Crystal Palace cinema campaign - send objections to church use now

[iaineasy]

Uh, the Church of England is an exempt institution/exempt charity. And its component parts too.

That means

a) it has full charitable status, gets all the benefits, just like any other charity

and

b) it cannot register with the Charity Commissioners (but would it want to? It's just more work).

The same applies to quite a few churches, plus housing associations, plus universities etc etc.

interesting louisiana I never knew that thanks.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

In practice, if you don't have a charity number, a lot of 'perks' are not available.

[woofmarkthedog]

Charlie Richardson ( yes him ) has a dog rescue charity BTW. ( no I did not go through his re-homing programmme )

Though as yet he's not inclined to move "into" the church business.

W**F

[louisiana]

Why ever not? It's the best business in town ;-). Once it's registered, just about the only way the Commission will shut you down is if the pastor gets jailed (see Victory Christian Centre, circa 2004). Otherwise, they just try and get your activities back in line with your stated objectives, should they find any funny business... It's a business model truly made in heaven :-S

[Bizzy]

louisiana Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

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

Terrible...

[louisiana]

Bizzy: is that the business model or the benefits, that you consider to be terrible?

I wouldn't be the first to comprehend the benefits to be had from setting up a charity. Just look at the hundreds of thousands of them out there right now, and the thousands of new ones applying as we write. Many of them are undoubtedly completely sound, but some of them are unbelievably cranky and even questionable, and it has to be said that there must by now be a charity for just about every purpose under the sun, plus some. So this does kind of beg the question of why somebody should set up a new charity these days when an existing charity (or many existing charities) exist for that purpose already. But this is perhaps an excessively philosophical area of exploration for the Lounge.

[Bizzy]

I was referring to your bad pun ;-)

Nonetheless, some reasonable points expressed there.

[shaner101]

Bizzy, we're not necessarily against A church, we're more against 5-7 churches within the crystal palace area (do we REALLY need another one? really?).

Just how much more good can the next church do in comparison with the previous five?. Yes, churches can have positive effects within the community, but it would also be nice to see something that would help inject a bit of life by bringing people from social groups OTHER than from the religious spectrum. I personally feel like there's nothing for me in crystal palace, apart from the Blockbusters which I occasionally rent films from. The christian communtiy has firmly established it's place within Crystal Palace... How about something for the rest of us? I'm sure there are also many christians who love film and would actually prefer a cinema, as they already have their pick of which church community to be involved in, or worship within.

As a film student (BA w/hons at Brunel) I can not understate the importance of having a creative outlet, in particular that of a picturehouse-style independant cinema, which not only charges less than big-business such as Odeon, but are also partial to screening films made by students (my documentary Sharia Law was sreened at the ritzy in Brixton). Picturehouses are not, as Keef so bluntly (a little bit ignorantly i might add) put it, "posh cinemas". In fact they are the opposite, charging less for tickets and showing a wider artistic range in film choice, not only selling out to the big titles.

In turn, this ensures that whilst we do get some form of entertainment within crystal palace, the area does not fall prey to the captialisation and commercialisation of such cinema chains as Odeon and Vue.

We are literally getting the best of both worlds.

This would also ensure that the crystal palace community would be doing its bit in helping the economy by increasing the amount of money spent in the area.

Thanks,

Shane.

[louisiana]

You only get the good puns on the Louisiana-by-subscription I'm afraid :)

[louisiana]

There's plenty of evidence to back up your position Shane. The UK Film Council did a marvellous report in 2005 called The Importance of Local Cinema. They looked at five different cinemas across the country, including the Rio in Dalston.

Main report:

http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/search?articleid=7&x=0&y=0&keyword=local+cinema

[Bizzy]

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.

[Huguenot]

Well it would contribute to the local economy if it was going into it, rather than the def rev's new Jaguar.

I don't think Shane is in the minority, I think he represented the majority well. When I'm rational, I'd like to think that I could have made my point so well.

In the end I'm not rational, Churches aren't rational, they're demented medieval tribal bumstrap.

People who go to churches don't want anything for the community: they want allegiance, control, coercion, capitulation, and power. They want people to bend their knee in worship to an authority that only the chosen few have access to - and interpret in their chosen way as Pontifex Maximus.

Sick.

They sicken communities and distort personalities.

Keef, who I love dearly, has staked his life on the altar of contrariness, something the Church doesn't allow. He is welcoming fascism as self-expression. The tragedy of nice people. The poor fellow doesn't realise he'll be first against the wall after his new friends get their pedestal.

I don't mind the feckers doing God in their private homes, but that's not enough for them is it? Because they want to force everyone to do the same.

But like I said, if i was rational about it, I'd agree with Shane ;-)

[shaner101]

Bizzy,

I may be in the minority in as much that I'm a film student, I believe that is the genuine reason you're referring to... and you're right... but it is you who seems to be mistaken. You are mistaken because you seem to be under the impression that a new Church Hall will be bringing 650 NEW christians into a congregation.

This is wrong.

The 'Church/Community Hall' will be mostly used by the existing christian community that surrounds Crystal Palace. This will not result in any more expenditure in businesses in the local area. In fact, things like Jumble Sales, fairs, and the like ensure that people actually spend less money in shops, in turn the money stays in our pockets for longer, resulting in an economic stand-still of sorts.

I'm sure the Church and the Council will have something to gain (maybe charging a fee for those who want to use the hall, etc.) although I'm not yet as weary as Huguenot (although I did find the 'bumstrap' comment quite amusing).

And I don't know what the Peckham Multiplex is like in terms of quality as I've never been there. What I do know is that an adult ticket at Odeon, Streatham costs around ?7.50, where a ticket at the Brixton Ritzy is around ?5-?6. You also didnt actually make a comparison when you mentioned Peckham Multiplex, you just said you'd get a better deal, although I don't know which Picture-House Cinemas you've been to.

Shane.

[Bizzy]

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?

[Jeremy]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> People who go to churches don't want anything for

> the community: they want allegiance, control,

> coercion, capitulation, and power.

My gran was a regular church-goer. I never had her down as a power-crazed control freak.

[Keef]

Yeah, I thought that was a bit harsh on many many people, but I kept quiet, as I'm keeping a low profile so as to avoid being up against the wall! Sounds a bit scary.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I don't think even I have ever gone THAT far

[downthehill]

Totally disagree about the church providing decent local revenue for traders. For a stsrt it's only going to have significant numeber on a Sunday whereas a cinema would attract vistors all week.

In addition we are talking about a church here that encourages its congregants to give their spare income to the church first and foremost. In 2008 KICC generated over ?10 million in "tythes and offerings" - That's over ?850 per head based on it's stated membership of 12,000 so how much spare cash will really trickle into the CP economy ?

The campaign for a cinema now has over 6500 signatures to the online petition. That suggests massive demand with massive local spending for the area.

More importantly the communitys wished must be considered above those of an organisation that has no local demand.Objections lodged with Bromley Council against the change of use from a D2 (Assembly and leisure) to a D1 uses (a church) number over 1500.

This is not about being against the KICC as such.

It is about the fact they have chosen to operate from the only building in Crystal Palace that could house a cinema and the fact that City Screen , who own the Ritzy and the Clapham Picture House, actually wanted to buy it.

In addition , whilst the KICC have suggested a (ahem)modest congregation of 500 on a Sunday the building is capable of housing 1150.

They already own another ex cinema in Walthamstow where they are currrently running 6 back to back services for 1000 people per service on a Sunday.

Given that:

(a) the KICC have expressly stated that their aim is to grow their congregation from 12,000 to 25,000

(b) that the CP site is bigger than the one in Walthamstow (which can only meet the demand of 50% of their total congregation -i.e 6000) and

© they intend to draw people to the CP site from as far away as Kent and Surrey

it's only natural that the residents of CP are very anxious about the prospect of having a Walthamstow scenario on their doorstep.

This is not your small local church - It's a behemoth that has recently tried, but failed, to gain planning permission in Havering for an 8000 seater church. It's heading our way and CP residents want the brakes put firmly on.

[Huguenot]

*shaky head, folded arms*

No bitterness Bizzy, just tragedy. And not the 'dead friend' stuff, just the 'wasted intellect'.

[Bizzy]

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 :(

[louisiana]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Huguenot Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > People who go to churches don't want anything

> for

> > the community: they want allegiance, control,

> > coercion, capitulation, and power.

>

> My gran was a regular church-goer. I never had her

> down as a power-crazed control freak.

Jeremy, that may have been quite a different type of church. This one has the slogan 'Taking Territories'. Check it out on the web. And check out the Shooting People video by Darryn de la Soul. There's pretty much an absence of anything about god, but quite a lot about investment, assets, property and so on. Even quite a few of the other evangelicals seem opposed - for example see

http://restorethegospel.wordpress.com/2007/11/15/prosperity-pimps/

Donnie Swaggart on what he calls the 'prosperity pimps'.

[Mick Mac]

.

That's where you underrated her Jeremy.

[louisiana]

Bizzy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 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.

For one who is in the know, you're being a little economical with the truth. The information on the campaign website is based on KICC's original announcement to the press that the congregation would come from Wimbledon. When the planning application was validated, the paperwork from KICC said something quite different ("wide area of Kent, Surrey" etc.). In other words, the campaign website hasn't kept up with the changing story coming out of KICC, who say one thing to the press, and another to the Bromley planning department.

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.

And of course you know he isn't correct, for the reasons stated above: that is not what the (your) planning app says.

[louisiana]

Bizzy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Huguenot

>

> I don't understand. Why are you shaking your head?

> Please explain.

I think he's made himself perfectly clear.

>

> Downthehill

>

>

> With the congregation numbers you throw around,

> how can you expect the Church not to have an

> impact on the local economy??

The church does its own catering.

Going back to the

> popular congestion issue, a Cinema in use all week

> round will surely have an impact on local traffic.

Tut tut, you haven't been looking at the data. I'm amazed an outfit can spend over a million quid without doing the most basic research. And even more so given it's a 'charity'.

Would you buy a house by sticking a pin in a map, and no more?

> 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.

Not at all the same issue. Essentially or otherwise. See my previous point. Look at the data.

>

> 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.

The bid situation was daft, because Gala were trying to keep all the rushed building sales secret from employees, so no access and all that that entailed. Nobody can really bid sensibly in those circumstances. Gala were clearly in a rush to sell many properties very quickly, owing to the financial meltdown they are experiencing.

>

> I'm starting to conclude the following:

>

> * Is the Picture Palace Campaign a smokescreen -

> Yes

A smokescreen for...?

> * Are the objections against the Church and what

> it stands for - Probably not...

What, the stuff like you can make god do things by saying it (which seems an intrinsic part of all word-faith and prosperity gospel churches)? I have to say I find that a pretty strange idea, for starters.

Many people who are religious seem to have major problems with the whole prosperity gospel message, and quite a few argue that it rests on a fundamental logical contradiction, which I'd be happy to discuss if you're interested. I'm always interested in discussing ideas.

>

> * Are the objections against the people associated

> with the Church - I think so...and there?s

> something seriously wrong about that :(

So who is associated with the church? Tell us about them. I'm interested.

I'm half expecting you to declare next that we bribed Tessa Jowell to support the cinema, or that we're a bunch of alien lizards that are part of a zionist conspiracy. Because you are coming out with claptrap that exists nowhere but in your head. See Sean's point.

[louisiana]

Tessa Jowell MP this week came out in favour of the cinema campaign:

http://www.tessajowell.net/crystal-palace-planning

I understand Malcolm Wicks MP has too.