Hacker News Reader

Comment by drcross | Hacker News Reader

Here's my personal story, some may find interesting- I was finishing my masters in the UK and split up with my ex girlfriend, this meant I had to get a job quickly to sustain myself because I had nowhere to live and no money. I visited some different groups of friends who were kind enough to let me stay for a few days on their couch but I couldn't risk outstaying my welcome.

At the same time the Occupy protests were happening in St Pauls. I secured a short term contract in an investment bank, and stayed in a tent with the protestors while saving for a deposit to rent a room. I had to put on my suit and dash away from the camp in the morning before I was spotted, I'd then change before coming back in the evening. I washed in the local swimming pools.

Looking back on it, it was nuts that I was able to finish my thesis. So yeah, rents are high, you need to know someone to make it in London.

View on HN

dash away from the camp in the morning before I was spotted

Just to clarify: you mean they wouldn't have liked it if they had known that you were a banker?

Just to explain, it was protest and demonstration against economic inequality that took place in London, precisly St Paul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_London

Makes sense.

If it's anything similar to Occupy Wall Street, wearing a suit would be taken to mean that a person is some sort of terrible exploiter of the proletariat.

Yes. My colleagues in London were advised to dress down during the protests to avoid drawing attention to themselves, I think this was fairly common at the time.

To be fair, if you had been found out, I think you would have deserved what you get for being such a glaring hypocrite. I am sure some people were giving up work to protest against a system. You were supporting that system, while using the protests as a place to stay.

>would have deserved what you get

What do you imagine this would have been? What would a "fair" reaction of the protestors have been?

The poster wasn't 'using' the protests, they were using a public park. It is hypocrisy of this movement to take over a public space and claim it for their own exclusive use, while not acknowledging that the fact that the police let them get away with this is a sign of their own privilege.

I think you have your wires crossed, I am just someone confirming the whole "you should dress down" advice - neither my london-based colleagues nor me (I don't even live in the UK) were living with the protesters during the occupy movement.

I remember visiting a similar protest, in my work clothes, to show support years ago. Being well dressed is taken as a sign you have some kind of malicious intention.

good for you! I always found it unfair that left wing protestors are allowed to do illegal things, like camp in parks. They complain about privilege, while they themselves are afforded privileges that ordinary people (like you) don't have.

This is misguided. The Occupy protests were often focused on providing privileges like housing, shelter, and amenities to those who didn't have access to it.

Well, in this case they helped someone out directly with all of the above :)

This is the irony that made me comment!

They were also focussed on trashing a church. What lovely protestors they were.

They achieved nothing, apart from being a nuisance.

They wanted the public space in front of the Goldman's building (the basis of which the development of the square was approved). Regardless of whether you support them or not (I don't) they certainly weren't "focused on trashing a church".

To be honest, I don't think they were focused on anything at all: people inside the movement will tell you that.

"We're the 99%" fantastic, we knew that already.

"We want equality" what specifically do you think you're entitled to?

I think it is fairly obvious that they all wanted a fairer more just system. That there are so many so many elements of the current system that they complained about is not a reason to ignore them.

They didn't do a good job of explaining why the difference in wealth is a matter that should be addressed.

Yes, some people have more than others. That doesn't mean people are entitled to more things.

That's the perception that was heavily pushed by the media, yes. From personal experience with three separate Occupy encampments in different parts of the country, I saw dedicated efforts in all of them to set up things like food distribution to the homeless, shelters, free legal advice and other amenities. Of course no one ever hears about that because it's easier and more enjoyable to trash subcultures instead.

This is not to mention the larger scale efforts to provide debt relief and outreach.

How is that relevant?

My point is that the police turning a blind eye to the occupy protests using public space in an illegal way, and effectively claiming that land for themselves, is evidence of the privilege of these protestors. If the poster had pitched his tent in other circumstances, the police would have made him take it down.

They didn't turn a blind eye, that is disingenuous in the extreme. The police in the US and the UK detained and incarcerated thousands of people over the course of the Occupy movement, often with disproportionately violent methods. In addition, thousands of dollars worth of communal property were confiscated or destroyed in the course of their raids against camps.

You are the one being disingenuous. An ordinary person would be kicked out of the park before a single night had elapsed. The fact that the police eventually to some action doesn't mean they didn't also turn a blind eye for a long time.

They literally did the opposite of turning a blind eye. They placed Occupy activists under surveillance in multiple cities. They sent undercover cops. They used every tool at their disposal to get information on and contain the movement. If you followed the entire affair with any semblance of good faith you would have seen the numerous articles that detailed this police activity. A squatter is not the same thing as a protest, that little equivocation is probably at the root of your disingenuous approach to this issue,

Your are exhibiting precisely the privileged attitude I referred to earlier. You believe that merely being a protestor entitles you to more rights than a mere squatter. In fact, both have equal rights under the law. Both a squatter and a protestor have a right to carry a sign or chant slogans. Neither have a right to camp in a park.

As someone who was actually at some of these protests, I don't think putting my freedom on the line for said squatters is a sign of "privileged" thinking. Both have good reason to squat in the park, though your simplistic legalistic reasoning would deny that. It just turns out that protesters en masse have more power to resist outright police action, and so they can remain longer in contravention of the laws set down by the elite. Call it the privilege of the mob if you will. At the end of the day though, both groups were forcibly evicted with great violence.

Also, I don't think you comprehend how privilege even factors into this discussion. You can't just use the word "privilege" as some sort of trump card that defeats any argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com