Democracy Occupied.

The closure of the Occupy London camps is a closing down of democracy.

Police and baliffs in charge of evicting the protestors moved in on the St Paul’s site last night, February 27^th, and continued to clear the area of demonstration this morning. The move comes following a court ruling to have the camps and occupants disbanded.

Appeals to the decision were denied in a move that only adds to the gravitas and reasoning behind the goals and aims of those in charge of the movement.

Occupy London set up shop against capitalism in October last year and has remained a permanent fixture just a little way off the London Stock Exchange for more than four months. Following the example of protests in America, the sit-in phenomenon took off worldwide, and had established itself as part of the landscape outside St Pauls in the capital.

However, the clearing of the sites took little time last night, as many simply moved on as a large force of police closed in on the area. Some were resolute and built a small structure to stand their ground, but within a few hours, this too was dismantled. All that remains of the proud symbol of anti-corporation greed is being ‘cleansed’ in a deep clean. I say ‘cleansed’ because the root of the issue has not been dealt with.

Mayor Boris Johnson took the opportunity to say that he is “glad that finally the law has taken its course”. It would appear that the mayor oversteps his position as a leader of a free government, by suggesting that this prevention of free demonstration is a positive act.

Within the first week of its occupancy, the demonstration had been contained and caused little, to no, disruption in the area: instead blending into the background, heckling peacefully at professional businessmen and women who were the cause of their misery.

London’s trade remained undisrupted.

Now, with the removal of tents and sleeping bags from the St Paul’s steps, but a claim that “The corporation made it very clear that they have nothing supposedly against protest”, there is all the more ammunition to mount daily assaults on the London Stock Exchange area.

Moving the protesters from their camp simply provides the motivation for the activists to move onto the next stage of campaigning, more disruption, more force and presence outside the buildings of the exchange. After all, the only part of the protest with which the law took umbrage was the make shift settlement and sanitation.

Daily demonstrations provides more of the furore and direction needed to ensure a more noticeable effect occurs, a more positive change. After all, if the people working in the Square Mile are disrupted daily, so trade is impacted.

Although there is nothing of the physical camp remaining, certainly its ideas and ideals are still bubbling with zeal around the streets of the capital. The greatest achievement of the camp came in its early days, when there was realisation that those regulating the money, the trade, the jobs, could be wrong-footed and undermined. If the removal of the camp is to reignite this spark, then the authorities could have unwittingly done more harm than good for their cause.

Whilst I do not agree with the removal of the camp, as it brings with it a sense of oppression, or underhand court dealings, there was certainly for the most part no cohesion between public and protestors. Within ten days, the public interest had dimmed and the camp was not necessarily speaking for a majority.

With undefined goals, the next step for the campaigners should be to regroup and outline some aims before continuing. Whilst the group had noble sentiments in the time of credit crunch, recession and high unemployment, there was no long-term solution to capitalist flaws.

Even if the Occupy movement was not wholly formed, it is the closure of camps that is the most striking in a country of free speech. As a society broken by capitalist misdemeanours, even should we not agree with what is said, we should defend the right to say it.

Occupy London, Occupy Economics.

Amidst growing concerns over the economy, the Eurozone crisis, the shortcomings for predicted growth, the downgrading of American financial systems and a lack of united resolve, there has emerged a global undertaking in a bid to coerce governments to introduce a swifter and more effective solution.

‘Occupy Wall Street’ began as a low key protest in its inception; by the time of its enactment, thousands of Manhattan’s residents and other American flocked to the financial district of world-wide repute in order to protest, and stage one of the most daring sit-ins in modern times.

Fervour so pent up is difficult to restrain for too long a period and in quick succession, similar events have sprung up throughout Western democracies.

In The City, ‘Occupy London’ has well and truly taken hold. Saturday morning saw an estimated 2,500 take to the London financial domain in response to ‘Corporate Greed’ that left many families unable to provide for themselves amidst the growing fiscal crises.

Whilst there has been a mixed response to the staged protest, a larger number are coming to acquiesce that promises made by political leaders are slow to be implemented or otherwise do little to combat deficit and budget issues in reality.

The stagnation has come to be referred to as a ‘permafrost’: now so deeply set, it will take a sustained period before any progress can again be made for growth.

One protester, James Sevitt, spoke to the BBC about his feeling on the circumstances in hand: “This is about getting beyond the 'us versus them'. We all live within the same system… We're really focused on building a community which really demonstrates the innovation, solidarity and just the human-to-human contact and community that we want.” The appeal of the protesters is that their numbers are growing in moral support even if not physically every day.

Saturday and Sunday indeed saw huge turnouts, but the working week saw the corporation greed, so inbred, that people returned to their jobs lest they suffer even greater hardships.

It is somewhat paradoxical that the restriction on demonstration for these activists is their return to the employs they hate, that don’t pay sufficient amounts, that threaten cuts.

Organising group Occupy LSX later posted an initial statement on its website in which it said the "current system" was unsustainable.

It called for:

• Structural change towards "authentic global equality"
• An end to the actions of those causing oppression
• An end to global tax injustice
• Regulators who are "genuinely independent" of the industries they regulated.

In addition, the group called for further support for the strike movements planned for the end of November. Such a united stand against both business and government actions sees a revival of national sentiment not produced on such a widespread scale since the notorious cuts of Margaret Thatcher. Determination and repeated efforts are essential for a cause that will have a gradual effect as the tide on the coast.

This notion appears to be hailed as a modern revolution by some leading innovative politicians: Green Party leader and MP Caroline Lucas said: “The camp that has been set up a stone's throw from London Stock Exchange is an opportunity to explore a different kind of future to the one the mainstream political parties have constructed.”

Of course, this is reflective of the widespread belief that politicians in the current cabinet are shying away from public ideas on key issues: from the student tuition fee debate, to the controversial hike in VAT, and the momentous outpouring of anger in riots, public control has never been so outlandish yet so unnoticed by those in power.

Concerning statistics emerged today that the rate of inflation for the country has jumped to a peak only once before witnessed at the height of the original economic crisis: Consumer Price Index currently sits at 5.2%. Such a staggering change is contributing to rising costs of essential gas and electricity, as well as petrol and food. Whilst this figure is expected to subside come the new year, it is worrying that this figure goes against the grain of political policies regarding debt and attempts at cutting the deficit.

Symbolic of the need to persevere, a crowd now remains resolute on the steps of St Paul’s Cathedral in London. Once the bed place of countless beggars and those in poverty, the establishment has almost reclaimed its position as church of the spiritually rich. Whilst businessmen and women hurry on past to the London Stock Exchange, there passes an intelligible and tangible atmosphere that those sat on the steps will prove a powder-keg to ignite national sympathy and rebuke of city greed.

Demonstrations in Greece, in Italy, in Spain all signal that a new price must be paid in this quest for recovery: the bailout of government politics and introduction of dogmatic public involvement.

No economy is to recovery without the active participation of its citizens. Here, the municipal mood is one of strike, not cooperation.