WALTHAMSTOW: "Tell us where you stand on EMD" - Creasy challenges rivals (From East London and West Essex Guardian Series)

Wow, if this is her main concern in this economic unrest, it says an awful lot about how useless she will be if elected. Better looking than that haggered, worn out Gerrard though.

Hardly fair on Stella, Maurice - get her weekly newsletter to see what she's up to (it's a lot more than just trying to save the EMD).

And she's right on the issue - while her and Neil have both publicly backed the campaign to save the EMD, there's been very little indeed from Lib Dem or Tory candidates or sitting MPs. Shame on them.

As to how big an issue it is? It's one of the key buildings in central Walthamstow, the main town centre in the borough. And we have a choice of getting a cinema back there, adding to the nighttime economy the counci's so keen on, and helping regenerate the area, or a church - which when inspected in Finsbury Park was found to add little to the local economy.

In short, you're wrong.

But I am told that the Church owns it so how can they force them to sell it? Why do they not just rescue the organ?
There are great buildings elswhere that have been raised to the ground even the Old Hitchcock Studios next to the old Pioneer store they pulled that down and where was she then? At school?

This Old Hitchcock Studio seems to be a bit of a moving target, Mr S: where exactly do you mean?
The whole EMD is listed, and the church have visibly failed in their legal duty to care for it. The Council's response by way of enforcement has been..what, precisely?

mdj wrote:
This Old Hitchcock Studio seems to be a bit of a moving target, Mr S: where exactly do you mean?
The whole EMD is listed, and the church have visibly failed in their legal duty to care for it. The Council's response by way of enforcement has been..what, precisely?

They just seem to have left the Old Film Director down. He made most of his roots and films here and I ask where is the commemoration for him? Even the South Africans wanted to put his statue up at his old birthplace in whipp cross road but was tossed aside by Loakes and Gerrard. I hope the attractive Miss Creasy will see sense and let them put up a statue. Woodford Green put Churchill up let them do Hitchcock please.

Maurice, you really take the biscuit. Hitchcock did not make "most of his films here". In fact, he didn't make any of his films here. You just don't seem able to grasp simple facts.

And you position on the EMD appears to be that the organ should be saved and the rest knocked down. That's no way to treat a listed building - even the UCKG isn't proposing that.

Maurice says: The Church owns it so how can they force them to sell it?"
It's called a Compulsory Purchase Order. The council can use it to force the purchase of the building and sell it on. Equally, they could have slapped the UCKG with an urgents works notice to sort out the building years ago.

"There are great buildings elswhere that have been raised to the ground. Where was she then? At school?"

Possibly - Stella is young. But what's your point exactly?

Helen, Walthamstow wrote:
Maurice, you really take the biscuit. Hitchcock did not make "most of his films here". In fact, he didn't make any of his films here. You just don't seem able to grasp simple facts.

And you position on the EMD appears to be that the organ should be saved and the rest knocked down. That's no way to treat a listed building - even the UCKG isn't proposing that.

I want to save the lot like everyone else but if that Church owns it we are up the creek now so lets rescue the organ and put it where it belongs in the Organ Museum somewhere up North. I think you will find that Hitchcock was a big influence in the area, he has the tunnel under Leytonstone all tiled over with his face for a starters so please do your research and keep up to date. The Hitchcock Pub is reputed to have been his birth place and the Loakes and Gerrard refused a Statue I am told because a lot of his films gratified the abuse of women and had too much blood and guts and were deemed sexist for this generation and the Liberal Democrates were also put off by the idea but I thought it would have been a lasting and fitting tribute to honour this great man. If they put a statue up there of the jade Goody I bet people would ever love or hate it but I would like to see it so Gerrard can put that in his pipe and smoke it.

Maurice, do you ever actually read anything or take in any factual information? Or do you prefer just to go on in your own daft way?

Once and for all, Hitchcock was not born in the Hitchcock pub or Whipps Cross Road , nor did he live there. He was born over his
father's greengrocery shop in Leytonstone High Road, near Harrow Green, and lived there until his father died when he (Alfred that is) was 14 when the family moved out of Leytonstone.

Could you try, just for once, concentrating on the story and not on your own fantasies.

This is about Ms Creasy's attempts to get the other parties to come out with their views about the cinema which, please note in case you're thinking of setting off on another of your false trails, was not built until Hitchcock was a successful director living well away from Waltham Forest.

Helen, Walthamstow wrote:
Maurice, do you ever actually read anything or take in any factual information? Or do you prefer just to go on in your own daft way?

Once and for all, Hitchcock was not born in the Hitchcock pub or Whipps Cross Road , nor did he live there. He was born over his
father's greengrocery shop in Leytonstone High Road, near Harrow Green, and lived there until his father died when he (Alfred that is) was 14 when the family moved out of Leytonstone.

Could you try, just for once, concentrating on the story and not on your own fantasies.

This is about Ms Creasy's attempts to get the other parties to come out with their views about the cinema which, please note in case you're thinking of setting off on another of your false trails, was not built until Hitchcock was a successful director living well away from Waltham Forest.

I wish you would not split hairs Madam, essential he was and he made an awful lot of films with his childhood horrors in mind with the bad memories he had of the area and it has not changed that much to date with the crime and so on.

He may have been born at Harrow Green (above the what is now the Pie and Mash Emporium but I think he either stayed at the Hitchcock Hotel when I think it was Whipps Cross Hotel and Tea Room (servicing the ponds opposite) or a relative owned it. Either way the South Africans want to erect an effigy of him as a lasting memorial, unlike the Pile of Bricks Statue commemorating the road going through Leytonstone or the Jonathan Ross and Frank Muir matters around the Borough or that actress who uses to be in the programme about young sexually active Solicitors, Thats Life or What Life I think it was called.

I wish you would just take pride in your area Helen and stop knocking it or come to Ilford and see the wonders of valentine Park and the Shopping Mall and stop being so anti-everything?

Don't be fooled, people. "Maurice Stoker" is simply Claridger / Huw Myles / Fresh Gravee under yet another alias.

Whenever there is an EMD-related story, we know he is going to comment under some name or other. As soon as he uses the "church owns it" argument he gives the game away.

Totally agree, Lucifer. The trouble is that Maurice (etc) gives out oodles of false information and other people who don't know the area well might actually believe his burblings and fake "facts". His inventiveness knows no ends. Yet in a previous incarnation, he claimed to be an expert on Hitchcock!

You may have noticed that he is not an expert on the cinema either, nor on whose constituency the Hitchcock pub is located.

Neil Gerrard and Stella Creasy have been campaigning to save the cinema (in the the Walthamstow constituency) since it was first closed. They have nothing whatsoever to so with the Hitchcock Hotel which is in the Leyton and Wanstead constituency.

Lucifer1 wrote:
Don't be fooled, people. "Maurice Stoker" is simply Claridger / Huw Myles / Fresh Gravee under yet another alias.

Whenever there is an EMD-related story, we know he is going to comment under some name or other. As soon as he uses the "church owns it" argument he gives the game away.

But the Church do own it do they not?

I have no idea what you refer to but I must say that I feel that some of you prefer to wear the rose tinted or even cranberry tinted spectacles to avoid facing the reality that unless something is done other than parading scared children in public dressed in crazed outfits the organ cannot be saved. I am prepared to contribute a small amount of money to hire a vehicle for the day with an electric tail gate. we should try and reason with the Church of the loving people and rescue the organ by possibly saying that we can house it in the Museum somewhere up North for rescued organs. Only then can we sit back on the Laurels and be satisfied that the job is done at least and that we have at least saved the old music maker from being flattened like the Arcade next door and be another place for people to hang about. I urge all people to sign a petition and rescue the organ at least and hand in the protest document to the man in charge wherever he is based.
If it does get saved a Pie and Mash Premises could be opened to provide Economy Meals for the Poor, Needy and disgruntled of Walthamstow Central. They could do a lashing of liquor special. Stewed Eels, sandwiches and the pannini bread for the interval with popcorn and it could be like the Victorian era again with carriages at midnight parked on the Arcade Site and without the Traffic wardens of doom.

The cinema can be bought without the consent of the UCKG. As PsiMonk pointed out, the council can put a Compulsory Purchase Order or CPO on it.

The council promised to do this some years back but have not done it. The council has also failed to carry out its duty to enforce repairs and maintenance of the cinema as a listed building.

A CPO is the obvious solution, and is also the answer to the damage caused to the structure by the UCKG's neglect over the years.

Then the council gets our money back by selling the cinema to one of the chains that want to buy and reopen it.

Maurice may now add lots of nonsense and woffle to try to confuse people, but these are the simple facts.

Very simple arguments you have put Sir.

So simple you have missed out an awful lot of important and relevant information and have implied that the solution is easy and that a CPO is like picking a grape.

How can the Council justify buying the Cinema using hard pressed Council Tax Payers money in one of the worse recessions in 200 years?

How can they Justify spending the said money on a CPO when the Church bought the place in good faith. You make it sound simple and you are Naive in thinking that the Church will let LBWF take their property with out a lengthy battle through the Courts. Who will fund this Court Case that could cost over a million pounds? The chances that the would win are slim as a wafer.

How can the LBWF justify such extravagance for a private film club attended by predominately a white membership and for an area that has drastically changed in recent years to a predominately multi-cultural population? The campaigners have not raised a shekel towards the campaign funds and just want hard working Council taxpayers to fund the lot.

How can the Council justify spending this money when they have an ever increasing house waiting list, failing schools, and a growing elderly population in dire need of care.

The campaigning lobby group are living in cloud cuckoo land if they ever think that there is a glimmer of hope in the EMD ever being a picture house again.

You have expressed your total ignorance in saying that the Council would buy it and sell it to a Cinema Chain. It would be far more of a business arrangement if a Cinema Group would be contractually tied to a deal and put the money up for the council. Anyone with any economic sense of business would see this and the reason that there is nothing on the table is because there are no interested parties and that any slight interest was expressed many moons ago before the economy nose-dived. It will never happen now and the best thing that anyone could do is to rescue the organ and take it to the organ museum.

The Church will have a Church in place before the Olympics. Watch this space.

The campaign has failed to save it because nobody could take it seriously as there was no money on the table. the ridiculous campaigning in outfits meant that nobody would take it seriously.

Maurice Stoker wrote:
Very simple arguments you have put Sir. So simple you have missed out an awful lot of important and relevant information and have implied that the solution is easy and that a CPO is like picking a grape. How can the Council justify buying the Cinema using hard pressed Council Tax Payers money in one of the worse recessions in 200 years? How can they Justify spending the said money on a CPO when the Church bought the place in good faith. You make it sound simple and you are Naive in thinking that the Church will let LBWF take their property with out a lengthy battle through the Courts. Who will fund this Court Case that could cost over a million pounds? The chances that the would win are slim as a wafer. How can the LBWF justify such extravagance for a private film club attended by predominately a white membership and for an area that has drastically changed in recent years to a predominately multi-cultural population? The campaigners have not raised a shekel towards the campaign funds and just want hard working Council taxpayers to fund the lot. How can the Council justify spending this money when they have an ever increasing house waiting list, failing schools, and a growing elderly population in dire need of care. The campaigning lobby group are living in cloud cuckoo land if they ever think that there is a glimmer of hope in the EMD ever being a picture house again. You have expressed your total ignorance in saying that the Council would buy it and sell it to a Cinema Chain. It would be far more of a business arrangement if a Cinema Group would be contractually tied to a deal and put the money up for the council. Anyone with any economic sense of business would see this and the reason that there is nothing on the table is because there are no interested parties and that any slight interest was expressed many moons ago before the economy nose-dived. It will never happen now and the best thing that anyone could do is to rescue the organ and take it to the organ museum. The Church will have a Church in place before the Olympics. Watch this space. The campaign has failed to save it because nobody could take it seriously as there was no money on the table. the ridiculous campaigning in outfits meant that nobody would take it seriously.

Normally I would ignore your rantings, but just for the hell of it I will demolish your arguments:


"How can the Council justify buying the Cinema using hard pressed Council Tax Payers money in one of the worse recessions in 200 years?"

Presumably the same way they can 'justify' spending £45 million of hard pressed Council Tax Payers money on a development at the Arcade that nobody wants. I don't hear you complaining about that. I wonder why? Anyway, the EMD could be CPO'd for a tiny fraction of that amount and even that would be recouped by selling the building on to one of the cinema operators who have expressed an interest.


"How can they Justify spending the said money on a CPO when the Church bought the place in good faith?"

Good faith is meaningless. Ever heard of the legal term 'caveat emptor'? In any case, would you be making the same 'good faith' argument if the building was owned by the UK branch of the Ku Klux Klan?


"How can the LBWF justify such extravagance for a private film club attended by predominately a white membership and for an area that has drastically changed in recent years to a predominately multi-cultural population?"

It would be for the benefit of the entire borough, not a 'private film club' as you well know. The fact that you need to constantly use this smokescreen is proof that your arguments have no merit. Be careful before bringing race into the equation. UCKG is a predominantly black organisation. Will you be complaining about this too?


"The campaigners have not raised a shekel towards the campaign funds"

Eh? Then where the hell have the campaign funds come from??


"It would be far more of a business arrangement if a Cinema Group would be contractually tied to a deal and put the money up for the council."

If the council was to put a CPO on the building (which would be for the market value rather than the inflated price that UCKG would undoubtedly ask) a cinema operator would be happy to put up the money.


"the reason that there is nothing on the table is because there are no interested parties"


Actually, UCKG have now admitted they have received TWELVE separate offers for the building. Where is your "no interested parties" argument now?

As Walthamster said above, I'm sure you will come back with more half-truths and general waffle designed to confuse people. Well, at least it provides us with a little comic relief.

Lucifer1 wrote:

Maurice Stoker wrote:
Very simple arguments you have put Sir. So simple you have missed out an awful lot of important and relevant information and have implied that the solution is easy and that a CPO is like picking a grape. How can the Council justify buying the Cinema using hard pressed Council Tax Payers money in one of the worse recessions in 200 years? How can they Justify spending the said money on a CPO when the Church bought the place in good faith. You make it sound simple and you are Naive in thinking that the Church will let LBWF take their property with out a lengthy battle through the Courts. Who will fund this Court Case that could cost over a million pounds? The chances that the would win are slim as a wafer. How can the LBWF justify such extravagance for a private film club attended by predominately a white membership and for an area that has drastically changed in recent years to a predominately multi-cultural population? The campaigners have not raised a shekel towards the campaign funds and just want hard working Council taxpayers to fund the lot. How can the Council justify spending this money when they have an ever increasing house waiting list, failing schools, and a growing elderly population in dire need of care. The campaigning lobby group are living in cloud cuckoo land if they ever think that there is a glimmer of hope in the EMD ever being a picture house again. You have expressed your total ignorance in saying that the Council would buy it and sell it to a Cinema Chain. It would be far more of a business arrangement if a Cinema Group would be contractually tied to a deal and put the money up for the council. Anyone with any economic sense of business would see this and the reason that there is nothing on the table is because there are no interested parties and that any slight interest was expressed many moons ago before the economy nose-dived. It will never happen now and the best thing that anyone could do is to rescue the organ and take it to the organ museum. The Church will have a Church in place before the Olympics. Watch this space. The campaign has failed to save it because nobody could take it seriously as there was no money on the table. the ridiculous campaigning in outfits meant that nobody would take it seriously.

Normally I would ignore your rantings, but just for the hell of it I will demolish your arguments:


"How can the Council justify buying the Cinema using hard pressed Council Tax Payers money in one of the worse recessions in 200 years?"

Presumably the same way they can 'justify' spending £45 million of hard pressed Council Tax Payers money on a development at the Arcade that nobody wants. I don't hear you complaining about that. I wonder why? Anyway, the EMD could be CPO'd for a tiny fraction of that amount and even that would be recouped by selling the building on to one of the cinema operators who have expressed an interest.


"How can they Justify spending the said money on a CPO when the Church bought the place in good faith?"

Good faith is meaningless. Ever heard of the legal term 'caveat emptor'? In any case, would you be making the same 'good faith' argument if the building was owned by the UK branch of the Ku Klux Klan?


"How can the LBWF justify such extravagance for a private film club attended by predominately a white membership and for an area that has drastically changed in recent years to a predominately multi-cultural population?"

It would be for the benefit of the entire borough, not a 'private film club' as you well know. The fact that you need to constantly use this smokescreen is proof that your arguments have no merit. Be careful before bringing race into the equation. UCKG is a predominantly black organisation. Will you be complaining about this too?


"The campaigners have not raised a shekel towards the campaign funds"

Eh? Then where the hell have the campaign funds come from??


"It would be far more of a business arrangement if a Cinema Group would be contractually tied to a deal and put the money up for the council."

If the council was to put a CPO on the building (which would be for the market value rather than the inflated price that UCKG would undoubtedly ask) a cinema operator would be happy to put up the money.


"the reason that there is nothing on the table is because there are no interested parties"


Actually, UCKG have now admitted they have received TWELVE separate offers for the building. Where is your "no interested parties" argument now?

As Walthamster said above, I'm sure you will come back with more half-truths and general waffle designed to confuse people. Well, at least it provides us with a little comic relief.

You have tried to demolish the arguments with a wet piece of newspaper and failed.

The only 'comic relief' will be the campaigners still bleating on about the EMD after it is converted to a church.

The constant campaigning is an insult to the hard pressed Council Taxpayers of Waltham Forest many of who are of an ethnic background who will reap no benefit from Daleks, odd ball films, or anything else that the Campaigners want to do. All cheap talk with no substance about wanting cash poured into a private cinema, which closed down because it was dead in the water.

As for the Church being 'black' it is a Christian organisation and Christians, unlike 'mainly white' campaigners come in all shades of colour and ethnic background and are spread around the globe. Just because the locals are black shows that the area has a huge ethnic population, people who do not have much leisure time or interest in this old building. The building should be kept as a Grade Two listing but is defunct as a Cinema. It is about time the campaigners stop their vacuum filled arguments and grasp the reality of the economy as everything is suffering in financial terms and the days of buying private follies at Taxpayers expense are well and truly over and any spare cash that the council may have should be spent on housing the homeless and care for the elderly, not a muse for a few.

There can be no argument that the cinema needs to be put back into active use. The UCKG's use as a "HelpCentre" - a church - would do it. The question is a) is there a better alternative for the area and b) even if there weren't would a Church in Hoe Street benefit the area.

On a) the McGuffins and their many supporters argue that restoring the cinema would be by far the best choice. They argue there is the demand locally for such a venue and the finances and expertise would be available to do just that.

So far as a church benefitting the area - that is, I would argue, open to question. Certainly a revamped cinema, restored to something like its old glory, would be a welcome change. But as a church?

The UCKG state that the church and the associated facilities providing additional services would increase footfall and economic activity in the town centre. They merely state this in their planning application and do not provide evidence despite the experiences of their existing HelpCentres.

Also, it can be argued that many of the associated services the HelpCentre would offer would replicate services already being provided in the area. Rather than creating additional demand and activity there would be a substitution effect; with no overall increase in demand or supply. In fact there would be a possiblity that existing service providers would withdraw or scale back and the overall effect would be a lessening of provision.

The argument at this stage isn't about Compulsory Purchase, or darkly whispered rumours of racial prejudice, it's whether the UCKG's argument stands on strict planning (and economic) criteria. Less heat and more light would be welcomed.

The basic thing is is that we need a cinema in Walthamstow. It is important to the cultural life of our community. I want to be able to walk or hop on a bus to see films. It will improve the evening economy of our community, particularly during this financial crisis. It would be ideal if we can use the original cinema on Hoe Street. It would bring back a beautiful and historic building back into the community. The council can buy it through compulsory purchase order. It is not complicated! It just needs to be done.

jblyth wrote:
The basic thing is is that we need a cinema in Walthamstow. It is important to the cultural life of our community. I want to be able to walk or hop on a bus to see films. It will improve the evening economy of our community, particularly during this financial crisis. It would be ideal if we can use the original cinema on Hoe Street. It would bring back a beautiful and historic building back into the community. The council can buy it through compulsory purchase order. It is not complicated! It just needs to be done.

You are very naive if you think a CPO can be obtained by the drop of a hat.

The owners have certain rights believe it or not. How would you feel if the property you live in was CPO'd?

The Cinema was never in Public ownership but was used by the public, like the dog track and nobody used that enough either to justify it remaining open. Rose tinted views on life do not pay the bills and when these things disappear everyone moans about it but never supported them when open. Over the years all lots of places have closed up for example the LIDO at Chingford and Whipps Cross. Next in line I reckon is Leyton Orient Stadium. It has already been suffocated by over development and there is talk of moving the club to Essex. They do not get enough support either and like the Cinema and Dog Track, are affected by the changing population of the area. People migrate to work not to waste money on gambling, B movies in English or to pay £16 for a lower league game where boring second rate football is played.

'Next in line I reckon is Leyton Orient Stadium. It has already been suffocated by over development '

I think Mr S. is on to something here. The cosy and strangely generous relationship between LBWF and the Orient has never had proper scrutiny.
Can anyone confirm what I was told,that LBWF have sold the freehold of the ground to the club or its controllers for £1m, which is a give-away price for development land? Having been more than obliging over the planning permission for the blocks of flats which overdevelop the local area, having it seems donated the use of a public road to the club, plus the appropriating of public space for club training, does the Council have any clawback scheme in place if the proprietors simply close the club and flog the land? Is the pitch protected as open space?
The supporters would of course be appalled, but when did rank-and-file supporters of any club matter to the
deal-makers at the top?