WALTHAMSTOW: QI star backs EMD cinema campaign (From East London and West Essex Guardian Series)

I doubt if he contacted anyone, it seems that the McGuffins are doing their usual tactic of writing to anyone who will listen whenever the church puts in an application to the Council for a church. I think the McGuffins are in for a big shock this time round as the Council want it as one and as the Church group own it and money is tight it will all be approved this time and the McGuffins will have to go and play with thier Daleks somewhere else. The arcade site has a lot of space, maybe they could try there.

But Urban Beekeeper, Alan Davies used to go to the cinema as he says above. Why the wrath towards the McGuffins? I'm not a member but I still want a cinema back in the borough. I don't see why you should be so disparaging and downright rude towards a group that have only ever campaigned to get a cinema back up and running in a unique local building. I'm glad Alan Davies has spoken out - perhaps the council will listen to him as they don't seem to be listening to the rest of us.

Listen to what? The cinema is sold, it is a dead parrot, it is done and dusted bar the detail. It was a cinema and it will soon be a church.

Where were all these so called supporters when it was sold to the church by Sharma? All the campaigners are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think that there is any chance of the place ever showing films again. There is no money to buy this place for the McGuffins. The so called 'interested Operators'. Where are these? Empty pie in the sky interest? We are in the worse economic outlook for 70 years and the McGuffins want the Council to buy them a cinema above the homeless and unemployed. It will never happen. The area has changed, multi cultural and the McGuffins are a group with mainly a white following. In the pictures posted in all their publicity and on this site, there are hardly any black faces. The church want this to be a venue for all not some middle class social club.

Urban Beekeeper wrote:
Listen to what? The cinema is sold, it is a dead parrot, it is done and dusted bar the detail. It was a cinema and it will soon be a church. Where were all these so called supporters when it was sold to the church by Sharma? All the campaigners are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think that there is any chance of the place ever showing films again. There is no money to buy this place for the McGuffins. The so called 'interested Operators'. Where are these? Empty pie in the sky interest? We are in the worse economic outlook for 70 years and the McGuffins want the Council to buy them a cinema above the homeless and unemployed. It will never happen. The area has changed, multi cultural and the McGuffins are a group with mainly a white following. In the pictures posted in all their publicity and on this site, there are hardly any black faces. The church want this to be a venue for all not some middle class social club.

Besska - Urban Beekeeper is just Fresh Gravee etc etc under yet another name. He's just trying to stir up trouble. Ignore.

No Urban Beekeeper, we are NOT going to form a trust to buy the cinema. Give up.

Urban Beekeeper, your memory is failing you. The cinema was sold in 2003. That's SIX years ago...!! There are lots of people who live here now who want a cinema as I'm sure there were at the time. Besides, what could anyone do to prevent Mr Sharma from selling? He was a businessman and the UCKG offered him twice the market value, he would have been a poor businessman (in both senses) to turn that offer down. In much of the UCKG's publicity there aren't many white faces but I don't hear you lamenting about that. And if you go to any cinema run by Picturehouse - yes, that's the cinema operator interested - you'll see that cinema is not some middle class social club. Perhaps you'd like to go to the Ritzy in Brixton or the Stratford Picturehouse to see that cinema is for everyone - black, white, Asian, Chinese, Turkish, whatever, Christian, atheist, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist or anything else. A Christian church is precisely that - a church for Christians. Yet a cinema is open to everyone. I don't understand why you seem to have some personal vendetta against the campaign to save it... I really don't.

Ah yes, you're right E11, I hadn't spotted the 'cloud cuckoo land' reference. He's not using 'rose tinted' any more so I hadn't clocked. ****, he got me this time!

E-Number wrote:

Urban Beekeeper wrote:
Listen to what? The cinema is sold, it is a dead parrot, it is done and dusted bar the detail. It was a cinema and it will soon be a church. Where were all these so called supporters when it was sold to the church by Sharma? All the campaigners are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think that there is any chance of the place ever showing films again. There is no money to buy this place for the McGuffins. The so called 'interested Operators'. Where are these? Empty pie in the sky interest? We are in the worse economic outlook for 70 years and the McGuffins want the Council to buy them a cinema above the homeless and unemployed. It will never happen. The area has changed, multi cultural and the McGuffins are a group with mainly a white following. In the pictures posted in all their publicity and on this site, there are hardly any black faces. The church want this to be a venue for all not some middle class social club.

Besska - Urban Beekeeper is just Fresh Gravee etc etc under yet another name. He's just trying to stir up trouble. Ignore.

No Urban Beekeeper, we are NOT going to form a trust to buy the cinema. Give up.

What has all this got to do with the Church owning the Cinema?

Is this another opportunity to get the cranberry tinted specs again and wishful thinking?

When the Church get their approval, yes this is the reality, all the stones will be available for everyone to crawl under again.

The prospects of the building ever being a cinema again are so remote. It is firstly owned by a group who bought it in good faith and are applying with the Council's backing for it to be a church. You have to buy it first and the chances of Compulsory Purchasing it now in this current economic climate are zero. Even if the Church put it up for sale all the campaigners would run a mile if asked to put in to a 'saving fund'. Typical all mouth and no action. You cannot expect the local authority to pay for a cinema club for a minority of mainly white people in a predominately asian and non-white populated area. Times change and it appears that the campaigners are living in 30's Walthamstow. All this talk of the Church paying double what it was worth is poppycock. How do they know this? There must have been more than one interested party after purchasing the building.

I know for sure though that the McGuffins were not buying it as they were filling balloons with warm air. maybe Hackney Council will buy them a Club House?

Ah, here he goes again. Cranberry tinted specs now, excellent. :-)
I'm afraid the only stone crawling if the UCKG get permission will be done by the councillors who let us get into this sad sorry state with no cinema, no prospect of a multiplex within the next three years (minimum!) and no Dog Stadium. The borough's becoming more and more rancid and rundown and a massive evangelical church is hardly going to encourage businesses for much needed regeneration in the town centre. A very very sorry state... thanks WF Council! Thanks a bunch.

Besska wrote:
Ah, here he goes again. Cranberry tinted specs now, excellent. :-)
I'm afraid the only stone crawling if the UCKG get permission will be done by the councillors who let us get into this sad sorry state with no cinema, no prospect of a multiplex within the next three years (minimum!) and no Dog Stadium. The borough's becoming more and more rancid and rundown and a massive evangelical church is hardly going to encourage businesses for much needed regeneration in the town centre. A very very sorry state... thanks WF Council! Thanks a bunch.

I agree Besska.

The handling of this situation and the other treasures lost by the Council is a disgrace.

They should have stepped in years ago when the Cinema originally went to Sharma or at least when he hinted he wanted rid of it.

The chance was realistically lost years ago. Loakes has run away now to try and ruin another area and left the area in an absolute mess.

All these films stars are pledging support but no money and like I have suggested time and time again, if a fund was set up years ago, the Campaign could have been taken far more seriously by Grant bodies, Politicians, Media, and people in the public spotlight. parading with Daleks and kids in costumes has achieved nothing to further this cause and is ridiculed. Cash speaks louder than all this fanfare.

I think the days are really numbered now sadly. had the campaign been handled and coordinated differently and the prospects more inclusive. things could have been different in my view. A big shame.

"UCKG’s property manager Paul Hill said: “It seems odd that Alan Davies and David Warner did not make any attempt to contact us, as owners of the property, if they had any real concerns about the future of the former Granada Cinema on Hoe Street, Walthamstow.

“If they had done so they would have learnt that we are planning to restore the former cinema to its Art Deco glory, reinstating many original features as per Theodore Komisarjevsky‘s original design. We are working closely with English Heritage and others to achieve this."

Spot the mistake ?????
Yes, Alan Davies & David Warner's concerns are that they want the building to remain as a CINEMA. The UCKG are simply acting as restoration specialists and that's not the big issue here. Cinema operators have the funding available to restore the building and have stated that it IS of sufficient scale for first run movies - just like hundred's of similar cinemas around London and the UK.

UCKG’s property manager Paul Hill said:
“ we are planning to restore the former cinema to its Art Deco glory, reinstating many original features as per Theodore Komisarjevsky‘s original design. We are working closely with English Heritage and others to achieve this. "
What does English Heritage say about the bits that keep falling into the street, Pastor? You have a legal duty to maintain this building, and having planning permission or not is irrelevant to that duty. Thanks to your neglect the market value of the building is much lower should a compulsory purchase be activated.
I hope noone will place me alongside urban beekeeper if I repeat my obviously unpopular argument that a purchase fund initiated by local people would have energised this issue years ago. As it is the people with the best ideas are spectators at the table instead of players, and the sad results are plain to see. Words are not 'support'.

RichieA70 wrote:
"UCKG’s property manager Paul Hill said: “It seems odd that Alan Davies and David Warner did not make any attempt to contact us, as owners of the property, if they had any real concerns about the future of the former Granada Cinema on Hoe Street, Walthamstow.

“If they had done so they would have learnt that we are planning to restore the former cinema to its Art Deco glory, reinstating many original features as per Theodore Komisarjevsky‘s original design. We are working closely with English Heritage and others to achieve this."

Spot the mistake ?????
Yes, Alan Davies & David Warner's concerns are that they want the building to remain as a CINEMA. The UCKG are simply acting as restoration specialists and that's not the big issue here. Cinema operators have the funding available to restore the building and have stated that it IS of sufficient scale for first run movies - just like hundred's of similar cinemas around London and the UK.

If they wanted it to remain as a Cinema, why did they not buy it? Show us their letters they wrote please with the dates on. It will never happen, dead in the water.

mdj wrote:
UCKG’s property manager Paul Hill said:
“ we are planning to restore the former cinema to its Art Deco glory, reinstating many original features as per Theodore Komisarjevsky‘s original design. We are working closely with English Heritage and others to achieve this. "
What does English Heritage say about the bits that keep falling into the street, Pastor? You have a legal duty to maintain this building, and having planning permission or not is irrelevant to that duty. Thanks to your neglect the market value of the building is much lower should a compulsory purchase be activated.
I hope noone will place me alongside urban beekeeper if I repeat my obviously unpopular argument that a purchase fund initiated by local people would have energised this issue years ago. As it is the people with the best ideas are spectators at the table instead of players, and the sad results are plain to see. Words are not 'support'.

We think on the same lines, like it or not.

All we have had are people wanting to spend other peoples money, the so called celebs, the McGuffins, the Councillors, the campaigners. Total contribution financially, sweet zero!

Hot air, rose, cranberry,blackcurra
nt and welders spectacles who will scuttle off into the abyss when the church is formed and will be remembered as the great campaigners who talked the talk.

Daleks who could destroy the world but could not rescue a cinema.

If the Cinema by some remote chance is ever saved, the door will have to be widened for the McGuffin's Egos.

Poppycock with cream and nothing else.

Good luck with your campaign. There is a resurgence of interest in local cinema, as can be seen by the huge campaign to restore the art deco cinema in Crystal Palace. The prospects are good, but depend on the local planners ensuring the building is retained in its present use. for details, see http://www.facebook.
com/profile.php?id=7
68667387&ref=profile
#/group.php?gid=9389
5723250&ref=mf

DavidSE19 wrote:
Good luck with your campaign. There is a resurgence of interest in local cinema, as can be seen by the huge campaign to restore the art deco cinema in Crystal Palace. The prospects are good, but depend on the local planners ensuring the building is retained in its present use. for details, see http://www.facebook.

com/profile.php?id=7

68667387&ref=pro
file
#/group.php?gid=9389

5723250&ref=mf

Yes, but who pays for it all? You have missed this vital point Sir!

mdj & claridger: it was words and words alone (not money) that threw out the UCKG's original planning application and appeal. With material circumstances unchanged since 2003, and a multiplex merely a council aspiration years away from becoming a possibility, the EMD is our only hope of getting a cinema back.

If the EMD was a small building owned by someone willing to sell at a realistic price, a community fund could work. However the EMD is simply too large a building for such a sum to be raised in that way and it's owner has (thus far) refused to sell it.

Commericial or local authority aquisition is the only way to take ownership. The commercial interest is there. It's the council that's the problem.

Picturehouse Cinemas have offered to buy the building for what it's worth as a commercial cinema, restore the property and operate a local arthouse cinema there.

True, Ritchie, but nothing's happened since! The Mcguffins have all the arguments, but like many campaign group shy away at the fence of financial commitment, which I think is a sad loss of opportunity.
I'm repeating myself, I'm afraid, but here goes: I've done repairs on countless churches where the priest has proudly told me how the pennies of the poor built the vast stone building I was fixing; the Old Town Hall in Orford Road was built by local subscription, to prove that Walthamstow was worthy of a town charter; the members of UCKG probably tithe their not large incomes to support their church.
A vast sum is not needed up-front, just organisation of many small pledges, a community-minded morgage provider (Coop, Ecology B.Soc), some celebrity donations, a Lottery bid, and a positive Council.
I thinkwe can agree on where the weakest link might be in that chain!

mdj wrote:
True, Ritchie, but nothing's happened since! The Mcguffins have all the arguments, but like many campaign group shy away at the fence of financial commitment, which I think is a sad loss of opportunity.
I'm repeating myself, I'm afraid, but here goes: I've done repairs on countless churches where the priest has proudly told me how the pennies of the poor built the vast stone building I was fixing; the Old Town Hall in Orford Road was built by local subscription, to prove that Walthamstow was worthy of a town charter; the members of UCKG probably tithe their not large incomes to support their church.
A vast sum is not needed up-front, just organisation of many small pledges, a community-minded morgage provider (Coop, Ecology B.Soc), some celebrity donations, a Lottery bid, and a positive Council.
I thinkwe can agree on where the weakest link might be in that chain!

Well the weakest link has held more weight than you, mdj. Apparently your contribution seems to amount to whinging in the Guardian comments. Pesronally I'm with the people who take action instead of just talking.

Urban Beekeeper wrote:
Listen to what? The cinema is sold, it is a dead parrot, it is done and dusted bar the detail. It was a cinema and it will soon be a church.

Where were all these so called supporters when it was sold to the church by Sharma? All the campaigners are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think that there is any chance of the place ever showing films again. There is no money to buy this place for the McGuffins. The so called 'interested Operators'. Where are these? Empty pie in the sky interest? We are in the worse economic outlook for 70 years and the McGuffins want the Council to buy them a cinema above the homeless and unemployed. It will never happen. The area has changed, multi cultural and the McGuffins are a group with mainly a white following. In the pictures posted in all their publicity and on this site, there are hardly any black faces. The church want this to be a venue for all not some middle class social club.

Wow, allegations of racism. I guess all the reasoned arguments here have made you that desperate.

How about I use some facts, eh? How about one of the most active members who was involved from the beginning is my partner. Who is BLACK. How about all the different people who come to the pub quiz every month? How about all the support we got from Mr Sharma and his staff when the EMD was open?

Welcome to the bottom of the argument barrel. It looks lonely down there from up here.

Jonathan, all I'm saying is that action as suggested could have achieved the desired result by now. The things I believe in, I put my cash into, such as I have: I would into this, if those peope who care most about it had taken that view and formed a fund. I still would. I think that a lot of other people would have been willing to do so also. A thousand people putting aside the price of a cup of coffee per working day would have raised £3 million by now.

mdj wrote:
Jonathan, all I'm saying is that action as suggested could have achieved the desired result by now. The things I believe in, I put my cash into, such as I have: I would into this, if those peope who care most about it had taken that view and formed a fund. I still would. I think that a lot of other people would have been willing to do so also. A thousand people putting aside the price of a cup of coffee per working day would have raised £3 million by now.

mdj, the McGuffins have been unjustly criticised by one or two people for not starting a 'save the EMD' fund. Two points: Firstly, do you really believe that UCKG would sell to any consortium that includes their arch-enemies? The McGuffins could have raised TEN million and still not acquired the building. Secondly, instead of offering criticism from the sidelines there was nothing stopping you from starting such a fund yourself.

Criticism? A constructive suggestion, more like. Not welcome, obviously. Good luck with your preferred approach.

mdj wrote:
Criticism? A constructive suggestion, more like. Not welcome, obviously. Good luck with your preferred approach.

mdj, it is not MY preferred approach. It is the preferred approach of those actually fighting the campaign. Having spoken personally with them and learning of their reasoning I believe them to be correct. If there is no realistic chance of buying the building it would be pointless (if not fraudulent) for them to start a fund with the stated aim of doing so.

The building is a dump, and should have been knocked down along with the arcade site, so there would have been enough space in future for a plaza site with a modern cinema and bars and restaurants and a bowling place similar to the one in Ilford.

Beekeeper/MDJ

Do you know I'm almost finding your comments amusing now in a pitiful kind of way. You veer between scathing scepticism and digs at the mcguffin people and little prompts to start a fund and buy the cinema.

This happened last year too as I recall.

Since the only sensible thing would be for you to have started a fund I can only assume you did try it and it didn't work.

I believe there was a plan to do something similar with the William Morris gallery but we've heard nothing of that plan recently. Could these two things be connected I wonder?

BTW All your sniping is having the effect of making people like me more suspicious of you and more inclined to support the people who are really doing something like the Save the Cinema campaign and the mcguffins.

I think that cinema is grotty, if it was to reopen, I cant see that it would attract many people, which is prob why it closed in the first place.

Its about time Walthamstow regenerated.

I do hope that you manage to save some cultural heritage in Walthamstow, as we are trying to do in Crystal Palace. It's all too easy to knock down a potentially fine building and replace it with something totally unworthy.

E-number, I would hope you could tell the difference between someone offering a positive suggestion, even if you disagreed with it, and a name-changing wind-up merchant who seems to succeed all too easily in rattling people's cages.Perhaps alternative points of view are unwelcome?
If someone proposed a fund now, would the Mcguffins not say that this was a distraction from all their hard efforts? Perhaps it would be.
I'm all in favour of saving the EMD, have attended McGuffin events, paid the odd subscription, put my penny in the hat on various occasions,but experience tells me that money talks when exhortation falls by the wayside. Let's hope I'm wrong on this occasion.
If you're interested in the William Morris Gallery, I'd just say: stay tuned for developments.

Aaliyah wrote:
I think that cinema is grotty, if it was to reopen, I cant see that it would attract many people, which is prob why it closed in the first place. Its about time Walthamstow regenerated.

Certainly grotty from the outside - but how can we tell what the inside is like? We are not allowed to see.

mdj wrote:
E-number, I would hope you could tell the difference between someone offering a positive suggestion, even if you disagreed with it, and a name-changing wind-up merchant who seems to succeed all too easily in rattling people's cages.Perhaps alternative points of view are unwelcome? If someone proposed a fund now, would the Mcguffins not say that this was a distraction from all their hard efforts? Perhaps it would be. I'm all in favour of saving the EMD, have attended McGuffin events, paid the odd subscription, put my penny in the hat on various occasions,but experience tells me that money talks when exhortation falls by the wayside. Let's hope I'm wrong on this occasion. If you're interested in the William Morris Gallery, I'd just say: stay tuned for developments.

I always find that when you and Beekeeper (under whichever new alias) post about the EMD your opinions strangely coincide.

Good cop, bad cop, perhaps.

Aaliyah wrote:
I think that cinema is grotty, if it was to reopen, I cant see that it would attract many people, which is prob why it closed in the first place. Its about time Walthamstow regenerated.

The UCKG closed the cinema when they bought it - it didn't shut for any other reason.

It is definitely about time Walthamstow was regenerated but that won't happen unless the EMD forms part of that regeneration as a commercial venue wholly accessible to all the community.

E- Number,
I'd bet that my views coincide much more often with yours than they do with 'Beekeeper's': that doesn't make us one person, or a double act, I think you'd agree. It's simply that adults hold a variety of views on a variety of topics.
We do these postings to exchange ideas and opinions, not speculate about personalities, surely?

mdj wrote:
E- Number,
I'd bet that my views coincide much more often with yours than they do with 'Beekeeper's': that doesn't make us one person, or a double act, I think you'd agree. It's simply that adults hold a variety of views on a variety of topics.
We do these postings to exchange ideas and opinions, not speculate about personalities, surely?

Some people post to exchange ideas - however some people post just for the excitement of stirring up trouble or bad feeling against the people who are campaigning to save the cinema.

Some of us then post simply in response to this persistent and mischievous deluge of abuse.