Why have a secret gig-why not have it at St Pauls and get loads of people down there?

..not for the riff raff. Now move along please there is nothing else to discuss......

only 1% of the 99% invited?

well done.

When keeping out regime thugs is the top priority, starting small and expanding with experience is the safest strategy.

Fuck off middle class scum you are from the same class of people who were protesting against the ban on fox hunting just a few years ago. You went to the same schools as them and you know the same people as them. Go back to to your privileged country homes, your glasses of port and your society balls and dinners parties! The working class can sort out the financial crisis on our own without the help of upper class outsiders who have hijacked the fightback!

'Working class' does have a point - last time I visited St Pauls, you couldn't move for glasses of port, and the campers would keep leaving to go foxhunting. Most disruptive.

I hate celebrity culture as much as anyone, but maybe people wanted to see them just because they are good musicians? And maybe numbers were limited because space was limited? And maybe they didn't want a public event because it would be disrupted by cops and the media?

I wasn't there but why can't the whining anarcho-negativists attack those who really deserve it like politicians and big business instead of droning on against anyone having a bit of fun? Assuming they are genuinely anarchists, that is, and not just trolls. Looks like it was a good event and I hope everyone there had an excellent time!

anarcho-positivist
"why can't the whining anarcho-negativists attack those who really deserve it like politicians and big business instead of droning on against anyone having a bit of fun?"

The issue is that this was two weeks in the planning, wasn't taken to GA and was neither transparent, nor inclusive, nor accountable. As an anarcho you might perhaps have come across such notions?

The party was divisive and demoralising for those excluded. Fighting hierarchy outside the camp whilst a hierarchy installs itself inside the camp is useless. Endorsing celebrity culture is another own goal to be avoided. If radiodead and pals really wanted to support the Occupy MOVEMENT then this should have been a public and open event, which would also have helped draw new people in.

One can only wonder why you aren't out attacking politicians and big business instead of spouting off on a newswire.

I am assuming by your explanation and tone that you are not an anarchist and don't understand even the basic tenets of anarchism probabaly using the term for trend purposes when it suits you. Completely agree with my NWBCW comrade, the organisers, "guests" and musicians instead of helping a movement showed their true elitist, conformist bullshit (won't stick my head too much above the parapet colours....

You complainers sound more like authoritarian communists than anarchists. If people want to organise a party for some people it's up to them who they invite. I don't even know what the "GA" is but I assume it is some bureaucratic bullshit.

A hierarchy is only a problem if it involves control. Someone putting together a music event isn't forcing anyone to do anything. If you are miffed because you weren't invited - tough shit. Organise your own party if you want. Anarchism doesn't mean centralising everything, it's about people doing their own thing free of coercion.

I know what you mean about celebs being in the 1%, but it's not like they are Lady GaGa. If they had done a big public event you would (quite rightly) have whined about them just doing it for the publicity for themselves. So they do a small private event.

Is that your real problem - that wealthy celebs were involved? As opposed to because it was a small private event?

It's the classic musician's dilemma - you want to become well-known so you can let people enjoy your creations and spread your message. But once you are there you have "sold out" and lose touch with what you were about in the first place. No wonder so many of them top themselves at 27!

"One can only wonder why you aren't out attacking politicians and big business instead of spouting off on a newswire."

That's a good point - maybe we should both agree to shut up - you with your whining at other activists and me with my whining at you?

James Newman comment from this thread:  http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/radiohead-massive-attack-play-to-invited-audience-at-bank-of-ideas/#comments
"Just spoke with one person over the phone who told me that he was at Bank of Ideas on the day Massive Attack was playing. He didn’t know who they were as he attempted to enter the basement of Bank of Ideas on that day only to be stopped from entering the area by “Security” who told him he could not enter because some “important people” were down there."

The corporations also have security to keep the Occupiers out, no?

GA was bypassed as a self-selecting group set up a knees-up for its own benefit IN THE NAME OF THE 99% - a precedent that should not go unnoticed.

Mainsteam coverage of the Uk Occupy movement yesterday was dominated by Thom Yorke.

Meanwhile, at the same time the 'invited 100' were having their shindig in a security bubble, in the USA thousands of occupiers in over 20 cities were putting families back into foreclosed homes. Building links with local communities and causing some concern to the banks.

Would anarcho-positivist like to see more exclusive parties, or more radical action coming from the UK Occupy movement? (A liberal would say both ;-) )

There are certainly a number of hard working, committed Occupiers who are unhappy about the way this was set up.

But who gives a shit about the 99% eh?

ftp: "Would anarcho-positivist like to see more exclusive parties, or more radical action coming from the UK Occupy movement? (A liberal would say both ;-) ) "

Both. But I'm not a liberal. Although to be fair you didn't say ONLY a liberal would say both. ;-)