WALTHAMSTOW: Call for cinema church plan rejection (From East London and West Essex Guardian Series)

So the supporters of the EMD want to buy something by a CPO for a Million that the UCKG bought for 3.5 million?

It will never happen and a turnout of 400 does not represent the population of Waltham Forest and was probably made up almost entirely of McGruffins. I doubt very much if that building will ever be a Cinema again I am afraid. Shame that the 400 people there never supported the Cinema as it would never have closed if people used it. A bit like the Dogs Track

I would guess that the one- million cost would be the lawyers fees etc - the council would purchase at market rate and then immediately sell.
I guess there may also be compensation issues for the church.

The money spent on a CPO would be regained by selling the cinema to one of the operators who have tried to buy and reopen it in the past.

Last year the council offered £800,000 to the developers St Modwens if they would include a multiplex cinema in the arcade redevelopment. That would have been money given to the developers, unlike a CPO which is money the council should regain.

If the council was willing to give away £800,000 of our money to build a multiplex, it has no reason to object to spending money temporarily on a CPO.

Well it's not worth £3.5 m now, as it was mysteriously set on fire shortly after it had been agreed that UKCG could not use it as a church as it was dedicated as a place of entertainment. Presumably the insurance didn't pay up then.

I was at the meeting and there were definitely many there who were not McGuffin members. The cinema didn't close due to lack of custom but because the owner was offered £1.4M more than the building's market value by the UCKG, who were subsequently not allowed to convert it to a church. Where does the figure £3.5M come from? A recent inspection by English Heritage and the council also confirm the building is in good condition internally.

I remember the "break-in" a few weeks after the UCKG took over the building in 2003. Despite a noisy illegal rave lasting for days, the UCKG took no action and did not cooperate with police enquiries afterwards. The intruders damaged the screen and organ and removed cinema seating, strange behaviour that seemed to target the building's use as a cinema.

The UCKG is a very rich organisation that paid way above market value. A CPO does not have to cover that inflated 2002 price. It only has to reflect current value.

It was heartening to see that so many Labour councillors and representatives from UCKG Brazil(Offshore) Inc (fully established since recently) managed to attend yesterday's meeting. Too busy with pastoral duties? Fleecing the gullible would be a more accurate description. The clandestine nature of this council's dealings with this so-called church is definitely of the un-holy variety.

The UCKG paid £2.8m for the cinema, not £3.5m. That was well above the market price which was then estimated at around £1m.

As far as yesterday's meeting is concerned, I was not present but I know a number of people who were - and none of them are members of the McGuffins.

Personally, I cannot see how the council can even consider giving planning permission for the UCKG to change the use of the cinema. It refused planning permission a few years ago. The UCKG appealed, and the Government Inspector found in favour of the council.

What has changed since then? Nothing. Except that the council is now trying to do a conjuring trick by rushing through a £35m scheme, including a cinema, for the Arcade site. That could well have something to do with the fact that there will be council elections next year.

The council has made a pig's ear of managing the Arcade site and, latterly, the EMD situation. Perhaps the Labour members think that all will be forgotten and forgiven if they rush into action now.

I have news for them. No-one is going to forget what has happened. And no-one is going to thank them for landing the public with a £35m debt (at least) and probably a sub-standard Arcade site development in a bid to put the past hurriedly behind them. We are not that naive.

'As far as yesterday's meeting is concerned, I was not present but I know a number of people who were - and none of them are members of the McGuffins'


'Speakers included representatives from the McGuffin Film Society, residents associations and prospective parliamentary candidate Stella Creasy'


What meeting are you on about then as it clearly states that McGuffins were there!

they also have been advertising it amongst their members.

Why would they not have been there?

Arvin Brockhoist wrote:
'As far as yesterday's meeting is concerned, I was not present but I know a number of people who were - and none of them are members of the McGuffins'


'Speakers included representatives from the McGuffin Film Society, residents associations and prospective parliamentary candidate Stella Creasy'


What meeting are you on about then as it clearly states that McGuffins were there!

they also have been advertising it amongst their members.

Why would they not have been there?

Helen is not saying that there were no McGuffins there. She is saying that she knew a number of people who attended the meeting and none of THEM were members of the McGuffins, which undermines your earlier comment that the audience was probably made up almost entirely of McGuffins. I was there too and I don't belong to the McGuffins either.

There are over a 1000 members in the McGuffins, according to their own website, of local people so I am not convinced that there were 400 locals at the meeting who were not McGuffins.

Obviously there were a number that were not members but this is not really representative of the whole area.

I also notice that the ethnic make up were not representative of the mixed culture of the area either and it would appear that the McGuffins are not representative of the shift on population and change over the years which led to the lack of demand for the cinema in the first place. It may be convenient for them to want a private cinema club paid for by the multi-cultural population of Waltham Forest but it will not happen.

All these so called 'big operators' that are interested are not there so I wish people who support this bird-brained idea to CPO a derelict building in a recession at Taxpayers expense would stop this wishful thinking.

Why do you think the arcade plans, the dog track and other local projects have been shelved? No money is the answer!

If the 400 people there put their hand in their pockets and put the money where their mouths are and raised ten thousand each then they could possibly buy it themselves but I doubt if the Church would sell now as it is a foregone conclusion that the Council have thrown in the towel and want a church there now as they have asked for the plans to be resubmitted.

As LarryTLemur notes above, the meeting seemed to include some McGuffins members and many more non-members - as evidenced by the fact that many of those present were signing up beforehand and afterwards to receive future McGuffins mailings (which they wouldn't have been doing if they were already members and on the McGuffins mailing list).

Incidentally, Cllr. Terry Wheeler was present at the meeting yesterday and his stammering, sweaty and increasingly nervy attempts to sustain any type of coherent narrative or rebut some of the claims from the floor about the council's disgraceful mismanagement of the whole EMD and Arcade issue induced as much confidence in the council's future commitments to the cultural life of the borough as their actions have done to date

At least those present seemed to want to avoid the further decimation of Walthamstow's cultural life and heritage.

It's also worth emphasising that neither the UCKG nor the council's pipe-dream claims to the contrary will restore a cinema venue of any nature to the borough.

The UCKG have expressed no commitment to offering any type of cinema venue (as Neil Gerrard pointed out at the meeting) and the council have already knackered previous commercial interest in the EMD site by leaking information about a proposed larger multi-screen venture on the arcade site. This has so far failed to bear any fruit and will continue to fail to do so as no major commercial chain is going to take on the responsibilities of acquiring and operating an 8-screen out of town multiplex in the current climate - although interest has apparently been expressed in the not too distant past by a number of independent chains with regard to the EMD until the council kiboshed it.

In these circumstances, a CPO (Compulsory Purchase Order) of the EMD and offer of sale to interested parties seems the most appropriate and reasonable course of action.

Any so-called "church" consisting of brainwashed morons, usually lead on by USA residents, to contribute LOTS of MONEY to the "church" is very suspect.
Think of the vile "Potters House" as another example of this sort of thing.
The Granada (EMD) should be CPO'd at present market value.
But the council, being both terminally incompetent, and proably insane (they want to close "Pool & Track", remember?)
won't do the job.

Sack the lot of them, and start again?

"it would appear that the McGuffins are not representative of the shift on population and change over the years which led to the lack of demand for the cinema in the first place" Eh? Does Waltham Forest have the only population demographic in London that doesn't want a cinema? There has never been a lack of demand for a cinema in Walthamstow. Yes the EMD suffered falling audiences in the 70s-80s just like the entire UK cinema industry at the time, and yes it was a bit run down but what's more sensible? Trying to supply a cinema through a huge development which has been delayed throughout a property boom, or refurbish one of the finest existing cinemas in London?
Let's have less of the apathy, misinformation and cynism and get behind the campaign to reopen the EMD as a cinema.

'Yes the EMD suffered falling audiences in the 70s-80s'

When it was not even the EMD but the Granada who sold it as it had flagging attendance, was grossly expensive and not commercially viable. The tree huggers are very good at trying to spend other peoples money but are reluctant to put up their own.

I wouldn't describe the independent cinema chains who expressed serious interest in acquiring the EMD until the council headed them off at the pass by leaking information about a larger commercial chain's apparent interest in acquiring a multi-screen venue on the arcade site as "tree huggers" and they were prepared to make a serious bid with their own money.

There was serious interest then and may well be again if the EMD is put on the market as a cinema space/spaces.

Arvin Brockhoist wrote:
'Yes the EMD suffered falling audiences in the 70s-80s'

When it was not even the EMD but the Granada who sold it as it had flagging attendance, was grossly expensive and not commercially viable. The tree huggers are very good at trying to spend other peoples money but are reluctant to put up their own.

It seems that Claridger has a new screen name. Maybe if you had bothered to attend the meeting and listened to the arguments instead of sniping from the sidelines like the ill informed oaf you clearly are you would have something useful to contribute to the debate. In the meantime why don't you STFU until you have an original thought, although if you did it would probably die of loneliness. I've never hugged a tree in my life but I recognise a plank when I see one. Yours, without prejudice etc.

Arvin Brockhoist wrote:
There are over a 1000 members in the McGuffins, according to their own website, of local people so I am not convinced that there were 400 locals at the meeting who were not McGuffins.

Obviously there were a number that were not members but this is not really representative of the whole area.

I also notice that the ethnic make up were not representative of the mixed culture of the area either and it would appear that the McGuffins are not representative of the shift on population and change over the years which led to the lack of demand for the cinema in the first place. It may be convenient for them to want a private cinema club paid for by the multi-cultural population of Waltham Forest but it will not happen.

All these so called 'big operators' that are interested are not there so I wish people who support this bird-brained idea to CPO a derelict building in a recession at Taxpayers expense would stop this wishful thinking.

Why do you think the arcade plans, the dog track and other local projects have been shelved? No money is the answer!

If the 400 people there put their hand in their pockets and put the money where their mouths are and raised ten thousand each then they could possibly buy it themselves but I doubt if the Church would sell now as it is a foregone conclusion that the Council have thrown in the towel and want a church there now as they have asked for the plans to be resubmitted.

Where do you get the idea that the Granada would be a private cinema club? The only private club would be the happy clappy church that currently owns it, most of whose congregation will be drawn from outside the borough. The vast majority of the residents of WF want a commercial cinema that will show mainstream films but which can also put on foreign language and other "fringe" cinema. The model works elsewhere, not only in other parts of London, so why not here? Stop being so negative.

This was without doubt one of the most productive meetings I have ever attended. The fact that more than 400 people gave up their Sunday afternoon shows the strength of feeling about the EMD building.

The council now CANNOT be in any doubt as to what the people want: The EMD fully reopened as a cinema.
We do NOT want some sort of fudged "access agreement" with UCKG (which would likely come to nothing anyway). Nor do we want a multiplex as part of a high-rise monstrosity on the Arcade site (which the council's own study determined would be "inappropriate").

I can't understand what the council have a problem with. They are planning to spend £35 Million (according to Cllr Macklin this could actually rise to £45 Million) of OUR money on a project that nobody has asked for and that nobody outside of the Town Hall appears to want. Instead they are being given an opportunity to spend a mere fraction of that sum on a project that would be extremely popular. Surely this should be a 'no-brainer'?

Whether or not this has yet filtered through to Cllr Wheeler, fortunately it appears that Cllr Macklin and his colleagues are now making more of the right noises on this issue.

Read nothing little who did or did not attend yesterday. ( I did and I'm not a McGuffin.)
Crucially, having a cinema in Walthamstow is nothing to do with race or culture-visit any cinema in London and I'm sure it will represent the variety and cultural mix-take Enfield or Picketts lock Odeon or showtime at Beckton as well as any 'art house' in London.
Over the last ten years Cinema attendances have been booming and continue to generate a healthy audience. Speaking as someone who frequently went to almost empty screenings at the Cinema back before it closed I would argue it was the poor maintenance of the cinema things like sound quality and general mismangement- that led to poor showings. This could have easily been rectified as other cinemas in the UK have shown.
With the possible purchase of the Cinema might come the Victoria Pub and Carpet shop should the new owners wish to create more screens to widen choice of films shown-ALA Clapham Picture house or Stratford. (A cinema like these also has a cafe, a very popular kids clubs, baby screenings and late night showings- with a very mixed audience-age, culture and background. Live events, q&a, art exhibitions even show live sports events)
Let's not pretend a cinema is for the few-that is inaccurate and offensive. And an outdated opinion. I hope those that went yesterday are seen as those speaking for many. Without sounding too grand the march against the Iraq in 2003 comes to mind here-people vilified and ridiculed for seeing through the lies - several years later, vindicated by the late arrival of many other commentators who have been jumping on the anti-war banner.
It's easy to dismiss people has tree huggers etc but back in the day green campaigners and hippies were considered nutters-time tells the truth as the mainstream wises up and starts stealing their ideas and predictions.
And Cinema has survived 100 years so far-TV in the 50s, the collapse of the Film industry and growth of home entertainment-Video etc. Cinema is now a world art and entertainment form. Technology is now supporting it's survival and future-from creation to exhibition. The developing world has a booming cinema, even oppressive regimes have a cinematic culture as well as the usual suspects-Hollywood et al.
So those that say the EMD closed because of lack of interest are way off the mark.
We all know that with a cinema comes many things like night time trade, local business, restaurants and increased local use as well as visitors to the area.
I didn't speak yesterday because I wanted listen to what was said but I was impressed by almost 2 hours of well presented arguments-as well as the emotion-If you weren't there you missed CLR Wheeler's appearance. Dressed all in black, he spoke rather shambolically-there was some expected heckling-
I found it hard to believe this man had authority or experience as a politician or a leader of anything. I also felt he got several things wrong.
For instance, his reasoning for building an arcade -WF should now be following the leisure model -"I've just been to the market and now I fancy a quick swim"-showed they are just jumping on whatever bandwagon has funding. Without any respect for what already exists-From Dog Track to Pool and Track to William Morris. We have a stunning building that is unique to the borough-The Cinema.
This is about a vision for WF and the future of the borough built around what makes Walthamstow unique. Not just jumping on whatever business bandwagon they feel will fund the arcade. They missed the retail boom -they'll probably miss the what next gambling based arcade or a religious based arcade?
in my opinion, the cinema, dog track, arcade, pool and track are all part of the same problem. The council doesn't get it and are not fit to represent the borough.
Here's to lots of letters to reject of planning permission, a CPO on the cinema, the saving of the pool and track, the arcade site being used, a new council, and.. world peace.
Apologies for a long comment.

I was at the meeting yesterday and the speaker from McGuffins made it abundantly clear they wanted to hear the views of the wider community and not just their own members. It was possibly the most open and productive public meeting I have ever attended.

It was notable also for the number of senior local politicians in attendance. Hopefully this will signal a sea-change in the council's attitude towards listening to the views of the public. I live in hope.

JohnCharteris wrote:
I was at the meeting yesterday and the speaker from McGuffins made it abundantly clear they wanted to hear the views of the wider community and not just their own members. It was possibly the most open and productive public meeting I have ever attended.

It was notable also for the number of senior local politicians in attendance. Hopefully this will signal a sea-change in the council's attitude towards listening to the views of the public. I live in hope.

Which is more than the loathsome UCKG are prepared to do, proposing instead to invite a few carefully selected local residents to an exhibition of their plans. Should also point out that I didn't see any of the High St ward councillors at the meeting. Maybe they were hiding at the back, in which case I apologise for daring to suggest they don't care about cultural issues, or maybe they were all at church. As Bill Hodgson said at the beginning of the meeting, only one apology for non attendance was received despite invitations being sent to all local councillors. Well, you can be voted out as quickly as you can be voted in. Ain't democracy wonderful?

Marvellous: Really well put.

LarryTLemur wrote:

Arvin Brockhoist wrote: 'Yes the EMD suffered falling audiences in the 70s-80s' When it was not even the EMD but the Granada who sold it as it had flagging attendance, was grossly expensive and not commercially viable. The tree huggers are very good at trying to spend other peoples money but are reluctant to put up their own.

It seems that Claridger has a new screen name. Maybe if you had bothered to attend the meeting and listened to the arguments instead of sniping from the sidelines like the ill informed oaf you clearly are you would have something useful to contribute to the debate. In the meantime why don't you STFU until you have an original thought, although if you did it would probably die of loneliness. I've never hugged a tree in my life but I recognise a plank when I see one. Yours, without prejudice etc.

400 people wasting their time on a lost cause about a building that is lawfully owned and in possession of a Church, that legally aquired it. The EMD will never be opened again as it is redundant. The meeting was attended by mostly McGuffins who want to show their own films there. Mosern day cinemas are in a different era. Nobody used the old Granada. Get the pipes out and keep dreaming. It is amusing to hear that you want to kick out the occupants of the carpet shop and Victoria Pub now. Why don't you ask the Bank next door as well to go as well whilst you are all at it?

The Church will get what they want as the Council have invited them to resubmit their plans. 400 is a miniscule percentage of the Borough's population and most of them were McGuffins anyhow. So there has been a few people on the thread who say they are not McGuffins. About 4? Pathetic.

Arvin Brockhoist, says...
5:53pm Mon 30 Mar 09
'Yes the EMD suffered falling audiences in the 70s-80s'When it was not even the EMD but the Granada who sold it as it had flagging attendance, was grossly expensive and not commercially viable. The tree huggers are very good at trying to spend other peoples money but are reluctant to put up their own.

Granada sold their entire chain of cinemas - not all got bought by other cinema operators but Walthamstow was. Not bad for an unviable cinema. As to being 'grossly expensive'...does that means it must be expensive for eternity? Next will come out the old 'it was cold/rat infested/run down' line. Yes, that's where restoration comes in. I actually would be willing to invest some of my money in the EMD, but don't have a couple of million stuck down the back of the sofa.

Arvin Brockhoist wrote:

LarryTLemur wrote:

Arvin Brockhoist wrote: 'Yes the EMD suffered falling audiences in the 70s-80s' When it was not even the EMD but the Granada who sold it as it had flagging attendance, was grossly expensive and not commercially viable. The tree huggers are very good at trying to spend other peoples money but are reluctant to put up their own.

It seems that Claridger has a new screen name. Maybe if you had bothered to attend the meeting and listened to the arguments instead of sniping from the sidelines like the ill informed oaf you clearly are you would have something useful to contribute to the debate. In the meantime why don't you STFU until you have an original thought, although if you did it would probably die of loneliness. I've never hugged a tree in my life but I recognise a plank when I see one. Yours, without prejudice etc.

400 people wasting their time on a lost cause about a building that is lawfully owned and in possession of a Church, that legally aquired it. The EMD will never be opened again as it is redundant. The meeting was attended by mostly McGuffins who want to show their own films there. Mosern day cinemas are in a different era. Nobody used the old Granada. Get the pipes out and keep dreaming. It is amusing to hear that you want to kick out the occupants of the carpet shop and Victoria Pub now. Why don't you ask the Bank next door as well to go as well whilst you are all at it? The Church will get what they want as the Council have invited them to resubmit their plans. 400 is a miniscule percentage of the Borough's population and most of them were McGuffins anyhow. So there has been a few people on the thread who say they are not McGuffins. About 4? Pathetic.

Claridger/Arvin Brockhoist - give it up, will you? You are not only ignorant of the facts, you are boring beyond belief.

Arvin Brockhoist wrote:

LarryTLemur wrote:

Arvin Brockhoist wrote: 'Yes the EMD suffered falling audiences in the 70s-80s' When it was not even the EMD but the Granada who sold it as it had flagging attendance, was grossly expensive and not commercially viable. The tree huggers are very good at trying to spend other peoples money but are reluctant to put up their own.

It seems that Claridger has a new screen name. Maybe if you had bothered to attend the meeting and listened to the arguments instead of sniping from the sidelines like the ill informed oaf you clearly are you would have something useful to contribute to the debate. In the meantime why don't you STFU until you have an original thought, although if you did it would probably die of loneliness. I've never hugged a tree in my life but I recognise a plank when I see one. Yours, without prejudice etc.

400 people wasting their time on a lost cause about a building that is lawfully owned and in possession of a Church, that legally aquired it. The EMD will never be opened again as it is redundant. The meeting was attended by mostly McGuffins who want to show their own films there. Mosern day cinemas are in a different era. Nobody used the old Granada. Get the pipes out and keep dreaming. It is amusing to hear that you want to kick out the occupants of the carpet shop and Victoria Pub now. Why don't you ask the Bank next door as well to go as well whilst you are all at it? The Church will get what they want as the Council have invited them to resubmit their plans. 400 is a miniscule percentage of the Borough's population and most of them were McGuffins anyhow. So there has been a few people on the thread who say they are not McGuffins. About 4? Pathetic.

LarryTLemur - I agree with you, this surely must be Claridger under a different name?

He bangs on about 400 not being a large enough percentage of the borough to count for anything, ignoring the established principle of 'representative sample'.

He then effectively accuses the McGuffins of deliberately packing the meeting with their own members. This CANNOT be true, as I personally witnessed the queue to sign up for the McGuffin list! Therefore, what Arvin (or whoever he really is)has stated is surely false. This is against forum rules. Can the Moderator not remove him for this reason?

More excellent comments-good to see so many people care about where they live and it's future. The Victoria Pub and Carpet shop are part of the same building as the cinema-leasehold-and looking at yesterday's handed out documents the UKCG already plans to 'kick them out' in their application. Perhaps some of us could fight for the carpet shop and Victoria pub -and the rest of will fight to have a cinema.

LarryTLemur wrote:

JohnCharteris wrote:
I was at the meeting yesterday and the speaker from McGuffins made it abundantly clear they wanted to hear the views of the wider community and not just their own members. It was possibly the most open and productive public meeting I have ever attended.

It was notable also for the number of senior local politicians in attendance. Hopefully this will signal a sea-change in the council's attitude towards listening to the views of the public. I live in hope.

Which is more than the loathsome UCKG are prepared to do, proposing instead to invite a few carefully selected local residents to an exhibition of their plans. Should also point out that I didn't see any of the High St ward councillors at the meeting. Maybe they were hiding at the back, in which case I apologise for daring to suggest they don't care about cultural issues, or maybe they were all at church. As Bill Hodgson said at the beginning of the meeting, only one apology for non attendance was received despite invitations being sent to all local councillors. Well, you can be voted out as quickly as you can be voted in. Ain't democracy wonderful?

Sorry you did not see Cllr Khan and I at the meeting. You will recall Cllr Macklin asked all Lib Dem Councillors to identify themselves and offered for us to be available at the end of the meeting. I'm pleased to say I spoke with a large number of people at the end. 8 Lib Dems, of which 6 represent wards in Walthamstow, attended. It is sad to say I only saw one Labour councillor who does not represent a ward in Walthamstow.

I indeed saw Cllrs Macklin and Wheatley but I obviously missed Cllr Khan and yourself, although it's entirely possible that Cllr Khan could have been standing next to me and I still would not have recognised him. It's shameful that yet again our ex mayor (and hopefully soon to be ex councillor too) was conspicuous by his absence. Were there any Tory councillors present?

LarryTLemur wrote:
I indeed saw Cllrs Macklin and Wheatley but I obviously missed Cllr Khan and yourself, although it's entirely possible that Cllr Khan could have been standing next to me and I still would not have recognised him. It's shameful that yet again our ex mayor (and hopefully soon to be ex councillor too) was conspicuous by his absence. Were there any Tory councillors present?

No Tories attended. However, to be fair Cll Fitzgerald did tender her apologies.

'Well, you can be voted out as quickly as you can be voted in. Ain't democracy wonderful?'

Not in Waltham Forest where one man and his dog turn out at the average by-election.

This place has closed down for so many years. This still could be open for the kids saturday mornings like the abc in the Bakers Arms years ago and keeps the kids entertained so they do not do the crimes and things? This is a waste of building as it shut down for a very long period now and how can the council get any business rates like this?

I was at the meeting and I was heartened to see so many people there who had a passion for not just the cinema but for the borough and its cultural heritage. Aside from a few attempts to shift blame from one political party to another,the meeting was on the whole a positive experience. I hope that when the church hand out invitations to view the exhibition of their intent for the building that the people who were present on Sunday are not excluded from taking part in the debate that this exhibition will no doubt inspire.

:-)

Arvin Brockhoist wrote:
'Well, you can be voted out as quickly as you can be voted in. Ain't democracy wonderful?'

Not in Waltham Forest where one man and his dog turn out at the average by-election.

Would that man and his dog be you and your rescue whippet?

It is about time someone did something with this eyesore for once.

Everything favours a compulsory purchase by the council.

A CPO will save public money, when the council sells it on to one of the operators who have already shown interest. (The alternative was that we pay to build a new one on the arcade site.)

It will allow restoration of what was, at the time it was handed over to the UCKG, one the borough's most beautiful buildings.

It will return this unique asset to public use.

It will protect the town centre from further damage. The UCKG let our lovely cinema become a derelict eyesore - that proves they're not suitable tenants of a prime town-centre site.

What else needs to be said?

I thought the current councillor and prospective Tory candidate for the parliamentary seat said only last week that he wanted to discuss the issues that matter to the residents of Waltham Forest. His silence so far is deafening. Maybe he was busy on Sunday having his publicity photograph updated with something taken this century.

'What else needs to be said?'

There is no money?

Inkatton wrote:
'What else needs to be said?'

There is no money?

Inkatton, as I said, this is the CHEAP option. We buy the cinema and SELL it to people who have already said they want to buy it.
The council's aim is for us to PAY DEVELOPERS £800,000 to build a new cinema on the arcade site.
That's £800,000 we would not get back, because it was a payment, not a loan.
Now that the developers have dropped out, we'd presumably pay for the entire cost of a new cinema on the arcade site.

Janet1 wrote:

Inkatton wrote:
'What else needs to be said?'

There is no money?

Inkatton, as I said, this is the CHEAP option. We buy the cinema and SELL it to people who have already said they want to buy it.
The council's aim is for us to PAY DEVELOPERS £800,000 to build a new cinema on the arcade site.
That's £800,000 we would not get back, because it was a payment, not a loan.
Now that the developers have dropped out, we'd presumably pay for the entire cost of a new cinema on the arcade site.

I understand the gist of what you are saying Janet but I do not think that the Council would compulsory purchase it with public funds, unless there was a firm, legally binding bid to buy this, almost instantly by a large cinema company in a simultaneous deal as the Council would then be stuck with it surely? If what you are saying is correct, then this is the only way that the Council could do a deal I think.

James -there were other Labour councillors there apart from Terry who represent Walthamstow so please don't mislead the readers of this blog otherwise. In the light of Sunday I'd like to know now what stance you are taking on this issue given your previous support for the UCKG's plans as set out in your personal blog post "Future of 80 year old building outlined" of the 5 February. In understanding what might happen when this comes to planning it would help all of us who care about the future of this building to know whether you're still advocating giving them planning permission in principle and then seeking some form of community access to the building? Obviously the meeting on Sunday rejected this idea as not satisfactory. However, seeing as you've met with the church you may know something we as residents don't about the proposals that makes you think it would work? Neil and I wanted to help with organising that meeting to get as much information about these ideas out in the open as possible because we think thats in the public interest - if you have notes from your meeting it would be great if you could share them? happy to circulate so do get in touch if you do. Anyone wanting copies of the minutes from Sunday should email me on stella@workingforwal
thamstow.org.uk.

stellacreasy wrote:
James -there were other Labour councillors there apart from Terry who represent Walthamstow so please don't mislead the readers of this blog otherwise. In the light of Sunday I'd like to know now what stance you are taking on this issue given your previous support for the UCKG's plans as set out in your personal blog post "Future of 80 year old building outlined" of the 5 February. In understanding what might happen when this comes to planning it would help all of us who care about the future of this building to know whether you're still advocating giving them planning permission in principle and then seeking some form of community access to the building? Obviously the meeting on Sunday rejected this idea as not satisfactory. However, seeing as you've met with the church you may know something we as residents don't about the proposals that makes you think it would work? Neil and I wanted to help with organising that meeting to get as much information about these ideas out in the open as possible because we think thats in the public interest - if you have notes from your meeting it would be great if you could share them? happy to circulate so do get in touch if you do. Anyone wanting copies of the minutes from Sunday should email me on stella@workingforwal
thamstow.org.uk.

If Walthamstow Labour councillors attended why did they not identify themselves like the Walthamstow Lib Dem councillors? Since the comments on my website, in early February, your Labour colleagues on the Council have moved the goalposts regarding the Arcade site – to the tune of £35+m of tax payers borrowing!!! A decision which adds to previous Labour decisions and continues to blight any thoughts of the former cinema being reinstated. My current views are a matter of public record and will be found in the minutes of the Scrutiny Management minutes of 18th March where I challenge the current Labour regeneration portifolio holder in regards the new Arcade proposal. I'm sure Walthamstow residents, and in particular McGuffins members, will also be interested in your views in regards this matter particularly as you were part of the 2002/06 administration which suported the Labour plans for a multiplex cinema on the Arcade site. As someone “..who cares about the future of this building...” I don't recall you opposing this proposal. Please tell us where you stand. In terms of minutes of meetings with UKCG you need to speak with your Labour colleagues in cabinet who have met with them over the last two years.

Well I was a McGuffin who was there and as a member who helps out on events I only recognised a handful of people at the meeting. Mostly from the monthly pub quiz w have on the first Saturday of the month at the Rose and Crown pub.

I'd like to thank all the councellors who gave their Sunday afternoon to come and talk and listen. I'd like to thank Neil Gerard for chairing. And finally I'd like to thank Stella for doing the generally boring but important job of meeting and writing up the minutes.

JonathanB wrote:
Well I was a McGuffin who was there and as a member who helps out on events I only recognised a handful of people at the meeting. Mostly from the monthly pub quiz w have on the first Saturday of the month at the Rose and Crown pub.

I'd like to thank all the councellors who gave their Sunday afternoon to come and talk and listen. I'd like to thank Neil Gerard for chairing. And finally I'd like to thank Stella for doing the generally boring but important job of meeting and writing up the minutes.

Why don't you put the pub price list up and menu while you are at it?

Inkatton = Claridger/Arvin

You are drawn to the McGuffins like a moth to a flame.

My friend and I were at the meeting and we also had never heard of the McGuffins. We attended the meeting because we were concerned about the doctrine taught at UCKG churches. For example the UCKG preach that peoples problems and illnesses are caused by Demons and that these demons are can be cast out with prayer. I don’t know about you …. but I find it quite disturbing to see that bronze-age superstitions are being taught in UK churches in the 21st century.

For more worrying stories about the UCKG go here :
http://www.rickross.
com/groups/universal
.html