WALTHAMSTOW: Hundreds campaign to save EMD (From East London and West Essex Guardian Series)

What happened to the comments? You haven't hired Dolly Draper to do your IT support, I hope.

Has anyone from the site ever explained whether these comment deletions are random accidents or official moderation?

No need for comments. We were all there..... ;)

It was a fantastic turn-out. Well done to all concerned.

A fantastic demonstration!

A few weeks ago we had over 400 attending a meeting in support of the EMD.

Now we have had around 600 at a demo in support of the EMD.

What will it take for Cllr. Wheeler and his cronies to get the message???

I have to say i am concerned by the disappearance of earlier comments. I don't share many of the views expressed here on emd as am bit of a defeatist on this I am afraid but there was nothing I could see in those comments that could possibly have needed moderating, certainly nothing false, abusive or malicious - i hope they were deleted by accident because if not, I am concerned by the guardian's unwillingness to upset this church (the only motivation I can think of)

simoncornwell wrote:
I have to say i am concerned by the disappearance of earlier comments. I don't share many of the views expressed here on emd as am bit of a defeatist on this I am afraid but there was nothing I could see in those comments that could possibly have needed moderating, certainly nothing false, abusive or malicious - i hope they were deleted by accident because if not, I am concerned by the guardian's unwillingness to upset this church (the only motivation I can think of)

I concur. I have seen censorship on WFG before - usually when people discussing the failings or laziness of local councillors.

I very much endorse Simon Cornwell’s comments (why, incidentally, do so few people actually use their names when posting their comments?).

The local paper industry has been all but decimated in the last year and, along with the jobs, goes the opportunity for open debate and dialogue on issues that matter to the local community.

The loss of all the earlier comments on this story may well have been due to a technical issue but Newsquest should, at the very least, make some comment and clarify the issue. Otherwise we are all left with the very real concern that comments are being monitored and removed for some other reason.

If I want my media to embrace a totally biased editorial, unencumbered by objective thought and rational debate, I’ll read WFM.

The comments were lost due to a technical error. Carl Brown, Guardian Chief Reporter.

Thanks for clearing that up guys. I never doubted you really:)

So all the McGuffins turned out to waste more time with this issue? It will NEVER open as a Cinema again and will be a church within a year. The issue is dead and buried like Hitchock.

Huw, what's your problem with this? McGuffins and other campaigners are using their own (unpaid) time. Their plans would lead to a commercial operator buying and operating the cinema -- no public expense involved. The UCKG is a vast money-spinning operation that does not need your or anyone's help. What is your objection?

Janet1 wrote:
Huw, what's your problem with this? McGuffins and other campaigners are using their own (unpaid) time. Their plans would lead to a commercial operator buying and operating the cinema -- no public expense involved. The UCKG is a vast money-spinning operation that does not need your or anyone's help. What is your objection?

I do wish that the campaigners would hurry up and finally produce this potential new operator. There has been more suspense built up about this secret person than in a Hitchcock movie. I am beginning to wonder what the final twist in the plot will be...

Maybe Clyde Loakes will find all the missing money from the council's poor fund, buy out the church, and we'll all live happily ever after...

Techno2 wrote:

Janet1 wrote:
Huw, what's your problem with this? McGuffins and other campaigners are using their own (unpaid) time. Their plans would lead to a commercial operator buying and operating the cinema -- no public expense involved. The UCKG is a vast money-spinning operation that does not need your or anyone's help. What is your objection?

I do wish that the campaigners would hurry up and finally produce this potential new operator. There has been more suspense built up about this secret person than in a Hitchcock movie. I am beginning to wonder what the final twist in the plot will be...

Maybe Clyde Loakes will find all the missing money from the council's poor fund, buy out the church, and we'll all live happily ever after...

There is no 'Big Operator'

They are banging on about an unqualified interest years ago and are all dreaming. If there was a 'Big Operator' they would not be using the McGuffins to negotiate with the Purchase or Rental but a main Commercial Agent. All pie in the sky!

Techno, you've misunderstood. There isn't some secret 'Big Operator' -- at least, not that I've ever heard of.

Over the years, several cinema operators have wanted to buy and reopen our cinema. But the council kept issuing 'leaks' that a multiscreen was about to be built next door, which of course scared them off.

Once the council stops making these claims, the existing cinema building will again be an attractive proposition to cinema operators.

Janet1 wrote:
Techno, you've misunderstood. There isn't some secret 'Big Operator' -- at least, not that I've ever heard of. Over the years, several cinema operators have wanted to buy and reopen our cinema. But the council kept issuing 'leaks' that a multiscreen was about to be built next door, which of course scared them off. Once the council stops making these claims, the existing cinema building will again be an attractive proposition to cinema operators.

Its an interesting theory, but in the world of business I would have thought that anyone capable of stumping up a couple of millions for a cinema is not going to be frightened that the council is going to get its act together any time soon over the arcade site and then spoil their investment. All they do is tell the council not to waste their money on any mutiplex and I am sure the council, with all our interests as taxpayers at heart, would follow their advice. That's how business works. If the council looked like it really wanted to have cinema and a multiplex, a big operator would see to it that the council changed its mind. The council probably hasn't got any operator for the mythical multiplex either. Its all just a figment of the back of Mr Wheeler's fag packet planning process.

Techno2 wrote:

Janet1 wrote: Techno, you've misunderstood. There isn't some secret 'Big Operator' -- at least, not that I've ever heard of. Over the years, several cinema operators have wanted to buy and reopen our cinema. But the council kept issuing 'leaks' that a multiscreen was about to be built next door, which of course scared them off. Once the council stops making these claims, the existing cinema building will again be an attractive proposition to cinema operators.

Its an interesting theory, but in the world of business I would have thought that anyone capable of stumping up a couple of millions for a cinema is not going to be frightened that the council is going to get its act together any time soon over the arcade site and then spoil their investment. All they do is tell the council not to waste their money on any mutiplex and I am sure the council, with all our interests as taxpayers at heart, would follow their advice. That's how business works. If the council looked like it really wanted to have cinema and a multiplex, a big operator would see to it that the council changed its mind. The council probably hasn't got any operator for the mythical multiplex either. Its all just a figment of the back of Mr Wheeler's fag packet planning process.

Not at all.. anyone"capable of stumping up a couple of millions" will have got to that financial position by a combination of astuteness and luck.. but not plain foolhardiness. And we're talking about independent cinema operators here not international tycoons who could buy out the council with the stroke of a pen unlike the KUCG, which seems to be quite magnificently flush...

Only an ENORMOUS player like Land Securities or the Howard de Walden Estate would be able to dismiss the council's plans to that degree.. and besides the plans were for a multiplex within a retail/commercial development with other elements.. a potential cinema operator couldn't tell the council to disregard its plans for the Arcade site - especially when (as seemed to be the case at the time) the plans actually revolved around a multiplex.

Sorry, but a few people over the have told me that the EMD is not even suitable for modern use as a cinema due to its size and layout. Can anyone confirm this? As a relative newcomer to the borough (last seven years) I have never been able to visit, so don't know whether a successful modern cinema operation is feasible or if it's all just pipedreaming on the part of people who wish they were living somewhere like Camden or Islington. There was actually quite a good letter to the paper suggesting it be used as a music venue - could this be a better option if it's ever wrestled from the hands of its maniacal owners?

Oh I guess you've been misinformed. The cinema wasn't an empty building when it was bought by the church.. it was a functioning cinema which showed current releases as awell as Bollywood films and independent films by the McGuffins Film Society. There was even a little film festival there a few years ago in which international film makers showed short films. All the screens were used. I believe the cinema operators who expressed an interest in it when it was for sale felt it was absolutely fit for purpose. As did the Planning Inspector when he published his decision not to grant planning permission for change of use. If it were no longer fit for purpose it would mean that the current owners had substantially changed the interior - which of course they are not allowed to do as they don't have permission - so you can safely assume that it continues to be fit for purpose. Also, as it is a listed building, the current owners are obliged to maintain it to the standard of the listing so - again you may safely assume it hasn't been allowed to degenerate to a state where it is not fit for purpose. Unless the current owners have broken the law.