Councillor Terry Wheeler is clear the council will not purchase the former EMD cinema building in Walthamstow (From East London and West Essex Guardian Series)

Mr Wheeler has always made it perfectly clear that the opinions of the people of this Borough do not matter to him.
What is less clear is whose agenda he is serving, and in return for what.

Even less clear is why after an endless record of failure, incompetence and deceit the people of this Borough should have to tolerate his occupation of an office that none of us had any say in his holding in the first place.

**Cllr Wheeler said the new church and community centre will be “more attractive, to particularly young people, than a modified cinema”.**

What does Terry Wheeler know about what young people want? He hasn't been one for a long time by the look of things.

Why does Cllr Wheeler insist on speaking for me and everyone else in the borough?

This man fills me with absolute depression about the future of communities within our borough.

Who on earth in Leytonstone votes for this man?

How dare he tell me that I'm prefer a new church and community centre!

WE NEED TO GET THESE PEOPLE OUT OF POWER!

Just makes it clearer that everyone who is fighting to save this cinema is on the track and must redouble their efforts.

Let’s put the emotive efforts of the McGuffins aside for a minute and let’s not get diverted by pr hunting throw-away lines from celebs.

As I understand it, Cllr Wheeler (a man ready to expose the Borough taxpayers to £35 million of debt to fund his Arcade site fantasies only a few weeks ago) has the portfolio responsibility for Enterprise and Investment.

Given that responsibility, how can he possibly make a business case for supporting this building being taken over by a church that, from all the data already gathered about their impact on other communities in which they already have a presence, will make an absolute zero contribution to the local economy?

Measured against this is the potential to not only have a vibrant cinema/theatre business in the heart of the community but the added potential value of the EMD becoming the long sought Arts hub the Borough so desperately needs. A well managed and vibrant cultural centre would, in turn, enhance the area and offer a much needed increase in customer footfall for many other businesses.

Or is that a businesses proposition beyond his grasp?

So after months and months of hot air from the McGuffins and other pie in the sky thinkers with their silly meetings, Mick Jaggers, Myra Syaals, Baldricks, rose tinted glasses, children parades, poppycock, false claims about ficticious operators and compulsory purchase orders waiting to go in and so on, the truth is finally told and hopefully the matter can now be put to bed.

The Council invited the Church to resubmit their plans as the economic situation is so dire and the outlook bleak, that the only way the council would get some rates is by getting it occupied.

The matter should be dead and buried unless the McGuffins plan to hold a candlelit vigil outside over the weekend in sympathy. If so, please don't bring babies and toddlers as they need their sleep at night.

Maybe the next cause should be getting a brand new cinema on the site next door?

Walthamstow noob wrote:
**Cllr Wheeler said the new church and community centre will be “more attractive, to particularly young people, than a modified cinema”.**

What does Terry Wheeler know about what young people want? He hasn't been one for a long time by the look of things.

Given the UCKG's track record the chances of the building ever being used by the wider local community, young or old, under their ownership is somewhere between slim and none . . . and slim just left town.

'A brand new cinema on the site next door' when a viable alternative already existed, eh? In the current climate, a multiplex built from scratch looks far less likely than an operator willing to make a go of a pre-existing venue if they were given the chance. And I can't wait to see how the UKCG's venture will prove to be 'more attractive, to particularly young people, than a modified cinema' as they have doubtless proven to be in other locations (yes, my sarcasm circuit has been switched on).

Fresh Gravee wrote:
So after months and months of hot air from the McGuffins and other pie in the sky thinkers with their silly meetings, Mick Jaggers, Myra Syaals, Baldricks, rose tinted glasses, children parades, poppycock, false claims about ficticious operators and compulsory purchase orders waiting to go in and so on, the truth is finally told and hopefully the matter can now be put to bed. The Council invited the Church to resubmit their plans as the economic situation is so dire and the outlook bleak, that the only way the council would get some rates is by getting it occupied. The matter should be dead and buried unless the McGuffins plan to hold a candlelit vigil outside over the weekend in sympathy. If so, please don't bring babies and toddlers as they need their sleep at night. Maybe the next cause should be getting a brand new cinema on the site next door?

What do you want?

JuniorCarter wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:
So after months and months of hot air from the McGuffins and other pie in the sky thinkers with their silly meetings, Mick Jaggers, Myra Syaals, Baldricks, rose tinted glasses, children parades, poppycock, false claims about ficticious operators and compulsory purchase orders waiting to go in and so on, the truth is finally told and hopefully the matter can now be put to bed. The Council invited the Church to resubmit their plans as the economic situation is so dire and the outlook bleak, that the only way the council would get some rates is by getting it occupied. The matter should be dead and buried unless the McGuffins plan to hold a candlelit vigil outside over the weekend in sympathy. If so, please don't bring babies and toddlers as they need their sleep at night. Maybe the next cause should be getting a brand new cinema on the site next door?

What do you want?

My guess is he or she takes some pleasure in trying to poison genuine discussion by posting under as many aliases as possible and making everyone suspicious of each other.

I find this all very, very depressing. ‘A church will be more attractive to many young people than a modified cinema.’ What century is the man living in? Clearly Councillor Wheeler has fallen for the church’s PR spin hook, line and sinker. Or perhaps he IS a member of the church? Does anyone know?


Being a little divorced from local politics could someone please explain something about Mr Wheeler’s background and what position of power he holds. He clearly has little understanding of the needs of the people he purports to serve.

So 'Terrible Terry Wheeler Dealer', the Council's officer for violin playing, gets his fat frame in the picture once again! Have you ever seen a bigger gormless prat??

Will the conservatives save the cinema after next May?

Sugarplum wrote:
Will the conservatives save the cinema after next May?

I was thinking the same thing. Cllr Davis often comments here about the Council's failings but when pressed he doesn't seem to indicate what he would do to address the issue.

I think he's done a good job here of letting Terry Wheeler dig a hole for himself, but will the Conservatives really offer an alternative?

JuniorCarter wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:
So after months and months of hot air from the McGuffins and other pie in the sky thinkers with their silly meetings, Mick Jaggers, Myra Syaals, Baldricks, rose tinted glasses, children parades, poppycock, false claims about ficticious operators and compulsory purchase orders waiting to go in and so on, the truth is finally told and hopefully the matter can now be put to bed. The Council invited the Church to resubmit their plans as the economic situation is so dire and the outlook bleak, that the only way the council would get some rates is by getting it occupied. The matter should be dead and buried unless the McGuffins plan to hold a candlelit vigil outside over the weekend in sympathy. If so, please don't bring babies and toddlers as they need their sleep at night. Maybe the next cause should be getting a brand new cinema on the site next door?

What do you want?

What I want Junior is an end to foolish people giving false hope to others including children now (parading them on the street) that there is a possibility that the EMD will ever be a cinema again. It is not even owned by cinema operators but a Church who have now been given a green light to more or less make it into a church.

The peddling of random, incorrect stories of 'interested operators' and 'compulsory purchases' does nothing but give totally wrong information to the mere 400 McGuffins who turn up now and again (out of a claimed Membership of 1000).

There is not a grain of hope and the cause is lost and it really is about time that the McGuffins accepted it and focused on the Arcade Site or their new venture of Hitchcock Documentaries or whatever they are proposing.

Fresh Gravee wrote:

JuniorCarter wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote: So after months and months of hot air from the McGuffins and other pie in the sky thinkers with their silly meetings, Mick Jaggers, Myra Syaals, Baldricks, rose tinted glasses, children parades, poppycock, false claims about ficticious operators and compulsory purchase orders waiting to go in and so on, the truth is finally told and hopefully the matter can now be put to bed. The Council invited the Church to resubmit their plans as the economic situation is so dire and the outlook bleak, that the only way the council would get some rates is by getting it occupied. The matter should be dead and buried unless the McGuffins plan to hold a candlelit vigil outside over the weekend in sympathy. If so, please don't bring babies and toddlers as they need their sleep at night. Maybe the next cause should be getting a brand new cinema on the site next door?

What do you want?

What I want Junior is an end to foolish people giving false hope to others including children now (parading them on the street) that there is a possibility that the EMD will ever be a cinema again. It is not even owned by cinema operators but a Church who have now been given a green light to more or less make it into a church. The peddling of random, incorrect stories of 'interested operators' and 'compulsory purchases' does nothing but give totally wrong information to the mere 400 McGuffins who turn up now and again (out of a claimed Membership of 1000). There is not a grain of hope and the cause is lost and it really is about time that the McGuffins accepted it and focused on the Arcade Site or their new venture of Hitchcock Documentaries or whatever they are proposing.

Thanks for the public service, really community spirited.

For anyone else, the Liberal Democrats have published their response, http://walthamforest
libdems.mycouncillor
.org.uk/2009/06/19/l
ib-dems-respond-to-l
atest-cinema-claims/

Walthamstow noob wrote:

JuniorCarter wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:
So after months and months of hot air from the McGuffins and other pie in the sky thinkers with their silly meetings, Mick Jaggers, Myra Syaals, Baldricks, rose tinted glasses, children parades, poppycock, false claims about ficticious operators and compulsory purchase orders waiting to go in and so on, the truth is finally told and hopefully the matter can now be put to bed. The Council invited the Church to resubmit their plans as the economic situation is so dire and the outlook bleak, that the only way the council would get some rates is by getting it occupied. The matter should be dead and buried unless the McGuffins plan to hold a candlelit vigil outside over the weekend in sympathy. If so, please don't bring babies and toddlers as they need their sleep at night. Maybe the next cause should be getting a brand new cinema on the site next door?

What do you want?

My guess is he or she takes some pleasure in trying to poison genuine discussion by posting under as many aliases as possible and making everyone suspicious of each other.

So Walthamstow Noob is your real name is it or an alias?

Explain please why my discussion is not genuine? I am the only person to be proved right all along!

I have never been deceived by these Council Compulsory Purchase claims and other rubbish ideas that the EMD will be saved. I am still amazed that the campaigners fail to grasp the reality of the situation that the EMD is owned by a Church Group. How can it ever be turned into a cinema if they have held out for a church?

It will be a Church very soon like the one near the Bakers Arms. Mark my words please and when it is I expect you to go and by a large portion of your favourite Humble Pie.

Isn't it great to live in a borough whose council appears to be actively encouraging and welcoming a Pentecostal church group whose Wikipedia entry notes that their "followers believe the work of fallen spirits or demons have real oppressing power on people. Such oppressing spirits can act directly on the person, through a demonic possession, or around them."? It would be interesting to know why Cllr. Wheeler thinks this doctrine is desirable or “more attractive, to particularly young people, than a modified cinema”.

JuniorCarter wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

JuniorCarter wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote: So after months and months of hot air from the McGuffins and other pie in the sky thinkers with their silly meetings, Mick Jaggers, Myra Syaals, Baldricks, rose tinted glasses, children parades, poppycock, false claims about ficticious operators and compulsory purchase orders waiting to go in and so on, the truth is finally told and hopefully the matter can now be put to bed. The Council invited the Church to resubmit their plans as the economic situation is so dire and the outlook bleak, that the only way the council would get some rates is by getting it occupied. The matter should be dead and buried unless the McGuffins plan to hold a candlelit vigil outside over the weekend in sympathy. If so, please don't bring babies and toddlers as they need their sleep at night. Maybe the next cause should be getting a brand new cinema on the site next door?

What do you want?

What I want Junior is an end to foolish people giving false hope to others including children now (parading them on the street) that there is a possibility that the EMD will ever be a cinema again. It is not even owned by cinema operators but a Church who have now been given a green light to more or less make it into a church. The peddling of random, incorrect stories of 'interested operators' and 'compulsory purchases' does nothing but give totally wrong information to the mere 400 McGuffins who turn up now and again (out of a claimed Membership of 1000). There is not a grain of hope and the cause is lost and it really is about time that the McGuffins accepted it and focused on the Arcade Site or their new venture of Hitchcock Documentaries or whatever they are proposing.

Thanks for the public service, really community spirited.

For anyone else, the Liberal Democrats have published their response, http://walthamforest

libdems.mycouncillor

.org.uk/2009/06/19/l

ib-dems-respond-to-l

atest-cinema-claims/

I am very public spirited because I am telling the public the reality of the situation and the 99.999% likely outcome rather than peddling falsehoods. The liberals can always quote whatever they want from the position of no hope and utter weakness in their usual, laughing stock manner.

I will look, but do you honestly think that anything the Liberals do or say is taken seriously? Are they going to Compulsory Purchase it at Taxpayers Expense?

Of course not, more hot air.

DaveE17 wrote:
Isn't it great to live in a borough whose council appears to be actively encouraging and welcoming a Pentecostal church group whose Wikipedia entry notes that their "followers believe the work of fallen spirits or demons have real oppressing power on people. Such oppressing spirits can act directly on the person, through a demonic possession, or around them."? It would be interesting to know why Cllr. Wheeler thinks this doctrine is desirable or “more attractive, to particularly young people, than a modified cinema”.

I bet they don't take their children on demonstrations, babies in arms and toddlers, who barely know what day it is dressing them up in outfits to convince them they are going to a children's event, in reality masked political protest.

Fresh Gravee/Huw Myles/ Claridger or whatever you're calling yourself this week: in what sense are you "the only person to be proved right all along"?

You haven't predicted anything or come up with any good ideas, just endlessly sneered at those who were doing all they could to save one of this borough's very few remaining assets. I suppose you feel equally superior to those campaigning for the dog track, libraries and everything else this council is hell-bent on destroying.

As for Terry Wheeler's idea that local kids want to join a dreary religious cult - what planet is he on?

I have been proved right. I have been saying all along that the council would never Compulsory Purchase the EMD. They could never justify it. The McGuffins and others have been peddling rubbish claims that the Council had committed themselves to do so. When challenged about this, they posted here some loosly worded quote from the Council made years ago, I think by Loakes, who more or less said that the Council would look at the possibility of doing so which was as useful legally as a one-legged man at a bum kicking contest.

The Council have now over the past few months laid their cards on the table. They invited the Church to resubmit their application and now they have put the CPO idea to bed. Work will start soon on the church I predict and it will be a dreadful few months of traffic
problems there and then a total standstill once the Church opens up.
The rose tinted spectacles have all been sold and there are no more available so people should face up to the reality.

The truth hurts I know but do not shoot the messenger.

Fresh Gravee wrote:
I have been proved right. I have been saying all along that the council would never Compulsory Purchase the EMD. They could never justify it. The McGuffins and others have been peddling rubbish claims that the Council had committed themselves to do so. When challenged about this, they posted here some loosly worded quote from the Council made years ago, I think by Loakes, who more or less said that the Council would look at the possibility of doing so which was as useful legally as a one-legged man at a bum kicking contest. The Council have now over the past few months laid their cards on the table. They invited the Church to resubmit their application and now they have put the CPO idea to bed. Work will start soon on the church I predict and it will be a dreadful few months of traffic problems there and then a total standstill once the Church opens up. The rose tinted spectacles have all been sold and there are no more available so people should face up to the reality. The truth hurts I know but do not shoot the messenger.

Well, it's a wonder we bother with anything at all, why bother even reading the paper, why bother caring, why bother trying to do anything, why bother writing to anyone, why bother voting, why bother trying to build better communities.........
..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zz Fresh Gravee, you make me so utterly bored and depressed, you have the ability to drain all life from everything!

You don't get a prize for 'predicting' that this lousy council would do the lousy thing it had threatened to do! People weren't betting on the outcome, they were trying to prevent it. And I don't doubt they still are. It's not over yet.

Walthamstow noob wrote:

Sugarplum wrote:
Will the conservatives save the cinema after next May?

I was thinking the same thing. Cllr Davis often comments here about the Council's failings but when pressed he doesn't seem to indicate what he would do to address the issue.

I think he's done a good job here of letting Terry Wheeler dig a hole for himself, but will the Conservatives really offer an alternative?

In order to do anything about the Cinema then the Conservatives would need to be in a position of power after the 2010 elections.

So if enough people in Walthamstow, Leyton and Leytonstone vote for us and we gain seats on the Council then we would be in a position to help.

If however you all continue to vote Labour or LibDem then we won't be able to.

Simple really.

It is good to be enthusiastic I agree but flogging a dead Walthamstow greyhound would not make it win a race.

I would vent your anger and frustration at those in the McGuffins who in recent weeks, have suddenly had a resurgence of interest in this lost, hopeless and dead in the water cause.

They have been peddling these fruitless efforts through the TV, radio and newspaper media, apparently drumming up support from Baldrick, Mick Jagger and Meera. They claim they have massive support for the cinema when in reality, 400 mostly McGuffins turned out for a Demo recently and most lately brought along babies and toddlers which in my view was an utter disgrace.

They have led people to believe that there is a realistic chance of the EMD being opened up again as a cinema, when in reality the EMD is owned by a group who far from wanting it as such, want it as a church. They have claimed that the Council will CPO the building as they promised which was poppycock. They maintained these claims in the current economic climate when money is difficult to raise, because they essential have no economic sense of reality.

If people have been taken in by this campaign of hope then it is very sad.

The writing has been on the wall for ages now for everyone to see. The Council have invited the Church to resubmit their plans and now Wheeler has made their stance clear.

The McGuffins should now campaign for a cinema next door which, if they act sensibly and do not antagonise the council, will be a real possibility.

Fresh Gravee wrote:
It is good to be enthusiastic I agree but flogging a dead Walthamstow greyhound would not make it win a race. I would vent your anger and frustration at those in the McGuffins who in recent weeks, have suddenly had a resurgence of interest in this lost, hopeless and dead in the water cause. They have been peddling these fruitless efforts through the TV, radio and newspaper media, apparently drumming up support from Baldrick, Mick Jagger and Meera. They claim they have massive support for the cinema when in reality, 400 mostly McGuffins turned out for a Demo recently and most lately brought along babies and toddlers which in my view was an utter disgrace. They have led people to believe that there is a realistic chance of the EMD being opened up again as a cinema, when in reality the EMD is owned by a group who far from wanting it as such, want it as a church. They have claimed that the Council will CPO the building as they promised which was poppycock. They maintained these claims in the current economic climate when money is difficult to raise, because they essential have no economic sense of reality. If people have been taken in by this campaign of hope then it is very sad. The writing has been on the wall for ages now for everyone to see. The Council have invited the Church to resubmit their plans and now Wheeler has made their stance clear. The McGuffins should now campaign for a cinema next door which, if they act sensibly and do not antagonise the council, will be a real possibility.

Fresh (or Huw Myles, or Claridger, or Jackie Arnos or whoever you are at the moment) why don't you just give it up?

It is obvious that you have some kind of personal grudge against the McGuffins, but are scared to admit it.

Why else would you keep attacking them for trying to save a building that the vast majority of Walthamstow residents WANT to be saved as a cinema?
It seems to me that they are trying to uphold local democracy to a far greater degree than the council! Anyone with any sense knows that the Town Hall is where our "anger and frustration" should be vented - as indeed it will be at the next election.

In the meantime, please stop your vindictive and cowardly attacks on people who are trying to achieve something positive.

In any event, posting under multiple names is against forum rules, and it is about time the moderators of this board put a stop to it. If nothing else we could then be spared any more of your unwarranted and unwanted poison.

Fresh/Hue/Jackie/who
ever only spouts this banal, negative rubbish because we all rise to the bait. So why don't we all completely blank him out and put our anger into letting the council know just how strongly we feel.

Councillor Wheeler is completely out of touch. Indeed, he is discriminating against the Waltham Forest people who will not wish to worship at the UCKG church - I would have thought that barring a huge proportion of the population from this building would be one of the most anti-democratic acts possible.

Wheeler is ill-informed, does not represent the mainstream view and appears to be pursuing an agenda while blinding himself to the strength of local, popular opinion and feeling.

He is talking utter rubbish. He has made his mind up months ago ignoring the facts - ie cinema operators are queueing up to take over the EMD cinema - and riding roughshod over what we, THE PEOPLE, want.

I hope that this jerrymandering Councillor receives his just rewards when he seeks re-election. He is betraying Waltham Forest with his ludicrous rhetoric.

Save the EMD cinema!!!!!

Cllr Matt Davis wrote:

Walthamstow noob wrote:

Sugarplum wrote: Will the conservatives save the cinema after next May?

I was thinking the same thing. Cllr Davis often comments here about the Council's failings but when pressed he doesn't seem to indicate what he would do to address the issue. I think he's done a good job here of letting Terry Wheeler dig a hole for himself, but will the Conservatives really offer an alternative?

In order to do anything about the Cinema then the Conservatives would need to be in a position of power after the 2010 elections. So if enough people in Walthamstow, Leyton and Leytonstone vote for us and we gain seats on the Council then we would be in a position to help. If however you all continue to vote Labour or LibDem then we won't be able to. Simple really.

In the meantime Matt, what kind of statement does "Do you not think the council needs to manage people's expectations on the EMD, and make it clear that people can get Mick Jagger out and bunches of kids protesting but it won't make a difference?” say about LBWF? Are you suggesting the council is right to completely ignore local opinion, especially where it is growing ever stronger for seeing the EMD re-open as a cinema?

It's time for councillors to stop accepting the misinformation and twisted logic propagated by Cllr Wheeler & Co and recognise that accepting the UCKG's plans will shut out our community from one of the borough's finest buildings and destroy any hope of proper regeneration.

Walthamstow noob wrote:

Sugarplum wrote: Will the conservatives save the cinema after next May?

I was thinking the same thing. Cllr Davis often comments here about the Council's failings but when pressed he doesn't seem to indicate what he would do to address the issue. I think he's done a good job here of letting Terry Wheeler dig a hole for himself, but will the Conservatives really offer an alternative?

If you read Councillor Wheeler's answer very carefully it has a dual purpose, the main one of which may not be addressed to Matt Davis. He is telling whoever it is who wishes to take the debate outside the confines of the leading Labour Councillors in Cabinet that it is they who are still in charge locally and that they will not give in to pressure brought to bear on them via the streets to go down the CPO route.

Lucifer wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:
It is good to be enthusiastic I agree but flogging a dead Walthamstow greyhound would not make it win a race. I would vent your anger and frustration at those in the McGuffins who in recent weeks, have suddenly had a resurgence of interest in this lost, hopeless and dead in the water cause. They have been peddling these fruitless efforts through the TV, radio and newspaper media, apparently drumming up support from Baldrick, Mick Jagger and Meera. They claim they have massive support for the cinema when in reality, 400 mostly McGuffins turned out for a Demo recently and most lately brought along babies and toddlers which in my view was an utter disgrace. They have led people to believe that there is a realistic chance of the EMD being opened up again as a cinema, when in reality the EMD is owned by a group who far from wanting it as such, want it as a church. They have claimed that the Council will CPO the building as they promised which was poppycock. They maintained these claims in the current economic climate when money is difficult to raise, because they essential have no economic sense of reality. If people have been taken in by this campaign of hope then it is very sad. The writing has been on the wall for ages now for everyone to see. The Council have invited the Church to resubmit their plans and now Wheeler has made their stance clear. The McGuffins should now campaign for a cinema next door which, if they act sensibly and do not antagonise the council, will be a real possibility.

Fresh (or Huw Myles, or Claridger, or Jackie Arnos or whoever you are at the moment) why don't you just give it up?

It is obvious that you have some kind of personal grudge against the McGuffins, but are scared to admit it.

Why else would you keep attacking them for trying to save a building that the vast majority of Walthamstow residents WANT to be saved as a cinema?
It seems to me that they are trying to uphold local democracy to a far greater degree than the council! Anyone with any sense knows that the Town Hall is where our "anger and frustration" should be vented - as indeed it will be at the next election.

In the meantime, please stop your vindictive and cowardly attacks on people who are trying to achieve something positive.

In any event, posting under multiple names is against forum rules, and it is about time the moderators of this board put a stop to it. If nothing else we could then be spared any more of your unwarranted and unwanted poison.

The vast majority of the Walthamstow are disinterested in the Cinema and that is why it closed originally. 400 McGuffins, and a group of children, all predominantly white hardly represent the multi-cultured make up of Walthamstow. How many Asians are in the McGuffins? One or two if any a tall I bet. It was not economically viable and that is why it closed. The make up of Walthamstow has changed since the EMD was built. Move with the times. You cannot expect the Council to fund a McGuffins social club.

Please stop personally attacking me just because you disagree with what I say. I have no grudge against the McGuffins or anyone. I will be proved right when the work starts on the Church and I do hope you apologise then with the other contributors who vent their anger against me because they do not like my opinion.

BTW the above mentioned Hitchcock film is being shown in Leytonstone next Saturday at the Heathcote Music Venue at 8PM.

Fresh Gravee wrote:

Lucifer wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote: It is good to be enthusiastic I agree but flogging a dead Walthamstow greyhound would not make it win a race. I would vent your anger and frustration at those in the McGuffins who in recent weeks, have suddenly had a resurgence of interest in this lost, hopeless and dead in the water cause. They have been peddling these fruitless efforts through the TV, radio and newspaper media, apparently drumming up support from Baldrick, Mick Jagger and Meera. They claim they have massive support for the cinema when in reality, 400 mostly McGuffins turned out for a Demo recently and most lately brought along babies and toddlers which in my view was an utter disgrace. They have led people to believe that there is a realistic chance of the EMD being opened up again as a cinema, when in reality the EMD is owned by a group who far from wanting it as such, want it as a church. They have claimed that the Council will CPO the building as they promised which was poppycock. They maintained these claims in the current economic climate when money is difficult to raise, because they essential have no economic sense of reality. If people have been taken in by this campaign of hope then it is very sad. The writing has been on the wall for ages now for everyone to see. The Council have invited the Church to resubmit their plans and now Wheeler has made their stance clear. The McGuffins should now campaign for a cinema next door which, if they act sensibly and do not antagonise the council, will be a real possibility.

Fresh (or Huw Myles, or Claridger, or Jackie Arnos or whoever you are at the moment) why don't you just give it up? It is obvious that you have some kind of personal grudge against the McGuffins, but are scared to admit it. Why else would you keep attacking them for trying to save a building that the vast majority of Walthamstow residents WANT to be saved as a cinema? It seems to me that they are trying to uphold local democracy to a far greater degree than the council! Anyone with any sense knows that the Town Hall is where our "anger and frustration" should be vented - as indeed it will be at the next election. In the meantime, please stop your vindictive and cowardly attacks on people who are trying to achieve something positive. In any event, posting under multiple names is against forum rules, and it is about time the moderators of this board put a stop to it. If nothing else we could then be spared any more of your unwarranted and unwanted poison.

The vast majority of the Walthamstow are disinterested in the Cinema and that is why it closed originally. 400 McGuffins, and a group of children, all predominantly white hardly represent the multi-cultured make up of Walthamstow. How many Asians are in the McGuffins? One or two if any a tall I bet. It was not economically viable and that is why it closed. The make up of Walthamstow has changed since the EMD was built. Move with the times. You cannot expect the Council to fund a McGuffins social club. Please stop personally attacking me just because you disagree with what I say. I have no grudge against the McGuffins or anyone. I will be proved right when the work starts on the Church and I do hope you apologise then with the other contributors who vent their anger against me because they do not like my opinion.

Yet more tripe from the anonymous and multi-named sniper.

So the vast majority of Walthamstow are disinterested? I take it, then, that you would be just as scathing about ANY campaign that cannot be proven to have the support of at least 50% of the borough? Absolute rubbish!

I don't know how mant Asians are McGuffin members, but how many Asians are members of UCKG? Or how many Whites are members of UCKG, for that matter? I advise you to be very careful before you bring the subject of race into this matter.

I will stop personally attacking you when you stop attacking the McGuffins. I know several of them personally, and they do not deserve the bile you constantly direct at them. You may state that you have no grudge against them, but the facts show that your most venomous postings are always aimed in their direction.

And your assertion that you will be "proved right" is ludicrous. In a David versus Goliath battle, you earn no respect for siding with Goliath!

Fresh Gravee, Snaresbrook says...
"So Walthamstow Noob is your real name is it or an alias?"

Of course it's an alias, but I only have the one. It's clear to everyone here that you are a compulsive liar, and a terrible one at that. Your discussion isn't genuine because you are not genuine, you are constructing new personalities all the time. Nothing you say can be taken seriously because today, tomorrow or some time in the near future you will ditch 'Fresh Gravee' and start this charade anew.

I suspect an IP ban would put a stop to you if the moderators or administrators could be bothered. Failing that, perhaps an 'Ignore this user' button would be an improvement.


Cllr Matt Davis, Chingford says...
"In order to do anything about the Cinema then the Conservatives would need to be in a position of power after the 2010 elections."

I think we're well aware of how the voting system works. The question is, would you actually *do* anything about it if you did get into a position of power?

It may be a moot point anyway, as every new revelation about our thieving political class cements the opinion in my mind that democracy in this country is fundamentally broken.

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

Lucifer wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote: It is good to be enthusiastic I agree but flogging a dead Walthamstow greyhound would not make it win a race. I would vent your anger and frustration at those in the McGuffins who in recent weeks, have suddenly had a resurgence of interest in this lost, hopeless and dead in the water cause. They have been peddling these fruitless efforts through the TV, radio and newspaper media, apparently drumming up support from Baldrick, Mick Jagger and Meera. They claim they have massive support for the cinema when in reality, 400 mostly McGuffins turned out for a Demo recently and most lately brought along babies and toddlers which in my view was an utter disgrace. They have led people to believe that there is a realistic chance of the EMD being opened up again as a cinema, when in reality the EMD is owned by a group who far from wanting it as such, want it as a church. They have claimed that the Council will CPO the building as they promised which was poppycock. They maintained these claims in the current economic climate when money is difficult to raise, because they essential have no economic sense of reality. If people have been taken in by this campaign of hope then it is very sad. The writing has been on the wall for ages now for everyone to see. The Council have invited the Church to resubmit their plans and now Wheeler has made their stance clear. The McGuffins should now campaign for a cinema next door which, if they act sensibly and do not antagonise the council, will be a real possibility.

Fresh (or Huw Myles, or Claridger, or Jackie Arnos or whoever you are at the moment) why don't you just give it up? It is obvious that you have some kind of personal grudge against the McGuffins, but are scared to admit it. Why else would you keep attacking them for trying to save a building that the vast majority of Walthamstow residents WANT to be saved as a cinema? It seems to me that they are trying to uphold local democracy to a far greater degree than the council! Anyone with any sense knows that the Town Hall is where our "anger and frustration" should be vented - as indeed it will be at the next election. In the meantime, please stop your vindictive and cowardly attacks on people who are trying to achieve something positive. In any event, posting under multiple names is against forum rules, and it is about time the moderators of this board put a stop to it. If nothing else we could then be spared any more of your unwarranted and unwanted poison.

The vast majority of the Walthamstow are disinterested in the Cinema and that is why it closed originally. 400 McGuffins, and a group of children, all predominantly white hardly represent the multi-cultured make up of Walthamstow. How many Asians are in the McGuffins? One or two if any a tall I bet. It was not economically viable and that is why it closed. The make up of Walthamstow has changed since the EMD was built. Move with the times. You cannot expect the Council to fund a McGuffins social club. Please stop personally attacking me just because you disagree with what I say. I have no grudge against the McGuffins or anyone. I will be proved right when the work starts on the Church and I do hope you apologise then with the other contributors who vent their anger against me because they do not like my opinion.

Yet more tripe from the anonymous and multi-named sniper.

So the vast majority of Walthamstow are disinterested? I take it, then, that you would be just as scathing about ANY campaign that cannot be proven to have the support of at least 50% of the borough? Absolute rubbish!

I don't know how mant Asians are McGuffin members, but how many Asians are members of UCKG? Or how many Whites are members of UCKG, for that matter? I advise you to be very careful before you bring the subject of race into this matter.

I will stop personally attacking you when you stop attacking the McGuffins. I know several of them personally, and they do not deserve the bile you constantly direct at them. You may state that you have no grudge against them, but the facts show that your most venomous postings are always aimed in their direction.

And your assertion that you will be "proved right" is ludicrous. In a David versus Goliath battle, you earn no respect for siding with Goliath!

I do not know how many members of UCKG are Asian or white but I know that there are hardly any blacks or asians in the McGuffins who are trying to get the council to buy them a private exclusive social club at taxpayers expense when the Church are trying to develop the defunct premises into a multicultural centre open to everyone, including McGuffins.

The claims made that the 'Majority of Walthamstow want it' is utter poppycock. The Council now realise that it is absolutely a dead in the water idea to CPO it and without their support it can never happen.

It is owned by the Church and they will stick it out as they have done and get what they want. You may not like to hear the reality of the situation, you may choose to attack me verbally and be rude about it but the large portion of humble pie awaits your consumption.

Walthamstow noob wrote:
Fresh Gravee, Snaresbrook says...
"So Walthamstow Noob is your real name is it or an alias?"

Of course it's an alias, but I only have the one. It's clear to everyone here that you are a compulsive liar, and a terrible one at that. Your discussion isn't genuine because you are not genuine, you are constructing new personalities all the time. Nothing you say can be taken seriously because today, tomorrow or some time in the near future you will ditch 'Fresh Gravee' and start this charade anew.

I suspect an IP ban would put a stop to you if the moderators or administrators could be bothered. Failing that, perhaps an 'Ignore this user' button would be an improvement.


Cllr Matt Davis, Chingford says...
"In order to do anything about the Cinema then the Conservatives would need to be in a position of power after the 2010 elections."

I think we're well aware of how the voting system works. The question is, would you actually *do* anything about it if you did get into a position of power?

It may be a moot point anyway, as every new revelation about our thieving political class cements the opinion in my mind that democracy in this country is fundamentally broken.

Why am I a compulsive liar? I have just given the facts as they are all along and now Cllr Wheeler has confirmed what I have been saying all along, and all those contributors who have be spouting on about CPO possibilities have all evaporated and are saying nothing.

Why should I be barred? I am only telling you how it is. It appears that everyone who criticises me is a rose tinted spec wearer who has nothing constructive to express except to continue believe that the Cinema can be saved when it is as clear as a crystal that it cannot and will never reopen. The scraping of the barrel efforts of posting pictures of Mick Jagger, Baldrick and Meera and parading children is pitiful.

The campaign ran out of steam ages ago, and the economic down turn was the final nail in the coffin. It is over, done and dusted.

Will you commit to apologising and eating a large portion of humble pie if you are proved wrong?

Wheeler you rotter.

Ridley wrote:
Wheeler you rotter.

Would you put in any money to CPO it? Of course you would not.

Fresh Gravee wrote:

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

Lucifer wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote: It is good to be enthusiastic I agree but flogging a dead Walthamstow greyhound would not make it win a race. I would vent your anger and frustration at those in the McGuffins who in recent weeks, have suddenly had a resurgence of interest in this lost, hopeless and dead in the water cause. They have been peddling these fruitless efforts through the TV, radio and newspaper media, apparently drumming up support from Baldrick, Mick Jagger and Meera. They claim they have massive support for the cinema when in reality, 400 mostly McGuffins turned out for a Demo recently and most lately brought along babies and toddlers which in my view was an utter disgrace. They have led people to believe that there is a realistic chance of the EMD being opened up again as a cinema, when in reality the EMD is owned by a group who far from wanting it as such, want it as a church. They have claimed that the Council will CPO the building as they promised which was poppycock. They maintained these claims in the current economic climate when money is difficult to raise, because they essential have no economic sense of reality. If people have been taken in by this campaign of hope then it is very sad. The writing has been on the wall for ages now for everyone to see. The Council have invited the Church to resubmit their plans and now Wheeler has made their stance clear. The McGuffins should now campaign for a cinema next door which, if they act sensibly and do not antagonise the council, will be a real possibility.

Fresh (or Huw Myles, or Claridger, or Jackie Arnos or whoever you are at the moment) why don't you just give it up? It is obvious that you have some kind of personal grudge against the McGuffins, but are scared to admit it. Why else would you keep attacking them for trying to save a building that the vast majority of Walthamstow residents WANT to be saved as a cinema? It seems to me that they are trying to uphold local democracy to a far greater degree than the council! Anyone with any sense knows that the Town Hall is where our "anger and frustration" should be vented - as indeed it will be at the next election. In the meantime, please stop your vindictive and cowardly attacks on people who are trying to achieve something positive. In any event, posting under multiple names is against forum rules, and it is about time the moderators of this board put a stop to it. If nothing else we could then be spared any more of your unwarranted and unwanted poison.

The vast majority of the Walthamstow are disinterested in the Cinema and that is why it closed originally. 400 McGuffins, and a group of children, all predominantly white hardly represent the multi-cultured make up of Walthamstow. How many Asians are in the McGuffins? One or two if any a tall I bet. It was not economically viable and that is why it closed. The make up of Walthamstow has changed since the EMD was built. Move with the times. You cannot expect the Council to fund a McGuffins social club. Please stop personally attacking me just because you disagree with what I say. I have no grudge against the McGuffins or anyone. I will be proved right when the work starts on the Church and I do hope you apologise then with the other contributors who vent their anger against me because they do not like my opinion.

Yet more tripe from the anonymous and multi-named sniper. So the vast majority of Walthamstow are disinterested? I take it, then, that you would be just as scathing about ANY campaign that cannot be proven to have the support of at least 50% of the borough? Absolute rubbish! I don't know how mant Asians are McGuffin members, but how many Asians are members of UCKG? Or how many Whites are members of UCKG, for that matter? I advise you to be very careful before you bring the subject of race into this matter. I will stop personally attacking you when you stop attacking the McGuffins. I know several of them personally, and they do not deserve the bile you constantly direct at them. You may state that you have no grudge against them, but the facts show that your most venomous postings are always aimed in their direction. And your assertion that you will be "proved right" is ludicrous. In a David versus Goliath battle, you earn no respect for siding with Goliath!

I do not know how many members of UCKG are Asian or white but I know that there are hardly any blacks or asians in the McGuffins who are trying to get the council to buy them a private exclusive social club at taxpayers expense when the Church are trying to develop the defunct premises into a multicultural centre open to everyone, including McGuffins. The claims made that the 'Majority of Walthamstow want it' is utter poppycock. The Council now realise that it is absolutely a dead in the water idea to CPO it and without their support it can never happen. It is owned by the Church and they will stick it out as they have done and get what they want. You may not like to hear the reality of the situation, you may choose to attack me verbally and be rude about it but the large portion of humble pie awaits your consumption.

Race is irrelevant to this matter. The McGuffins may be predominantly white while the UCKG are predominantly black. What does it have to do with anything? Unless you are suggesting that organisations that may be predominantly white should not be allowed to campaign? In which case the law classes you as a racist.

'Walthamstow noob' has it right - you are a compulsive liar. You have insisted that the McGuffins want the council to buy the cinema for them. This has been disproven many times, and yet you still persist with this LIE.

It has been proven that the McGuffins did not organise the recent kids demo and yet you still persist with this LIE.

Therefore it is perfectly correct that you SHOULD be barred. Posting anything that is untrue is against forum rules, as is posting under multi aliases.

I think if enough people click the 'Report This Post' button under your vile contributions the moderators will have to take action. I intend to do this in future. It seems the McGuffins themselves are ignoring your rantings, but I am personally sick and tired of your unjustified attacks on well-meaning people.

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

Lucifer wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote: It is good to be enthusiastic I agree but flogging a dead Walthamstow greyhound would not make it win a race. I would vent your anger and frustration at those in the McGuffins who in recent weeks, have suddenly had a resurgence of interest in this lost, hopeless and dead in the water cause. They have been peddling these fruitless efforts through the TV, radio and newspaper media, apparently drumming up support from Baldrick, Mick Jagger and Meera. They claim they have massive support for the cinema when in reality, 400 mostly McGuffins turned out for a Demo recently and most lately brought along babies and toddlers which in my view was an utter disgrace. They have led people to believe that there is a realistic chance of the EMD being opened up again as a cinema, when in reality the EMD is owned by a group who far from wanting it as such, want it as a church. They have claimed that the Council will CPO the building as they promised which was poppycock. They maintained these claims in the current economic climate when money is difficult to raise, because they essential have no economic sense of reality. If people have been taken in by this campaign of hope then it is very sad. The writing has been on the wall for ages now for everyone to see. The Council have invited the Church to resubmit their plans and now Wheeler has made their stance clear. The McGuffins should now campaign for a cinema next door which, if they act sensibly and do not antagonise the council, will be a real possibility.

Fresh (or Huw Myles, or Claridger, or Jackie Arnos or whoever you are at the moment) why don't you just give it up? It is obvious that you have some kind of personal grudge against the McGuffins, but are scared to admit it. Why else would you keep attacking them for trying to save a building that the vast majority of Walthamstow residents WANT to be saved as a cinema? It seems to me that they are trying to uphold local democracy to a far greater degree than the council! Anyone with any sense knows that the Town Hall is where our "anger and frustration" should be vented - as indeed it will be at the next election. In the meantime, please stop your vindictive and cowardly attacks on people who are trying to achieve something positive. In any event, posting under multiple names is against forum rules, and it is about time the moderators of this board put a stop to it. If nothing else we could then be spared any more of your unwarranted and unwanted poison.

The vast majority of the Walthamstow are disinterested in the Cinema and that is why it closed originally. 400 McGuffins, and a group of children, all predominantly white hardly represent the multi-cultured make up of Walthamstow. How many Asians are in the McGuffins? One or two if any a tall I bet. It was not economically viable and that is why it closed. The make up of Walthamstow has changed since the EMD was built. Move with the times. You cannot expect the Council to fund a McGuffins social club. Please stop personally attacking me just because you disagree with what I say. I have no grudge against the McGuffins or anyone. I will be proved right when the work starts on the Church and I do hope you apologise then with the other contributors who vent their anger against me because they do not like my opinion.

Yet more tripe from the anonymous and multi-named sniper. So the vast majority of Walthamstow are disinterested? I take it, then, that you would be just as scathing about ANY campaign that cannot be proven to have the support of at least 50% of the borough? Absolute rubbish! I don't know how mant Asians are McGuffin members, but how many Asians are members of UCKG? Or how many Whites are members of UCKG, for that matter? I advise you to be very careful before you bring the subject of race into this matter. I will stop personally attacking you when you stop attacking the McGuffins. I know several of them personally, and they do not deserve the bile you constantly direct at them. You may state that you have no grudge against them, but the facts show that your most venomous postings are always aimed in their direction. And your assertion that you will be "proved right" is ludicrous. In a David versus Goliath battle, you earn no respect for siding with Goliath!

I do not know how many members of UCKG are Asian or white but I know that there are hardly any blacks or asians in the McGuffins who are trying to get the council to buy them a private exclusive social club at taxpayers expense when the Church are trying to develop the defunct premises into a multicultural centre open to everyone, including McGuffins. The claims made that the 'Majority of Walthamstow want it' is utter poppycock. The Council now realise that it is absolutely a dead in the water idea to CPO it and without their support it can never happen. It is owned by the Church and they will stick it out as they have done and get what they want. You may not like to hear the reality of the situation, you may choose to attack me verbally and be rude about it but the large portion of humble pie awaits your consumption.

Race is irrelevant to this matter. The McGuffins may be predominantly white while the UCKG are predominantly black. What does it have to do with anything? Unless you are suggesting that organisations that may be predominantly white should not be allowed to campaign? In which case the law classes you as a racist. 'Walthamstow noob' has it right - you are a compulsive liar. You have insisted that the McGuffins want the council to buy the cinema for them. This has been disproven many times, and yet you still persist with this LIE. It has been proven that the McGuffins did not organise the recent kids demo and yet you still persist with this LIE. Therefore it is perfectly correct that you SHOULD be barred. Posting anything that is untrue is against forum rules, as is posting under multi aliases. I think if enough people click the 'Report This Post' button under your vile contributions the moderators will have to take action. I intend to do this in future. It seems the McGuffins themselves are ignoring your rantings, but I am personally sick and tired of your unjustified attacks on well-meaning people.

It seems to me reading Matt Davis's quote from Cllr Wheeler that the council have already pre-empted the planning decision by de facto supporting the UCKG's application in advance.
The council are supposed to be neutral on these matters.

Does that mean they are acting illegally by prejudicing the decision?

"McGuffins who are trying to get the council to buy them a private exclusive social club at taxpayers expense when the Church are trying to develop the defunct premises into a multicultural centre open to everyone, including McGuffins"


Are you mentally ill?

t seems to me reading Matt Davis's quote from Cllr Wheeler that the council have already pre-empted the planning decision by de facto supporting the UCKG's application in advance.
The council are supposed to be neutral on these matters.

Does that mean they are acting illegally by prejudicing the decision?


At last a sensibly raised point!

The Council have, despite all their historical incompetence in a variety of matters, have a duty to spend Council Tax Payers money sensibly and have to be accountable.

Having said this however, one only has to think of the disastrous Fantaseas project to see how this all goes wrong from time to time.

Now in this case they would have looked at the possibility of buying the EMD by CPO and weather this would have even had a chance of reasonably succeeding if the owners fought it. In my view the chance of the Council winning would have been very slim because the owners bought it on the open market when it was up for grabs by any interested party or Operator of Cinemas. The argument by varios campaigners that the church offred 'more than it was worth' is rubbish, because it was obviously worth what they paid. Market demand and forces determined the price and the Church bought it fair and square and no Judge would see otherwise. The Council would also have had to justify a lengthy and costly legal wrangle involving Taxpayers money on this flimsy chance that it would succeed.

The next matter is whether the Council actually wanted to do it. The cheap talk about there being a willing Cinema Operator is just that, cheap unsubstantiated poppycock and hot air. Had the council succeeded in the purchase by a CPO, then they would have had to have the insurance in place and ready to buy the Cinema from them. There was no Operator ready and willing to do so with substantial tied on financial commitment, legally binding. This decision by the Council has been easy to make because of the economic down turn.
For instance, look next door at what has happened with the purchase by the private developers of the Arcade Site. The Dog Track is another example. Everything is on hold and in abeyance.

It is easy for the McGuffins to request the Council to spend Council Taxpayers money without regard to the financial and legal constraints involved but the reality is that it is not going to happen.

regarding the comment about the Councillors already deciding in advance the application. You are exactly correct. Councillors have a duty to recommend those applications that are likely to succeed on appeal. The planning laws clearly state that councils should facilitate reasonable applications made. The council are liable to hefty fines if they refuse and application which is subsequently granted. It is the duty of the Planning Officers to recommend the initial outline schemes to the councillors sitting on the Planning Committee. Obviously being a large project and in the Public domain, great consultation processes have been made and it is likely that all the points mention above have been gone through in fine detail.

The campaigners show their ignorance of the planning, CPO, legal and financial processes involved by their cosy meetings and assertion that the EMD can be purchased like a jar of sweets.

Fresh Gravee wrote:
t seems to me reading Matt Davis's quote from Cllr Wheeler that the council have already pre-empted the planning decision by de facto supporting the UCKG's application in advance.
The council are supposed to be neutral on these matters.

Does that mean they are acting illegally by prejudicing the decision?


At last a sensibly raised point!

The Council have, despite all their historical incompetence in a variety of matters, have a duty to spend Council Tax Payers money sensibly and have to be accountable.

Having said this however, one only has to think of the disastrous Fantaseas project to see how this all goes wrong from time to time.

Now in this case they would have looked at the possibility of buying the EMD by CPO and weather this would have even had a chance of reasonably succeeding if the owners fought it. In my view the chance of the Council winning would have been very slim because the owners bought it on the open market when it was up for grabs by any interested party or Operator of Cinemas. The argument by varios campaigners that the church offred 'more than it was worth' is rubbish, because it was obviously worth what they paid. Market demand and forces determined the price and the Church bought it fair and square and no Judge would see otherwise. The Council would also have had to justify a lengthy and costly legal wrangle involving Taxpayers money on this flimsy chance that it would succeed.

The next matter is whether the Council actually wanted to do it. The cheap talk about there being a willing Cinema Operator is just that, cheap unsubstantiated poppycock and hot air. Had the council succeeded in the purchase by a CPO, then they would have had to have the insurance in place and ready to buy the Cinema from them. There was no Operator ready and willing to do so with substantial tied on financial commitment, legally binding. This decision by the Council has been easy to make because of the economic down turn.
For instance, look next door at what has happened with the purchase by the private developers of the Arcade Site. The Dog Track is another example. Everything is on hold and in abeyance.

It is easy for the McGuffins to request the Council to spend Council Taxpayers money without regard to the financial and legal constraints involved but the reality is that it is not going to happen.

regarding the comment about the Councillors already deciding in advance the application. You are exactly correct. Councillors have a duty to recommend those applications that are likely to succeed on appeal. The planning laws clearly state that councils should facilitate reasonable applications made. The council are liable to hefty fines if they refuse and application which is subsequently granted. It is the duty of the Planning Officers to recommend the initial outline schemes to the councillors sitting on the Planning Committee. Obviously being a large project and in the Public domain, great consultation processes have been made and it is likely that all the points mention above have been gone through in fine detail.

The campaigners show their ignorance of the planning, CPO, legal and financial processes involved by their cosy meetings and assertion that the EMD can be purchased like a jar of sweets.

Sorry, had a bad spell of whether!

'It seems the McGuffins themselves are ignoring your rantings, but I am personally sick and tired of your unjustified attacks on well-meaning people'

Except you, one of the King Poo Bah McGuffins?

Race is relevant here because the make up of the McGuffins is predominantly white and is hardly representative of the local people living in and around the Cinema for a start. There is a vibrant Asian and Black Community and east European Population who are not interested in the EMD as a Cinema but would rather see its usage altered to a Community Base with a Church and Community facilities on offer. Meeting and consultation room and so on. Your assertion that the Church Members are all black is incorrect. As a church, they welcome people with open arms and this is the point. This could be a focal point for Walthamstow. being listed, the building would have to be preserved. As the Cinema use is defunct, a brand new air conditioned cinema could be built with nice comfy seats in a modern setting. Pop corn machines could whirl and everyone would be happy on the Arcade Site. The remnants of the Children's Placards could be exhibited in the foyer. Rattles and dummies as well.

"Except you, one of the King Poo Bah McGuffins?"

Ha! I don't even remember the last time I watched a film all the way through!

You really are treading a fine line with this racial nonsense. I don't know about the McGuffin membership, but I see on their website that they have a comprehensive equal opportunities policy. It can hardly therefore be any fault of theirs what the racial breakdown of their membership is.

And your assertion that UCKG members are not black is, to use one of your own favourite words, poppycock. Pay a visit to their UK headquarters in Finsbury Park and see for yourself.

The fact is that you WANT the campaign to fail. I restate my accusation that you have a personal grudge against the McGuffins for some insane reason, and on this basis you don't want to see them succeed, even though their stance is supported by the vast majority of Walthamstow residents who expressed a view on the matter (Source: the council's own survey).

Why else would you come out with laughable rubbish that the "east European population" would prefer the EMD as a church!

Finally scrolled to the bottom, now I can't remember what it was I had to say.

A sudden change in style by Fresh Gravee when it comes to explaining the planning issues raises the question whether he actually IS Mr Wheeler.
For FG's information, the UKCG do not take their children on demonstrations, but they are widely reported to beat the living daylights out of them to drive out evil spirits. Mr Wheeler is not a member of the church, I believe; someone told me he is a member of the Roman Catholic church, another powerful institution with a rigorous approach to child protection.

Fresh Gravee wrote:
t seems to me reading Matt Davis's quote from Cllr Wheeler that the council have already pre-empted the planning decision by de facto supporting the UCKG's application in advance. The council are supposed to be neutral on these matters. Does that mean they are acting illegally by prejudicing the decision? At last a sensibly raised point! The Council have, despite all their historical incompetence in a variety of matters, have a duty to spend Council Tax Payers money sensibly and have to be accountable. Having said this however, one only has to think of the disastrous Fantaseas project to see how this all goes wrong from time to time. Now in this case they would have looked at the possibility of buying the EMD by CPO and weather this would have even had a chance of reasonably succeeding if the owners fought it. In my view the chance of the Council winning would have been very slim because the owners bought it on the open market when it was up for grabs by any interested party or Operator of Cinemas. The argument by varios campaigners that the church offred 'more than it was worth' is rubbish, because it was obviously worth what they paid. Market demand and forces determined the price and the Church bought it fair and square and no Judge would see otherwise. The Council would also have had to justify a lengthy and costly legal wrangle involving Taxpayers money on this flimsy chance that it would succeed. The next matter is whether the Council actually wanted to do it. The cheap talk about there being a willing Cinema Operator is just that, cheap unsubstantiated poppycock and hot air. Had the council succeeded in the purchase by a CPO, then they would have had to have the insurance in place and ready to buy the Cinema from them. There was no Operator ready and willing to do so with substantial tied on financial commitment, legally binding. This decision by the Council has been easy to make because of the economic down turn. For instance, look next door at what has happened with the purchase by the private developers of the Arcade Site. The Dog Track is another example. Everything is on hold and in abeyance. It is easy for the McGuffins to request the Council to spend Council Taxpayers money without regard to the financial and legal constraints involved but the reality is that it is not going to happen. regarding the comment about the Councillors already deciding in advance the application. You are exactly correct. Councillors have a duty to recommend those applications that are likely to succeed on appeal. The planning laws clearly state that councils should facilitate reasonable applications made. The council are liable to hefty fines if they refuse and application which is subsequently granted. It is the duty of the Planning Officers to recommend the initial outline schemes to the councillors sitting on the Planning Committee. Obviously being a large project and in the Public domain, great consultation processes have been made and it is likely that all the points mention above have been gone through in fine detail. The campaigners show their ignorance of the planning, CPO, legal and financial processes involved by their cosy meetings and assertion that the EMD can be purchased like a jar of sweets.

But both the council and the Secretary of State denied the church planning permission the last time so clearly had good planning and legal grounds to do so.

Apart from pure apathy, what grounds would the council have for going against this decision this time?

They don't have the excuse of the glittering new multiplex as it sure isn't going to happen any time soon.

This is the most inauspicious time for new building in 20 years.

Congratulation to Terry Wheeler who courageously spoke what everyone with common sense thinks about the EMD. Cllr Wheeler, pre-empting a planning decision, said the new church and community centre will be “more attractive, to particularly young people, than a modified cinema”.
He said: “The only proposal I know will work is the UCKG church, they will restore it. What is the point in keeping this building full of dark and dingy spaces?”

You see, one doesn’t need half brain to understand his statement. Only obscured minds such liked the ones of McGuffin fueled by an once-upon-a-time name, pride and anger can’t understand that. I guess the case is pretty much settled. Let’s see the new EMD been restored to its glory by the guys who know how. Thumbs up UCKG!

Classy wrote:
Congratulation to Terry Wheeler who courageously spoke what everyone with common sense thinks about the EMD. Cllr Wheeler, pre-empting a planning decision, said the new church and community centre will be “more attractive, to particularly young people, than a modified cinema”. He said: “The only proposal I know will work is the UCKG church, they will restore it. What is the point in keeping this building full of dark and dingy spaces?” You see, one doesn’t need half brain to understand his statement. Only obscured minds such liked the ones of McGuffin fueled by an once-upon-a-time name, pride and anger can’t understand that. I guess the case is pretty much settled. Let’s see the new EMD been restored to its glory by the guys who know how. Thumbs up UCKG!

"the case is pretty much settled" Hmm...

You church people must know a bit about pride I think.

And what usually follows it...

Once AGAIN the evil head of religion has raised itself above the parapet and caused disharmony. A once beautiful 1930's building has been allowed to go to rack and ruin caused by a religious organisation who nobody REALLY wants in the area. This type of Church causes more trouble than good and I speak from personal experience of their bullying ways!!

Classy wrote:
Congratulation to Terry Wheeler who courageously spoke what everyone with common sense thinks about the EMD. Cllr Wheeler, pre-empting a planning decision, said the new church and community centre will be “more attractive, to particularly young people, than a modified cinema”. He said: “The only proposal I know will work is the UCKG church, they will restore it. What is the point in keeping this building full of dark and dingy spaces?” You see, one doesn’t need half brain to understand his statement. Only obscured minds such liked the ones of McGuffin fueled by an once-upon-a-time name, pride and anger can’t understand that. I guess the case is pretty much settled. Let’s see the new EMD been restored to its glory by the guys who know how. Thumbs up UCKG!

Ha Ha! Nice try Claridger / Huw Myles / Jackie Arnos / Solly Taesos / Fresh Gravee / Classy, but posting under all the aliases in the world will not make your anti-EMD or anti-McGuffin rantings seem any more widely held than they already are (in other words, only in your own head)!

My knowledge of profiling allows me to see very quickly that these postings under multi-aliases are really the work of one person. The clues are always there.

As I said before, nobody in their right mind is going to be fooled by your nonsense so why not give it up?

Classy wrote:
Congratulation to Terry Wheeler who courageously spoke what everyone with common sense thinks about the EMD. Cllr Wheeler, pre-empting a planning decision, said the new church and community centre will be “more attractive, to particularly young people, than a modified cinema”.
He said: “The only proposal I know will work is the UCKG church, they will restore it. What is the point in keeping this building full of dark and dingy spaces?”

You see, one doesn’t need half brain to understand his statement. Only obscured minds such liked the ones of McGuffin fueled by an once-upon-a-time name, pride and anger can’t understand that. I guess the case is pretty much settled. Let’s see the new EMD been restored to its glory by the guys who know how. Thumbs up UCKG!

WOOF! Is it time for walkies yet?

Lucifer1 wrote:

Classy wrote:
Congratulation to Terry Wheeler who courageously spoke what everyone with common sense thinks about the EMD. Cllr Wheeler, pre-empting a planning decision, said the new church and community centre will be “more attractive, to particularly young people, than a modified cinema”. He said: “The only proposal I know will work is the UCKG church, they will restore it. What is the point in keeping this building full of dark and dingy spaces?” You see, one doesn’t need half brain to understand his statement. Only obscured minds such liked the ones of McGuffin fueled by an once-upon-a-time name, pride and anger can’t understand that. I guess the case is pretty much settled. Let’s see the new EMD been restored to its glory by the guys who know how. Thumbs up UCKG!

Ha Ha! Nice try Claridger / Huw Myles / Jackie Arnos / Solly Taesos / Fresh Gravee / Classy, but posting under all the aliases in the world will not make your anti-EMD or anti-McGuffin rantings seem any more widely held than they already are (in other words, only in your own head)!

My knowledge of profiling allows me to see very quickly that these postings under multi-aliases are really the work of one person. The clues are always there.

As I said before, nobody in their right mind is going to be fooled by your nonsense so why not give it up?

Classy is not me. Me thinks paranoia lurking within. Just because somebody has a different view seems to set you off. The majority of Walthamstow are not interested in the EMD. 400 McGuffins turning out and subsequently with babies and toddlers is hardly a landslide.

Fresh Gravee wrote:

Lucifer1 wrote:

Classy wrote: Congratulation to Terry Wheeler who courageously spoke what everyone with common sense thinks about the EMD. Cllr Wheeler, pre-empting a planning decision, said the new church and community centre will be “more attractive, to particularly young people, than a modified cinema”. He said: “The only proposal I know will work is the UCKG church, they will restore it. What is the point in keeping this building full of dark and dingy spaces?” You see, one doesn’t need half brain to understand his statement. Only obscured minds such liked the ones of McGuffin fueled by an once-upon-a-time name, pride and anger can’t understand that. I guess the case is pretty much settled. Let’s see the new EMD been restored to its glory by the guys who know how. Thumbs up UCKG!

Ha Ha! Nice try Claridger / Huw Myles / Jackie Arnos / Solly Taesos / Fresh Gravee / Classy, but posting under all the aliases in the world will not make your anti-EMD or anti-McGuffin rantings seem any more widely held than they already are (in other words, only in your own head)! My knowledge of profiling allows me to see very quickly that these postings under multi-aliases are really the work of one person. The clues are always there. As I said before, nobody in their right mind is going to be fooled by your nonsense so why not give it up?

Classy is not me. Me thinks paranoia lurking within. Just because somebody has a different view seems to set you off. The majority of Walthamstow are not interested in the EMD. 400 McGuffins turning out and subsequently with babies and toddlers is hardly a landslide.

Er...no. Posting under several different aliases is a classic sign of paranoia.

You keep banging on about the "400 McGuffins" even though it has been proven that at least half of those at that meeting were not. You keep banging on about the McGuffins organising the kids demo, when it has been proven that it was nothing to do with them. A determination to avoid simple facts when they do not concur with your own private world is another classic sign of paranoia.

Whether or not the majority of Walthamstow are interested in the EMD is irrelevant. The vast majority of those who have expressed a view on the matter want it saved as a cinema. That is what representative democracy is all about.

How many Walthamstow residents have demonstrated in FAVOUR of a church? Answer: None.

'You keep banging on about the "400 McGuffins" even though it has been proven that at least half of those at that meeting were not. You keep banging on about the McGuffins organising the kids demo, when it has been proven that it was nothing to do with them' How was it proved? It was not at all proved. about 5 or 6 people posted on the story at the time that they were not McGuffins. Who were the other 394?

How was it proved that the kids had nothing to do with the parents?

The McGuffins seem so secretive, I would love to see the Minutes of their meetings in recent months if they keep minutes.

Just because I have a different view does not mean I have a vendetta against the McGuffins. On the contrary, I am being verbally and personally attacked because I express my views. BI have just picked and highlighted the gaping holes in their argument for keeping the cinema.

'Whether or not the majority of Walthamstow are interested in the EMD is irrelevant'

At least you concede this now. This has been my point precisely. The main drive behind the campaign to keep the cinema are the essentailly non-black McGuffins who claim 1000 Membership, only 394 turned out to protest. Hardly representative of Walthamstow's multicultural make up these days. At least it is now admitted that the only relevance to the campaign is that the McGuffins want it. Like I have been saying all along, it appears that the McGuffins want the Council to buy them their own Cinema with Taxpayers money in one of the worse recessions ever known.

Fresh Gravee wrote:
'You keep banging on about the "400 McGuffins" even though it has been proven that at least half of those at that meeting were not. You keep banging on about the McGuffins organising the kids demo, when it has been proven that it was nothing to do with them' How was it proved? It was not at all proved. about 5 or 6 people posted on the story at the time that they were not McGuffins. Who were the other 394? How was it proved that the kids had nothing to do with the parents? The McGuffins seem so secretive, I would love to see the Minutes of their meetings in recent months if they keep minutes. Just because I have a different view does not mean I have a vendetta against the McGuffins. On the contrary, I am being verbally and personally attacked because I express my views. BI have just picked and highlighted the gaping holes in their argument for keeping the cinema. 'Whether or not the majority of Walthamstow are interested in the EMD is irrelevant' At least you concede this now. This has been my point precisely. The main drive behind the campaign to keep the cinema are the essentailly non-black McGuffins who claim 1000 Membership, only 394 turned out to protest. Hardly representative of Walthamstow's multicultural make up these days. At least it is now admitted that the only relevance to the campaign is that the McGuffins want it. Like I have been saying all along, it appears that the McGuffins want the Council to buy them their own Cinema with Taxpayers money in one of the worse recessions ever known.

Ah.. I get it. You don't specially care whether the EMD is saved as a cinema or not. I was confused for a while by the fact that you keep shifting position between being ignorant and informed all the time without offering positive suggestions. Now, I see though that you are just using all these postings to stir up resentment against the McGuffins.

I hope if any of them read these posts that they can see this too.

You criticise them publicly while using aliases yourself.

You should be ashamed but you probably think you're clever.

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote: 'You keep banging on about the "400 McGuffins" even though it has been proven that at least half of those at that meeting were not. You keep banging on about the McGuffins organising the kids demo, when it has been proven that it was nothing to do with them' How was it proved? It was not at all proved. about 5 or 6 people posted on the story at the time that they were not McGuffins. Who were the other 394? How was it proved that the kids had nothing to do with the parents? The McGuffins seem so secretive, I would love to see the Minutes of their meetings in recent months if they keep minutes. Just because I have a different view does not mean I have a vendetta against the McGuffins. On the contrary, I am being verbally and personally attacked because I express my views. BI have just picked and highlighted the gaping holes in their argument for keeping the cinema. 'Whether or not the majority of Walthamstow are interested in the EMD is irrelevant' At least you concede this now. This has been my point precisely. The main drive behind the campaign to keep the cinema are the essentailly non-black McGuffins who claim 1000 Membership, only 394 turned out to protest. Hardly representative of Walthamstow's multicultural make up these days. At least it is now admitted that the only relevance to the campaign is that the McGuffins want it. Like I have been saying all along, it appears that the McGuffins want the Council to buy them their own Cinema with Taxpayers money in one of the worse recessions ever known.

Ah.. I get it. You don't specially care whether the EMD is saved as a cinema or not. I was confused for a while by the fact that you keep shifting position between being ignorant and informed all the time without offering positive suggestions. Now, I see though that you are just using all these postings to stir up resentment against the McGuffins. I hope if any of them read these posts that they can see this too. You criticise them publicly while using aliases yourself. You should be ashamed but you probably think you're clever.

So Mr E Number (your real name or an alias?)Another Pot calling the Kettle again, oh dear very obviously ridiculous!

I have always been for the cinema. I blame the Council for not securing the place for Walthamstow when it was on the open market. The should have acted quickly.

The reality which I accept now is that the matter is dead in the water as the Council will never succeed in any attempt to CPO it even if it wanted to. I am not a day dreamer or pipe dreamer and I do not wear cranberry tinted glasses. It will never happen. I have predicted what will happen all along and have bee entirely right to date. The council have thrown in the towel no and the plans will be accepted eventually by the Planning Inspector, if it gets that far.

If I am wrong, I will stand under the Big Screen in Walthamstow High Street and eat a big portion of Humble Pie.

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote: 'You keep banging on about the "400 McGuffins" even though it has been proven that at least half of those at that meeting were not. You keep banging on about the McGuffins organising the kids demo, when it has been proven that it was nothing to do with them' How was it proved? It was not at all proved. about 5 or 6 people posted on the story at the time that they were not McGuffins. Who were the other 394? How was it proved that the kids had nothing to do with the parents? The McGuffins seem so secretive, I would love to see the Minutes of their meetings in recent months if they keep minutes. Just because I have a different view does not mean I have a vendetta against the McGuffins. On the contrary, I am being verbally and personally attacked because I express my views. BI have just picked and highlighted the gaping holes in their argument for keeping the cinema. 'Whether or not the majority of Walthamstow are interested in the EMD is irrelevant' At least you concede this now. This has been my point precisely. The main drive behind the campaign to keep the cinema are the essentailly non-black McGuffins who claim 1000 Membership, only 394 turned out to protest. Hardly representative of Walthamstow's multicultural make up these days. At least it is now admitted that the only relevance to the campaign is that the McGuffins want it. Like I have been saying all along, it appears that the McGuffins want the Council to buy them their own Cinema with Taxpayers money in one of the worse recessions ever known.

Ah.. I get it. You don't specially care whether the EMD is saved as a cinema or not. I was confused for a while by the fact that you keep shifting position between being ignorant and informed all the time without offering positive suggestions. Now, I see though that you are just using all these postings to stir up resentment against the McGuffins. I hope if any of them read these posts that they can see this too. You criticise them publicly while using aliases yourself. You should be ashamed but you probably think you're clever.

So Mr E Number (your real name or an alias?)Another Pot calling the Kettle again, oh dear very obviously ridiculous! I have always been for the cinema. I blame the Council for not securing the place for Walthamstow when it was on the open market. The should have acted quickly. The reality which I accept now is that the matter is dead in the water as the Council will never succeed in any attempt to CPO it even if it wanted to. I am not a day dreamer or pipe dreamer and I do not wear cranberry tinted glasses. It will never happen. I have predicted what will happen all along and have bee entirely right to date. The council have thrown in the towel no and the plans will be accepted eventually by the Planning Inspector, if it gets that far. If I am wrong, I will stand under the Big Screen in Walthamstow High Street and eat a big portion of Humble Pie.

Nobody is objecting to your prediction that UCKG may eventually succeed in getting their plans through. To be honest, I am amazed that Walthamstow has been able to stand against this multi-million dollar organisation for as long as it has.

What I (and many others) find objectionable is your constant sniping at the people who have at least tried to save this important building for the entire population of the borough, rather than just those who happen to be members of UCKG.

The McGuffins have worked hard over the past few years, and do not deserve your sniping. From speaking with some of them, I also happen to know they have put a fair chunk of their own money into keeping the campaign going. If you think they are wasting their time, that is your opinion. But you have no right to attack them with unsubstantiated allegations as you have been doing. If you wish your opinion to be respected, then you in turn must respect the best efforts of others.

Remember, if UCKG win their case, and then renege on their promise of "community access" it will be the McGuffins who will have been proved right! I hope then you will have the good grace to admit it.

In the meantime, I and many others applaud them for continuing the fight.

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote: 'You keep banging on about the "400 McGuffins" even though it has been proven that at least half of those at that meeting were not. You keep banging on about the McGuffins organising the kids demo, when it has been proven that it was nothing to do with them' How was it proved? It was not at all proved. about 5 or 6 people posted on the story at the time that they were not McGuffins. Who were the other 394? How was it proved that the kids had nothing to do with the parents? The McGuffins seem so secretive, I would love to see the Minutes of their meetings in recent months if they keep minutes. Just because I have a different view does not mean I have a vendetta against the McGuffins. On the contrary, I am being verbally and personally attacked because I express my views. BI have just picked and highlighted the gaping holes in their argument for keeping the cinema. 'Whether or not the majority of Walthamstow are interested in the EMD is irrelevant' At least you concede this now. This has been my point precisely. The main drive behind the campaign to keep the cinema are the essentailly non-black McGuffins who claim 1000 Membership, only 394 turned out to protest. Hardly representative of Walthamstow's multicultural make up these days. At least it is now admitted that the only relevance to the campaign is that the McGuffins want it. Like I have been saying all along, it appears that the McGuffins want the Council to buy them their own Cinema with Taxpayers money in one of the worse recessions ever known.

Ah.. I get it. You don't specially care whether the EMD is saved as a cinema or not. I was confused for a while by the fact that you keep shifting position between being ignorant and informed all the time without offering positive suggestions. Now, I see though that you are just using all these postings to stir up resentment against the McGuffins. I hope if any of them read these posts that they can see this too. You criticise them publicly while using aliases yourself. You should be ashamed but you probably think you're clever.

So Mr E Number (your real name or an alias?)Another Pot calling the Kettle again, oh dear very obviously ridiculous! I have always been for the cinema. I blame the Council for not securing the place for Walthamstow when it was on the open market. The should have acted quickly. The reality which I accept now is that the matter is dead in the water as the Council will never succeed in any attempt to CPO it even if it wanted to. I am not a day dreamer or pipe dreamer and I do not wear cranberry tinted glasses. It will never happen. I have predicted what will happen all along and have bee entirely right to date. The council have thrown in the towel no and the plans will be accepted eventually by the Planning Inspector, if it gets that far. If I am wrong, I will stand under the Big Screen in Walthamstow High Street and eat a big portion of Humble Pie.

Nobody is objecting to your prediction that UCKG may eventually succeed in getting their plans through. To be honest, I am amazed that Walthamstow has been able to stand against this multi-million dollar organisation for as long as it has.

What I (and many others) find objectionable is your constant sniping at the people who have at least tried to save this important building for the entire population of the borough, rather than just those who happen to be members of UCKG.

The McGuffins have worked hard over the past few years, and do not deserve your sniping. From speaking with some of them, I also happen to know they have put a fair chunk of their own money into keeping the campaign going. If you think they are wasting their time, that is your opinion. But you have no right to attack them with unsubstantiated allegations as you have been doing. If you wish your opinion to be respected, then you in turn must respect the best efforts of others.

Remember, if UCKG win their case, and then renege on their promise of "community access" it will be the McGuffins who will have been proved right! I hope then you will have the good grace to admit it.

In the meantime, I and many others applaud them for continuing the fight.

I in past postings have urged the McGuffins to aim now at monitoring the Church's commitment to the community angle of their application, in particular the cinema that will be incorporated within.

I feel that they would and could achieved more had they had a more professional and coordinated approach to this campaign. I have always supported creating a fund so that the Campaign could have been a serious player and contender to purchase the building (see other recent thread-one with the picture of Dalek).

I do actually support the efforts but unless the efforts are coordinated and handled professionally, it can all be a waste of time and energy.

Fresh Gravee wrote:

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote: 'You keep banging on about the "400 McGuffins" even though it has been proven that at least half of those at that meeting were not. You keep banging on about the McGuffins organising the kids demo, when it has been proven that it was nothing to do with them' How was it proved? It was not at all proved. about 5 or 6 people posted on the story at the time that they were not McGuffins. Who were the other 394? How was it proved that the kids had nothing to do with the parents? The McGuffins seem so secretive, I would love to see the Minutes of their meetings in recent months if they keep minutes. Just because I have a different view does not mean I have a vendetta against the McGuffins. On the contrary, I am being verbally and personally attacked because I express my views. BI have just picked and highlighted the gaping holes in their argument for keeping the cinema. 'Whether or not the majority of Walthamstow are interested in the EMD is irrelevant' At least you concede this now. This has been my point precisely. The main drive behind the campaign to keep the cinema are the essentailly non-black McGuffins who claim 1000 Membership, only 394 turned out to protest. Hardly representative of Walthamstow's multicultural make up these days. At least it is now admitted that the only relevance to the campaign is that the McGuffins want it. Like I have been saying all along, it appears that the McGuffins want the Council to buy them their own Cinema with Taxpayers money in one of the worse recessions ever known.

Ah.. I get it. You don't specially care whether the EMD is saved as a cinema or not. I was confused for a while by the fact that you keep shifting position between being ignorant and informed all the time without offering positive suggestions. Now, I see though that you are just using all these postings to stir up resentment against the McGuffins. I hope if any of them read these posts that they can see this too. You criticise them publicly while using aliases yourself. You should be ashamed but you probably think you're clever.

So Mr E Number (your real name or an alias?)Another Pot calling the Kettle again, oh dear very obviously ridiculous! I have always been for the cinema. I blame the Council for not securing the place for Walthamstow when it was on the open market. The should have acted quickly. The reality which I accept now is that the matter is dead in the water as the Council will never succeed in any attempt to CPO it even if it wanted to. I am not a day dreamer or pipe dreamer and I do not wear cranberry tinted glasses. It will never happen. I have predicted what will happen all along and have bee entirely right to date. The council have thrown in the towel no and the plans will be accepted eventually by the Planning Inspector, if it gets that far. If I am wrong, I will stand under the Big Screen in Walthamstow High Street and eat a big portion of Humble Pie.

Nobody is objecting to your prediction that UCKG may eventually succeed in getting their plans through. To be honest, I am amazed that Walthamstow has been able to stand against this multi-million dollar organisation for as long as it has. What I (and many others) find objectionable is your constant sniping at the people who have at least tried to save this important building for the entire population of the borough, rather than just those who happen to be members of UCKG. The McGuffins have worked hard over the past few years, and do not deserve your sniping. From speaking with some of them, I also happen to know they have put a fair chunk of their own money into keeping the campaign going. If you think they are wasting their time, that is your opinion. But you have no right to attack them with unsubstantiated allegations as you have been doing. If you wish your opinion to be respected, then you in turn must respect the best efforts of others. Remember, if UCKG win their case, and then renege on their promise of "community access" it will be the McGuffins who will have been proved right! I hope then you will have the good grace to admit it. In the meantime, I and many others applaud them for continuing the fight.

I in past postings have urged the McGuffins to aim now at monitoring the Church's commitment to the community angle of their application, in particular the cinema that will be incorporated within. I feel that they would and could achieved more had they had a more professional and coordinated approach to this campaign. I have always supported creating a fund so that the Campaign could have been a serious player and contender to purchase the building (see other recent thread-one with the picture of Dalek). I do actually support the efforts but unless the efforts are coordinated and handled professionally, it can all be a waste of time and energy.

But what do "they" have to do with you?

If you support the fight for the cinema - get involved. If you don't-then just perhaps respect those that do.

If you wanted to create a fund I presume you have already done so.

There must be a tidy sum there now which you will use to persuade the council to turn the cinema over to you.

So, according to your argument, we will have it back soon, won't we?

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote: 'You keep banging on about the "400 McGuffins" even though it has been proven that at least half of those at that meeting were not. You keep banging on about the McGuffins organising the kids demo, when it has been proven that it was nothing to do with them' How was it proved? It was not at all proved. about 5 or 6 people posted on the story at the time that they were not McGuffins. Who were the other 394? How was it proved that the kids had nothing to do with the parents? The McGuffins seem so secretive, I would love to see the Minutes of their meetings in recent months if they keep minutes. Just because I have a different view does not mean I have a vendetta against the McGuffins. On the contrary, I am being verbally and personally attacked because I express my views. BI have just picked and highlighted the gaping holes in their argument for keeping the cinema. 'Whether or not the majority of Walthamstow are interested in the EMD is irrelevant' At least you concede this now. This has been my point precisely. The main drive behind the campaign to keep the cinema are the essentailly non-black McGuffins who claim 1000 Membership, only 394 turned out to protest. Hardly representative of Walthamstow's multicultural make up these days. At least it is now admitted that the only relevance to the campaign is that the McGuffins want it. Like I have been saying all along, it appears that the McGuffins want the Council to buy them their own Cinema with Taxpayers money in one of the worse recessions ever known.

Ah.. I get it. You don't specially care whether the EMD is saved as a cinema or not. I was confused for a while by the fact that you keep shifting position between being ignorant and informed all the time without offering positive suggestions. Now, I see though that you are just using all these postings to stir up resentment against the McGuffins. I hope if any of them read these posts that they can see this too. You criticise them publicly while using aliases yourself. You should be ashamed but you probably think you're clever.

So Mr E Number (your real name or an alias?)Another Pot calling the Kettle again, oh dear very obviously ridiculous! I have always been for the cinema. I blame the Council for not securing the place for Walthamstow when it was on the open market. The should have acted quickly. The reality which I accept now is that the matter is dead in the water as the Council will never succeed in any attempt to CPO it even if it wanted to. I am not a day dreamer or pipe dreamer and I do not wear cranberry tinted glasses. It will never happen. I have predicted what will happen all along and have bee entirely right to date. The council have thrown in the towel no and the plans will be accepted eventually by the Planning Inspector, if it gets that far. If I am wrong, I will stand under the Big Screen in Walthamstow High Street and eat a big portion of Humble Pie.

Nobody is objecting to your prediction that UCKG may eventually succeed in getting their plans through. To be honest, I am amazed that Walthamstow has been able to stand against this multi-million dollar organisation for as long as it has. What I (and many others) find objectionable is your constant sniping at the people who have at least tried to save this important building for the entire population of the borough, rather than just those who happen to be members of UCKG. The McGuffins have worked hard over the past few years, and do not deserve your sniping. From speaking with some of them, I also happen to know they have put a fair chunk of their own money into keeping the campaign going. If you think they are wasting their time, that is your opinion. But you have no right to attack them with unsubstantiated allegations as you have been doing. If you wish your opinion to be respected, then you in turn must respect the best efforts of others. Remember, if UCKG win their case, and then renege on their promise of "community access" it will be the McGuffins who will have been proved right! I hope then you will have the good grace to admit it. In the meantime, I and many others applaud them for continuing the fight.

I in past postings have urged the McGuffins to aim now at monitoring the Church's commitment to the community angle of their application, in particular the cinema that will be incorporated within. I feel that they would and could achieved more had they had a more professional and coordinated approach to this campaign. I have always supported creating a fund so that the Campaign could have been a serious player and contender to purchase the building (see other recent thread-one with the picture of Dalek). I do actually support the efforts but unless the efforts are coordinated and handled professionally, it can all be a waste of time and energy.

But what do "they" have to do with you?

If you support the fight for the cinema - get involved. If you don't-then just perhaps respect those that do.

If you wanted to create a fund I presume you have already done so.

There must be a tidy sum there now which you will use to persuade the council to turn the cinema over to you.

So, according to your argument, we will have it back soon, won't we?

From the outset,the McGuffins led a feeble campaign that nobody, the Church or Council has taken seriously. Money not Dalek and baby demo's result in action.

Had they set up a fighting fund, it would have been a focal point and in the years since the Church bought it, a lot of cash could have been raised. Is there any mechanism in place if someone like Mick Jaggar wanted to donate to a Cinema Appeal. I bet not. What are people asked to do? Donate to the McGuffins? What happens then?

It has been a wasted chance of many years. Very sad.

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote: 'You keep banging on about the "400 McGuffins" even though it has been proven that at least half of those at that meeting were not. You keep banging on about the McGuffins organising the kids demo, when it has been proven that it was nothing to do with them' How was it proved? It was not at all proved. about 5 or 6 people posted on the story at the time that they were not McGuffins. Who were the other 394? How was it proved that the kids had nothing to do with the parents? The McGuffins seem so secretive, I would love to see the Minutes of their meetings in recent months if they keep minutes. Just because I have a different view does not mean I have a vendetta against the McGuffins. On the contrary, I am being verbally and personally attacked because I express my views. BI have just picked and highlighted the gaping holes in their argument for keeping the cinema. 'Whether or not the majority of Walthamstow are interested in the EMD is irrelevant' At least you concede this now. This has been my point precisely. The main drive behind the campaign to keep the cinema are the essentailly non-black McGuffins who claim 1000 Membership, only 394 turned out to protest. Hardly representative of Walthamstow's multicultural make up these days. At least it is now admitted that the only relevance to the campaign is that the McGuffins want it. Like I have been saying all along, it appears that the McGuffins want the Council to buy them their own Cinema with Taxpayers money in one of the worse recessions ever known.

Ah.. I get it. You don't specially care whether the EMD is saved as a cinema or not. I was confused for a while by the fact that you keep shifting position between being ignorant and informed all the time without offering positive suggestions. Now, I see though that you are just using all these postings to stir up resentment against the McGuffins. I hope if any of them read these posts that they can see this too. You criticise them publicly while using aliases yourself. You should be ashamed but you probably think you're clever.

So Mr E Number (your real name or an alias?)Another Pot calling the Kettle again, oh dear very obviously ridiculous! I have always been for the cinema. I blame the Council for not securing the place for Walthamstow when it was on the open market. The should have acted quickly. The reality which I accept now is that the matter is dead in the water as the Council will never succeed in any attempt to CPO it even if it wanted to. I am not a day dreamer or pipe dreamer and I do not wear cranberry tinted glasses. It will never happen. I have predicted what will happen all along and have bee entirely right to date. The council have thrown in the towel no and the plans will be accepted eventually by the Planning Inspector, if it gets that far. If I am wrong, I will stand under the Big Screen in Walthamstow High Street and eat a big portion of Humble Pie.

Nobody is objecting to your prediction that UCKG may eventually succeed in getting their plans through. To be honest, I am amazed that Walthamstow has been able to stand against this multi-million dollar organisation for as long as it has. What I (and many others) find objectionable is your constant sniping at the people who have at least tried to save this important building for the entire population of the borough, rather than just those who happen to be members of UCKG. The McGuffins have worked hard over the past few years, and do not deserve your sniping. From speaking with some of them, I also happen to know they have put a fair chunk of their own money into keeping the campaign going. If you think they are wasting their time, that is your opinion. But you have no right to attack them with unsubstantiated allegations as you have been doing. If you wish your opinion to be respected, then you in turn must respect the best efforts of others. Remember, if UCKG win their case, and then renege on their promise of "community access" it will be the McGuffins who will have been proved right! I hope then you will have the good grace to admit it. In the meantime, I and many others applaud them for continuing the fight.

I in past postings have urged the McGuffins to aim now at monitoring the Church's commitment to the community angle of their application, in particular the cinema that will be incorporated within. I feel that they would and could achieved more had they had a more professional and coordinated approach to this campaign. I have always supported creating a fund so that the Campaign could have been a serious player and contender to purchase the building (see other recent thread-one with the picture of Dalek). I do actually support the efforts but unless the efforts are coordinated and handled professionally, it can all be a waste of time and energy.

But what do "they" have to do with you? If you support the fight for the cinema - get involved. If you don't-then just perhaps respect those that do. If you wanted to create a fund I presume you have already done so. There must be a tidy sum there now which you will use to persuade the council to turn the cinema over to you. So, according to your argument, we will have it back soon, won't we?

From the outset,the McGuffins led a feeble campaign that nobody, the Church or Council has taken seriously. Money not Dalek and baby demo's result in action. Had they set up a fighting fund, it would have been a focal point and in the years since the Church bought it, a lot of cash could have been raised. Is there any mechanism in place if someone like Mick Jaggar wanted to donate to a Cinema Appeal. I bet not. What are people asked to do? Donate to the McGuffins? What happens then? It has been a wasted chance of many years. Very sad.

If you wanted so badly to see a fighting fund set up, why did you not organise it yourself?

From what I can see, the McGuffins have done the best they could. Have you thought that if you or whoever had started such a fund, that the McGuffins would almost certainly have supported it?

It is blatantly unfair to leave everything to them, and then snipe at them for not taking the course you wanted.

Don't criticise others for not doing what you could not be bothered to do yourself.

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote: 'You keep banging on about the "400 McGuffins" even though it has been proven that at least half of those at that meeting were not. You keep banging on about the McGuffins organising the kids demo, when it has been proven that it was nothing to do with them' How was it proved? It was not at all proved. about 5 or 6 people posted on the story at the time that they were not McGuffins. Who were the other 394? How was it proved that the kids had nothing to do with the parents? The McGuffins seem so secretive, I would love to see the Minutes of their meetings in recent months if they keep minutes. Just because I have a different view does not mean I have a vendetta against the McGuffins. On the contrary, I am being verbally and personally attacked because I express my views. BI have just picked and highlighted the gaping holes in their argument for keeping the cinema. 'Whether or not the majority of Walthamstow are interested in the EMD is irrelevant' At least you concede this now. This has been my point precisely. The main drive behind the campaign to keep the cinema are the essentailly non-black McGuffins who claim 1000 Membership, only 394 turned out to protest. Hardly representative of Walthamstow's multicultural make up these days. At least it is now admitted that the only relevance to the campaign is that the McGuffins want it. Like I have been saying all along, it appears that the McGuffins want the Council to buy them their own Cinema with Taxpayers money in one of the worse recessions ever known.

Ah.. I get it. You don't specially care whether the EMD is saved as a cinema or not. I was confused for a while by the fact that you keep shifting position between being ignorant and informed all the time without offering positive suggestions. Now, I see though that you are just using all these postings to stir up resentment against the McGuffins. I hope if any of them read these posts that they can see this too. You criticise them publicly while using aliases yourself. You should be ashamed but you probably think you're clever.

So Mr E Number (your real name or an alias?)Another Pot calling the Kettle again, oh dear very obviously ridiculous! I have always been for the cinema. I blame the Council for not securing the place for Walthamstow when it was on the open market. The should have acted quickly. The reality which I accept now is that the matter is dead in the water as the Council will never succeed in any attempt to CPO it even if it wanted to. I am not a day dreamer or pipe dreamer and I do not wear cranberry tinted glasses. It will never happen. I have predicted what will happen all along and have bee entirely right to date. The council have thrown in the towel no and the plans will be accepted eventually by the Planning Inspector, if it gets that far. If I am wrong, I will stand under the Big Screen in Walthamstow High Street and eat a big portion of Humble Pie.

Nobody is objecting to your prediction that UCKG may eventually succeed in getting their plans through. To be honest, I am amazed that Walthamstow has been able to stand against this multi-million dollar organisation for as long as it has. What I (and many others) find objectionable is your constant sniping at the people who have at least tried to save this important building for the entire population of the borough, rather than just those who happen to be members of UCKG. The McGuffins have worked hard over the past few years, and do not deserve your sniping. From speaking with some of them, I also happen to know they have put a fair chunk of their own money into keeping the campaign going. If you think they are wasting their time, that is your opinion. But you have no right to attack them with unsubstantiated allegations as you have been doing. If you wish your opinion to be respected, then you in turn must respect the best efforts of others. Remember, if UCKG win their case, and then renege on their promise of "community access" it will be the McGuffins who will have been proved right! I hope then you will have the good grace to admit it. In the meantime, I and many others applaud them for continuing the fight.

I in past postings have urged the McGuffins to aim now at monitoring the Church's commitment to the community angle of their application, in particular the cinema that will be incorporated within. I feel that they would and could achieved more had they had a more professional and coordinated approach to this campaign. I have always supported creating a fund so that the Campaign could have been a serious player and contender to purchase the building (see other recent thread-one with the picture of Dalek). I do actually support the efforts but unless the efforts are coordinated and handled professionally, it can all be a waste of time and energy.

But what do "they" have to do with you? If you support the fight for the cinema - get involved. If you don't-then just perhaps respect those that do. If you wanted to create a fund I presume you have already done so. There must be a tidy sum there now which you will use to persuade the council to turn the cinema over to you. So, according to your argument, we will have it back soon, won't we?

From the outset,the McGuffins led a feeble campaign that nobody, the Church or Council has taken seriously. Money not Dalek and baby demo's result in action. Had they set up a fighting fund, it would have been a focal point and in the years since the Church bought it, a lot of cash could have been raised. Is there any mechanism in place if someone like Mick Jaggar wanted to donate to a Cinema Appeal. I bet not. What are people asked to do? Donate to the McGuffins? What happens then? It has been a wasted chance of many years. Very sad.

If you wanted so badly to see a fighting fund set up, why did you not organise it yourself? From what I can see, the McGuffins have done the best they could. Have you thought that if you or whoever had started such a fund, that the McGuffins would almost certainly have supported it? It is blatantly unfair to leave everything to them, and then snipe at them for not taking the course you wanted. Don't criticise others for not doing what you could not be bothered to do yourself.

The campaign has been going for a long time so I expect all those sort of options would have been discussed.

But whatever the Mcguffins did or didn't decide it makes no difference to you does it?

Nothing to stop you taking any action you wanted but you couldn't be bothered and preferred to just snipe at others.

It's very cheap and shabby really.

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote: 'You keep banging on about the "400 McGuffins" even though it has been proven that at least half of those at that meeting were not. You keep banging on about the McGuffins organising the kids demo, when it has been proven that it was nothing to do with them' How was it proved? It was not at all proved. about 5 or 6 people posted on the story at the time that they were not McGuffins. Who were the other 394? How was it proved that the kids had nothing to do with the parents? The McGuffins seem so secretive, I would love to see the Minutes of their meetings in recent months if they keep minutes. Just because I have a different view does not mean I have a vendetta against the McGuffins. On the contrary, I am being verbally and personally attacked because I express my views. BI have just picked and highlighted the gaping holes in their argument for keeping the cinema. 'Whether or not the majority of Walthamstow are interested in the EMD is irrelevant' At least you concede this now. This has been my point precisely. The main drive behind the campaign to keep the cinema are the essentailly non-black McGuffins who claim 1000 Membership, only 394 turned out to protest. Hardly representative of Walthamstow's multicultural make up these days. At least it is now admitted that the only relevance to the campaign is that the McGuffins want it. Like I have been saying all along, it appears that the McGuffins want the Council to buy them their own Cinema with Taxpayers money in one of the worse recessions ever known.

Ah.. I get it. You don't specially care whether the EMD is saved as a cinema or not. I was confused for a while by the fact that you keep shifting position between being ignorant and informed all the time without offering positive suggestions. Now, I see though that you are just using all these postings to stir up resentment against the McGuffins. I hope if any of them read these posts that they can see this too. You criticise them publicly while using aliases yourself. You should be ashamed but you probably think you're clever.

So Mr E Number (your real name or an alias?)Another Pot calling the Kettle again, oh dear very obviously ridiculous! I have always been for the cinema. I blame the Council for not securing the place for Walthamstow when it was on the open market. The should have acted quickly. The reality which I accept now is that the matter is dead in the water as the Council will never succeed in any attempt to CPO it even if it wanted to. I am not a day dreamer or pipe dreamer and I do not wear cranberry tinted glasses. It will never happen. I have predicted what will happen all along and have bee entirely right to date. The council have thrown in the towel no and the plans will be accepted eventually by the Planning Inspector, if it gets that far. If I am wrong, I will stand under the Big Screen in Walthamstow High Street and eat a big portion of Humble Pie.

Nobody is objecting to your prediction that UCKG may eventually succeed in getting their plans through. To be honest, I am amazed that Walthamstow has been able to stand against this multi-million dollar organisation for as long as it has. What I (and many others) find objectionable is your constant sniping at the people who have at least tried to save this important building for the entire population of the borough, rather than just those who happen to be members of UCKG. The McGuffins have worked hard over the past few years, and do not deserve your sniping. From speaking with some of them, I also happen to know they have put a fair chunk of their own money into keeping the campaign going. If you think they are wasting their time, that is your opinion. But you have no right to attack them with unsubstantiated allegations as you have been doing. If you wish your opinion to be respected, then you in turn must respect the best efforts of others. Remember, if UCKG win their case, and then renege on their promise of "community access" it will be the McGuffins who will have been proved right! I hope then you will have the good grace to admit it. In the meantime, I and many others applaud them for continuing the fight.

I in past postings have urged the McGuffins to aim now at monitoring the Church's commitment to the community angle of their application, in particular the cinema that will be incorporated within. I feel that they would and could achieved more had they had a more professional and coordinated approach to this campaign. I have always supported creating a fund so that the Campaign could have been a serious player and contender to purchase the building (see other recent thread-one with the picture of Dalek). I do actually support the efforts but unless the efforts are coordinated and handled professionally, it can all be a waste of time and energy.

But what do "they" have to do with you? If you support the fight for the cinema - get involved. If you don't-then just perhaps respect those that do. If you wanted to create a fund I presume you have already done so. There must be a tidy sum there now which you will use to persuade the council to turn the cinema over to you. So, according to your argument, we will have it back soon, won't we?

From the outset,the McGuffins led a feeble campaign that nobody, the Church or Council has taken seriously. Money not Dalek and baby demo's result in action. Had they set up a fighting fund, it would have been a focal point and in the years since the Church bought it, a lot of cash could have been raised. Is there any mechanism in place if someone like Mick Jaggar wanted to donate to a Cinema Appeal. I bet not. What are people asked to do? Donate to the McGuffins? What happens then? It has been a wasted chance of many years. Very sad.

If you wanted so badly to see a fighting fund set up, why did you not organise it yourself?

From what I can see, the McGuffins have done the best they could. Have you thought that if you or whoever had started such a fund, that the McGuffins would almost certainly have supported it?

It is blatantly unfair to leave everything to them, and then snipe at them for not taking the course you wanted.

Don't criticise others for not doing what you could not be bothered to do yourself.

They took up the cause and gave false hope and have achieved nothing at all in saving the cinema and blocked out any other group or individual. Failed miserably. Darleks and Demo's with kids were an irrelevance.

A sound professional approach from the start, possibly could have resulted in a different approach from the council.

Money was needed, not hot air.

E-number wrote:

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote: 'You keep banging on about the "400 McGuffins" even though it has been proven that at least half of those at that meeting were not. You keep banging on about the McGuffins organising the kids demo, when it has been proven that it was nothing to do with them' How was it proved? It was not at all proved. about 5 or 6 people posted on the story at the time that they were not McGuffins. Who were the other 394? How was it proved that the kids had nothing to do with the parents? The McGuffins seem so secretive, I would love to see the Minutes of their meetings in recent months if they keep minutes. Just because I have a different view does not mean I have a vendetta against the McGuffins. On the contrary, I am being verbally and personally attacked because I express my views. BI have just picked and highlighted the gaping holes in their argument for keeping the cinema. 'Whether or not the majority of Walthamstow are interested in the EMD is irrelevant' At least you concede this now. This has been my point precisely. The main drive behind the campaign to keep the cinema are the essentailly non-black McGuffins who claim 1000 Membership, only 394 turned out to protest. Hardly representative of Walthamstow's multicultural make up these days. At least it is now admitted that the only relevance to the campaign is that the McGuffins want it. Like I have been saying all along, it appears that the McGuffins want the Council to buy them their own Cinema with Taxpayers money in one of the worse recessions ever known.

Ah.. I get it. You don't specially care whether the EMD is saved as a cinema or not. I was confused for a while by the fact that you keep shifting position between being ignorant and informed all the time without offering positive suggestions. Now, I see though that you are just using all these postings to stir up resentment against the McGuffins. I hope if any of them read these posts that they can see this too. You criticise them publicly while using aliases yourself. You should be ashamed but you probably think you're clever.

So Mr E Number (your real name or an alias?)Another Pot calling the Kettle again, oh dear very obviously ridiculous! I have always been for the cinema. I blame the Council for not securing the place for Walthamstow when it was on the open market. The should have acted quickly. The reality which I accept now is that the matter is dead in the water as the Council will never succeed in any attempt to CPO it even if it wanted to. I am not a day dreamer or pipe dreamer and I do not wear cranberry tinted glasses. It will never happen. I have predicted what will happen all along and have bee entirely right to date. The council have thrown in the towel no and the plans will be accepted eventually by the Planning Inspector, if it gets that far. If I am wrong, I will stand under the Big Screen in Walthamstow High Street and eat a big portion of Humble Pie.

Nobody is objecting to your prediction that UCKG may eventually succeed in getting their plans through. To be honest, I am amazed that Walthamstow has been able to stand against this multi-million dollar organisation for as long as it has. What I (and many others) find objectionable is your constant sniping at the people who have at least tried to save this important building for the entire population of the borough, rather than just those who happen to be members of UCKG. The McGuffins have worked hard over the past few years, and do not deserve your sniping. From speaking with some of them, I also happen to know they have put a fair chunk of their own money into keeping the campaign going. If you think they are wasting their time, that is your opinion. But you have no right to attack them with unsubstantiated allegations as you have been doing. If you wish your opinion to be respected, then you in turn must respect the best efforts of others. Remember, if UCKG win their case, and then renege on their promise of "community access" it will be the McGuffins who will have been proved right! I hope then you will have the good grace to admit it. In the meantime, I and many others applaud them for continuing the fight.

I in past postings have urged the McGuffins to aim now at monitoring the Church's commitment to the community angle of their application, in particular the cinema that will be incorporated within. I feel that they would and could achieved more had they had a more professional and coordinated approach to this campaign. I have always supported creating a fund so that the Campaign could have been a serious player and contender to purchase the building (see other recent thread-one with the picture of Dalek). I do actually support the efforts but unless the efforts are coordinated and handled professionally, it can all be a waste of time and energy.

But what do "they" have to do with you? If you support the fight for the cinema - get involved. If you don't-then just perhaps respect those that do. If you wanted to create a fund I presume you have already done so. There must be a tidy sum there now which you will use to persuade the council to turn the cinema over to you. So, according to your argument, we will have it back soon, won't we?

From the outset,the McGuffins led a feeble campaign that nobody, the Church or Council has taken seriously. Money not Dalek and baby demo's result in action. Had they set up a fighting fund, it would have been a focal point and in the years since the Church bought it, a lot of cash could have been raised. Is there any mechanism in place if someone like Mick Jaggar wanted to donate to a Cinema Appeal. I bet not. What are people asked to do? Donate to the McGuffins? What happens then? It has been a wasted chance of many years. Very sad.

If you wanted so badly to see a fighting fund set up, why did you not organise it yourself? From what I can see, the McGuffins have done the best they could. Have you thought that if you or whoever had started such a fund, that the McGuffins would almost certainly have supported it? It is blatantly unfair to leave everything to them, and then snipe at them for not taking the course you wanted. Don't criticise others for not doing what you could not be bothered to do yourself.

The campaign has been going for a long time so I expect all those sort of options would have been discussed.

But whatever the Mcguffins did or didn't decide it makes no difference to you does it?

Nothing to stop you taking any action you wanted but you couldn't be bothered and preferred to just snipe at others.

It's very cheap and shabby really.

Yes the campaign has been going a long time but has achieved nothing except alienation of the Church who own the building and now a hostile attitude from the council who cannot take the campaign seriously when there is no substance financially in place. It is ok demonstrating with babies, toddlers and darleks but how about a serious approach where funds would be generated from grants, businesses, charities, established organisations, all boosted by the famous people allegedly supporting the campaign? All the false hopes and speculation have come to nothing.

I feel that if the McGuffins maintain their inflexible and rigid approach the possibiliy of a Cinema on the Arcade will be lost also.

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote: 'You keep banging on about the "400 McGuffins" even though it has been proven that at least half of those at that meeting were not. You keep banging on about the McGuffins organising the kids demo, when it has been proven that it was nothing to do with them' How was it proved? It was not at all proved. about 5 or 6 people posted on the story at the time that they were not McGuffins. Who were the other 394? How was it proved that the kids had nothing to do with the parents? The McGuffins seem so secretive, I would love to see the Minutes of their meetings in recent months if they keep minutes. Just because I have a different view does not mean I have a vendetta against the McGuffins. On the contrary, I am being verbally and personally attacked because I express my views. BI have just picked and highlighted the gaping holes in their argument for keeping the cinema. 'Whether or not the majority of Walthamstow are interested in the EMD is irrelevant' At least you concede this now. This has been my point precisely. The main drive behind the campaign to keep the cinema are the essentailly non-black McGuffins who claim 1000 Membership, only 394 turned out to protest. Hardly representative of Walthamstow's multicultural make up these days. At least it is now admitted that the only relevance to the campaign is that the McGuffins want it. Like I have been saying all along, it appears that the McGuffins want the Council to buy them their own Cinema with Taxpayers money in one of the worse recessions ever known.

Ah.. I get it. You don't specially care whether the EMD is saved as a cinema or not. I was confused for a while by the fact that you keep shifting position between being ignorant and informed all the time without offering positive suggestions. Now, I see though that you are just using all these postings to stir up resentment against the McGuffins. I hope if any of them read these posts that they can see this too. You criticise them publicly while using aliases yourself. You should be ashamed but you probably think you're clever.

So Mr E Number (your real name or an alias?)Another Pot calling the Kettle again, oh dear very obviously ridiculous! I have always been for the cinema. I blame the Council for not securing the place for Walthamstow when it was on the open market. The should have acted quickly. The reality which I accept now is that the matter is dead in the water as the Council will never succeed in any attempt to CPO it even if it wanted to. I am not a day dreamer or pipe dreamer and I do not wear cranberry tinted glasses. It will never happen. I have predicted what will happen all along and have bee entirely right to date. The council have thrown in the towel no and the plans will be accepted eventually by the Planning Inspector, if it gets that far. If I am wrong, I will stand under the Big Screen in Walthamstow High Street and eat a big portion of Humble Pie.

Nobody is objecting to your prediction that UCKG may eventually succeed in getting their plans through. To be honest, I am amazed that Walthamstow has been able to stand against this multi-million dollar organisation for as long as it has. What I (and many others) find objectionable is your constant sniping at the people who have at least tried to save this important building for the entire population of the borough, rather than just those who happen to be members of UCKG. The McGuffins have worked hard over the past few years, and do not deserve your sniping. From speaking with some of them, I also happen to know they have put a fair chunk of their own money into keeping the campaign going. If you think they are wasting their time, that is your opinion. But you have no right to attack them with unsubstantiated allegations as you have been doing. If you wish your opinion to be respected, then you in turn must respect the best efforts of others. Remember, if UCKG win their case, and then renege on their promise of "community access" it will be the McGuffins who will have been proved right! I hope then you will have the good grace to admit it. In the meantime, I and many others applaud them for continuing the fight.

I in past postings have urged the McGuffins to aim now at monitoring the Church's commitment to the community angle of their application, in particular the cinema that will be incorporated within. I feel that they would and could achieved more had they had a more professional and coordinated approach to this campaign. I have always supported creating a fund so that the Campaign could have been a serious player and contender to purchase the building (see other recent thread-one with the picture of Dalek). I do actually support the efforts but unless the efforts are coordinated and handled professionally, it can all be a waste of time and energy.

But what do "they" have to do with you? If you support the fight for the cinema - get involved. If you don't-then just perhaps respect those that do. If you wanted to create a fund I presume you have already done so. There must be a tidy sum there now which you will use to persuade the council to turn the cinema over to you. So, according to your argument, we will have it back soon, won't we?

From the outset,the McGuffins led a feeble campaign that nobody, the Church or Council has taken seriously. Money not Dalek and baby demo's result in action. Had they set up a fighting fund, it would have been a focal point and in the years since the Church bought it, a lot of cash could have been raised. Is there any mechanism in place if someone like Mick Jaggar wanted to donate to a Cinema Appeal. I bet not. What are people asked to do? Donate to the McGuffins? What happens then? It has been a wasted chance of many years. Very sad.

If you wanted so badly to see a fighting fund set up, why did you not organise it yourself? From what I can see, the McGuffins have done the best they could. Have you thought that if you or whoever had started such a fund, that the McGuffins would almost certainly have supported it? It is blatantly unfair to leave everything to them, and then snipe at them for not taking the course you wanted. Don't criticise others for not doing what you could not be bothered to do yourself.

The campaign has been going for a long time so I expect all those sort of options would have been discussed. But whatever the Mcguffins did or didn't decide it makes no difference to you does it? Nothing to stop you taking any action you wanted but you couldn't be bothered and preferred to just snipe at others. It's very cheap and shabby really.

Yes the campaign has been going a long time but has achieved nothing except alienation of the Church who own the building and now a hostile attitude from the council who cannot take the campaign seriously when there is no substance financially in place. It is ok demonstrating with babies, toddlers and darleks but how about a serious approach where funds would be generated from grants, businesses, charities, established organisations, all boosted by the famous people allegedly supporting the campaign? All the false hopes and speculation have come to nothing. I feel that if the McGuffins maintain their inflexible and rigid approach the possibiliy of a Cinema on the Arcade will be lost also.

As I said on my other post - you should use all this energy in a positive way. Help out the William Morris people. Delight us all with your success.

I can't see any reason why it wouldn't work. The gallery is a council-owned building and the council are probably longing to be shot of responsibility for it.
They won't be obstructive will they? No intransigent private owners to deal with.

It would be a very popular move. Everyone would get involved I'm sure.

And then that would be an excellent model for us all to follow in the future.

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote: 'You keep banging on about the "400 McGuffins" even though it has been proven that at least half of those at that meeting were not. You keep banging on about the McGuffins organising the kids demo, when it has been proven that it was nothing to do with them' How was it proved? It was not at all proved. about 5 or 6 people posted on the story at the time that they were not McGuffins. Who were the other 394? How was it proved that the kids had nothing to do with the parents? The McGuffins seem so secretive, I would love to see the Minutes of their meetings in recent months if they keep minutes. Just because I have a different view does not mean I have a vendetta against the McGuffins. On the contrary, I am being verbally and personally attacked because I express my views. BI have just picked and highlighted the gaping holes in their argument for keeping the cinema. 'Whether or not the majority of Walthamstow are interested in the EMD is irrelevant' At least you concede this now. This has been my point precisely. The main drive behind the campaign to keep the cinema are the essentailly non-black McGuffins who claim 1000 Membership, only 394 turned out to protest. Hardly representative of Walthamstow's multicultural make up these days. At least it is now admitted that the only relevance to the campaign is that the McGuffins want it. Like I have been saying all along, it appears that the McGuffins want the Council to buy them their own Cinema with Taxpayers money in one of the worse recessions ever known.

Ah.. I get it. You don't specially care whether the EMD is saved as a cinema or not. I was confused for a while by the fact that you keep shifting position between being ignorant and informed all the time without offering positive suggestions. Now, I see though that you are just using all these postings to stir up resentment against the McGuffins. I hope if any of them read these posts that they can see this too. You criticise them publicly while using aliases yourself. You should be ashamed but you probably think you're clever.

So Mr E Number (your real name or an alias?)Another Pot calling the Kettle again, oh dear very obviously ridiculous! I have always been for the cinema. I blame the Council for not securing the place for Walthamstow when it was on the open market. The should have acted quickly. The reality which I accept now is that the matter is dead in the water as the Council will never succeed in any attempt to CPO it even if it wanted to. I am not a day dreamer or pipe dreamer and I do not wear cranberry tinted glasses. It will never happen. I have predicted what will happen all along and have bee entirely right to date. The council have thrown in the towel no and the plans will be accepted eventually by the Planning Inspector, if it gets that far. If I am wrong, I will stand under the Big Screen in Walthamstow High Street and eat a big portion of Humble Pie.

Nobody is objecting to your prediction that UCKG may eventually succeed in getting their plans through. To be honest, I am amazed that Walthamstow has been able to stand against this multi-million dollar organisation for as long as it has. What I (and many others) find objectionable is your constant sniping at the people who have at least tried to save this important building for the entire population of the borough, rather than just those who happen to be members of UCKG. The McGuffins have worked hard over the past few years, and do not deserve your sniping. From speaking with some of them, I also happen to know they have put a fair chunk of their own money into keeping the campaign going. If you think they are wasting their time, that is your opinion. But you have no right to attack them with unsubstantiated allegations as you have been doing. If you wish your opinion to be respected, then you in turn must respect the best efforts of others. Remember, if UCKG win their case, and then renege on their promise of "community access" it will be the McGuffins who will have been proved right! I hope then you will have the good grace to admit it. In the meantime, I and many others applaud them for continuing the fight.

I in past postings have urged the McGuffins to aim now at monitoring the Church's commitment to the community angle of their application, in particular the cinema that will be incorporated within. I feel that they would and could achieved more had they had a more professional and coordinated approach to this campaign. I have always supported creating a fund so that the Campaign could have been a serious player and contender to purchase the building (see other recent thread-one with the picture of Dalek). I do actually support the efforts but unless the efforts are coordinated and handled professionally, it can all be a waste of time and energy.

But what do "they" have to do with you? If you support the fight for the cinema - get involved. If you don't-then just perhaps respect those that do. If you wanted to create a fund I presume you have already done so. There must be a tidy sum there now which you will use to persuade the council to turn the cinema over to you. So, according to your argument, we will have it back soon, won't we?

From the outset,the McGuffins led a feeble campaign that nobody, the Church or Council has taken seriously. Money not Dalek and baby demo's result in action. Had they set up a fighting fund, it would have been a focal point and in the years since the Church bought it, a lot of cash could have been raised. Is there any mechanism in place if someone like Mick Jaggar wanted to donate to a Cinema Appeal. I bet not. What are people asked to do? Donate to the McGuffins? What happens then? It has been a wasted chance of many years. Very sad.

If you wanted so badly to see a fighting fund set up, why did you not organise it yourself? From what I can see, the McGuffins have done the best they could. Have you thought that if you or whoever had started such a fund, that the McGuffins would almost certainly have supported it? It is blatantly unfair to leave everything to them, and then snipe at them for not taking the course you wanted. Don't criticise others for not doing what you could not be bothered to do yourself.

The campaign has been going for a long time so I expect all those sort of options would have been discussed. But whatever the Mcguffins did or didn't decide it makes no difference to you does it? Nothing to stop you taking any action you wanted but you couldn't be bothered and preferred to just snipe at others. It's very cheap and shabby really.

Yes the campaign has been going a long time but has achieved nothing except alienation of the Church who own the building and now a hostile attitude from the council who cannot take the campaign seriously when there is no substance financially in place. It is ok demonstrating with babies, toddlers and darleks but how about a serious approach where funds would be generated from grants, businesses, charities, established organisations, all boosted by the famous people allegedly supporting the campaign? All the false hopes and speculation have come to nothing. I feel that if the McGuffins maintain their inflexible and rigid approach the possibiliy of a Cinema on the Arcade will be lost also.

As I said on my other post - you should use all this energy in a positive way. Help out the William Morris people. Delight us all with your success.

I can't see any reason why it wouldn't work. The gallery is a council-owned building and the council are probably longing to be shot of responsibility for it.
They won't be obstructive will they? No intransigent private owners to deal with.

It would be a very popular move. Everyone would get involved I'm sure.

And then that would be an excellent model for us all to follow in the future.

I can make a donation. Where can I send the money to?

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote: 'You keep banging on about the "400 McGuffins" even though it has been proven that at least half of those at that meeting were not. You keep banging on about the McGuffins organising the kids demo, when it has been proven that it was nothing to do with them' How was it proved? It was not at all proved. about 5 or 6 people posted on the story at the time that they were not McGuffins. Who were the other 394? How was it proved that the kids had nothing to do with the parents? The McGuffins seem so secretive, I would love to see the Minutes of their meetings in recent months if they keep minutes. Just because I have a different view does not mean I have a vendetta against the McGuffins. On the contrary, I am being verbally and personally attacked because I express my views. BI have just picked and highlighted the gaping holes in their argument for keeping the cinema. 'Whether or not the majority of Walthamstow are interested in the EMD is irrelevant' At least you concede this now. This has been my point precisely. The main drive behind the campaign to keep the cinema are the essentailly non-black McGuffins who claim 1000 Membership, only 394 turned out to protest. Hardly representative of Walthamstow's multicultural make up these days. At least it is now admitted that the only relevance to the campaign is that the McGuffins want it. Like I have been saying all along, it appears that the McGuffins want the Council to buy them their own Cinema with Taxpayers money in one of the worse recessions ever known.

Ah.. I get it. You don't specially care whether the EMD is saved as a cinema or not. I was confused for a while by the fact that you keep shifting position between being ignorant and informed all the time without offering positive suggestions. Now, I see though that you are just using all these postings to stir up resentment against the McGuffins. I hope if any of them read these posts that they can see this too. You criticise them publicly while using aliases yourself. You should be ashamed but you probably think you're clever.

So Mr E Number (your real name or an alias?)Another Pot calling the Kettle again, oh dear very obviously ridiculous! I have always been for the cinema. I blame the Council for not securing the place for Walthamstow when it was on the open market. The should have acted quickly. The reality which I accept now is that the matter is dead in the water as the Council will never succeed in any attempt to CPO it even if it wanted to. I am not a day dreamer or pipe dreamer and I do not wear cranberry tinted glasses. It will never happen. I have predicted what will happen all along and have bee entirely right to date. The council have thrown in the towel no and the plans will be accepted eventually by the Planning Inspector, if it gets that far. If I am wrong, I will stand under the Big Screen in Walthamstow High Street and eat a big portion of Humble Pie.

Nobody is objecting to your prediction that UCKG may eventually succeed in getting their plans through. To be honest, I am amazed that Walthamstow has been able to stand against this multi-million dollar organisation for as long as it has. What I (and many others) find objectionable is your constant sniping at the people who have at least tried to save this important building for the entire population of the borough, rather than just those who happen to be members of UCKG. The McGuffins have worked hard over the past few years, and do not deserve your sniping. From speaking with some of them, I also happen to know they have put a fair chunk of their own money into keeping the campaign going. If you think they are wasting their time, that is your opinion. But you have no right to attack them with unsubstantiated allegations as you have been doing. If you wish your opinion to be respected, then you in turn must respect the best efforts of others. Remember, if UCKG win their case, and then renege on their promise of "community access" it will be the McGuffins who will have been proved right! I hope then you will have the good grace to admit it. In the meantime, I and many others applaud them for continuing the fight.

I in past postings have urged the McGuffins to aim now at monitoring the Church's commitment to the community angle of their application, in particular the cinema that will be incorporated within. I feel that they would and could achieved more had they had a more professional and coordinated approach to this campaign. I have always supported creating a fund so that the Campaign could have been a serious player and contender to purchase the building (see other recent thread-one with the picture of Dalek). I do actually support the efforts but unless the efforts are coordinated and handled professionally, it can all be a waste of time and energy.

But what do "they" have to do with you? If you support the fight for the cinema - get involved. If you don't-then just perhaps respect those that do. If you wanted to create a fund I presume you have already done so. There must be a tidy sum there now which you will use to persuade the council to turn the cinema over to you. So, according to your argument, we will have it back soon, won't we?

From the outset,the McGuffins led a feeble campaign that nobody, the Church or Council has taken seriously. Money not Dalek and baby demo's result in action. Had they set up a fighting fund, it would have been a focal point and in the years since the Church bought it, a lot of cash could have been raised. Is there any mechanism in place if someone like Mick Jaggar wanted to donate to a Cinema Appeal. I bet not. What are people asked to do? Donate to the McGuffins? What happens then? It has been a wasted chance of many years. Very sad.

If you wanted so badly to see a fighting fund set up, why did you not organise it yourself? From what I can see, the McGuffins have done the best they could. Have you thought that if you or whoever had started such a fund, that the McGuffins would almost certainly have supported it? It is blatantly unfair to leave everything to them, and then snipe at them for not taking the course you wanted. Don't criticise others for not doing what you could not be bothered to do yourself.

The campaign has been going for a long time so I expect all those sort of options would have been discussed. But whatever the Mcguffins did or didn't decide it makes no difference to you does it? Nothing to stop you taking any action you wanted but you couldn't be bothered and preferred to just snipe at others. It's very cheap and shabby really.

Yes the campaign has been going a long time but has achieved nothing except alienation of the Church who own the building and now a hostile attitude from the council who cannot take the campaign seriously when there is no substance financially in place. It is ok demonstrating with babies, toddlers and darleks but how about a serious approach where funds would be generated from grants, businesses, charities, established organisations, all boosted by the famous people allegedly supporting the campaign? All the false hopes and speculation have come to nothing. I feel that if the McGuffins maintain their inflexible and rigid approach the possibiliy of a Cinema on the Arcade will be lost also.

As I said on my other post - you should use all this energy in a positive way. Help out the William Morris people. Delight us all with your success. I can't see any reason why it wouldn't work. The gallery is a council-owned building and the council are probably longing to be shot of responsibility for it. They won't be obstructive will they? No intransigent private owners to deal with. It would be a very popular move. Everyone would get involved I'm sure. And then that would be an excellent model for us all to follow in the future.

I can make a donation. Where can I send the money to?

I have no idea. I'm sure you can find out for yourself. But why stop at a donation?

Give your time and get properly involved. I'm sure we'd all thank you for it.

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote: 'You keep banging on about the "400 McGuffins" even though it has been proven that at least half of those at that meeting were not. You keep banging on about the McGuffins organising the kids demo, when it has been proven that it was nothing to do with them' How was it proved? It was not at all proved. about 5 or 6 people posted on the story at the time that they were not McGuffins. Who were the other 394? How was it proved that the kids had nothing to do with the parents? The McGuffins seem so secretive, I would love to see the Minutes of their meetings in recent months if they keep minutes. Just because I have a different view does not mean I have a vendetta against the McGuffins. On the contrary, I am being verbally and personally attacked because I express my views. BI have just picked and highlighted the gaping holes in their argument for keeping the cinema. 'Whether or not the majority of Walthamstow are interested in the EMD is irrelevant' At least you concede this now. This has been my point precisely. The main drive behind the campaign to keep the cinema are the essentailly non-black McGuffins who claim 1000 Membership, only 394 turned out to protest. Hardly representative of Walthamstow's multicultural make up these days. At least it is now admitted that the only relevance to the campaign is that the McGuffins want it. Like I have been saying all along, it appears that the McGuffins want the Council to buy them their own Cinema with Taxpayers money in one of the worse recessions ever known.

Ah.. I get it. You don't specially care whether the EMD is saved as a cinema or not. I was confused for a while by the fact that you keep shifting position between being ignorant and informed all the time without offering positive suggestions. Now, I see though that you are just using all these postings to stir up resentment against the McGuffins. I hope if any of them read these posts that they can see this too. You criticise them publicly while using aliases yourself. You should be ashamed but you probably think you're clever.

So Mr E Number (your real name or an alias?)Another Pot calling the Kettle again, oh dear very obviously ridiculous! I have always been for the cinema. I blame the Council for not securing the place for Walthamstow when it was on the open market. The should have acted quickly. The reality which I accept now is that the matter is dead in the water as the Council will never succeed in any attempt to CPO it even if it wanted to. I am not a day dreamer or pipe dreamer and I do not wear cranberry tinted glasses. It will never happen. I have predicted what will happen all along and have bee entirely right to date. The council have thrown in the towel no and the plans will be accepted eventually by the Planning Inspector, if it gets that far. If I am wrong, I will stand under the Big Screen in Walthamstow High Street and eat a big portion of Humble Pie.

Nobody is objecting to your prediction that UCKG may eventually succeed in getting their plans through. To be honest, I am amazed that Walthamstow has been able to stand against this multi-million dollar organisation for as long as it has. What I (and many others) find objectionable is your constant sniping at the people who have at least tried to save this important building for the entire population of the borough, rather than just those who happen to be members of UCKG. The McGuffins have worked hard over the past few years, and do not deserve your sniping. From speaking with some of them, I also happen to know they have put a fair chunk of their own money into keeping the campaign going. If you think they are wasting their time, that is your opinion. But you have no right to attack them with unsubstantiated allegations as you have been doing. If you wish your opinion to be respected, then you in turn must respect the best efforts of others. Remember, if UCKG win their case, and then renege on their promise of "community access" it will be the McGuffins who will have been proved right! I hope then you will have the good grace to admit it. In the meantime, I and many others applaud them for continuing the fight.

I in past postings have urged the McGuffins to aim now at monitoring the Church's commitment to the community angle of their application, in particular the cinema that will be incorporated within. I feel that they would and could achieved more had they had a more professional and coordinated approach to this campaign. I have always supported creating a fund so that the Campaign could have been a serious player and contender to purchase the building (see other recent thread-one with the picture of Dalek). I do actually support the efforts but unless the efforts are coordinated and handled professionally, it can all be a waste of time and energy.

But what do "they" have to do with you? If you support the fight for the cinema - get involved. If you don't-then just perhaps respect those that do. If you wanted to create a fund I presume you have already done so. There must be a tidy sum there now which you will use to persuade the council to turn the cinema over to you. So, according to your argument, we will have it back soon, won't we?

From the outset,the McGuffins led a feeble campaign that nobody, the Church or Council has taken seriously. Money not Dalek and baby demo's result in action. Had they set up a fighting fund, it would have been a focal point and in the years since the Church bought it, a lot of cash could have been raised. Is there any mechanism in place if someone like Mick Jaggar wanted to donate to a Cinema Appeal. I bet not. What are people asked to do? Donate to the McGuffins? What happens then? It has been a wasted chance of many years. Very sad.

If you wanted so badly to see a fighting fund set up, why did you not organise it yourself? From what I can see, the McGuffins have done the best they could. Have you thought that if you or whoever had started such a fund, that the McGuffins would almost certainly have supported it? It is blatantly unfair to leave everything to them, and then snipe at them for not taking the course you wanted. Don't criticise others for not doing what you could not be bothered to do yourself.

The campaign has been going for a long time so I expect all those sort of options would have been discussed. But whatever the Mcguffins did or didn't decide it makes no difference to you does it? Nothing to stop you taking any action you wanted but you couldn't be bothered and preferred to just snipe at others. It's very cheap and shabby really.

Yes the campaign has been going a long time but has achieved nothing except alienation of the Church who own the building and now a hostile attitude from the council who cannot take the campaign seriously when there is no substance financially in place. It is ok demonstrating with babies, toddlers and darleks but how about a serious approach where funds would be generated from grants, businesses, charities, established organisations, all boosted by the famous people allegedly supporting the campaign? All the false hopes and speculation have come to nothing. I feel that if the McGuffins maintain their inflexible and rigid approach the possibiliy of a Cinema on the Arcade will be lost also.

As I said on my other post - you should use all this energy in a positive way. Help out the William Morris people. Delight us all with your success. I can't see any reason why it wouldn't work. The gallery is a council-owned building and the council are probably longing to be shot of responsibility for it. They won't be obstructive will they? No intransigent private owners to deal with. It would be a very popular move. Everyone would get involved I'm sure. And then that would be an excellent model for us all to follow in the future.

I can make a donation. Where can I send the money to?

I have no idea. I'm sure you can find out for yourself. But why stop at a donation?

Give your time and get properly involved. I'm sure we'd all thank you for it.

That is hardly the encouragement to generate funds 'find out for yourself'.

How do you know that I am not involved or maintain a keen interest?

Some people involve themselves in voluntary work and charity without wanting praise for it. There is a bible passage somewhere which basically says, that it would be better for a man who does charitable deeds who then tells everyone how good he has been, not to have done the deeds at all.

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

Lucifer1 wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote:

E-number wrote:

Fresh Gravee wrote: 'You keep banging on about the "400 McGuffins" even though it has been proven that at least half of those at that meeting were not. You keep banging on about the McGuffins organising the kids demo, when it has been proven that it was nothing to do with them' How was it proved? It was not at all proved. about 5 or 6 people posted on the story at the time that they were not McGuffins. Who were the other 394? How was it proved that the kids had nothing to do with the parents? The McGuffins seem so secretive, I would love to see the Minutes of their meetings in recent months if they keep minutes. Just because I have a different view does not mean I have a vendetta against the McGuffins. On the contrary, I am being verbally and personally attacked because I express my views. BI have just picked and highlighted the gaping holes in their argument for keeping the cinema. 'Whether or not the majority of Walthamstow are interested in the EMD is irrelevant' At least you concede this now. This has been my point precisely. The main drive behind the campaign to keep the cinema are the essentailly non-black McGuffins who claim 1000 Membership, only 394 turned out to protest. Hardly representative of Walthamstow's multicultural make up these days. At least it is now admitted that the only relevance to the campaign is that the McGuffins want it. Like I have been saying all along, it appears that the McGuffins want the Council to buy them their own Cinema with Taxpayers money in one of the worse recessions ever known.

Ah.. I get it. You don't specially care whether the EMD is saved as a cinema or not. I was confused for a while by the fact that you keep shifting position between being ignorant and informed all the time without offering positive suggestions. Now, I see though that you are just using all these postings to stir up resentment against the McGuffins. I hope if any of them read these posts that they can see this too. You criticise them publicly while using aliases yourself. You should be ashamed but you probably think you're clever.

So Mr E Number (your real name or an alias?)Another Pot calling the Kettle again, oh dear very obviously ridiculous! I have always been for the cinema. I blame the Council for not securing the place for Walthamstow when it was on the open market. The should have acted quickly. The reality which I accept now is that the matter is dead in the water as the Council will never succeed in any attempt to CPO it even if it wanted to. I am not a day dreamer or pipe dreamer and I do not wear cranberry tinted glasses. It will never happen. I have predicted what will happen all along and have bee entirely right to date. The council have thrown in the towel no and the plans will be accepted eventually by the Planning Inspector, if it gets that far. If I am wrong, I will stand under the Big Screen in Walthamstow High Street and eat a big portion of Humble Pie.

Nobody is objecting to your prediction that UCKG may eventually succeed in getting their plans through. To be honest, I am amazed that Walthamstow has been able to stand against this multi-million dollar organisation for as long as it has. What I (and many others) find objectionable is your constant sniping at the people who have at least tried to save this important building for the entire population of the borough, rather than just those who happen to be members of UCKG. The McGuffins have worked hard over the past few years, and do not deserve your sniping. From speaking with some of them, I also happen to know they have put a fair chunk of their own money into keeping the campaign going. If you think they are wasting their time, that is your opinion. But you have no right to attack them with unsubstantiated allegations as you have been doing. If you wish your opinion to be respected, then you in turn must respect the best efforts of others. Remember, if UCKG win their case, and then renege on their promise of "community access" it will be the McGuffins who will have been proved right! I hope then you will have the good grace to admit it. In the meantime, I and many others applaud them for continuing the fight.

I in past postings have urged the McGuffins to aim now at monitoring the Church's commitment to the community angle of their application, in particular the cinema that will be incorporated within. I feel that they would and could achieved more had they had a more professional and coordinated approach to this campaign. I have always supported creating a fund so that the Campaign could have been a serious player and contender to purchase the building (see other recent thread-one with the picture of Dalek). I do actually support the efforts but unless the efforts are coordinated and handled professionally, it can all be a waste of time and energy.

But what do "they" have to do with you? If you support the fight for the cinema - get involved. If you don't-then just perhaps respect those that do. If you wanted to create a fund I presume you have already done so. There must be a tidy sum there now which you will use to persuade the council to turn the cinema over to you. So, according to your argument, we will have it back soon, won't we?

From the outset,the McGuffins led a feeble campaign that nobody, the Church or Council has taken seriously. Money not Dalek and baby demo's result in action. Had they set up a fighting fund, it would have been a focal point and in the years since the Church bought it, a lot of cash could have been raised. Is there any mechanism in place if someone like Mick Jaggar wanted to donate to a Cinema Appeal. I bet not. What are people asked to do? Donate to the McGuffins? What happens then? It has been a wasted chance of many years. Very sad.

If you wanted so badly to see a fighting fund set up, why did you not organise it yourself? From what I can see, the McGuffins have done the best they could. Have you thought that if you or whoever had started such a fund, that the McGuffins would almost certainly have supported it? It is blatantly unfair to leave everything to them, and then snipe at them for not taking the course you wanted. Don't criticise others for not doing what you could not be bothered to do yourself.

The campaign has been going for a long time so I expect all those sort of options would have been discussed. But whatever the Mcguffins did or didn't decide it makes no difference to you does it? Nothing to stop you taking any action you wanted but you couldn't be bothered and preferred to just snipe at others. It's very cheap and shabby really.

Yes the campaign has been going a long time but has achieved nothing except alienation of the Church who own the building and now a hostile attitude from the council who cannot take the campaign seriously when there is no substance financially in place. It is ok demonstrating with babies, toddlers and darleks but how about a serious approach where funds would be generated from grants, businesses, charities, established organisations, all boosted by the famous people allegedly supporting the campaign? All the false hopes and speculation have come to nothing. I feel that if the McGuffins maintain their inflexible and rigid approach the possibiliy of a Cinema on the Arcade will be lost also.

As I said on my other post - you should use all this energy in a positive way. Help out the William Morris people. Delight us all with your success. I can't see any reason why it wouldn't work. The gallery is a council-owned building and the council are probably longing to be shot of responsibility for it. They won't be obstructive will they? No intransigent private owners to deal with. It would be a very popular move. Everyone would get involved I'm sure. And then that would be an excellent model for us all to follow in the future.

I can make a donation. Where can I send the money to?

I have no idea. I'm sure you can find out for yourself. But why stop at a donation?

Give your time and get properly involved. I'm sure we'd all thank you for it.

That is hardly the encouragement to generate funds 'find out for yourself'.

How do you know that I am not involved or maintain a keen interest?

Some people involve themselves in voluntary work and charity without wanting praise for it. There is a bible passage somewhere which basically says, that it would be better for a man who does charitable deeds who then tells everyone how good he has been, not to have done the deeds at all.

some more info on UCKG..please see the other news articles with my response postings on this subject...
http://www.brooklynr
ail.org/2005/07/expr
ess/report-from-braz
il-i-dark-clouds-sur
roun