Bizzy

Why are all the alternatives on that Camberwell Community Cinema site associated with art, selling art, performing art or chatting about art over an arty latte???? What is the point in asking people what they want if you?re going to list a load of building uses associated with one particular field? A cultural hub...inside a larger cultural hub? Oh I get it, one is supposed to have a roof! I'm sure the Arts College down the road will be happy to let out some space to the minority. If we don't want a Church there, we could have a mixed development of residential and commercial units. That is something that is truly in demand at the moment and would make better use of the space than a Church or an Exhibition Space.

Deluded as in misled, not crazy. I know I used the word crazy but I didn't call anyone crazy :'( Louisiana I'm not attacking anyone, the people that jump to your side in a serious or comical manner haven't actually thought about what they were posting and I think it's important to point this out. Sometimes it's obvious they don't like what I post. As you said "people have the right to believe what they want. It's totally up to them." I like to believe that you and others hold on to this thought while reading some of my posts and any post which you don't agree with. I'm not in favour of the KICC Church, but then again I'm not in favour of the cinema either. I don't agree with Church's that promise untold riches and happy family life. I do however believe that one should be free to worship and practice their religion. In many parts of the world, the price for this can be cruel. Whilst I don't post on other topics, it's not to say I don't have a view on them, it's simply because I have nothing useful to add. I could post some drivel and get into a slanging match but there are no positives to take from that scenario. I haven't heard/read Ms Jowells comments as yet. I will get back to you on that.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bizzy - it is surely possible to be genuinely > pro-cinema and also have suspicions about this > particular church isn't it? Yes Sean, I've stated this several times. The campaign is worthy enough on its own without deluded suspicions thrown into the mix. > If louisiana is strident in her tone, it is easily > matched by your own No Sean, I don't go branding people crazy because I don't understand or like their point.

Give it a rest Louisiana. Your ridicule tone clearly isn't working. If you didn't care about the Church you wouldn't have gone on your little dirt digging mission. It's clear you have used your misrepresented facts to entice others to join the campaign (although this wouldn't have been necessary judging by what you have said previously) and then turn around and say you're not against the Church in question. You're a hypocrite - simple as that. For the record, I don't post on other threads because I have nothing useful to contribute. If you're trying to say my points are not valid because I'm not a regular of the forum group then you're sadly mistaken. If I posted on some of the other threads I would become another one of the growing number that use forums such as this to escape from their real lives and pretend to be something they're not. This isn't an attack on everyone that uses an online forum! The forum is a useful tool in today's society which can be easily misused. Whilst I am the only one who has expressed my viewpoint on this thread, your bigoted singling out is wrong as there are many people out there who will be thinking what I am thinking.

Louisiana You're comments aren't very helpful at all. Why do you insist on making this personal? Lets get one thing straight. I'm not in favour of the Church nor the Cinema simply because I won't be using either. I'll admit that I haven't looked at all the data. I don't have time. It's clear that many people have joined the cinema campaign without looking at all the data. What do you mean by your application? I have no interest in either party. Picture this whole campaign without the cinema behind it. I think you and others like you are kidding yourselve's thinking you're in favour of a cinema. If you understand Huguenot so well (and I can see why), why don't you translate his/her garbage for the rest of us.

Huguenot I don't understand. Why are you shaking your head? Please explain. Downthehill Let's not beat around the bush. All your points listed are against the KICC Church, it's dealings and management. Simply put, you're against the Church moving to Crystal Palace. There's nothing wrong with that. Many people genuinly want a Cinema and not "another" Church. With the congregation numbers you throw around, how can you expect the Church not to have an impact on the local economy?? Going back to the popular congestion issue, a Cinema in use all week round will surely have an impact on local traffic. When it's a Cinema nobody cares, when it's a Church people start jumping up and down for what is essentially the same issue. It doesn't matter whether City Screen wanted to buy the building. Their offer didn't match the Church offer hence ownership belonging to KICC. Were the previous owners expected to wait or sell at a reduced price in order for them to buy the building? I think not. I'm starting to conclude the following: * Is the Picture Palace Campaign a smokescreen - Yes * Are the objections against the Church and what it stands for - Probably not... * Are the objections against the people associated with the Church - I think so...and there?s something seriously wrong about that :(

Huguenot I find your comments unhelpful. Let the bitterness go. Shane I do appear to have got it wrong. From what I have read, this Church will bring a congregation from the existing location of the Church. This means my source must be wrong and my source happens to be the Picture Palace Campaign site. It's a point which is used on many objection posts on the site in that it will effect congestion on Sunday mornings. If what you're saying is correct, congestion won't be an issue as most people won't have to travel far to get to their Church. You're a film student and you've never been to one of the cheapest cinemas in South London?? The Peckham Multiplex is of a standard quality with all the basic amenities and accessibility. Tickets range from ?5.50 - 6.50. Pass on the jumble sale / fairs thing? Is this how you picture a Church contributing to the local community?

Shane Finally someone who has a genuine reason for the objection of a Church using the building. I suspect you're in the minority. I think the comparison of ticket pricing is slightly naive. I know if I go to the Peckham Multiplex I will get a better deal. Moreover, spending habits of a 650 strong Church congregation (don't quote me on that as I've seen numerous figures) is more than likely to contribute to the local economy.

I was referring to your bad pun ;-) Nonetheless, some reasonable points expressed there.

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- ...It's a business model truly made in heaven :-S Terrible...

Loisiana It sounds like the auditors have regularised the accounts. Why is this still a problem? Woofmarkthedog Please explain how a Church like KICC could contribute to the decline of the area? I personally don't know much about the Church and would be interested to know how this could happen.

I understand it would be easy to find fault with a Church if you were a non-believer. I also understand that a lot of people don't know what a Church does or what a Church can do for its local community (i.e. opens once a week for trade?? :-S). There are many Church's that run on seriously tight budgets. There are also many Churches that run on comfortable budgets. When you say a Church is "too rich, therefore I don't like them", you are in effect taking a personal view on the Church in question. This whole campaign is dressed in misrepresented facts; I'm sure there are genuine objections in there but to me the majority are on dirt digging exercise, rallying troops and all the rest of it.

Interesting logic. Logic which I understand. You just need to look at the comments on that campaign to see it's the evangelical Church and associated congregation issues which is being used as a catalyst to draw people into objecting. I'm still trying to figure out whether the negativity is solely for this Church and if it were any Church, would the reaction be the same? One doesn't need to be anti-religious to object. I would imagine there are Christians objecting to this plan - maybe with good reason or misrepresented facts.

You won't see much with the lights off :)) Depends on how big the congregation of a Church is. Much like a cinema, a Church is open to all (or at least it should be). There is also the chance that local residents may visit the Church. "If it was an evangelical church then I, and most of the people I know, would feel uncomfortable going inside just to look at the architecture and decor." That's the exact opposite of me. You see, myself and most of the people I know, would feel comfortable going inside ANY building, be it religious or social if we really wanted to marvel at the architecture and decor.

Points noted. So you're saying the whole cinema idea is a blanket for the real cause which is specifically to stop the Church from moving in? We're getting somewhere now. So tell me, why doesn?t the objection brigade drop the cinema idea and rename their cause as something like "Stop the Church from moving in" rather than the ?Picture Palace Campaign?? It?s a bit misleading don?t you think?

Huguenot Still doesn't answer my question. The objection gang are showing signs of "If we can't have it, a Church certainly can't have it". IF the benefits of an independent cinema were that great, they would find another site. Most of the objections are much like yours; they couldn't care less about the local benefits of having a cinema, but care much about opposing a Church. If you want to make sweeping generalisations about the wellbeing and intelligence of a religious congregation, I suggest you start another thread. If you have nothing relevant to say, be a gentlemen and keep your comments to yourself ;-) What might "Fisking" be anyway? :-S

There are more people out there thinking like you? Scary :( That *someone else* you refer to is probably holding some animosity from a previous thread. My participation in this thread was a sign of a healthy society - not your unilateral, them vs us campaign. What's wrong with building a new cinema that will facilitate the needs of a modern cinema? If the Picturehouse really want to open a cinema in the area, I?m sure they will find a way with all this support. I can't figure out what objecting to the proposed change of use will achieve. What will you cinema supporters do if the Church holds onto the building and tweaks their application as mentioned before? This could take years.

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anna, I'd like a new cinema too, but from where > I'm reading, some posts on here seem more > concerned about the church factor than anything > else. Got it in one. That pretty much sums it all up. Louisiana: I hope your efforts are rewarded as you seem so passionate about a Church treading on your cycle routes. I'm not a violent person - i'm pretty sure you know it was said as a joke, yet you've turned it into something childish. Come to think of it, you've used the same tactics in your mini pledge campaign.

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > By the way Bizzy, it would be really nice to see > you posting on EDF about something unrelated to: > gods of any variety, religion, churches, the > trouble with atheists, the Alpha Course.... There > must be other things that interest you? There is a > whole wide world out there. Thanks for your concern. I only comment on things I can contribute to. There are many wonderful subjects on this forum - however, I refrain from commenting on such things for two reasons. 1) I don't know what it's about and, 2) I don't want to know what it's about. You may wonder what my contribution is on this thread - I do like to challenge people when I don't think they have thought things through completly. It also gives others viewing the thread another view. For the record, I don't have issues with Gods, religions or Atheists ;-)

annaj wrote: > That does sound harsh Bizzy, particularly when I suspect you have your own agenda Bloody Nora...Care to elaborate? - you do make it sound quite sinister :)) louisiana Wrote: >And you're handing them out, eh? Can be arranged. JK - was said in jest, apologies if I have caused offence to anyone. > You care: you raised the issue of their capacity > for payment for the site. To me it's neither here > no there how much money they have. (If people want > to give them money, that's their business.) No. I was merely stating that the Church owns the building, not who has the most money. As you said before, this is not a competition. > This is about a *cinema building* that has got > tired on the outside but that is still capable of > reverting to its former function for this > neighbourhood. Have you checked out the history on > the interior? Yes. The Church could still use the building without altering any of the prominent existing features. > Do you like movies? Do you like the 'cinema > experience'? Do you know anything about what some > 'cinemas' do these days? I recently worked on a fit out of a Cinema (inception to completion). Sadly, I know oh so well the emphasis placed on the "cinema experience". Yes, I do like movies - do you? > A range of projects elsewhere, such as a ?3m > project with umpteen buildings and *substantially* > more land. Nothing to do with this part of town. > Or this town indeed. It's always good to hear construction projects are on the go. > Indeed. And there are many ways to fail too. As some developers have found out. Developers yes - starting from scratch, this is a change of use application.

Louisiana, this may sound harsh but, you need a good clout. I know all about planning - I've been on both sides of the fence for myself and a number of Clients. Please don't lecture me. From the other posters, I sense a legitimate reason for objection. You on the other hand, dig and delve deeply into this Church, almost as if you're looking for something which you can use against them. Who cares how much money they earn? Who cares if they are a Charity? What has this go to do with your objection? You make it personal and obvious. You don't need to do that to mount a bona fide objection. "I'm involved with another such 'renegotiation' of a property where the planners did not give way and the developer failed." Let me guess - you gave your two pennies worth on the neighbour consultation sheet? There are many ways of satisfying conditions set out UDPs.

Take Church Road as a hint then. If you want a Cinema to impact the local community and economy, surely you would want a cinema that is open to the widest range of viewers? Is this your only alternative to stop another Church from opening? The Church has procured the building - did it occur to you that the independent cinema may not have had the finance to compete? What happens if the Church proposal is refused? Will they sit on the site (most probable)? Sell it to the independent cinema for a reduced sum (I don't think so)? Do you really care if it becomes an independent cinema (I don't think so!!)? The whole thing reeks of a quick fix to stop another Church from opening in the area because you don't like the look of them and what they stand for. For the record, I am in no way associated with this Church. Live and let live. The last time I went to the Peckham Multiplex was when it was ?3 for the ticket. I didn't mind popcorn on the floor and on my seat for that money. It could do with a refurb. My comment was in reference to comment made by Dulwichmum about Peckham. I hope she was joking...

Hannah Montana? Geforce? :-S ::o Nothing wrong with the Peckham Multiplex. I agree that a cinema would be a useful addition to the area although objections against the proposed Church (traffic and the like) could apply to the Cinema...some of the objections on the petition are crass. Your pledge is a little personal - you may get more "kind souls" if you kept it factual ;-) I'm certain this alternative cinema will have a certain audience - a cinema like the Multiplex would serve the local area in a broader way with films such as Hannah Montana and Geforce rather than Coco Channel (wrong spelling eh?). The only valid objection the proposed Church has against it is the number of Churches in the area. So tell me, what is so wrong about having a Church on Church Road? :)

I would just like to point out that the Peckham Multiplex is cycling / walking distance from Dulwich too ;-)

Sorry, I meant historians who research this kind of thing should like you take supposed facts with a pinch of salt. I wouldn't get a historian to define Christianity...they know the theory, but that?s just about it...;-)