the church would be supportive and put the st pauls welcome mat out – humanity runs through us all we just have to find it – remember also to protest with your wallet don’t consume from multinationals who profiteer abuse human rights utilise slave labour Etc bank with co-op or other ethical bank and look after those less fortunate – what is that famous Ghandi quote ‘loose yourself in the service of others’
According to the Dean this was a decision taken by him and the Chapter.
There isn’t any evidence that the members of the St Paul’s Foundation had any bearing on the decision.
It sounds far more likely that the Dean and Chapter are concerned about the loss of tourist revenue (and thus ultimately job losses amongst cafe and gift shop staff) than the fact that pressure has been put on them by City grandees.
I think you’ll note I say ‘may’
And the foundation are represented on the Chapter
In addition as someone who has some experience of Cathedrals, Chapters and all related issues (at Ely) I think you may be wrong on the issue of influence
Coincidentally enough I also have an Ely connection, and am a member of the Cathedral Foundation.
I very much doubt that whatever influence the City grandee members of various St Paul’s bodies have is directed towards explicitly furthering global capitalism.
As I said the primary concern will be one of loss of tourism revenue, especially if this occupation continues for months. Secondly will be aesthetic considerations – St Paul’s has just been through a wonderful restoration and finally all the scaffolding is off. The last thing the Dean and Chapter want is a scruffy campsite on their doorstep. Thirdly hassle factor. And fourthly, this isn’t anything to do with the Church. No one could accuse the Archbishop of Canterbury of not regularly berating the selfishness of the 1%. So why is St Paul’s being occupied and not the Bank of England, RBS or Goldman Sachs ?
I just doubt that a cabal of City heavies put pressure on a Schroders fund manager sitting as a lay member of the Chapter and got him to use his influence to close the occupation down.
I wouldn’t be too proud of your Ely connection
I quit and stopped giving when the Cathedral was happy to hire itself out for a PWC / Masonic Carol service. How much worse could it get?
The Cathedral establishment – focussed on the previous Dean – was riddled imo with hypocrisy and pro-capitalist fervour when I was there despite the best efforts of Peter Sills and John Inge
And the whole Foundation and St Etheldreda’s set up stank of very nasty ‘old boy’s club’ Tory snobbery – which is exactly what it was. It was utterly alienating – cash was king – and of course you’re happy – but you’re one of the listened to – woe betide the rest
I also argued against admission fees and wanted the Cathedral to advertise itself as a place of prayer – something it would never do
So I discount your claims
As I would also point out – St Paul’s is not being occupied. A small grasp of facts would help your case
I have been to the camp today and they would much prefer to continue buying food and drink from the Church (a charity) than the usual glut of multi-national companies around the area.
St Pauls does in fact look wonderful, and it looks even better for being in the centre of a vibrant movement for the sort of social justice that Christ preached about.
My Ely connections pre-date admission fees and PWC Carol Services. Very much a Tory-free zone in my day. Sir Clement Freud was the local MP and most of the Dean and Chapter strongly anti-Thatcher.
Your points about the venality of Cathedral Chapters seem to agree with me that the issue surrounding St Pauls is entirely down to Cathedral finances and not because the Dean and Chapter have been lent on by bankers embarrassed by the success of the protests.
St Pauls is clearly the location of the Occupation. Surely outside a bank would be a more appropriate location to camp. There’s plenty of open space behind RBS’s HQ, between Bishopsgate and Spitalfields market.
With just a moment’s recall of the history of this event you would realise it is where it is because the Stock Exchange was the target
It is accident it is at St Paul’s – but given that accident it ius St Paul’s duty to give it sanctuary and contrary to all Christian teaching that it is not
And if that requires St Paul’s to go to its sponsors to raise money to help – then so it should. But that’s where the crisis comes – as they know they can’t – so they side with the City
This is pure politics and the Dean has shown Mammon to be his god
The management of St Pauls will have a legal duty of care to anyone entering the premises. This includes staff, volunteers, and visitors (regardless of whether visiting to worship, as tourists or whatever).
It also has a duty to mitigate any undue risks to the building itself.
They are occupiers – whether they own the land or not is neither here nor there to determining whether a duty exists.
One would imagine the action taken is in exercise of that duty, as a last resort in consultation with their relevant experts. Imagine if there were a fatality or serious damage to this historic building and they disregarded their expert advice!
This duty of care is one those responsible must take seriously. It is what it says on the tin — a duty that may (in extreme cases) have criminal implications. If they breached this duty, I doubt any sympathies they may have for the protestors will be a defence.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I suggest it is extremely unlikely that antipathy towards the protestors had anything to do with it.
And I could always get an opinion on such issues to suit my needs from a friendly lawyer predisposed to agree it was time for a protest to move on – as you well know
‎”You cannot serve both God and Mammon” (Matt 6:24)
[…] looked further into St Paul’s links with City finance. Murphy has published on his blog the names of the trustees of the St Paul’s Foundation, which supports the upkeep of the Cathedral. The list revealed names associated with City finance […]
Good for them!
God’s work is *always* more important than some pettyfogging about economics or the City.
It always amazes me that people think that individuals act in one capacity in splendid isolation from another. The St. Paul’s foundation are of course going to influence the chapter and ultimately the Dean’s decision to close the cathedral, thus applying pressure on OLSX to pack up and go home.
Someone asks why the cathedral would want a load of “scruffy” protesters near their place of worship? Seriously?! I’m not a fan of religion myself, but I’m pretty sure Christianity is largely about doing good by the many, turning the other cheek, looking after good Samaritans and generally against the rich and banking specifically. But hey, that’s just the word of God, so let’s not let that get in the way of how one decides to run a building devoted to the man.
Now, I do have some sympathy with the comments regarding the staff of the cathedral, as they surely are part of the 99%. However from the statement made by OLSX they have complied with requests made by both the fire department and the h&s officer responsible, and provision has been made for access to the shops and cafe, so this is mitigated in part, also by the use being made by protesters of the cafe, and of course I doubt that in general the CofE (is it a CofE building?) isn’t exactly short of change, nor are the city types that forced the occupation to relocate there by barring them from their planned protest location.
Finally given the influence that St. Paul’s clearly wields it would not be beyond reason that should pressure be exerted by the Chapter, donors and other supporters of this establishment on the City to find a suitable alternative home for the protest this would have some effect – but I doubt this will happen as clearly there is little desire from said figures for the protest to continue.
Therefore I think that as usual Richard has the gist of this story right.
So there.
Thanks!
Richard,
There is identity for John Harvey. You need to look at the St Paul’s newsletter, Epistle, for November 2009 – here.
And yes, lo and behold he did work for big finance once upon a time – but (i) this is back in the 1970s, before finance went seriously bad; and (ii) he also has actually earned some of his money as an inventor and technical innovator.
Richard thanks for writing this.
I’ve defended the church a lot over the years as an institution ultimately on the side of social justice. What can I say now?
I’m pretty upset and disappointed by this as I had some (foolish no doubt) hopes that the Church might actually come out in favour of the message of social justice- sadly not.
(for those who want to flame me please don’t I’m already upset enough and anyway I won’t read it)
Your concern is valid and well placed
It is why I have stood up to be counted on this one
All this ranting seems to have overlooked the fact that the Church and St Pauls were never the intended objects of this demonstration. First of all you (RM) raise no objection to the “collateral damage” caused by the demonstration, and then you object when the church authorities take steps to protect the purposes whose interests they are appointed to protect.
St Paul’s aren’t the focus of the issue – of course not
But their failure to support it is a failure of their Christian duty and that is a valid point of comment
And it shows the power of the elite to corrupt
And of course I don’t object to the demonstration having impact – that is its intention!
It’s interesting. Historically the State and the Church have both fought each other for dominion over the rest of the population. Nowadays both State and Church are apparently in a race to see who can disown any responsibility for them first, leaving the corporate world in charge of their provision. I can’t recall any precedent for this.
BB
In the past both church and state were run by people with money, and power.
Now we have both run by people subservient TO people with money, hence power.
In other words, both state and church have been “bought”
Two camps now. A second one in Finsbury Square, Moorgate.
I can’t see any reason to shut St. Pauls. The one given seem to be “with so many stoves and fires and lots of different types of fuel around, there is a clear fire hazard”. Seems a bit feeble to me. But by closing it down, they can say the protesters are costing them £20,000 for every day it is shut. Moral blackmail.
Missing, or hidden well away, in today’s media coverage is
(part of my comment got chopped off… probably my attempts at HTML attributes failed. Here’s the rest. Sorry)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/22/occupy-london-protest-st-pauls
The media gave blanket coverage to the uprising in Tahir Square, yet when an internationally renowned activist who was involved in the uprising there visits the protesters in London, she is virtually ignored.
Richard
do you think the protesters might move on to another plot within EC1 in consideration for an unamiguous statement by Rowan Williams that financial “restructuring” & tax avoidance is, fundamentally, unchristian ?
(Speaking as a Roman, myself, I like to think we’re pretty clear on this one. I don’t think a hedge-fund manager could take the bread & wine with a clear conscience)
Rome’s teaching on this is clear – and good
It may not always be followed, but it’s good
I’d eat my hat for a statement that the City has real questions to answer and reform to deliver
But where is the ‘other’ site? St Paul’s may be accident but it’s very good
[…] Let’s name those who may have decided to move #occupylondon on from St Paul’s http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/10/21/lets-name-those-who-decided-to-move-occupylondon-on-fr… […]
sure are a lot of moneychangers running st pauls.
“Pettyfogging”? I think that there more of a moral issue at stake than that. If the Church comes out of this as more concerned about tourist revenue than the moral bankruptcy of the behaviour the financial industry displays as it creates poverty and despair then perhaps it is right; the tourist industry is where it belongs. I seem to recall some stories about Jesus (remember him?)being less than cosy with the establishment. Of course he didn’t have mates in the 1% or a gift shop to run…….
Does the Bankers on the Board of St Paul’s involved in the invetments of monies of Church of England? Are any of the investment kept off-shore?
Dame Helen Alexander DBE Deputy chair of the CBI, director of Centrica plc. Centrica owns British Gas. One of the 6 energy suppliers that are growing too big for the government to do anything about them ripping off people in the UK.
[…] call for St Paul’s Cathedral to throw open its doors to protesters – and proceeded to name those individuals and institutions that had a say in the decision to call for the protesters…. The demonstration polarised opinion in Christian circles – with those of a more conservative […]
I really don’t think this post is a useful contribution to what’s happening. You appear to be trying to make St Paul’s the enemy and every time we do this, the press make this more about OccupyLSX versus St Paul’s and less about the real reasons for the occupation.
St Paul’s initially welcomed the occupation and I reckon they’d continue to if more effort was made to let them carry on as normal.
The church is not an example of capitalism. It is not trying to make a profit. It is just trying to hold services (which are free by the way) and pull in enough money to keep a magnificent building in good repair.
We have an important argument to make about the state of modern capitalism but instead of doing that we’re taking potshots at a body that should be our natural friend.
The CofE has a £5.3 billion investment profile, including £9 million in Rupert Murdoch’s empire. They also have investments with BP, Exxon Mobile etc. See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8632478/News-of-the-World-Church-of-England-retains-stake-in-Rupert-Murdochs-empire.html
You would think they could help out their most famous church, so it could fulfill it’s Christian duty by helping the protestors. Or am I naive?
You’re not naive
But you forget that the CoE is very effectively captured by the 1% and is moulded in it’s own style -at least at the top
You are naive.
Quoting £5.3bn of investment profile is disingenuous. For one thing, the church finances a vast number of schools, homes, buildings, community outreaches, pastors, counsellors etc, etc, etc which are in the main freely provided but still have to be financed. The reserves required to keep the huge entity which is the CoE operational, plus the buildings are what makes up the majority of ‘investments’. Added to this, property is often held under antiquated rules around use and upkeep and restricted options for selling.
The majority of church income is generated by these investments. You say it as if this money is just sitting in a bank somewhere when it should be being spent. That is shortsighted and naive. You don’t sell all your assets and leave yourself with no means of generating income.
If you want to criticise the church’s investments, are you offering to dip into your own pocket to fill the gap? Or run all the activities the church does instead? I am not saying the church has it all perfect, but planks and specks cme to mind.
[If you want to know, I used to be an accountant for one of the larger diocese of the coE]
RM is clearly a pompous ass with a bitter chip on his shoulder, who has nothing better to do than stir up problems. There’s nothing Christian about this blog.
Let me ignore the fact your comment clearly breaches my moderation policy, is unprofessional and also – since you use the criteria – decidedly unChristian
And then let me suggest ethical investment. Failure to walk the talk is to miss the mark – and many clergy suggest that is a workable definition of sin.
Over to you, but a little more respectfully please
[…] commentator on this blog this morning has said: I really don’t think this post is a useful contribution to what’s happening. You […]
I was just doodling around the St Paul’s Foundation myself to see who did what, when I found your blog. I also found John Harvey, who is a US trustee and – that’s right – with a banking background, although some time in the past (as James says above). You’ll find a whole page on him here:
http://www.stpauls.co.uk/documents/foundation/0911_stpaulsepistleweb.pdf
What I can’t find is just who funded the £40m restoration that’s just been finished. Any ideas? Apparently some 70% of their income comes from admission charges, but at £20,000 a day that would take a lot of saving up. The World Monuments Fund has contributed (that’s American Express money) but in conservation circles they’re pretty good guys.
Of course, with the demise of proper funding for just about anything, this sort of shadowy philanthropy, with possible strings attached, will become the norm.
Mention above of Ely cathedral and a PWC/Masonic carol service is interesting. The chairman of trustees of the St Paul’s Foundation is from PWC.
Hard to get a cigarette paper between God and Mammon these days. Runcie must be turning in his grave. Luckily that grave’s not in St Pauls.
I published tge sponsor list last friday – it is on their site
It is not edifying
And the widow’s mite is not recognised
St Pauls is the Cathedral church of the City of London so it isn’t that surprising that the Trustees come from the residents and businesses of the City of London. As such the Trustees are a very representative 70% bankers/accountants, 20% business folk and 10% from the arts (the Barbican is in the City).
Wander around the many parish churches in the City and the congregations are mainly City folk as are the lay officials.
It also isn’t surprising that the Church is keen to have Trustees who are connected to people with deep pockets. Especially as the Church doesn’t have the financial resources to fund clerics salaries & pensions and “good works” together with the requirements of finding £40m for the restoration of historic churches like St Pauls.
I repeat my earlier point that I think the Dean & Chapter haven’t sold out to the 1% or have been lent on by the 1% but that they are more concerned with their commercial prospects and an un-Christian distaste for the vulgarity and nuisance of a tented protest on their doorstep.