Decision date set for EMD cinema purchase decision

East London and West Essex Guardian Series: The McGuffin Film Society's Bill Hodgson described the council move as a "significant development". The McGuffin Film Society's Bill Hodgson described the council move as a "significant development".

A decision on whether Waltham Forest Council will enforce the purchase of former cinema, which has been at the centre of a long-running dispute between the community and the evangelical church which owns it is, will be made next month.

Talks between the authority and the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God over the future of the former EMD building in Hoe Street, Walthamstow, have broken down.

The church, which purchased the building in 2002, has had two applications to turn the historic cinema into a place of worship turned down and a community trust hopes to re-open it as an entertainment venue.

The council in 2012 agreed in principle to the use of a compulsory purchase order (CPO) as a “last resort”.

And now cabinet members will meet on July 15 to decide whether to push ahead with the CPO, which would enable the council to sell the venue to the Waltham Forest Cinema Trust and Soho Theatre as an arts and entertainment venue.  

Campaign group The McGuffin Film Society has been pivotal in the campaign to return the venue to community use.

Spokesman Bill Hodgson said: "Everyone who has supported our campaign since 2003 will recognise that this is a very significant development.

"It is now a year since the government’s decision to dismiss UCKG’s plans and the church group has had ample opportunity to enter meaningful discussions to help resolve the situation.

"This has not happened so the council is more than justified in pursuing a CPO.

"Local residents have made their voices heard time and again on this issue and there can be no doubt that a revived entertainment venue is what this community wants."

UCKG has been contacted for a comment.

Comments (51)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:48am Tue 17 Jun 14

Villagecranberry says...

This is fantastic news, although about 20 years too late.

The Church will not take this on the chin and will fight it tooth and nail and this will mean another period of many years of having a derelict building in limbo whilst the rest of the area has moved into the 21st .Century.

All essentially down to a Labour Council who took their eye of the ball and had no vision for the future.
This is fantastic news, although about 20 years too late. The Church will not take this on the chin and will fight it tooth and nail and this will mean another period of many years of having a derelict building in limbo whilst the rest of the area has moved into the 21st .Century. All essentially down to a Labour Council who took their eye of the ball and had no vision for the future. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -27

12:03pm Tue 17 Jun 14

PsiMonk says...

Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh, Villagecranberry?

1. If the CPO goes ahead, it's likely the quickest way to get the building back. All other options would still see the building empty for years.

2. The cinema was sold privately to the UCKG - for apparently double what it was worth. Difficult for the council to stop that kind of problem.

The Labour council can be blamed for many other issues to do with the cinema - there was a period where they pretty much tried to scupper any chance to bring the cinema back into use, instead opting to put a multiplex on the Arcade site as a direct attack on the Granada's likely viability. Fortunately, key changes in the cabinet and among officers seems to have got to the point where they now see sense - and The Cinema Trust's sensible plans must surely have helped also.

Those issues, and the original sale of the building (twice in fairly quick succession) have nothing to do with the council taking their "eye off the ball" or having "had no vision for the future" though.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh, Villagecranberry? 1. If the CPO goes ahead, it's likely the quickest way to get the building back. All other options would still see the building empty for years. 2. The cinema was sold privately to the UCKG - for apparently double what it was worth. Difficult for the council to stop that kind of problem. The Labour council can be blamed for many other issues to do with the cinema - there was a period where they pretty much tried to scupper any chance to bring the cinema back into use, instead opting to put a multiplex on the Arcade site as a direct attack on the Granada's likely viability. Fortunately, key changes in the cabinet and among officers seems to have got to the point where they now see sense - and The Cinema Trust's sensible plans must surely have helped also. Those issues, and the original sale of the building (twice in fairly quick succession) have nothing to do with the council taking their "eye off the ball" or having "had no vision for the future" though. PsiMonk
  • Score: 12

12:45pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Villagecranberry says...

PsiMonk wrote:
Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh, Villagecranberry?

1. If the CPO goes ahead, it's likely the quickest way to get the building back. All other options would still see the building empty for years.

2. The cinema was sold privately to the UCKG - for apparently double what it was worth. Difficult for the council to stop that kind of problem.

The Labour council can be blamed for many other issues to do with the cinema - there was a period where they pretty much tried to scupper any chance to bring the cinema back into use, instead opting to put a multiplex on the Arcade site as a direct attack on the Granada's likely viability. Fortunately, key changes in the cabinet and among officers seems to have got to the point where they now see sense - and The Cinema Trust's sensible plans must surely have helped also.

Those issues, and the original sale of the building (twice in fairly quick succession) have nothing to do with the council taking their "eye off the ball" or having "had no vision for the future" though.
You are the one ranting.

Under your point 1. I agree with your 'if'. You obviously have no idea of the CPO process as this will take years as there are several appeal processes. How would you like to have your property taken from you?

Under your point 2. I agree with your 'apparently'. Who valued this at double the real price? This was a pure market forces at work. Properties are 'apparently' currently being sold at 800k in Walthamstow Village. Many people think that these prices are ridiculous and not worth it, try telling this to the purchasers. They are happy to pay the price as were the church at the time. If little houses are going for sky high prices these days in the village, imagine what the church would want if a CPO went ahead having had their money tied up for years. An independent valuation would probably value it at least double what they paid and this is where people who have (talk is cheap) said they will back a purchase will have to put up or shut up.

A CPO highly unlikely, but then again, the council of course Labour are always keen to waste public funds on a folly like this instead of Libraries, School Services, the Elderly Services and so on , and fork out on a extravagance of a project that will be used by a non representative group of the entire Borough make up.

The likely hood is this will drag on and on for years with new residents of the borough wondering how it got in that state in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh, Villagecranberry? 1. If the CPO goes ahead, it's likely the quickest way to get the building back. All other options would still see the building empty for years. 2. The cinema was sold privately to the UCKG - for apparently double what it was worth. Difficult for the council to stop that kind of problem. The Labour council can be blamed for many other issues to do with the cinema - there was a period where they pretty much tried to scupper any chance to bring the cinema back into use, instead opting to put a multiplex on the Arcade site as a direct attack on the Granada's likely viability. Fortunately, key changes in the cabinet and among officers seems to have got to the point where they now see sense - and The Cinema Trust's sensible plans must surely have helped also. Those issues, and the original sale of the building (twice in fairly quick succession) have nothing to do with the council taking their "eye off the ball" or having "had no vision for the future" though.[/p][/quote]You are the one ranting. Under your point 1. I agree with your 'if'. You obviously have no idea of the CPO process as this will take years as there are several appeal processes. How would you like to have your property taken from you? Under your point 2. I agree with your 'apparently'. Who valued this at double the real price? This was a pure market forces at work. Properties are 'apparently' currently being sold at 800k in Walthamstow Village. Many people think that these prices are ridiculous and not worth it, try telling this to the purchasers. They are happy to pay the price as were the church at the time. If little houses are going for sky high prices these days in the village, imagine what the church would want if a CPO went ahead having had their money tied up for years. An independent valuation would probably value it at least double what they paid and this is where people who have (talk is cheap) said they will back a purchase will have to put up or shut up. A CPO highly unlikely, but then again, the council of course Labour are always keen to waste public funds on a folly like this instead of Libraries, School Services, the Elderly Services and so on , and fork out on a extravagance of a project that will be used by a non representative group of the entire Borough make up. The likely hood is this will drag on and on for years with new residents of the borough wondering how it got in that state in the first place. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -13

1:12pm Tue 17 Jun 14

PsiMonk says...

Oh dear oh dear. Again, light on facts, heavy on opinion...

1. I'm not saying CPO won't take years - I'm saying it's still the quickest avenue available to move forward now, bar the UCKG seeing sense and selling at a reasonable price.

2. The council commissioned an independent report on the cinema at the first application by the UCKG. Independent auditors valued it against the UCKG's purchase price. That's how we know they paid double. And that's how we know what the building was worth then.

3. The church is under an obligation from the Charities Commission to get good value in its business dealings - individuals are not. Comparing a private individual buying in a housing bubble to a heavily-listed building bought at double its value by a church is like comparing apples and bazookas.

4. In the same vein, CPOs are for the independently audited value of the building - which will not have gone up dramatically, and might even have gone down - the building is heavily listed and controlled as to use, and is now in worse shape than it was when the church bought it, so its listed elements will require extensive repair and renovation. If the CPO goes ahead, the church will lose heavily, and the building will go for what The Cinema Trust has already worked out it can afford, for instance.

5. The council, in this case, are responding to their own surveys that found a majority of borough residents want the building back. And the aim clearly on the CPO is to sell the building on to The Cinema Trust or some other reasonable organisation to put it to good use. So it need not impact heavily on "libraries, school services, the elderly" etc. They're also ensuring that there isn't an empty eyesore next to their new regenerative Scene site etc. It's good town-centre management, frankly. And I'd like to see them take a similarly robust approach to some of the other empty buildings in Walthamstow - like the Buxton Road bingo hall.

6. There's all sorts of other areas people can and have accused the council of wasting money on - huge salary increases for councillors and officers, chasing people who weren't even flytipping as flytippers etc. - but on this one I don't think you'll find loads of people to agree with you.
Oh dear oh dear. Again, light on facts, heavy on opinion... 1. I'm not saying CPO won't take years - I'm saying it's still the quickest avenue available to move forward now, bar the UCKG seeing sense and selling at a reasonable price. 2. The council commissioned an independent report on the cinema at the first application by the UCKG. Independent auditors valued it against the UCKG's purchase price. That's how we know they paid double. And that's how we know what the building was worth then. 3. The church is under an obligation from the Charities Commission to get good value in its business dealings - individuals are not. Comparing a private individual buying in a housing bubble to a heavily-listed building bought at double its value by a church is like comparing apples and bazookas. 4. In the same vein, CPOs are for the independently audited value of the building - which will not have gone up dramatically, and might even have gone down - the building is heavily listed and controlled as to use, and is now in worse shape than it was when the church bought it, so its listed elements will require extensive repair and renovation. If the CPO goes ahead, the church will lose heavily, and the building will go for what The Cinema Trust has already worked out it can afford, for instance. 5. The council, in this case, are responding to their own surveys that found a majority of borough residents want the building back. And the aim clearly on the CPO is to sell the building on to The Cinema Trust or some other reasonable organisation to put it to good use. So it need not impact heavily on "libraries, school services, the elderly" etc. They're also ensuring that there isn't an empty eyesore next to their new regenerative Scene site etc. It's good town-centre management, frankly. And I'd like to see them take a similarly robust approach to some of the other empty buildings in Walthamstow - like the Buxton Road bingo hall. 6. There's all sorts of other areas people can and have accused the council of wasting money on - huge salary increases for councillors and officers, chasing people who weren't even flytipping as flytippers etc. - but on this one I don't think you'll find loads of people to agree with you. PsiMonk
  • Score: 15

2:09pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Villagecranberry says...

PsiMonk wrote:
Oh dear oh dear. Again, light on facts, heavy on opinion...

1. I'm not saying CPO won't take years - I'm saying it's still the quickest avenue available to move forward now, bar the UCKG seeing sense and selling at a reasonable price.

2. The council commissioned an independent report on the cinema at the first application by the UCKG. Independent auditors valued it against the UCKG's purchase price. That's how we know they paid double. And that's how we know what the building was worth then.

3. The church is under an obligation from the Charities Commission to get good value in its business dealings - individuals are not. Comparing a private individual buying in a housing bubble to a heavily-listed building bought at double its value by a church is like comparing apples and bazookas.

4. In the same vein, CPOs are for the independently audited value of the building - which will not have gone up dramatically, and might even have gone down - the building is heavily listed and controlled as to use, and is now in worse shape than it was when the church bought it, so its listed elements will require extensive repair and renovation. If the CPO goes ahead, the church will lose heavily, and the building will go for what The Cinema Trust has already worked out it can afford, for instance.

5. The council, in this case, are responding to their own surveys that found a majority of borough residents want the building back. And the aim clearly on the CPO is to sell the building on to The Cinema Trust or some other reasonable organisation to put it to good use. So it need not impact heavily on "libraries, school services, the elderly" etc. They're also ensuring that there isn't an empty eyesore next to their new regenerative Scene site etc. It's good town-centre management, frankly. And I'd like to see them take a similarly robust approach to some of the other empty buildings in Walthamstow - like the Buxton Road bingo hall.

6. There's all sorts of other areas people can and have accused the council of wasting money on - huge salary increases for councillors and officers, chasing people who weren't even flytipping as flytippers etc. - but on this one I don't think you'll find loads of people to agree with you.
What they paid is irrelevant.

It is what the premises are worth now.

Why should they be penalised for buying a property that was on the open market? If they wanted to pay over the odds, that is what market forces are all about.

The council have dragged their feet for years and should have recognised that the Granada was a jewel in the crown of Walthamstow, but what do you expect from a bunch of Councillors who nearly wrecked the William Morris Gallery and have presided over numerous instances of incompetence over the years?
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: Oh dear oh dear. Again, light on facts, heavy on opinion... 1. I'm not saying CPO won't take years - I'm saying it's still the quickest avenue available to move forward now, bar the UCKG seeing sense and selling at a reasonable price. 2. The council commissioned an independent report on the cinema at the first application by the UCKG. Independent auditors valued it against the UCKG's purchase price. That's how we know they paid double. And that's how we know what the building was worth then. 3. The church is under an obligation from the Charities Commission to get good value in its business dealings - individuals are not. Comparing a private individual buying in a housing bubble to a heavily-listed building bought at double its value by a church is like comparing apples and bazookas. 4. In the same vein, CPOs are for the independently audited value of the building - which will not have gone up dramatically, and might even have gone down - the building is heavily listed and controlled as to use, and is now in worse shape than it was when the church bought it, so its listed elements will require extensive repair and renovation. If the CPO goes ahead, the church will lose heavily, and the building will go for what The Cinema Trust has already worked out it can afford, for instance. 5. The council, in this case, are responding to their own surveys that found a majority of borough residents want the building back. And the aim clearly on the CPO is to sell the building on to The Cinema Trust or some other reasonable organisation to put it to good use. So it need not impact heavily on "libraries, school services, the elderly" etc. They're also ensuring that there isn't an empty eyesore next to their new regenerative Scene site etc. It's good town-centre management, frankly. And I'd like to see them take a similarly robust approach to some of the other empty buildings in Walthamstow - like the Buxton Road bingo hall. 6. There's all sorts of other areas people can and have accused the council of wasting money on - huge salary increases for councillors and officers, chasing people who weren't even flytipping as flytippers etc. - but on this one I don't think you'll find loads of people to agree with you.[/p][/quote]What they paid is irrelevant. It is what the premises are worth now. Why should they be penalised for buying a property that was on the open market? If they wanted to pay over the odds, that is what market forces are all about. The council have dragged their feet for years and should have recognised that the Granada was a jewel in the crown of Walthamstow, but what do you expect from a bunch of Councillors who nearly wrecked the William Morris Gallery and have presided over numerous instances of incompetence over the years? Villagecranberry
  • Score: -12

2:45pm Tue 17 Jun 14

PsiMonk says...

You said: "Who valued this at double the real price? This was a pure market forces at work... If little houses are going for sky high prices these days in the village, imagine what the church would want if a CPO went ahead having had their money tied up for years. An independent valuation would probably value it at least double what they paid and this is where people who have (talk is cheap) said they will back a purchase will have to put up or shut up."

So what they paid is in several ways relevant to the questions you posed and the key issues to do with the CPO. For instance, if the CPO was to be for "double what they paid" then it would make little sense to proceed with one. Fortunately, the opposite is more likely to be true - the premises are probably worth now less than half what they paid - which is a sum that would make a future for the building commercially viable, according to The Cinema Trust and the council's independent auditors. And that's what the CPO would be for.

You said: "Why should they be penalised for buying a property that was on the open market? If they wanted to pay over the odds, that is what market forces are all about."

As I said already, that's not the case according to the Charities Commission - which demands "good value". If the UCKG are found to have not got good value from the building (by, for instance, paying double the asking price), then they may well be called in and investigated. This may be one reason they've been unwilling to sell for so long. Either way, this is about far more than just "market forces".

Yes, the councillors should have seen the cinema, as with the William Morris Gallery, as something worth saving. And they clearly do now - hopefully not too late. We agree on that much.
You said: "Who valued this at double the real price? This was a pure market forces at work... If little houses are going for sky high prices these days in the village, imagine what the church would want if a CPO went ahead having had their money tied up for years. An independent valuation would probably value it at least double what they paid and this is where people who have (talk is cheap) said they will back a purchase will have to put up or shut up." So what they paid is in several ways relevant to the questions you posed and the key issues to do with the CPO. For instance, if the CPO was to be for "double what they paid" then it would make little sense to proceed with one. Fortunately, the opposite is more likely to be true - the premises are probably worth now less than half what they paid - which is a sum that would make a future for the building commercially viable, according to The Cinema Trust and the council's independent auditors. And that's what the CPO would be for. You said: "Why should they be penalised for buying a property that was on the open market? If they wanted to pay over the odds, that is what market forces are all about." As I said already, that's not the case according to the Charities Commission - which demands "good value". If the UCKG are found to have not got good value from the building (by, for instance, paying double the asking price), then they may well be called in and investigated. This may be one reason they've been unwilling to sell for so long. Either way, this is about far more than just "market forces". Yes, the councillors should have seen the cinema, as with the William Morris Gallery, as something worth saving. And they clearly do now - hopefully not too late. We agree on that much. PsiMonk
  • Score: 8

3:24pm Tue 17 Jun 14

RichieA70 says...

Please support the a Compulsory Purchase by emailing those making the decision by 1st July.
Contact details of the relevant councillors are here:

http://savewalthamst
owcinema.org/?p=447
Please support the a Compulsory Purchase by emailing those making the decision by 1st July. Contact details of the relevant councillors are here: http://savewalthamst owcinema.org/?p=447 RichieA70
  • Score: 17

3:26pm Tue 17 Jun 14

jonny mash says...

Now that there is going to be a 9 screen cinema at the arcade site is the Granada in any way commercially viable? In my youth I remember going to all the big traditional three screen cinemas where the main auditorium could seat hundreds of people to see such classics as "Ghostbusters", "Lock, Stock and Barrel" and "Weekend at Bernies 2", however, these cinemas suffered because they only had 3 screens and were either subsequently demolished (Gants Hill) or converted to to multiple screens (South Woodford). As the Granada is grade One listed I imagine that it can not be converted as such, the would be purchasers the McMuffin group and Soho Theatre wish to convert some of the screens to a comedy venue which is a good idea but shirley the main auditorium would be better used as a live music venue? East London has no major venues and this option would give Walthamstow Village a USP, in the past great bands such as The Rolling Stones, Herman and the Munsters and Sir Cliff Richards all played at the old Granada and it would be great to see new bands gracing the legendary stage
Now that there is going to be a 9 screen cinema at the arcade site is the Granada in any way commercially viable? In my youth I remember going to all the big traditional three screen cinemas where the main auditorium could seat hundreds of people to see such classics as "Ghostbusters", "Lock, Stock and Barrel" and "Weekend at Bernies 2", however, these cinemas suffered because they only had 3 screens and were either subsequently demolished (Gants Hill) or converted to to multiple screens (South Woodford). As the Granada is grade One listed I imagine that it can not be converted as such, the would be purchasers the McMuffin group and Soho Theatre wish to convert some of the screens to a comedy venue which is a good idea but shirley the main auditorium would be better used as a live music venue? East London has no major venues and this option would give Walthamstow Village a USP, in the past great bands such as The Rolling Stones, Herman and the Munsters and Sir Cliff Richards all played at the old Granada and it would be great to see new bands gracing the legendary stage jonny mash
  • Score: -4

3:53pm Tue 17 Jun 14

RichieA70 says...

Just to clarify:
The EMD cinema was NOT for sale on the open market or in any other guise. The owner who paid £600,000 for it in 2000, was approached by UCKG who continually increased their offer for the cinema (which again to clarify was not for sale) until they eventually agreed to pay £2.8M for the building, still against the owners original desire, which was to refurbish the building.
UCKG then bought the cinema WITHOUT receiving planning consent to convert it to church use. They have unwisely thought that bullying, aggression and throwing money around will win the day. It hasn't. In the process UCKG have alienated much of the community they hoped to serve.
They are wholly to blame for the enormous waste of their money, acquired through tithing their largely poor congregation.
Just to clarify: The EMD cinema was NOT for sale on the open market or in any other guise. The owner who paid £600,000 for it in 2000, was approached by UCKG who continually increased their offer for the cinema (which again to clarify was not for sale) until they eventually agreed to pay £2.8M for the building, still against the owners original desire, which was to refurbish the building. UCKG then bought the cinema WITHOUT receiving planning consent to convert it to church use. They have unwisely thought that bullying, aggression and throwing money around will win the day. It hasn't. In the process UCKG have alienated much of the community they hoped to serve. They are wholly to blame for the enormous waste of their money, acquired through tithing their largely poor congregation. RichieA70
  • Score: 18

4:14pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Villagecranberry says...

RichieA70 wrote:
Just to clarify:
The EMD cinema was NOT for sale on the open market or in any other guise. The owner who paid £600,000 for it in 2000, was approached by UCKG who continually increased their offer for the cinema (which again to clarify was not for sale) until they eventually agreed to pay £2.8M for the building, still against the owners original desire, which was to refurbish the building.
UCKG then bought the cinema WITHOUT receiving planning consent to convert it to church use. They have unwisely thought that bullying, aggression and throwing money around will win the day. It hasn't. In the process UCKG have alienated much of the community they hoped to serve.
They are wholly to blame for the enormous waste of their money, acquired through tithing their largely poor congregation.
And how are you suddenly the authority on anything? A McGuffin?

It is not against the law to make approaches to an owner for a premises, is it? Must be going on all around the country, people trying to acquire prime sites.

The council failed miserably as they should have had a contingency in place or approached the owner themselves.

The situation now is that all around is futuristic development and the council have got egg on their face as a prestige building is a blot on the landscape.

This is why CPO is being discussed now, but they will not CPO it unless these mysterious interested parties make some financial tied up commitment.
[quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify: The EMD cinema was NOT for sale on the open market or in any other guise. The owner who paid £600,000 for it in 2000, was approached by UCKG who continually increased their offer for the cinema (which again to clarify was not for sale) until they eventually agreed to pay £2.8M for the building, still against the owners original desire, which was to refurbish the building. UCKG then bought the cinema WITHOUT receiving planning consent to convert it to church use. They have unwisely thought that bullying, aggression and throwing money around will win the day. It hasn't. In the process UCKG have alienated much of the community they hoped to serve. They are wholly to blame for the enormous waste of their money, acquired through tithing their largely poor congregation.[/p][/quote]And how are you suddenly the authority on anything? A McGuffin? It is not against the law to make approaches to an owner for a premises, is it? Must be going on all around the country, people trying to acquire prime sites. The council failed miserably as they should have had a contingency in place or approached the owner themselves. The situation now is that all around is futuristic development and the council have got egg on their face as a prestige building is a blot on the landscape. This is why CPO is being discussed now, but they will not CPO it unless these mysterious interested parties make some financial tied up commitment. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -20

6:10pm Tue 17 Jun 14

mdj says...

'That's how we know they paid double..'
Try and ignore the teasing, and accept VCranberry's point: the market price on a given day is the price which buys the product. It's the willingness of the buyer that sets the price: blaming the greed of the seller is beside the point.

It may well be wishful thinking to assume that the current value is lower than it was when this started: only an auction will discover the current price that the market will bear.
An enterprising outfit such as Wetherspoon's could pay a large amount, and make both the pub and the cinema pay well.

If the Council can force a purchase on the basis of a bought-in private valuation, rather than an open tender, for once in this whole saga the church will have a valid grievance, and grounds for objection.

When this saga first began I asked in these pages why the campaigners had not set up a fund to buy the building, seeing that they claimed a thousand members. There was a storm of answers: half from campaigners saying why that wouldn't work, half from churchgoers assuring me of hellfire, which seemed a little unfriendly.

As an outcome, I met a McGuffin rep who promised to explain why I was wrong; he sank four pints between Last Orders and Time explaining that nobody had any money....
I simply thought that 1000 people saving £2 a week would sort the issue out. That would now be £700,000 on its own. A thousand people foregoing 2 pints of beer a week would have easily doubled that sum, and really impressed outside funders. There WERE a thousand supporters, surely?

i really hope that this goes ahead, and that we see the cinema restored to the glory that it deserves, serving an interesting menu of entertainment for all to enjoy, and putting Walthamstow on the greater map of London.

Let's not delude ourselves that it's going to be cheap.
'That's how we know they paid double..' Try and ignore the teasing, and accept VCranberry's point: the market price on a given day is the price which buys the product. It's the willingness of the buyer that sets the price: blaming the greed of the seller is beside the point. It may well be wishful thinking to assume that the current value is lower than it was when this started: only an auction will discover the current price that the market will bear. An enterprising outfit such as Wetherspoon's could pay a large amount, and make both the pub and the cinema pay well. If the Council can force a purchase on the basis of a bought-in private valuation, rather than an open tender, for once in this whole saga the church will have a valid grievance, and grounds for objection. When this saga first began I asked in these pages why the campaigners had not set up a fund to buy the building, seeing that they claimed a thousand members. There was a storm of answers: half from campaigners saying why that wouldn't work, half from churchgoers assuring me of hellfire, which seemed a little unfriendly. As an outcome, I met a McGuffin rep who promised to explain why I was wrong; he sank four pints between Last Orders and Time explaining that nobody had any money.... I simply thought that 1000 people saving £2 a week would sort the issue out. That would now be £700,000 on its own. A thousand people foregoing 2 pints of beer a week would have easily doubled that sum, and really impressed outside funders. There WERE a thousand supporters, surely? i really hope that this goes ahead, and that we see the cinema restored to the glory that it deserves, serving an interesting menu of entertainment for all to enjoy, and putting Walthamstow on the greater map of London. Let's not delude ourselves that it's going to be cheap. mdj
  • Score: -8

8:29pm Tue 17 Jun 14

PsiMonk says...

Some right rubbish spouted on here.

jonny mash said: "Now that there is going to be a 9 screen cinema at the arcade site is the Granada in any way commercially viable?... As the Granada is grade One listed I imagine that it can not be converted as such, the would be purchasers the McMuffin group and Soho Theatre wish to convert some of the screens to a comedy venue which is a good idea but shirley the main auditorium would be better used as a live music venue? East London has no major venues and this option would give Walthamstow Village a USP"

1. The Cinema Trust and the council's own consultants both found the cinema to be commercially viable.

2. It's Grade II* listed, not Grade I. Internal walls not covered with frescos etc. such as those between main auditorium and current screens 2 and 3 can be messed with, seats will go etc.

3. There are actually large live music venues within easy reach - in Islington, for instance. But there are no large comedy venues. Hence part of the reasoning.

Villagecranberry said: "they will not CPO it unless these mysterious interested parties make some financial tied up commitment"

No mystery there - Cinema Trust has funding for it.

mdj said: "only an auction will discover the current price that the market will bear"

If the council does opt for a CPO the valuation of the property will be by independent experts (surveyors, I'm guessing, or auditors). So what price the council has to give the UCKG to CPO will be set by that method. What price the council then sells it on will depend on whether the council does a deal with The Cinema Trust or sells it on the open market. Given the whole point of the CPO is to return the building to entertainment use as a regeneration tactic, I'd consider it highly unlikely the council will want to sell to Wetherspoons or the highest bidder by auction. They'll want a deal that locks in use.

"If the Council can force a purchase on the basis of a bought-in private valuation, rather than an open tender, for once in this whole saga the church will have a valid grievance, and grounds for objection."

Why? They've had ample opportunities to sell at a reasonable price. I know one local business person put a wad on the table that was way over the valuation for the time - and they refused. They've been warned over and over to protect the building (they haven't), to look after the building (they haven't) and to sell the building they can't use (they haven't). If they lose it now for below what they paid, then they've been given more than fair warning.

"Let's not delude ourselves that it's going to be cheap."

For whom? You and I? It likely will end up cheap. I don't know who pays legal costs, but that's likely the only cost for the council. Go look at The Cinema Trust's plans - their finances stack up.

I find the negativity and cynicism from a few loudmouth commenters on here frankly amazing. Stop pouring scorn on people actually doing something most residents have been asking for for years and go do something positive in the real world.

And as RichieA70 rightly says: "Please support the a Compulsory Purchase by emailing those making the decision by 1st July. Contact details of the relevant councillors are here: http://savewalthamst
owcinema.org/?p=447
"
Some right rubbish spouted on here. jonny mash said: "Now that there is going to be a 9 screen cinema at the arcade site is the Granada in any way commercially viable?... As the Granada is grade One listed I imagine that it can not be converted as such, the would be purchasers the McMuffin group and Soho Theatre wish to convert some of the screens to a comedy venue which is a good idea but shirley the main auditorium would be better used as a live music venue? East London has no major venues and this option would give Walthamstow Village a USP" 1. The Cinema Trust and the council's own consultants both found the cinema to be commercially viable. 2. It's Grade II* listed, not Grade I. Internal walls not covered with frescos etc. such as those between main auditorium and current screens 2 and 3 can be messed with, seats will go etc. 3. There are actually large live music venues within easy reach - in Islington, for instance. But there are no large comedy venues. Hence part of the reasoning. Villagecranberry said: "they will not CPO it unless these mysterious interested parties make some financial tied up commitment" No mystery there - Cinema Trust has funding for it. mdj said: "only an auction will discover the current price that the market will bear" If the council does opt for a CPO the valuation of the property will be by independent experts (surveyors, I'm guessing, or auditors). So what price the council has to give the UCKG to CPO will be set by that method. What price the council then sells it on will depend on whether the council does a deal with The Cinema Trust or sells it on the open market. Given the whole point of the CPO is to return the building to entertainment use as a regeneration tactic, I'd consider it highly unlikely the council will want to sell to Wetherspoons or the highest bidder by auction. They'll want a deal that locks in use. "If the Council can force a purchase on the basis of a bought-in private valuation, rather than an open tender, for once in this whole saga the church will have a valid grievance, and grounds for objection." Why? They've had ample opportunities to sell at a reasonable price. I know one local business person put a wad on the table that was way over the valuation for the time - and they refused. They've been warned over and over to protect the building (they haven't), to look after the building (they haven't) and to sell the building they can't use (they haven't). If they lose it now for below what they paid, then they've been given more than fair warning. "Let's not delude ourselves that it's going to be cheap." For whom? You and I? It likely will end up cheap. I don't know who pays legal costs, but that's likely the only cost for the council. Go look at The Cinema Trust's plans - their finances stack up. I find the negativity and cynicism from a few loudmouth commenters on here frankly amazing. Stop pouring scorn on people actually doing something most residents have been asking for for years and go do something positive in the real world. And as RichieA70 rightly says: "Please support the a Compulsory Purchase by emailing those making the decision by 1st July. Contact details of the relevant councillors are here: http://savewalthamst owcinema.org/?p=447 " PsiMonk
  • Score: 9

8:48pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Villagecranberry says...

PsiMonk wrote:
Some right rubbish spouted on here.

jonny mash said: "Now that there is going to be a 9 screen cinema at the arcade site is the Granada in any way commercially viable?... As the Granada is grade One listed I imagine that it can not be converted as such, the would be purchasers the McMuffin group and Soho Theatre wish to convert some of the screens to a comedy venue which is a good idea but shirley the main auditorium would be better used as a live music venue? East London has no major venues and this option would give Walthamstow Village a USP"

1. The Cinema Trust and the council's own consultants both found the cinema to be commercially viable.

2. It's Grade II* listed, not Grade I. Internal walls not covered with frescos etc. such as those between main auditorium and current screens 2 and 3 can be messed with, seats will go etc.

3. There are actually large live music venues within easy reach - in Islington, for instance. But there are no large comedy venues. Hence part of the reasoning.

Villagecranberry said: "they will not CPO it unless these mysterious interested parties make some financial tied up commitment"

No mystery there - Cinema Trust has funding for it.

mdj said: "only an auction will discover the current price that the market will bear"

If the council does opt for a CPO the valuation of the property will be by independent experts (surveyors, I'm guessing, or auditors). So what price the council has to give the UCKG to CPO will be set by that method. What price the council then sells it on will depend on whether the council does a deal with The Cinema Trust or sells it on the open market. Given the whole point of the CPO is to return the building to entertainment use as a regeneration tactic, I'd consider it highly unlikely the council will want to sell to Wetherspoons or the highest bidder by auction. They'll want a deal that locks in use.

"If the Council can force a purchase on the basis of a bought-in private valuation, rather than an open tender, for once in this whole saga the church will have a valid grievance, and grounds for objection."

Why? They've had ample opportunities to sell at a reasonable price. I know one local business person put a wad on the table that was way over the valuation for the time - and they refused. They've been warned over and over to protect the building (they haven't), to look after the building (they haven't) and to sell the building they can't use (they haven't). If they lose it now for below what they paid, then they've been given more than fair warning.

"Let's not delude ourselves that it's going to be cheap."

For whom? You and I? It likely will end up cheap. I don't know who pays legal costs, but that's likely the only cost for the council. Go look at The Cinema Trust's plans - their finances stack up.

I find the negativity and cynicism from a few loudmouth commenters on here frankly amazing. Stop pouring scorn on people actually doing something most residents have been asking for for years and go do something positive in the real world.

And as RichieA70 rightly says: "Please support the a Compulsory Purchase by emailing those making the decision by 1st July. Contact details of the relevant councillors are here: http://savewalthamst

owcinema.org/?p=447
"
Like MDJ said, nobody after all these years among the 1000 members have put in a bean towards any funding as a show of true intentions and several people suggested started a fund but nothing was done.

This backing and Cinema Trust money is further hot air as nothing is concrete, the MCGuffins seem to have reinvented themselves through this new organisation. Everyone would like the Granada to go back to a cinema, as for saying that the church have not looked after the building, I cycled past and noticed neat and tidy hoarding protecting it last week. Further, I was more shocked to see yet another two large Paddy Power Bookmakers being made ready for opening,in Hoe Street, further examples of the utter incompetence of this council to get a grip. This would not be permitted in many affluent boroughs and they are targeting the poor yet again.

I cannot help noticing that Stella Creasey has not made any word of objection to these latest depressing additions to Hoe Street and these types of premises are increasingly dominating the Bakers Arms, Hoe Street, Leyton and Leytonstone High Road. They must be making a mint to keep wanting to open more.

The cinema whilst a Borough Treasure has been long gone now, a new one is opening up the road and the moment has almost been lost. The church will put up a huge fight and I am wondering if the Council and the mysterious enigmatic 'backers' have the stomach for the costs involved. As MDJ said had the McGuffins made a small effort they could have had a 700k pot to show that they were really serious, but yet again they have just been all talk and no trousers. What a picture of a mural in Leytonstone Tube has to do with the cinema is beyond me anyway.
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: Some right rubbish spouted on here. jonny mash said: "Now that there is going to be a 9 screen cinema at the arcade site is the Granada in any way commercially viable?... As the Granada is grade One listed I imagine that it can not be converted as such, the would be purchasers the McMuffin group and Soho Theatre wish to convert some of the screens to a comedy venue which is a good idea but shirley the main auditorium would be better used as a live music venue? East London has no major venues and this option would give Walthamstow Village a USP" 1. The Cinema Trust and the council's own consultants both found the cinema to be commercially viable. 2. It's Grade II* listed, not Grade I. Internal walls not covered with frescos etc. such as those between main auditorium and current screens 2 and 3 can be messed with, seats will go etc. 3. There are actually large live music venues within easy reach - in Islington, for instance. But there are no large comedy venues. Hence part of the reasoning. Villagecranberry said: "they will not CPO it unless these mysterious interested parties make some financial tied up commitment" No mystery there - Cinema Trust has funding for it. mdj said: "only an auction will discover the current price that the market will bear" If the council does opt for a CPO the valuation of the property will be by independent experts (surveyors, I'm guessing, or auditors). So what price the council has to give the UCKG to CPO will be set by that method. What price the council then sells it on will depend on whether the council does a deal with The Cinema Trust or sells it on the open market. Given the whole point of the CPO is to return the building to entertainment use as a regeneration tactic, I'd consider it highly unlikely the council will want to sell to Wetherspoons or the highest bidder by auction. They'll want a deal that locks in use. "If the Council can force a purchase on the basis of a bought-in private valuation, rather than an open tender, for once in this whole saga the church will have a valid grievance, and grounds for objection." Why? They've had ample opportunities to sell at a reasonable price. I know one local business person put a wad on the table that was way over the valuation for the time - and they refused. They've been warned over and over to protect the building (they haven't), to look after the building (they haven't) and to sell the building they can't use (they haven't). If they lose it now for below what they paid, then they've been given more than fair warning. "Let's not delude ourselves that it's going to be cheap." For whom? You and I? It likely will end up cheap. I don't know who pays legal costs, but that's likely the only cost for the council. Go look at The Cinema Trust's plans - their finances stack up. I find the negativity and cynicism from a few loudmouth commenters on here frankly amazing. Stop pouring scorn on people actually doing something most residents have been asking for for years and go do something positive in the real world. And as RichieA70 rightly says: "Please support the a Compulsory Purchase by emailing those making the decision by 1st July. Contact details of the relevant councillors are here: http://savewalthamst owcinema.org/?p=447 "[/p][/quote]Like MDJ said, nobody after all these years among the 1000 members have put in a bean towards any funding as a show of true intentions and several people suggested started a fund but nothing was done. This backing and Cinema Trust money is further hot air as nothing is concrete, the MCGuffins seem to have reinvented themselves through this new organisation. Everyone would like the Granada to go back to a cinema, as for saying that the church have not looked after the building, I cycled past and noticed neat and tidy hoarding protecting it last week. Further, I was more shocked to see yet another two large Paddy Power Bookmakers being made ready for opening,in Hoe Street, further examples of the utter incompetence of this council to get a grip. This would not be permitted in many affluent boroughs and they are targeting the poor yet again. I cannot help noticing that Stella Creasey has not made any word of objection to these latest depressing additions to Hoe Street and these types of premises are increasingly dominating the Bakers Arms, Hoe Street, Leyton and Leytonstone High Road. They must be making a mint to keep wanting to open more. The cinema whilst a Borough Treasure has been long gone now, a new one is opening up the road and the moment has almost been lost. The church will put up a huge fight and I am wondering if the Council and the mysterious enigmatic 'backers' have the stomach for the costs involved. As MDJ said had the McGuffins made a small effort they could have had a 700k pot to show that they were really serious, but yet again they have just been all talk and no trousers. What a picture of a mural in Leytonstone Tube has to do with the cinema is beyond me anyway. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -4

11:15pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Reality in WF says...

Does anybody really expect the Council to purchase the old EMD/Granada by compulsary purchase?.... Councils usually shy away from buying failed commercial ventures. It would be lovely to see such a place revived, but I dont think WF Council will be the organisation to do it, although they may support a private concern to do so. The new development on the corner of High Street is having a cinema within it anyway?. Correct me if I'm wrong. It would be weird to have two so close. Also now, is Stratford, easily reached, with two multiplex cinemas and loads of parking.
Does anybody really expect the Council to purchase the old EMD/Granada by compulsary purchase?.... Councils usually shy away from buying failed commercial ventures. It would be lovely to see such a place revived, but I dont think WF Council will be the organisation to do it, although they may support a private concern to do so. The new development on the corner of High Street is having a cinema within it anyway?. Correct me if I'm wrong. It would be weird to have two so close. Also now, is Stratford, easily reached, with two multiplex cinemas and loads of parking. Reality in WF
  • Score: -12

11:52pm Tue 17 Jun 14

mdj says...

I didn't expect you to agree with everything or indeed anything I said, PsiMonk, but it's revealing that you completely dodged commenting on my point that a healthy fund built up by local people to prove their sincerity would have brought this day much further forward.

My point about valuation is valid: nobody knew that the cinema was worth all that money to the UCKG - until they paid it! Any valuer serving a competing bidder at that time would have been left looking foolish.
Therefore, valuation is not entirely an arcane, technical art: it's about what real people are ready to pay in real time. Whether you and I or a professional valuer think they overpaid cannot override that.

If the church - who seem to be good tacticians, sadly for us - put the building up for auction before the CPO can go through its hoops, the price realised may be a surprise to many here, and may yet thwart our hopes.

Please don't accuse people of negativity when they are simply trying to introduce a note of realism. As I say, I hope this goes through: we've all waited and hoped long enough. With a million or more pounds of locally-raised money on the table, as some of us urged from the beginning, we might already by now have been enjoying our saved cinema.
I didn't expect you to agree with everything or indeed anything I said, PsiMonk, but it's revealing that you completely dodged commenting on my point that a healthy fund built up by local people to prove their sincerity would have brought this day much further forward. My point about valuation is valid: nobody knew that the cinema was worth all that money to the UCKG - until they paid it! Any valuer serving a competing bidder at that time would have been left looking foolish. Therefore, valuation is not entirely an arcane, technical art: it's about what real people are ready to pay in real time. Whether you and I or a professional valuer think they overpaid cannot override that. If the church - who seem to be good tacticians, sadly for us - put the building up for auction before the CPO can go through its hoops, the price realised may be a surprise to many here, and may yet thwart our hopes. Please don't accuse people of negativity when they are simply trying to introduce a note of realism. As I say, I hope this goes through: we've all waited and hoped long enough. With a million or more pounds of locally-raised money on the table, as some of us urged from the beginning, we might already by now have been enjoying our saved cinema. mdj
  • Score: 6

10:43am Wed 18 Jun 14

PsiMonk says...

Again, load of rubbish being spouted by people with apparent axes to grind:

Villagecranberry said: "This backing and Cinema Trust money is further hot air as nothing is concrete, the MCGuffins seem to have reinvented themselves through this new organisation."

Firstly, the Cinema Trust and McGuffins are two entirely separate and still running organisations. Secondly, it's hardly "hot air" or "nothing concrete". Go look at The Cinema Trust's site for more details, or the Save Our Cinema site.

"as for saying that the church have not looked after the building, I cycled past and noticed neat and tidy hoarding protecting it last week."

Two raves, numerous squatters, a fire, flooding and many other issues. They've only repaired the building when forced to by the council, they've let security arrangements for the building lapse repeatedly and it's been down to local residents to protect the building - informing them of break-ins, foiling the second rave, ringing the fire brigade, pointing out holes in the building fabric etc. - numerous times.

Even the tidy hoarding was only put up when a section of the front canopy collapsed onto the pavement - it was incredibly lucky it didn't hit anyone.

"Further, I was more shocked to see yet another two large Paddy Power Bookmakers being made ready for opening,in Hoe Street, further examples of the utter incompetence of this council to get a grip. This would not be permitted in many affluent boroughs I cannot help noticing that Stella Creasey has not made any word of objection to these latest depressing additions"

Utterly irrelevant point. And, btw, the council have repeatedly opposed bookies and pushed for national controls on bookies (as has Stella, I believe). Simply put, Paddy Power etc. know if they repeatedly appeal, in the end they win out. Again, you're trying to score cheap political points - but you're mainly just wandering off-topic.

"The cinema whilst a Borough Treasure has been long gone now, a new one is opening up the road and the moment has almost been lost."

Says you, the expert on cinemas, planning, Waltham Forest and all matters. Says I, you wrong. And, oddly enough, I seem to remember numerous similar commenters on here over the years saying the cinema is a lost cause, that it's too late over and over. While you've been writing the cinema off, some of us have been getting on with the work of, y'know, rescuing the cinema. Time will tell who was right on that one.

"The church will put up a huge fight and I am wondering if the Council and the mysterious enigmatic 'backers' have the stomach for the costs involved."

Again, vague assertions - yet there's nothing mysterious or flighty about the backers. Go see the Cinema Trust site for more details. And as to the church putting up a huge fight - sometimes they do, sometimes they don't - but we've pretty much beaten them every time it's come to a scrap.

Reality in WF said: "It would be lovely to see such a place revived, but I dont think WF Council will be the organisation to do it, although they may support a private concern to do so. The new development on the corner of High Street is having a cinema within it anyway?. Correct me if I'm wrong. It would be weird to have two so close. Also now, is Stratford, easily reached, with two multiplex cinemas and loads of parking."

Read comments and the newspiece above. a) CPO is exactly what the council are debating, b) the plan is then to sell building at market rate on to most likely Cinema Trust, c) plan for building is live comedy, production offices and arthouse three screen cinema - hardly competing with Scene @ Cleveland Place or Stratford, rather complementing each other.

MDJ said: "it's revealing that you completely dodged commenting on my point that a healthy fund built up by local people to prove their sincerity would have brought this day much further forward."

Not revealing at all. I happen to agree it's something campaigners should have done - and I argued in favour of it way back. But that wasn't the way it went. I also don't think it's a massive issue - I don't think community money would have ever been enough solely to do everything needed, and I don't think community ownership for the building was necessarily the right way forward.

"valuation is not entirely an arcane, technical art: it's about what real people are ready to pay in real time. Whether you and I or a professional valuer think they overpaid cannot override that."

My point is yes, they legally can. a) If a CPO goes forward, the amount the council will pay for the building will not be set by a theoretical auction or demand, but by what independent experts value the building at - that's the way CPOs work. b) If the value set by the experts is massively lower than the amount the UCKG paid, as I suspect it will be, then the Charities Commission may well investigate the church's purchase. Them's the facts.

"If the church - who seem to be good tacticians, sadly for us - put the building up for auction before the CPO can go through its hoops, the price realised may be a surprise to many here, and may yet thwart our hopes."

I totally disagree the church are good tacticians. And that comment betrays a total disconnect from what most campaigners have seen time and time again over their handling of the building. In short, you wrong on that one. By miles.

"Please don't accuse people of negativity when they are simply trying to introduce a note of realism."

I don't see much realism in many of the commenters here, frankly. I do see a lot of negativity. MDJ, your comments are largely fairly reasonable - but Villagecranberry etc.? Look at the comment history across this site for them - look at the vague assertions, rambling off-topic and repeated snipes that have little to do with facts and a lot to do with conspiracy theories and axe-grinding. Sorry, negativity is the least critical way of putting it.

"With a million or more pounds of locally-raised money on the table, as some of us urged from the beginning, we might already by now have been enjoying our saved cinema."

No, we wouldn't have - and that's why many campaigners in the end decided a community fund wasn't a good idea. The building will take many millions to buy, refurbish and reopen. And community ownership is a complex and fraught process. The best we could have hoped for is to raise enough funds to, for instance, pay council CPO legal costs.

On that note, I'm going to try and step back from this one - anyone interested, see the Cinema Trust's plans or Save Our Cinema site for the history. Suffice to say, it saddens me that there are grown-ups on here that seem to spend a lot of time simply rubbishing other people's efforts. Support the CPO, save our cinema.
Again, load of rubbish being spouted by people with apparent axes to grind: Villagecranberry said: "This backing and Cinema Trust money is further hot air as nothing is concrete, the MCGuffins seem to have reinvented themselves through this new organisation." Firstly, the Cinema Trust and McGuffins are two entirely separate and still running organisations. Secondly, it's hardly "hot air" or "nothing concrete". Go look at The Cinema Trust's site for more details, or the Save Our Cinema site. "as for saying that the church have not looked after the building, I cycled past and noticed neat and tidy hoarding protecting it last week." Two raves, numerous squatters, a fire, flooding and many other issues. They've only repaired the building when forced to by the council, they've let security arrangements for the building lapse repeatedly and it's been down to local residents to protect the building - informing them of break-ins, foiling the second rave, ringing the fire brigade, pointing out holes in the building fabric etc. - numerous times. Even the tidy hoarding was only put up when a section of the front canopy collapsed onto the pavement - it was incredibly lucky it didn't hit anyone. "Further, I was more shocked to see yet another two large Paddy Power Bookmakers being made ready for opening,in Hoe Street, further examples of the utter incompetence of this council to get a grip. This would not be permitted in many affluent boroughs I cannot help noticing that Stella Creasey has not made any word of objection to these latest depressing additions" Utterly irrelevant point. And, btw, the council have repeatedly opposed bookies and pushed for national controls on bookies (as has Stella, I believe). Simply put, Paddy Power etc. know if they repeatedly appeal, in the end they win out. Again, you're trying to score cheap political points - but you're mainly just wandering off-topic. "The cinema whilst a Borough Treasure has been long gone now, a new one is opening up the road and the moment has almost been lost." Says you, the expert on cinemas, planning, Waltham Forest and all matters. Says I, you wrong. And, oddly enough, I seem to remember numerous similar commenters on here over the years saying the cinema is a lost cause, that it's too late over and over. While you've been writing the cinema off, some of us have been getting on with the work of, y'know, rescuing the cinema. Time will tell who was right on that one. "The church will put up a huge fight and I am wondering if the Council and the mysterious enigmatic 'backers' have the stomach for the costs involved." Again, vague assertions - yet there's nothing mysterious or flighty about the backers. Go see the Cinema Trust site for more details. And as to the church putting up a huge fight - sometimes they do, sometimes they don't - but we've pretty much beaten them every time it's come to a scrap. Reality in WF said: "It would be lovely to see such a place revived, but I dont think WF Council will be the organisation to do it, although they may support a private concern to do so. The new development on the corner of High Street is having a cinema within it anyway?. Correct me if I'm wrong. It would be weird to have two so close. Also now, is Stratford, easily reached, with two multiplex cinemas and loads of parking." Read comments and the newspiece above. a) CPO is exactly what the council are debating, b) the plan is then to sell building at market rate on to most likely Cinema Trust, c) plan for building is live comedy, production offices and arthouse three screen cinema - hardly competing with Scene @ Cleveland Place or Stratford, rather complementing each other. MDJ said: "it's revealing that you completely dodged commenting on my point that a healthy fund built up by local people to prove their sincerity would have brought this day much further forward." Not revealing at all. I happen to agree it's something campaigners should have done - and I argued in favour of it way back. But that wasn't the way it went. I also don't think it's a massive issue - I don't think community money would have ever been enough solely to do everything needed, and I don't think community ownership for the building was necessarily the right way forward. "valuation is not entirely an arcane, technical art: it's about what real people are ready to pay in real time. Whether you and I or a professional valuer think they overpaid cannot override that." My point is yes, they legally can. a) If a CPO goes forward, the amount the council will pay for the building will not be set by a theoretical auction or demand, but by what independent experts value the building at - that's the way CPOs work. b) If the value set by the experts is massively lower than the amount the UCKG paid, as I suspect it will be, then the Charities Commission may well investigate the church's purchase. Them's the facts. "If the church - who seem to be good tacticians, sadly for us - put the building up for auction before the CPO can go through its hoops, the price realised may be a surprise to many here, and may yet thwart our hopes." I totally disagree the church are good tacticians. And that comment betrays a total disconnect from what most campaigners have seen time and time again over their handling of the building. In short, you wrong on that one. By miles. "Please don't accuse people of negativity when they are simply trying to introduce a note of realism." I don't see much realism in many of the commenters here, frankly. I do see a lot of negativity. MDJ, your comments are largely fairly reasonable - but Villagecranberry etc.? Look at the comment history across this site for them - look at the vague assertions, rambling off-topic and repeated snipes that have little to do with facts and a lot to do with conspiracy theories and axe-grinding. Sorry, negativity is the least critical way of putting it. "With a million or more pounds of locally-raised money on the table, as some of us urged from the beginning, we might already by now have been enjoying our saved cinema." No, we wouldn't have - and that's why many campaigners in the end decided a community fund wasn't a good idea. The building will take many millions to buy, refurbish and reopen. And community ownership is a complex and fraught process. The best we could have hoped for is to raise enough funds to, for instance, pay council CPO legal costs. On that note, I'm going to try and step back from this one - anyone interested, see the Cinema Trust's plans or Save Our Cinema site for the history. Suffice to say, it saddens me that there are grown-ups on here that seem to spend a lot of time simply rubbishing other people's efforts. Support the CPO, save our cinema. PsiMonk
  • Score: 14

12:19pm Wed 18 Jun 14

RichieA70 says...

Completely agree with every point from PsiMonk - brilliantly, and realistically analysed and argued.

The council rejected the new Paddy Power on Hoe St but the planning inspectorate overruled their decision on Appeal.

I'm convinced fundraising years ago would have been a terrible idea. Yes it would have been a way of demonstrating support for reviving the cinema, but that has been wholly shown in other ways. But there would have been a load of money sitting in an account with nothing to do and potentially hundreds of people asking for it back or arguing how it should be spent. The only time to start individual fundraising (ie small sums from many people rather than huge pledges from grants/businesses) is when ownership of the building can be taken away from UCKG.

As to UCKG being good tacticians - ha! They have been absolutely terrible in my opinion. I spoke at the public inquiry in 2012 and the UCKG barrister's cross-examination of me and other cinema supporters was lamentable. He didn't win any points, make any headway or as we have seen convince the planning inspector the UCKG had a good case.

Ultimately the reason UCKG have refused to properly maintain the cinema, engage in meaningful dialogue with the council, local community and others wishing to buy the building may have more to do with a disbelief that they would not get their way and the desperate egotism of their property acquistions manager (or whatever he calls himself now).
Completely agree with every point from PsiMonk - brilliantly, and realistically analysed and argued. The council rejected the new Paddy Power on Hoe St but the planning inspectorate overruled their decision on Appeal. I'm convinced fundraising years ago would have been a terrible idea. Yes it would have been a way of demonstrating support for reviving the cinema, but that has been wholly shown in other ways. But there would have been a load of money sitting in an account with nothing to do and potentially hundreds of people asking for it back or arguing how it should be spent. The only time to start individual fundraising (ie small sums from many people rather than huge pledges from grants/businesses) is when ownership of the building can be taken away from UCKG. As to UCKG being good tacticians - ha! They have been absolutely terrible in my opinion. I spoke at the public inquiry in 2012 and the UCKG barrister's cross-examination of me and other cinema supporters was lamentable. He didn't win any points, make any headway or as we have seen convince the planning inspector the UCKG had a good case. Ultimately the reason UCKG have refused to properly maintain the cinema, engage in meaningful dialogue with the council, local community and others wishing to buy the building may have more to do with a disbelief that they would not get their way and the desperate egotism of their property acquistions manager (or whatever he calls himself now). RichieA70
  • Score: 3

2:09pm Wed 18 Jun 14

GarethCheeseman says...

Regardless of the history of all this, I am interested in what is considered to be a good use of public money.

Imagine a failing school or an old people's home on Hoe Street was somehow bought by this church.

And a new, bigger school or old people's home was being build almost next door.

Would we be seeing such clamour for a CPO on the old people's home? How much public money is it reasonable to spend in bringing the school or old people's home into public ownership? What makes the cinema any different?

PS in anticipation of points about the night time economy, a decent venue could be established at almost any large building in the town centre for a fraction of the cost.
Regardless of the history of all this, I am interested in what is considered to be a good use of public money. Imagine a failing school or an old people's home on Hoe Street was somehow bought by this church. And a new, bigger school or old people's home was being build almost next door. Would we be seeing such clamour for a CPO on the old people's home? How much public money is it reasonable to spend in bringing the school or old people's home into public ownership? What makes the cinema any different? PS in anticipation of points about the night time economy, a decent venue could be established at almost any large building in the town centre for a fraction of the cost. GarethCheeseman
  • Score: -4

2:16pm Wed 18 Jun 14

PsiMonk says...

GarethCheeseman...

So, firstly, Granada and Empire @ Cleveland Place are not the same things as each other - one's a multiplex, the other's planned to be a comedy venue, arthouse cinema and multi-use arts/production venue. Secondly, where are these easily procurable other big venues you speak of? And why would they be so much cheaper? Thirdly, what happens if the council doesn't CPO the building? We have an empty, rotting hulk in the middle of central Walthamstow (for the same reasons there's been lots of attempts to sort out the Buxton Road bingo hall) or we have the kind of parking/car chaos problems that have dogged the Rainbow in Finsbury Park since the church set up there. Finally, to treat a historied cinema with Grade II* listing for good reason (have a google at the inside pics), that has seen The Beatles, The Stones, Bill Haley etc. play live there as if it's just another building to be ignored or knocked down is rather missing some of the central points of the issue.
GarethCheeseman... So, firstly, Granada and Empire @ Cleveland Place are not the same things as each other - one's a multiplex, the other's planned to be a comedy venue, arthouse cinema and multi-use arts/production venue. Secondly, where are these easily procurable other big venues you speak of? And why would they be so much cheaper? Thirdly, what happens if the council doesn't CPO the building? We have an empty, rotting hulk in the middle of central Walthamstow (for the same reasons there's been lots of attempts to sort out the Buxton Road bingo hall) or we have the kind of parking/car chaos problems that have dogged the Rainbow in Finsbury Park since the church set up there. Finally, to treat a historied cinema with Grade II* listing for good reason (have a google at the inside pics), that has seen The Beatles, The Stones, Bill Haley etc. play live there as if it's just another building to be ignored or knocked down is rather missing some of the central points of the issue. PsiMonk
  • Score: 1

2:19pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Alan_1976 says...

GarethCheeseman wrote:
Regardless of the history of all this, I am interested in what is considered to be a good use of public money.

Imagine a failing school or an old people's home on Hoe Street was somehow bought by this church.

And a new, bigger school or old people's home was being build almost next door.

Would we be seeing such clamour for a CPO on the old people's home? How much public money is it reasonable to spend in bringing the school or old people's home into public ownership? What makes the cinema any different?

PS in anticipation of points about the night time economy, a decent venue could be established at almost any large building in the town centre for a fraction of the cost.
Given this is a CPO to allow the building to be immediately resold as per the article you are comparing apples and oranges with your example.
[quote][p][bold]GarethCheeseman[/bold] wrote: Regardless of the history of all this, I am interested in what is considered to be a good use of public money. Imagine a failing school or an old people's home on Hoe Street was somehow bought by this church. And a new, bigger school or old people's home was being build almost next door. Would we be seeing such clamour for a CPO on the old people's home? How much public money is it reasonable to spend in bringing the school or old people's home into public ownership? What makes the cinema any different? PS in anticipation of points about the night time economy, a decent venue could be established at almost any large building in the town centre for a fraction of the cost.[/p][/quote]Given this is a CPO to allow the building to be immediately resold as per the article you are comparing apples and oranges with your example. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

2:24pm Wed 18 Jun 14

mdj says...

' then the Charities Commission may well investigate the church's purchase.'

That's an interesting point. They've had ten years to do this: has anyone asked them to? With all this expertise available about the low real value of the building compared with the price paid, it wouldn't be hard, surely?

The church's custody of the building has been deplorable, and their whole attitude negative and overbearing ; but in terms of obstructionism, they seem to have played their cards OK. The building is theirs, bought on the nail with the freely-given cash of their many devoted adherents - an excellent example to follow, I suggest - and they don't want to sell, so they see no need to 'collaborate' with buyers.
If they see a CPO becoming a reality, what is to stop them, as I anticipate, auctioning the building, to minimise their loss, or selling to a shadow entity to zero the clock on the CPO process?

'But there would have been a load of money sitting in an account with nothing to do and potentially hundreds of people asking for it back or arguing how it should be spent' (Richie)

It could have been taken in the form of pledges,or even by asking people to run up their own personal savings funds to reduce admin.
This is the first time I've seen it suggested that having a large amount of money to advance a cause is a problem!

Can any of the well-informed campaigners here confirm how many members, in terms of ongoing subscribers, the McGuffins actually have?
' then the Charities Commission may well investigate the church's purchase.' That's an interesting point. They've had ten years to do this: has anyone asked them to? With all this expertise available about the low real value of the building compared with the price paid, it wouldn't be hard, surely? The church's custody of the building has been deplorable, and their whole attitude negative and overbearing ; but in terms of obstructionism, they seem to have played their cards OK. The building is theirs, bought on the nail with the freely-given cash of their many devoted adherents - an excellent example to follow, I suggest - and they don't want to sell, so they see no need to 'collaborate' with buyers. If they see a CPO becoming a reality, what is to stop them, as I anticipate, auctioning the building, to minimise their loss, or selling to a shadow entity to zero the clock on the CPO process? 'But there would have been a load of money sitting in an account with nothing to do and potentially hundreds of people asking for it back or arguing how it should be spent' (Richie) It could have been taken in the form of pledges,or even by asking people to run up their own personal savings funds to reduce admin. This is the first time I've seen it suggested that having a large amount of money to advance a cause is a problem! Can any of the well-informed campaigners here confirm how many members, in terms of ongoing subscribers, the McGuffins actually have? mdj
  • Score: -2

2:33pm Wed 18 Jun 14

PsiMonk says...

MDJ: "They've had ten years to do this: has anyone asked them to? With all this expertise available about the low real value of the building compared with the price paid, it wouldn't be hard, surely?"

The issue is that as you yourself have said, until there's a price on the building, their purchase being over the odds is theoretical. And the Charities Commission have been, to my money, very lax with the church. There have been several investigations in the last few years - all seemingly very cursory. Again, any investigation may come to nothing. I'm merely pointing out the way things might go given the facts at hand.

"If they see a CPO becoming a reality, what is to stop them, as I anticipate, auctioning the building, to minimise their loss, or selling to a shadow entity to zero the clock on the CPO process?"

The fact the CPO is in motion would, surely, itself cast a huge shadow over any sale?!

"Can any of the well-informed campaigners here confirm how many members, in terms of ongoing subscribers, the McGuffins actually have?"

No - ask the McGuffins - but there are tens of thousands of people who've signed petitions, emailed etc. if that's the point you're trying to make? At the last planning hearing thousands of people turned up if I remember right.
MDJ: "They've had ten years to do this: has anyone asked them to? With all this expertise available about the low real value of the building compared with the price paid, it wouldn't be hard, surely?" The issue is that as you yourself have said, until there's a price on the building, their purchase being over the odds is theoretical. And the Charities Commission have been, to my money, very lax with the church. There have been several investigations in the last few years - all seemingly very cursory. Again, any investigation may come to nothing. I'm merely pointing out the way things might go given the facts at hand. "If they see a CPO becoming a reality, what is to stop them, as I anticipate, auctioning the building, to minimise their loss, or selling to a shadow entity to zero the clock on the CPO process?" The fact the CPO is in motion would, surely, itself cast a huge shadow over any sale?! "Can any of the well-informed campaigners here confirm how many members, in terms of ongoing subscribers, the McGuffins actually have?" No - ask the McGuffins - but there are tens of thousands of people who've signed petitions, emailed etc. if that's the point you're trying to make? At the last planning hearing thousands of people turned up if I remember right. PsiMonk
  • Score: 2

2:41pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Villagecranberry says...

PsiMonk wrote:
MDJ: "They've had ten years to do this: has anyone asked them to? With all this expertise available about the low real value of the building compared with the price paid, it wouldn't be hard, surely?"

The issue is that as you yourself have said, until there's a price on the building, their purchase being over the odds is theoretical. And the Charities Commission have been, to my money, very lax with the church. There have been several investigations in the last few years - all seemingly very cursory. Again, any investigation may come to nothing. I'm merely pointing out the way things might go given the facts at hand.

"If they see a CPO becoming a reality, what is to stop them, as I anticipate, auctioning the building, to minimise their loss, or selling to a shadow entity to zero the clock on the CPO process?"

The fact the CPO is in motion would, surely, itself cast a huge shadow over any sale?!

"Can any of the well-informed campaigners here confirm how many members, in terms of ongoing subscribers, the McGuffins actually have?"

No - ask the McGuffins - but there are tens of thousands of people who've signed petitions, emailed etc. if that's the point you're trying to make? At the last planning hearing thousands of people turned up if I remember right.
Petitions, however long, cannot be spent , money talks.

Private drinking and film club for a chose few, unrepresentative of the local social make up does not justify spending millions of public money on a CPO.
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: MDJ: "They've had ten years to do this: has anyone asked them to? With all this expertise available about the low real value of the building compared with the price paid, it wouldn't be hard, surely?" The issue is that as you yourself have said, until there's a price on the building, their purchase being over the odds is theoretical. And the Charities Commission have been, to my money, very lax with the church. There have been several investigations in the last few years - all seemingly very cursory. Again, any investigation may come to nothing. I'm merely pointing out the way things might go given the facts at hand. "If they see a CPO becoming a reality, what is to stop them, as I anticipate, auctioning the building, to minimise their loss, or selling to a shadow entity to zero the clock on the CPO process?" The fact the CPO is in motion would, surely, itself cast a huge shadow over any sale?! "Can any of the well-informed campaigners here confirm how many members, in terms of ongoing subscribers, the McGuffins actually have?" No - ask the McGuffins - but there are tens of thousands of people who've signed petitions, emailed etc. if that's the point you're trying to make? At the last planning hearing thousands of people turned up if I remember right.[/p][/quote]Petitions, however long, cannot be spent , money talks. Private drinking and film club for a chose few, unrepresentative of the local social make up does not justify spending millions of public money on a CPO. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -4

2:44pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
PsiMonk wrote:
MDJ: "They've had ten years to do this: has anyone asked them to? With all this expertise available about the low real value of the building compared with the price paid, it wouldn't be hard, surely?"

The issue is that as you yourself have said, until there's a price on the building, their purchase being over the odds is theoretical. And the Charities Commission have been, to my money, very lax with the church. There have been several investigations in the last few years - all seemingly very cursory. Again, any investigation may come to nothing. I'm merely pointing out the way things might go given the facts at hand.

"If they see a CPO becoming a reality, what is to stop them, as I anticipate, auctioning the building, to minimise their loss, or selling to a shadow entity to zero the clock on the CPO process?"

The fact the CPO is in motion would, surely, itself cast a huge shadow over any sale?!

"Can any of the well-informed campaigners here confirm how many members, in terms of ongoing subscribers, the McGuffins actually have?"

No - ask the McGuffins - but there are tens of thousands of people who've signed petitions, emailed etc. if that's the point you're trying to make? At the last planning hearing thousands of people turned up if I remember right.
Petitions, however long, cannot be spent , money talks.

Private drinking and film club for a chose few, unrepresentative of the local social make up does not justify spending millions of public money on a CPO.
Took you long enough to trot that old gibberish out again Cornbeefur...

https://www.google.c
om/search?q=Cornbeef
ur+drinking+club
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: MDJ: "They've had ten years to do this: has anyone asked them to? With all this expertise available about the low real value of the building compared with the price paid, it wouldn't be hard, surely?" The issue is that as you yourself have said, until there's a price on the building, their purchase being over the odds is theoretical. And the Charities Commission have been, to my money, very lax with the church. There have been several investigations in the last few years - all seemingly very cursory. Again, any investigation may come to nothing. I'm merely pointing out the way things might go given the facts at hand. "If they see a CPO becoming a reality, what is to stop them, as I anticipate, auctioning the building, to minimise their loss, or selling to a shadow entity to zero the clock on the CPO process?" The fact the CPO is in motion would, surely, itself cast a huge shadow over any sale?! "Can any of the well-informed campaigners here confirm how many members, in terms of ongoing subscribers, the McGuffins actually have?" No - ask the McGuffins - but there are tens of thousands of people who've signed petitions, emailed etc. if that's the point you're trying to make? At the last planning hearing thousands of people turned up if I remember right.[/p][/quote]Petitions, however long, cannot be spent , money talks. Private drinking and film club for a chose few, unrepresentative of the local social make up does not justify spending millions of public money on a CPO.[/p][/quote]Took you long enough to trot that old gibberish out again Cornbeefur... https://www.google.c om/search?q=Cornbeef ur+drinking+club Alan_1976
  • Score: 10

2:48pm Wed 18 Jun 14

RichieA70 says...

mdj wrote:
' then the Charities Commission may well investigate the church's purchase.'

That's an interesting point. They've had ten years to do this: has anyone asked them to? With all this expertise available about the low real value of the building compared with the price paid, it wouldn't be hard, surely?

The church's custody of the building has been deplorable, and their whole attitude negative and overbearing ; but in terms of obstructionism, they seem to have played their cards OK. The building is theirs, bought on the nail with the freely-given cash of their many devoted adherents - an excellent example to follow, I suggest - and they don't want to sell, so they see no need to 'collaborate' with buyers.
If they see a CPO becoming a reality, what is to stop them, as I anticipate, auctioning the building, to minimise their loss, or selling to a shadow entity to zero the clock on the CPO process?

'But there would have been a load of money sitting in an account with nothing to do and potentially hundreds of people asking for it back or arguing how it should be spent' (Richie)

It could have been taken in the form of pledges,or even by asking people to run up their own personal savings funds to reduce admin.
This is the first time I've seen it suggested that having a large amount of money to advance a cause is a problem!

Can any of the well-informed campaigners here confirm how many members, in terms of ongoing subscribers, the McGuffins actually have?
Don't forget a huge fact here - UCKG bought the EMD without planning consent. With the Buxton Road Dominion, they applied and were refused consent before going any further. Having lost every planning application and Appeal they've blown it. I can't see how they could try and flog the building to some shadow entity or anywhere else. And quite frankly, I don't give a hoot for how much money they have, how angry they feel and how obstructive they are. The council, local community, businesses and even 2 governments of all colours won't allow this farce to continue indefinitely.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: ' then the Charities Commission may well investigate the church's purchase.' That's an interesting point. They've had ten years to do this: has anyone asked them to? With all this expertise available about the low real value of the building compared with the price paid, it wouldn't be hard, surely? The church's custody of the building has been deplorable, and their whole attitude negative and overbearing ; but in terms of obstructionism, they seem to have played their cards OK. The building is theirs, bought on the nail with the freely-given cash of their many devoted adherents - an excellent example to follow, I suggest - and they don't want to sell, so they see no need to 'collaborate' with buyers. If they see a CPO becoming a reality, what is to stop them, as I anticipate, auctioning the building, to minimise their loss, or selling to a shadow entity to zero the clock on the CPO process? 'But there would have been a load of money sitting in an account with nothing to do and potentially hundreds of people asking for it back or arguing how it should be spent' (Richie) It could have been taken in the form of pledges,or even by asking people to run up their own personal savings funds to reduce admin. This is the first time I've seen it suggested that having a large amount of money to advance a cause is a problem! Can any of the well-informed campaigners here confirm how many members, in terms of ongoing subscribers, the McGuffins actually have?[/p][/quote]Don't forget a huge fact here - UCKG bought the EMD without planning consent. With the Buxton Road Dominion, they applied and were refused consent before going any further. Having lost every planning application and Appeal they've blown it. I can't see how they could try and flog the building to some shadow entity or anywhere else. And quite frankly, I don't give a hoot for how much money they have, how angry they feel and how obstructive they are. The council, local community, businesses and even 2 governments of all colours won't allow this farce to continue indefinitely. RichieA70
  • Score: 5

2:52pm Wed 18 Jun 14

RichieA70 says...

Oh and yes, the Charity Commission have been asked to investigate UCKG's activities regarding the EMD and as an organisation globally on numerous occasions. Various investigations into the action or inaction of the Charity Commission itself over their dealings with the UCKG have also been undertaken, including the involvement of ombudsmen and MPs. Sadly the CC is not fit for purpose - even it's former chief said as much.
Oh and yes, the Charity Commission have been asked to investigate UCKG's activities regarding the EMD and as an organisation globally on numerous occasions. Various investigations into the action or inaction of the Charity Commission itself over their dealings with the UCKG have also been undertaken, including the involvement of ombudsmen and MPs. Sadly the CC is not fit for purpose - even it's former chief said as much. RichieA70
  • Score: 2

4:40pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Villagecranberry says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
PsiMonk wrote:
MDJ: "They've had ten years to do this: has anyone asked them to? With all this expertise available about the low real value of the building compared with the price paid, it wouldn't be hard, surely?"

The issue is that as you yourself have said, until there's a price on the building, their purchase being over the odds is theoretical. And the Charities Commission have been, to my money, very lax with the church. There have been several investigations in the last few years - all seemingly very cursory. Again, any investigation may come to nothing. I'm merely pointing out the way things might go given the facts at hand.

"If they see a CPO becoming a reality, what is to stop them, as I anticipate, auctioning the building, to minimise their loss, or selling to a shadow entity to zero the clock on the CPO process?"

The fact the CPO is in motion would, surely, itself cast a huge shadow over any sale?!

"Can any of the well-informed campaigners here confirm how many members, in terms of ongoing subscribers, the McGuffins actually have?"

No - ask the McGuffins - but there are tens of thousands of people who've signed petitions, emailed etc. if that's the point you're trying to make? At the last planning hearing thousands of people turned up if I remember right.
Petitions, however long, cannot be spent , money talks.

Private drinking and film club for a chose few, unrepresentative of the local social make up does not justify spending millions of public money on a CPO.
Took you long enough to trot that old gibberish out again Cornbeefur...

https://www.google.c

om/search?q=Cornbeef

ur+drinking+club
Truth hurts you? How many black or Asian members do the McGuffins have subscribing out of your 1000? Hardly representative of the local area.

Why should they pay for something that means nothing to them? The majority would prefer a modern cinema up the road being built and will not be interested in films like The Iceman from the planet Zob or carry on up your Khybers Paths.

Easy to spend taxpayers money.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: MDJ: "They've had ten years to do this: has anyone asked them to? With all this expertise available about the low real value of the building compared with the price paid, it wouldn't be hard, surely?" The issue is that as you yourself have said, until there's a price on the building, their purchase being over the odds is theoretical. And the Charities Commission have been, to my money, very lax with the church. There have been several investigations in the last few years - all seemingly very cursory. Again, any investigation may come to nothing. I'm merely pointing out the way things might go given the facts at hand. "If they see a CPO becoming a reality, what is to stop them, as I anticipate, auctioning the building, to minimise their loss, or selling to a shadow entity to zero the clock on the CPO process?" The fact the CPO is in motion would, surely, itself cast a huge shadow over any sale?! "Can any of the well-informed campaigners here confirm how many members, in terms of ongoing subscribers, the McGuffins actually have?" No - ask the McGuffins - but there are tens of thousands of people who've signed petitions, emailed etc. if that's the point you're trying to make? At the last planning hearing thousands of people turned up if I remember right.[/p][/quote]Petitions, however long, cannot be spent , money talks. Private drinking and film club for a chose few, unrepresentative of the local social make up does not justify spending millions of public money on a CPO.[/p][/quote]Took you long enough to trot that old gibberish out again Cornbeefur... https://www.google.c om/search?q=Cornbeef ur+drinking+club[/p][/quote]Truth hurts you? How many black or Asian members do the McGuffins have subscribing out of your 1000? Hardly representative of the local area. Why should they pay for something that means nothing to them? The majority would prefer a modern cinema up the road being built and will not be interested in films like The Iceman from the planet Zob or carry on up your Khybers Paths. Easy to spend taxpayers money. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -4

5:29pm Wed 18 Jun 14

PsiMonk says...

Wow, Villagecranberry you appear to have lost the plot...

I have no idea how many black or Asian members the McGuffins have. Nor, do I suspect, have you. Ask them, get an answer, come back and tell us. On the same front, why should the Granada or the films likely to be shown there if/when it opens again mean "nothing" to black or Asian folk? Have you asked them all their views on arthouse cinema?

The council found a majority of residents living in Walthamstow wanted the Granada returned to use as an entertainment venue. That, presumably, includes the black and Asian residents. So I'm guessing that to many black and Asian residents, the building does have some meaning - many, for instance, will have been there as kids.

Your assertions have no basis in any facts - just the weird ideas in your own head. Come back when you have any basis in reality for what you're saying.
Wow, Villagecranberry you appear to have lost the plot... I have no idea how many black or Asian members the McGuffins have. Nor, do I suspect, have you. Ask them, get an answer, come back and tell us. On the same front, why should the Granada or the films likely to be shown there if/when it opens again mean "nothing" to black or Asian folk? Have you asked them all their views on arthouse cinema? The council found a majority of residents living in Walthamstow wanted the Granada returned to use as an entertainment venue. That, presumably, includes the black and Asian residents. So I'm guessing that to many black and Asian residents, the building does have some meaning - many, for instance, will have been there as kids. Your assertions have no basis in any facts - just the weird ideas in your own head. Come back when you have any basis in reality for what you're saying. PsiMonk
  • Score: 12

7:12pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Villagecranberry says...

PsiMonk wrote:
Wow, Villagecranberry you appear to have lost the plot...

I have no idea how many black or Asian members the McGuffins have. Nor, do I suspect, have you. Ask them, get an answer, come back and tell us. On the same front, why should the Granada or the films likely to be shown there if/when it opens again mean "nothing" to black or Asian folk? Have you asked them all their views on arthouse cinema?

The council found a majority of residents living in Walthamstow wanted the Granada returned to use as an entertainment venue. That, presumably, includes the black and Asian residents. So I'm guessing that to many black and Asian residents, the building does have some meaning - many, for instance, will have been there as kids.

Your assertions have no basis in any facts - just the weird ideas in your own head. Come back when you have any basis in reality for what you're saying.
I 'seem to have lost the plot' because I am questioning justifying spending public money on a folly of interest to a few people unrepresentative of the population of Walthamstow as a whole? Usual ploy by you again.

If you look at the various pictures of the crowds outside the cinema campaigning you will see mainly white people.

What is an 'art house' cinema anyway? Sounds all vague.
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: Wow, Villagecranberry you appear to have lost the plot... I have no idea how many black or Asian members the McGuffins have. Nor, do I suspect, have you. Ask them, get an answer, come back and tell us. On the same front, why should the Granada or the films likely to be shown there if/when it opens again mean "nothing" to black or Asian folk? Have you asked them all their views on arthouse cinema? The council found a majority of residents living in Walthamstow wanted the Granada returned to use as an entertainment venue. That, presumably, includes the black and Asian residents. So I'm guessing that to many black and Asian residents, the building does have some meaning - many, for instance, will have been there as kids. Your assertions have no basis in any facts - just the weird ideas in your own head. Come back when you have any basis in reality for what you're saying.[/p][/quote]I 'seem to have lost the plot' because I am questioning justifying spending public money on a folly of interest to a few people unrepresentative of the population of Walthamstow as a whole? Usual ploy by you again. If you look at the various pictures of the crowds outside the cinema campaigning you will see mainly white people. What is an 'art house' cinema anyway? Sounds all vague. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -11

8:06pm Wed 18 Jun 14

PsiMonk says...

You've lost the plot because you offer no evidence whatsoever beyond your analysis of a few photos of a demonstration as to where you get your ethnic and demographic breakdown of views across Walthamstow.

If I have a "usual ploy" it's calling rubbish when I see it. Simply put, you have absolutely no idea what the ethnic or demographic breakdown of users for either cinema etc. is. Strangely enough, The Cinema Trust has done lots of work on potential demand for what it's proposing - and found plenty of support for it locally.

Do now go and have a nice quiet lie down. Or, alternatively, come back with some actual facts rather than snide backed up by hot air.
You've lost the plot because you offer no evidence whatsoever beyond your analysis of a few photos of a demonstration as to where you get your ethnic and demographic breakdown of views across Walthamstow. If I have a "usual ploy" it's calling rubbish when I see it. Simply put, you have absolutely no idea what the ethnic or demographic breakdown of users for either cinema etc. is. Strangely enough, The Cinema Trust has done lots of work on potential demand for what it's proposing - and found plenty of support for it locally. Do now go and have a nice quiet lie down. Or, alternatively, come back with some actual facts rather than snide backed up by hot air. PsiMonk
  • Score: 6

8:28pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Villagecranberry says...

PsiMonk wrote:
You've lost the plot because you offer no evidence whatsoever beyond your analysis of a few photos of a demonstration as to where you get your ethnic and demographic breakdown of views across Walthamstow.

If I have a "usual ploy" it's calling rubbish when I see it. Simply put, you have absolutely no idea what the ethnic or demographic breakdown of users for either cinema etc. is. Strangely enough, The Cinema Trust has done lots of work on potential demand for what it's proposing - and found plenty of support for it locally.

Do now go and have a nice quiet lie down. Or, alternatively, come back with some actual facts rather than snide backed up by hot air.
There you go again, insults instead of substance. 'A few photographs' that until now have been revered by the MCGuffins as valid publicity as to the substantial support and backing they achieve to save the cinema.

Now because I refer to these as 'evidence' of the disproportionately white snapshot, you dismiss these conveniently as unimportant.

Simply put, I am saying that most of the McGuffins are white and wholly unrepresentative of the borough, many of which probably do not even reside in the borough and yet expect Waltham Forest Taxpayers to buy them a Cinema and Bar.

If you suggest that a successful CPO and re opening of the Granada would attract people from afar and outside the borough, please say so. Let's not pretend that the McGuffins have a multiracial following please as you know they do not.
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: You've lost the plot because you offer no evidence whatsoever beyond your analysis of a few photos of a demonstration as to where you get your ethnic and demographic breakdown of views across Walthamstow. If I have a "usual ploy" it's calling rubbish when I see it. Simply put, you have absolutely no idea what the ethnic or demographic breakdown of users for either cinema etc. is. Strangely enough, The Cinema Trust has done lots of work on potential demand for what it's proposing - and found plenty of support for it locally. Do now go and have a nice quiet lie down. Or, alternatively, come back with some actual facts rather than snide backed up by hot air.[/p][/quote]There you go again, insults instead of substance. 'A few photographs' that until now have been revered by the MCGuffins as valid publicity as to the substantial support and backing they achieve to save the cinema. Now because I refer to these as 'evidence' of the disproportionately white snapshot, you dismiss these conveniently as unimportant. Simply put, I am saying that most of the McGuffins are white and wholly unrepresentative of the borough, many of which probably do not even reside in the borough and yet expect Waltham Forest Taxpayers to buy them a Cinema and Bar. If you suggest that a successful CPO and re opening of the Granada would attract people from afar and outside the borough, please say so. Let's not pretend that the McGuffins have a multiracial following please as you know they do not. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -12

8:42pm Wed 18 Jun 14

PsiMonk says...

1. I know that the last time I saw a meeting of the McGuffin "inner circle" there were several people from ethnic groups other than white.

2. I know that the ethnic make-up of a group of people who turn up on a demonstration may have nothing to do with the breakdown of who supports that campaign or not.

3. I have no idea which of the McGuffins reside or not in the borough (I don't think you do, either) - but as I said, the council's own surveys found the majority of Walthamstow residents, and quite a large proportion of the entire borough's residents wanted to save the cinema. So a lot of people who do reside locally want the cinema brought back into use.

4. One of the reasons why The Cinema Trust have opted for live comedy as a key element is to attract people from far and wide. But I personally believe such a use would also be well supported by locals also. Either way, I don't think whether a venue would or would not attract people from outside the area was even under discussion before now.

5. I have no idea about whether the McGuffins have a "multiracial following" or not - but either way, McGuffins are not "Save Walthamstow Cinema" or "The Cinema Trust". There is limited crossover of people between all three, but they are all very independent organisations. And I'd be very surprised if Save Walthamstow Cinema didn't have a "multiracial following" given point 3 in this list.

So, there you go again, waffle backed up by nothing instead of substance.
1. I know that the last time I saw a meeting of the McGuffin "inner circle" there were several people from ethnic groups other than white. 2. I know that the ethnic make-up of a group of people who turn up on a demonstration may have nothing to do with the breakdown of who supports that campaign or not. 3. I have no idea which of the McGuffins reside or not in the borough (I don't think you do, either) - but as I said, the council's own surveys found the majority of Walthamstow residents, and quite a large proportion of the entire borough's residents wanted to save the cinema. So a lot of people who do reside locally want the cinema brought back into use. 4. One of the reasons why The Cinema Trust have opted for live comedy as a key element is to attract people from far and wide. But I personally believe such a use would also be well supported by locals also. Either way, I don't think whether a venue would or would not attract people from outside the area was even under discussion before now. 5. I have no idea about whether the McGuffins have a "multiracial following" or not - but either way, McGuffins are not "Save Walthamstow Cinema" or "The Cinema Trust". There is limited crossover of people between all three, but they are all very independent organisations. And I'd be very surprised if Save Walthamstow Cinema didn't have a "multiracial following" given point 3 in this list. So, there you go again, waffle backed up by nothing instead of substance. PsiMonk
  • Score: 8

9:52pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Villagecranberry says...

So the ethnics in the inner circle are not in the unimportant photos?

The snap shot of a McGuffins demo bears no resemblance to a snapshot of a crowd in Walthamstow Market on a Saturday afternoon.

The cinema do not need comedy as the McGuffins are comical enough from what we have read on here over the years and their demos with cardboard Darleks and kids in superhero costumes and their computer generated 'if only' drawings.

Good to see that they have finally accepted the new multicomplesplexscre
en up the road being built and have moved on their rigid stance as to their demands on a premises that is owned by someone else. At least there is hope.

Oh, and where is Mick Jagger and Baldrick with their previous support? Have they put any money up or are they waiting for the hard pressed council tax payers to stump up the lolly as well?
So the ethnics in the inner circle are not in the unimportant photos? The snap shot of a McGuffins demo bears no resemblance to a snapshot of a crowd in Walthamstow Market on a Saturday afternoon. The cinema do not need comedy as the McGuffins are comical enough from what we have read on here over the years and their demos with cardboard Darleks and kids in superhero costumes and their computer generated 'if only' drawings. Good to see that they have finally accepted the new multicomplesplexscre en up the road being built and have moved on their rigid stance as to their demands on a premises that is owned by someone else. At least there is hope. Oh, and where is Mick Jagger and Baldrick with their previous support? Have they put any money up or are they waiting for the hard pressed council tax payers to stump up the lolly as well? Villagecranberry
  • Score: -11

10:09pm Wed 18 Jun 14

mdj says...

'Oh and yes, the Charity Commission have been asked to investigate UCKG's activities regarding the EMD '

Thanks for that. We no doubt agree on the CC's status as a chocolate teapot.


It's sobering to think that it's only a quirk of the planning system that puts churches and cinemas into different categories, both being large public buildings where crowds gather at specified times. Without that, this whole issue would have been academic, and the church open years ago.
A lucky fluke!
'Oh and yes, the Charity Commission have been asked to investigate UCKG's activities regarding the EMD ' Thanks for that. We no doubt agree on the CC's status as a chocolate teapot. It's sobering to think that it's only a quirk of the planning system that puts churches and cinemas into different categories, both being large public buildings where crowds gather at specified times. Without that, this whole issue would have been academic, and the church open years ago. A lucky fluke! mdj
  • Score: 8

10:27am Thu 19 Jun 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
PsiMonk wrote:
MDJ: "They've had ten years to do this: has anyone asked them to? With all this expertise available about the low real value of the building compared with the price paid, it wouldn't be hard, surely?"

The issue is that as you yourself have said, until there's a price on the building, their purchase being over the odds is theoretical. And the Charities Commission have been, to my money, very lax with the church. There have been several investigations in the last few years - all seemingly very cursory. Again, any investigation may come to nothing. I'm merely pointing out the way things might go given the facts at hand.

"If they see a CPO becoming a reality, what is to stop them, as I anticipate, auctioning the building, to minimise their loss, or selling to a shadow entity to zero the clock on the CPO process?"

The fact the CPO is in motion would, surely, itself cast a huge shadow over any sale?!

"Can any of the well-informed campaigners here confirm how many members, in terms of ongoing subscribers, the McGuffins actually have?"

No - ask the McGuffins - but there are tens of thousands of people who've signed petitions, emailed etc. if that's the point you're trying to make? At the last planning hearing thousands of people turned up if I remember right.
Petitions, however long, cannot be spent , money talks.

Private drinking and film club for a chose few, unrepresentative of the local social make up does not justify spending millions of public money on a CPO.
Took you long enough to trot that old gibberish out again Cornbeefur...

https://www.google.c


om/search?q=Cornbeef


ur+drinking+club
Truth hurts you? How many black or Asian members do the McGuffins have subscribing out of your 1000? Hardly representative of the local area.

Why should they pay for something that means nothing to them? The majority would prefer a modern cinema up the road being built and will not be interested in films like The Iceman from the planet Zob or carry on up your Khybers Paths.

Easy to spend taxpayers money.
Given your past history for racist comments left right and centre you're on pretty thin ice.

You seem very obsessed by the McGuffins.

Given the supporting petitions have had many 1000's more than are members of the McGuffins (like myself) I'm not sure quite what your "truth" is? You and truth have a relationship similar to mine with Elvis. You've never met.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: MDJ: "They've had ten years to do this: has anyone asked them to? With all this expertise available about the low real value of the building compared with the price paid, it wouldn't be hard, surely?" The issue is that as you yourself have said, until there's a price on the building, their purchase being over the odds is theoretical. And the Charities Commission have been, to my money, very lax with the church. There have been several investigations in the last few years - all seemingly very cursory. Again, any investigation may come to nothing. I'm merely pointing out the way things might go given the facts at hand. "If they see a CPO becoming a reality, what is to stop them, as I anticipate, auctioning the building, to minimise their loss, or selling to a shadow entity to zero the clock on the CPO process?" The fact the CPO is in motion would, surely, itself cast a huge shadow over any sale?! "Can any of the well-informed campaigners here confirm how many members, in terms of ongoing subscribers, the McGuffins actually have?" No - ask the McGuffins - but there are tens of thousands of people who've signed petitions, emailed etc. if that's the point you're trying to make? At the last planning hearing thousands of people turned up if I remember right.[/p][/quote]Petitions, however long, cannot be spent , money talks. Private drinking and film club for a chose few, unrepresentative of the local social make up does not justify spending millions of public money on a CPO.[/p][/quote]Took you long enough to trot that old gibberish out again Cornbeefur... https://www.google.c om/search?q=Cornbeef ur+drinking+club[/p][/quote]Truth hurts you? How many black or Asian members do the McGuffins have subscribing out of your 1000? Hardly representative of the local area. Why should they pay for something that means nothing to them? The majority would prefer a modern cinema up the road being built and will not be interested in films like The Iceman from the planet Zob or carry on up your Khybers Paths. Easy to spend taxpayers money.[/p][/quote]Given your past history for racist comments left right and centre you're on pretty thin ice. You seem very obsessed by the McGuffins. Given the supporting petitions have had many 1000's more than are members of the McGuffins (like myself) I'm not sure quite what your "truth" is? You and truth have a relationship similar to mine with Elvis. You've never met. Alan_1976
  • Score: 10

12:07pm Thu 19 Jun 14

RichieA70 says...

Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites.

Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.
Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites. Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal. RichieA70
  • Score: 6

12:50pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Villagecranberry says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
PsiMonk wrote:
MDJ: "They've had ten years to do this: has anyone asked them to? With all this expertise available about the low real value of the building compared with the price paid, it wouldn't be hard, surely?"

The issue is that as you yourself have said, until there's a price on the building, their purchase being over the odds is theoretical. And the Charities Commission have been, to my money, very lax with the church. There have been several investigations in the last few years - all seemingly very cursory. Again, any investigation may come to nothing. I'm merely pointing out the way things might go given the facts at hand.

"If they see a CPO becoming a reality, what is to stop them, as I anticipate, auctioning the building, to minimise their loss, or selling to a shadow entity to zero the clock on the CPO process?"

The fact the CPO is in motion would, surely, itself cast a huge shadow over any sale?!

"Can any of the well-informed campaigners here confirm how many members, in terms of ongoing subscribers, the McGuffins actually have?"

No - ask the McGuffins - but there are tens of thousands of people who've signed petitions, emailed etc. if that's the point you're trying to make? At the last planning hearing thousands of people turned up if I remember right.
Petitions, however long, cannot be spent , money talks.

Private drinking and film club for a chose few, unrepresentative of the local social make up does not justify spending millions of public money on a CPO.
Took you long enough to trot that old gibberish out again Cornbeefur...

https://www.google.c



om/search?q=Cornbeef



ur+drinking+club
Truth hurts you? How many black or Asian members do the McGuffins have subscribing out of your 1000? Hardly representative of the local area.

Why should they pay for something that means nothing to them? The majority would prefer a modern cinema up the road being built and will not be interested in films like The Iceman from the planet Zob or carry on up your Khybers Paths.

Easy to spend taxpayers money.
Given your past history for racist comments left right and centre you're on pretty thin ice.

You seem very obsessed by the McGuffins.

Given the supporting petitions have had many 1000's more than are members of the McGuffins (like myself) I'm not sure quite what your "truth" is? You and truth have a relationship similar to mine with Elvis. You've never met.
It is easy and a cheap shot to accuse me of racism. Your allegations of racism are imaginary and a lame excuse at arguing your points.

As I have said, from the photographs of demonstrations, that the MCGuffins cherish, there seem to be essentially white people in the crowd, unrepresentative of the mixed local population. I noticed that they have moved the goal posts recently to encompass a wider audience from afar.

The only obsessed person is you, obsessed with having the last word, which you will without any doubt aim to have.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: MDJ: "They've had ten years to do this: has anyone asked them to? With all this expertise available about the low real value of the building compared with the price paid, it wouldn't be hard, surely?" The issue is that as you yourself have said, until there's a price on the building, their purchase being over the odds is theoretical. And the Charities Commission have been, to my money, very lax with the church. There have been several investigations in the last few years - all seemingly very cursory. Again, any investigation may come to nothing. I'm merely pointing out the way things might go given the facts at hand. "If they see a CPO becoming a reality, what is to stop them, as I anticipate, auctioning the building, to minimise their loss, or selling to a shadow entity to zero the clock on the CPO process?" The fact the CPO is in motion would, surely, itself cast a huge shadow over any sale?! "Can any of the well-informed campaigners here confirm how many members, in terms of ongoing subscribers, the McGuffins actually have?" No - ask the McGuffins - but there are tens of thousands of people who've signed petitions, emailed etc. if that's the point you're trying to make? At the last planning hearing thousands of people turned up if I remember right.[/p][/quote]Petitions, however long, cannot be spent , money talks. Private drinking and film club for a chose few, unrepresentative of the local social make up does not justify spending millions of public money on a CPO.[/p][/quote]Took you long enough to trot that old gibberish out again Cornbeefur... https://www.google.c om/search?q=Cornbeef ur+drinking+club[/p][/quote]Truth hurts you? How many black or Asian members do the McGuffins have subscribing out of your 1000? Hardly representative of the local area. Why should they pay for something that means nothing to them? The majority would prefer a modern cinema up the road being built and will not be interested in films like The Iceman from the planet Zob or carry on up your Khybers Paths. Easy to spend taxpayers money.[/p][/quote]Given your past history for racist comments left right and centre you're on pretty thin ice. You seem very obsessed by the McGuffins. Given the supporting petitions have had many 1000's more than are members of the McGuffins (like myself) I'm not sure quite what your "truth" is? You and truth have a relationship similar to mine with Elvis. You've never met.[/p][/quote]It is easy and a cheap shot to accuse me of racism. Your allegations of racism are imaginary and a lame excuse at arguing your points. As I have said, from the photographs of demonstrations, that the MCGuffins cherish, there seem to be essentially white people in the crowd, unrepresentative of the mixed local population. I noticed that they have moved the goal posts recently to encompass a wider audience from afar. The only obsessed person is you, obsessed with having the last word, which you will without any doubt aim to have. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -6

12:53pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Villagecranberry says...

RichieA70 wrote:
Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites.

Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.
I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it.

I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?
[quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites. Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.[/p][/quote]I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it. I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points? Villagecranberry
  • Score: -4

3:22pm Thu 19 Jun 14

RichieA70 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites.

Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.
I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it.

I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?
I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites. Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.[/p][/quote]I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it. I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?[/p][/quote]I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period. RichieA70
  • Score: 7

4:04pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Villagecranberry says...

RichieA70 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites.

Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.
I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it.

I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?
I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.
Why are there hardly any in the crowds in the demonstration photos? Please answer that?
[quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites. Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.[/p][/quote]I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it. I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?[/p][/quote]I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.[/p][/quote]Why are there hardly any in the crowds in the demonstration photos? Please answer that? Villagecranberry
  • Score: -8

9:46pm Fri 20 Jun 14

marshwarbler says...

why do you care cornbeefur? I should imagine you would have said the same about the William Morris gallery when the council were tying to sell off the collection: 'it's a white middle class attraction, not representative of the local community so shouldn't be saved'.

The EMD is a listed building and part of Walthamstows heritage - we need to try and keep as much of the dwindling heritage that we have left as we possibly can.

Do you even pay council tax here?
why do you care cornbeefur? I should imagine you would have said the same about the William Morris gallery when the council were tying to sell off the collection: 'it's a white middle class attraction, not representative of the local community so shouldn't be saved'. The EMD is a listed building and part of Walthamstows heritage - we need to try and keep as much of the dwindling heritage that we have left as we possibly can. Do you even pay council tax here? marshwarbler
  • Score: 8

11:12pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Villagecranberry says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites.

Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.
I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it.

I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?
I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.
Why are there hardly any in the crowds in the demonstration photos? Please answer that?
No answer, does not surprise me. You have no answer except that what I have suggested is correct if you actually put your mind to it.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites. Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.[/p][/quote]I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it. I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?[/p][/quote]I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.[/p][/quote]Why are there hardly any in the crowds in the demonstration photos? Please answer that?[/p][/quote]No answer, does not surprise me. You have no answer except that what I have suggested is correct if you actually put your mind to it. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -8

11:30am Mon 23 Jun 14

RichieA70 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites.

Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.
I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it.

I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?
I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.
Why are there hardly any in the crowds in the demonstration photos? Please answer that?
No answer, does not surprise me. You have no answer except that what I have suggested is correct if you actually put your mind to it.
You seem determined to ignore facts which explains why all your postings get minus scores and numerous commentators demolish your claims for being comprehensively wrong in all aspects. And repeating the same nonsense also leads to assumptions you get a kick out of winding up others and are nothing more than a troll.

Photos of demos prove nothing. Support for the Trusts plans comes from over 150 local businesses run by and serving all of Walthamstow's myriad nationalities. It would be hard to find any other single venue that has the support and capability to serve such a wide demographic.

As we've entered each new chapter of the EMD saga your comments and reality have grown further and further apart. Continuing to believe you are right seems to be what UCKG management have done and explains why they have spectacularly failed to gain any support in Walthamstow and instead ensured the EMD can only be used for entertainment purposes by whichever organisation takes over its ownership.

By all means get the last comment in on this thread. This is my last.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites. Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.[/p][/quote]I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it. I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?[/p][/quote]I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.[/p][/quote]Why are there hardly any in the crowds in the demonstration photos? Please answer that?[/p][/quote]No answer, does not surprise me. You have no answer except that what I have suggested is correct if you actually put your mind to it.[/p][/quote]You seem determined to ignore facts which explains why all your postings get minus scores and numerous commentators demolish your claims for being comprehensively wrong in all aspects. And repeating the same nonsense also leads to assumptions you get a kick out of winding up others and are nothing more than a troll. Photos of demos prove nothing. Support for the Trusts plans comes from over 150 local businesses run by and serving all of Walthamstow's myriad nationalities. It would be hard to find any other single venue that has the support and capability to serve such a wide demographic. As we've entered each new chapter of the EMD saga your comments and reality have grown further and further apart. Continuing to believe you are right seems to be what UCKG management have done and explains why they have spectacularly failed to gain any support in Walthamstow and instead ensured the EMD can only be used for entertainment purposes by whichever organisation takes over its ownership. By all means get the last comment in on this thread. This is my last. RichieA70
  • Score: 5

3:42pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Villagecranberry says...

RichieA70 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites.

Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.
I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it.

I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?
I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.
Why are there hardly any in the crowds in the demonstration photos? Please answer that?
No answer, does not surprise me. You have no answer except that what I have suggested is correct if you actually put your mind to it.
You seem determined to ignore facts which explains why all your postings get minus scores and numerous commentators demolish your claims for being comprehensively wrong in all aspects. And repeating the same nonsense also leads to assumptions you get a kick out of winding up others and are nothing more than a troll.

Photos of demos prove nothing. Support for the Trusts plans comes from over 150 local businesses run by and serving all of Walthamstow's myriad nationalities. It would be hard to find any other single venue that has the support and capability to serve such a wide demographic.

As we've entered each new chapter of the EMD saga your comments and reality have grown further and further apart. Continuing to believe you are right seems to be what UCKG management have done and explains why they have spectacularly failed to gain any support in Walthamstow and instead ensured the EMD can only be used for entertainment purposes by whichever organisation takes over its ownership.

By all means get the last comment in on this thread. This is my last.
Confucius say a picture means 1000 words.
[quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites. Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.[/p][/quote]I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it. I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?[/p][/quote]I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.[/p][/quote]Why are there hardly any in the crowds in the demonstration photos? Please answer that?[/p][/quote]No answer, does not surprise me. You have no answer except that what I have suggested is correct if you actually put your mind to it.[/p][/quote]You seem determined to ignore facts which explains why all your postings get minus scores and numerous commentators demolish your claims for being comprehensively wrong in all aspects. And repeating the same nonsense also leads to assumptions you get a kick out of winding up others and are nothing more than a troll. Photos of demos prove nothing. Support for the Trusts plans comes from over 150 local businesses run by and serving all of Walthamstow's myriad nationalities. It would be hard to find any other single venue that has the support and capability to serve such a wide demographic. As we've entered each new chapter of the EMD saga your comments and reality have grown further and further apart. Continuing to believe you are right seems to be what UCKG management have done and explains why they have spectacularly failed to gain any support in Walthamstow and instead ensured the EMD can only be used for entertainment purposes by whichever organisation takes over its ownership. By all means get the last comment in on this thread. This is my last.[/p][/quote]Confucius say a picture means 1000 words. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -8

5:20pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites.

Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.
I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it.

I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?
I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.
Why are there hardly any in the crowds in the demonstration photos? Please answer that?
No answer, does not surprise me. You have no answer except that what I have suggested is correct if you actually put your mind to it.
You seem determined to ignore facts which explains why all your postings get minus scores and numerous commentators demolish your claims for being comprehensively wrong in all aspects. And repeating the same nonsense also leads to assumptions you get a kick out of winding up others and are nothing more than a troll.

Photos of demos prove nothing. Support for the Trusts plans comes from over 150 local businesses run by and serving all of Walthamstow's myriad nationalities. It would be hard to find any other single venue that has the support and capability to serve such a wide demographic.

As we've entered each new chapter of the EMD saga your comments and reality have grown further and further apart. Continuing to believe you are right seems to be what UCKG management have done and explains why they have spectacularly failed to gain any support in Walthamstow and instead ensured the EMD can only be used for entertainment purposes by whichever organisation takes over its ownership.

By all means get the last comment in on this thread. This is my last.
Confucius say a picture means 1000 words.
Confused Cornbeefur can't manage to get a simple quote right...
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites. Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.[/p][/quote]I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it. I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?[/p][/quote]I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.[/p][/quote]Why are there hardly any in the crowds in the demonstration photos? Please answer that?[/p][/quote]No answer, does not surprise me. You have no answer except that what I have suggested is correct if you actually put your mind to it.[/p][/quote]You seem determined to ignore facts which explains why all your postings get minus scores and numerous commentators demolish your claims for being comprehensively wrong in all aspects. And repeating the same nonsense also leads to assumptions you get a kick out of winding up others and are nothing more than a troll. Photos of demos prove nothing. Support for the Trusts plans comes from over 150 local businesses run by and serving all of Walthamstow's myriad nationalities. It would be hard to find any other single venue that has the support and capability to serve such a wide demographic. As we've entered each new chapter of the EMD saga your comments and reality have grown further and further apart. Continuing to believe you are right seems to be what UCKG management have done and explains why they have spectacularly failed to gain any support in Walthamstow and instead ensured the EMD can only be used for entertainment purposes by whichever organisation takes over its ownership. By all means get the last comment in on this thread. This is my last.[/p][/quote]Confucius say a picture means 1000 words.[/p][/quote]Confused Cornbeefur can't manage to get a simple quote right... Alan_1976
  • Score: 11

8:57pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Villagecranberry says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites.

Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.
I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it.

I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?
I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.
Why are there hardly any in the crowds in the demonstration photos? Please answer that?
No answer, does not surprise me. You have no answer except that what I have suggested is correct if you actually put your mind to it.
You seem determined to ignore facts which explains why all your postings get minus scores and numerous commentators demolish your claims for being comprehensively wrong in all aspects. And repeating the same nonsense also leads to assumptions you get a kick out of winding up others and are nothing more than a troll.

Photos of demos prove nothing. Support for the Trusts plans comes from over 150 local businesses run by and serving all of Walthamstow's myriad nationalities. It would be hard to find any other single venue that has the support and capability to serve such a wide demographic.

As we've entered each new chapter of the EMD saga your comments and reality have grown further and further apart. Continuing to believe you are right seems to be what UCKG management have done and explains why they have spectacularly failed to gain any support in Walthamstow and instead ensured the EMD can only be used for entertainment purposes by whichever organisation takes over its ownership.

By all means get the last comment in on this thread. This is my last.
Confucius say a picture means 1000 words.
Confused Cornbeefur can't manage to get a simple quote right...
Watts, he got to do with Mee?
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites. Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.[/p][/quote]I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it. I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?[/p][/quote]I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.[/p][/quote]Why are there hardly any in the crowds in the demonstration photos? Please answer that?[/p][/quote]No answer, does not surprise me. You have no answer except that what I have suggested is correct if you actually put your mind to it.[/p][/quote]You seem determined to ignore facts which explains why all your postings get minus scores and numerous commentators demolish your claims for being comprehensively wrong in all aspects. And repeating the same nonsense also leads to assumptions you get a kick out of winding up others and are nothing more than a troll. Photos of demos prove nothing. Support for the Trusts plans comes from over 150 local businesses run by and serving all of Walthamstow's myriad nationalities. It would be hard to find any other single venue that has the support and capability to serve such a wide demographic. As we've entered each new chapter of the EMD saga your comments and reality have grown further and further apart. Continuing to believe you are right seems to be what UCKG management have done and explains why they have spectacularly failed to gain any support in Walthamstow and instead ensured the EMD can only be used for entertainment purposes by whichever organisation takes over its ownership. By all means get the last comment in on this thread. This is my last.[/p][/quote]Confucius say a picture means 1000 words.[/p][/quote]Confused Cornbeefur can't manage to get a simple quote right...[/p][/quote]Watts, he got to do with Mee? Villagecranberry
  • Score: -7

9:07pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites.

Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.
I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it.

I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?
I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.
Why are there hardly any in the crowds in the demonstration photos? Please answer that?
No answer, does not surprise me. You have no answer except that what I have suggested is correct if you actually put your mind to it.
You seem determined to ignore facts which explains why all your postings get minus scores and numerous commentators demolish your claims for being comprehensively wrong in all aspects. And repeating the same nonsense also leads to assumptions you get a kick out of winding up others and are nothing more than a troll.

Photos of demos prove nothing. Support for the Trusts plans comes from over 150 local businesses run by and serving all of Walthamstow's myriad nationalities. It would be hard to find any other single venue that has the support and capability to serve such a wide demographic.

As we've entered each new chapter of the EMD saga your comments and reality have grown further and further apart. Continuing to believe you are right seems to be what UCKG management have done and explains why they have spectacularly failed to gain any support in Walthamstow and instead ensured the EMD can only be used for entertainment purposes by whichever organisation takes over its ownership.

By all means get the last comment in on this thread. This is my last.
Confucius say a picture means 1000 words.
Confused Cornbeefur can't manage to get a simple quote right...
Watts, he got to do with Mee?
Probably shouldn't have replied to your previous alias earlier in the comments when I first mentioned it....

You remember, your relationship with the truth.... Well done on proving the point
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites. Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.[/p][/quote]I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it. I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?[/p][/quote]I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.[/p][/quote]Why are there hardly any in the crowds in the demonstration photos? Please answer that?[/p][/quote]No answer, does not surprise me. You have no answer except that what I have suggested is correct if you actually put your mind to it.[/p][/quote]You seem determined to ignore facts which explains why all your postings get minus scores and numerous commentators demolish your claims for being comprehensively wrong in all aspects. And repeating the same nonsense also leads to assumptions you get a kick out of winding up others and are nothing more than a troll. Photos of demos prove nothing. Support for the Trusts plans comes from over 150 local businesses run by and serving all of Walthamstow's myriad nationalities. It would be hard to find any other single venue that has the support and capability to serve such a wide demographic. As we've entered each new chapter of the EMD saga your comments and reality have grown further and further apart. Continuing to believe you are right seems to be what UCKG management have done and explains why they have spectacularly failed to gain any support in Walthamstow and instead ensured the EMD can only be used for entertainment purposes by whichever organisation takes over its ownership. By all means get the last comment in on this thread. This is my last.[/p][/quote]Confucius say a picture means 1000 words.[/p][/quote]Confused Cornbeefur can't manage to get a simple quote right...[/p][/quote]Watts, he got to do with Mee?[/p][/quote]Probably shouldn't have replied to your previous alias earlier in the comments when I first mentioned it.... You remember, your relationship with the truth.... Well done on proving the point Alan_1976
  • Score: 6

9:23pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Villagecranberry says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites.

Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.
I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it.

I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?
I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.
Why are there hardly any in the crowds in the demonstration photos? Please answer that?
No answer, does not surprise me. You have no answer except that what I have suggested is correct if you actually put your mind to it.
You seem determined to ignore facts which explains why all your postings get minus scores and numerous commentators demolish your claims for being comprehensively wrong in all aspects. And repeating the same nonsense also leads to assumptions you get a kick out of winding up others and are nothing more than a troll.

Photos of demos prove nothing. Support for the Trusts plans comes from over 150 local businesses run by and serving all of Walthamstow's myriad nationalities. It would be hard to find any other single venue that has the support and capability to serve such a wide demographic.

As we've entered each new chapter of the EMD saga your comments and reality have grown further and further apart. Continuing to believe you are right seems to be what UCKG management have done and explains why they have spectacularly failed to gain any support in Walthamstow and instead ensured the EMD can only be used for entertainment purposes by whichever organisation takes over its ownership.

By all means get the last comment in on this thread. This is my last.
Confucius say a picture means 1000 words.
Confused Cornbeefur can't manage to get a simple quote right...
Watts, he got to do with Mee?
Probably shouldn't have replied to your previous alias earlier in the comments when I first mentioned it....

You remember, your relationship with the truth.... Well done on proving the point
You are talking in riddles again doughnut brain.

Mummy let you use the computer again?
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites. Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.[/p][/quote]I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it. I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?[/p][/quote]I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.[/p][/quote]Why are there hardly any in the crowds in the demonstration photos? Please answer that?[/p][/quote]No answer, does not surprise me. You have no answer except that what I have suggested is correct if you actually put your mind to it.[/p][/quote]You seem determined to ignore facts which explains why all your postings get minus scores and numerous commentators demolish your claims for being comprehensively wrong in all aspects. And repeating the same nonsense also leads to assumptions you get a kick out of winding up others and are nothing more than a troll. Photos of demos prove nothing. Support for the Trusts plans comes from over 150 local businesses run by and serving all of Walthamstow's myriad nationalities. It would be hard to find any other single venue that has the support and capability to serve such a wide demographic. As we've entered each new chapter of the EMD saga your comments and reality have grown further and further apart. Continuing to believe you are right seems to be what UCKG management have done and explains why they have spectacularly failed to gain any support in Walthamstow and instead ensured the EMD can only be used for entertainment purposes by whichever organisation takes over its ownership. By all means get the last comment in on this thread. This is my last.[/p][/quote]Confucius say a picture means 1000 words.[/p][/quote]Confused Cornbeefur can't manage to get a simple quote right...[/p][/quote]Watts, he got to do with Mee?[/p][/quote]Probably shouldn't have replied to your previous alias earlier in the comments when I first mentioned it.... You remember, your relationship with the truth.... Well done on proving the point[/p][/quote]You are talking in riddles again doughnut brain. Mummy let you use the computer again? Villagecranberry
  • Score: -7

8:46am Tue 24 Jun 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote: Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites. Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.
I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it. I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?
I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.
Why are there hardly any in the crowds in the demonstration photos? Please answer that?
No answer, does not surprise me. You have no answer except that what I have suggested is correct if you actually put your mind to it.
You seem determined to ignore facts which explains why all your postings get minus scores and numerous commentators demolish your claims for being comprehensively wrong in all aspects. And repeating the same nonsense also leads to assumptions you get a kick out of winding up others and are nothing more than a troll. Photos of demos prove nothing. Support for the Trusts plans comes from over 150 local businesses run by and serving all of Walthamstow's myriad nationalities. It would be hard to find any other single venue that has the support and capability to serve such a wide demographic. As we've entered each new chapter of the EMD saga your comments and reality have grown further and further apart. Continuing to believe you are right seems to be what UCKG management have done and explains why they have spectacularly failed to gain any support in Walthamstow and instead ensured the EMD can only be used for entertainment purposes by whichever organisation takes over its ownership. By all means get the last comment in on this thread. This is my last.
Confucius say a picture means 1000 words.
Confused Cornbeefur can't manage to get a simple quote right...
Watts, he got to do with Mee?
Probably shouldn't have replied to your previous alias earlier in the comments when I first mentioned it.... You remember, your relationship with the truth.... Well done on proving the point
You are talking in riddles again doughnut brain. Mummy let you use the computer again?
Ah yes. Apologies I forgot we have to keep things at the playground level of discourse for you.

If you want to pretend you aren't Cornbeefur don't reply to that name in this thread? You remember. The bit where you started dribbling about the planet Zob? It was probably around your snack time as you seemed a little overexcited.

Simple enough for you? Unfortunately I can't include pictures to help you out. Maybe get an adult to help you by explaining the big words? I'm sure the one who helps when you have your little accidents can.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites. Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.[/p][/quote]I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it. I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?[/p][/quote]I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.[/p][/quote]Why are there hardly any in the crowds in the demonstration photos? Please answer that?[/p][/quote]No answer, does not surprise me. You have no answer except that what I have suggested is correct if you actually put your mind to it.[/p][/quote]You seem determined to ignore facts which explains why all your postings get minus scores and numerous commentators demolish your claims for being comprehensively wrong in all aspects. And repeating the same nonsense also leads to assumptions you get a kick out of winding up others and are nothing more than a troll. Photos of demos prove nothing. Support for the Trusts plans comes from over 150 local businesses run by and serving all of Walthamstow's myriad nationalities. It would be hard to find any other single venue that has the support and capability to serve such a wide demographic. As we've entered each new chapter of the EMD saga your comments and reality have grown further and further apart. Continuing to believe you are right seems to be what UCKG management have done and explains why they have spectacularly failed to gain any support in Walthamstow and instead ensured the EMD can only be used for entertainment purposes by whichever organisation takes over its ownership. By all means get the last comment in on this thread. This is my last.[/p][/quote]Confucius say a picture means 1000 words.[/p][/quote]Confused Cornbeefur can't manage to get a simple quote right...[/p][/quote]Watts, he got to do with Mee?[/p][/quote]Probably shouldn't have replied to your previous alias earlier in the comments when I first mentioned it.... You remember, your relationship with the truth.... Well done on proving the point[/p][/quote]You are talking in riddles again doughnut brain. Mummy let you use the computer again?[/p][/quote]Ah yes. Apologies I forgot we have to keep things at the playground level of discourse for you. If you want to pretend you aren't Cornbeefur don't reply to that name in this thread? You remember. The bit where you started dribbling about the planet Zob? It was probably around your snack time as you seemed a little overexcited. Simple enough for you? Unfortunately I can't include pictures to help you out. Maybe get an adult to help you by explaining the big words? I'm sure the one who helps when you have your little accidents can. Alan_1976
  • Score: 6

11:10am Tue 24 Jun 14

Villagecranberry says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote: Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites. Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.
I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it. I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?
I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.
Why are there hardly any in the crowds in the demonstration photos? Please answer that?
No answer, does not surprise me. You have no answer except that what I have suggested is correct if you actually put your mind to it.
You seem determined to ignore facts which explains why all your postings get minus scores and numerous commentators demolish your claims for being comprehensively wrong in all aspects. And repeating the same nonsense also leads to assumptions you get a kick out of winding up others and are nothing more than a troll. Photos of demos prove nothing. Support for the Trusts plans comes from over 150 local businesses run by and serving all of Walthamstow's myriad nationalities. It would be hard to find any other single venue that has the support and capability to serve such a wide demographic. As we've entered each new chapter of the EMD saga your comments and reality have grown further and further apart. Continuing to believe you are right seems to be what UCKG management have done and explains why they have spectacularly failed to gain any support in Walthamstow and instead ensured the EMD can only be used for entertainment purposes by whichever organisation takes over its ownership. By all means get the last comment in on this thread. This is my last.
Confucius say a picture means 1000 words.
Confused Cornbeefur can't manage to get a simple quote right...
Watts, he got to do with Mee?
Probably shouldn't have replied to your previous alias earlier in the comments when I first mentioned it.... You remember, your relationship with the truth.... Well done on proving the point
You are talking in riddles again doughnut brain. Mummy let you use the computer again?
Ah yes. Apologies I forgot we have to keep things at the playground level of discourse for you.

If you want to pretend you aren't Cornbeefur don't reply to that name in this thread? You remember. The bit where you started dribbling about the planet Zob? It was probably around your snack time as you seemed a little overexcited.

Simple enough for you? Unfortunately I can't include pictures to help you out. Maybe get an adult to help you by explaining the big words? I'm sure the one who helps when you have your little accidents can.
Stop copying me, sfb's.

Think up something novel?
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites. Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.[/p][/quote]I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it. I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?[/p][/quote]I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.[/p][/quote]Why are there hardly any in the crowds in the demonstration photos? Please answer that?[/p][/quote]No answer, does not surprise me. You have no answer except that what I have suggested is correct if you actually put your mind to it.[/p][/quote]You seem determined to ignore facts which explains why all your postings get minus scores and numerous commentators demolish your claims for being comprehensively wrong in all aspects. And repeating the same nonsense also leads to assumptions you get a kick out of winding up others and are nothing more than a troll. Photos of demos prove nothing. Support for the Trusts plans comes from over 150 local businesses run by and serving all of Walthamstow's myriad nationalities. It would be hard to find any other single venue that has the support and capability to serve such a wide demographic. As we've entered each new chapter of the EMD saga your comments and reality have grown further and further apart. Continuing to believe you are right seems to be what UCKG management have done and explains why they have spectacularly failed to gain any support in Walthamstow and instead ensured the EMD can only be used for entertainment purposes by whichever organisation takes over its ownership. By all means get the last comment in on this thread. This is my last.[/p][/quote]Confucius say a picture means 1000 words.[/p][/quote]Confused Cornbeefur can't manage to get a simple quote right...[/p][/quote]Watts, he got to do with Mee?[/p][/quote]Probably shouldn't have replied to your previous alias earlier in the comments when I first mentioned it.... You remember, your relationship with the truth.... Well done on proving the point[/p][/quote]You are talking in riddles again doughnut brain. Mummy let you use the computer again?[/p][/quote]Ah yes. Apologies I forgot we have to keep things at the playground level of discourse for you. If you want to pretend you aren't Cornbeefur don't reply to that name in this thread? You remember. The bit where you started dribbling about the planet Zob? It was probably around your snack time as you seemed a little overexcited. Simple enough for you? Unfortunately I can't include pictures to help you out. Maybe get an adult to help you by explaining the big words? I'm sure the one who helps when you have your little accidents can.[/p][/quote]Stop copying me, sfb's. Think up something novel? Villagecranberry
  • Score: -5

2:43pm Tue 24 Jun 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
RichieA70 wrote: Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites. Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.
I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it. I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?
I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.
Why are there hardly any in the crowds in the demonstration photos? Please answer that?
No answer, does not surprise me. You have no answer except that what I have suggested is correct if you actually put your mind to it.
You seem determined to ignore facts which explains why all your postings get minus scores and numerous commentators demolish your claims for being comprehensively wrong in all aspects. And repeating the same nonsense also leads to assumptions you get a kick out of winding up others and are nothing more than a troll. Photos of demos prove nothing. Support for the Trusts plans comes from over 150 local businesses run by and serving all of Walthamstow's myriad nationalities. It would be hard to find any other single venue that has the support and capability to serve such a wide demographic. As we've entered each new chapter of the EMD saga your comments and reality have grown further and further apart. Continuing to believe you are right seems to be what UCKG management have done and explains why they have spectacularly failed to gain any support in Walthamstow and instead ensured the EMD can only be used for entertainment purposes by whichever organisation takes over its ownership. By all means get the last comment in on this thread. This is my last.
Confucius say a picture means 1000 words.
Confused Cornbeefur can't manage to get a simple quote right...
Watts, he got to do with Mee?
Probably shouldn't have replied to your previous alias earlier in the comments when I first mentioned it.... You remember, your relationship with the truth.... Well done on proving the point
You are talking in riddles again doughnut brain. Mummy let you use the computer again?
Ah yes. Apologies I forgot we have to keep things at the playground level of discourse for you.

If you want to pretend you aren't Cornbeefur don't reply to that name in this thread? You remember. The bit where you started dribbling about the planet Zob? It was probably around your snack time as you seemed a little overexcited.

Simple enough for you? Unfortunately I can't include pictures to help you out. Maybe get an adult to help you by explaining the big words? I'm sure the one who helps when you have your little accidents can.
Stop copying me, sfb's.

Think up something novel?
Interesting use of the possessive apostrophe there.

Here's something novel. A day without you posting gibberish. That would be truly novel....
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: Can you imagine if the Troll referred to the pre-dominantly black UCKG supporters in the same way as being unrepresentative of the borough's population? It's the same argument he makes about the supposedly white, middle class cinema supporters, the difference being that the cinema is supported by people of all class, creed and colour. I went to Walthamstow's Mela (Asian culture festival) and found HUGE support for the EMD being used as a cinema from non-whites. Aside from the opinion of someone who aims to wind-up people on this site and apparently with a genuine axe to grind about the McGuffins, Colliers International identified that the mixed profile of the borough's population was the PERFECT audience for Waltham Forest Cinema Trust's plans for the EMD and used this data to succesfully demolish UCKG's weak defence of their Planning Appeal.[/p][/quote]I cannot imagine in as you are the only one suggesting it. I raise valid points and instead of addressing them, like others here, all you are able to retort is trolling accusations. Why do you not try addressing a few specific points?[/p][/quote]I've addressed all your points as have other people 1,000s of times over the EMD. The cinema is supported by people of all ethnic background. Period.[/p][/quote]Why are there hardly any in the crowds in the demonstration photos? Please answer that?[/p][/quote]No answer, does not surprise me. You have no answer except that what I have suggested is correct if you actually put your mind to it.[/p][/quote]You seem determined to ignore facts which explains why all your postings get minus scores and numerous commentators demolish your claims for being comprehensively wrong in all aspects. And repeating the same nonsense also leads to assumptions you get a kick out of winding up others and are nothing more than a troll. Photos of demos prove nothing. Support for the Trusts plans comes from over 150 local businesses run by and serving all of Walthamstow's myriad nationalities. It would be hard to find any other single venue that has the support and capability to serve such a wide demographic. As we've entered each new chapter of the EMD saga your comments and reality have grown further and further apart. Continuing to believe you are right seems to be what UCKG management have done and explains why they have spectacularly failed to gain any support in Walthamstow and instead ensured the EMD can only be used for entertainment purposes by whichever organisation takes over its ownership. By all means get the last comment in on this thread. This is my last.[/p][/quote]Confucius say a picture means 1000 words.[/p][/quote]Confused Cornbeefur can't manage to get a simple quote right...[/p][/quote]Watts, he got to do with Mee?[/p][/quote]Probably shouldn't have replied to your previous alias earlier in the comments when I first mentioned it.... You remember, your relationship with the truth.... Well done on proving the point[/p][/quote]You are talking in riddles again doughnut brain. Mummy let you use the computer again?[/p][/quote]Ah yes. Apologies I forgot we have to keep things at the playground level of discourse for you. If you want to pretend you aren't Cornbeefur don't reply to that name in this thread? You remember. The bit where you started dribbling about the planet Zob? It was probably around your snack time as you seemed a little overexcited. Simple enough for you? Unfortunately I can't include pictures to help you out. Maybe get an adult to help you by explaining the big words? I'm sure the one who helps when you have your little accidents can.[/p][/quote]Stop copying me, sfb's. Think up something novel?[/p][/quote]Interesting use of the possessive apostrophe there. Here's something novel. A day without you posting gibberish. That would be truly novel.... Alan_1976
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree