Crystal Palace cinema campaign - send objections to church use now

[Keef]

I thro Jeremy would have realised that Lou, but Huguenot didn't exactly make a distinction between one church or another.

[Cassius]

Bizzy - the whole point is tha there already IS the Peckham Cinema with the mainstream offerings, it sounds like this cinema would compliment that by showing a different kind of film (not necessarily better to all tastes - but different). As you say:

"The Peckham Multiplex is of a standard quality with all the basic amenities and accessibility. Tickets range from ?5.50 - 6.50."

But that is not what everyone wants.............

[Bizzy]

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]

Louisiana backing Huguenot? That'll be the day.

I remain totally isolated on this one, for good reason.

[louisiana]

Bizzy Wrote:

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

>

> Picture this whole campaign without the cinema

> behind it.

At that point you do truly descend into the land of make-believe, that of the conspiracy theorists:

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/magazine/15-11/st_best

"Picture this whole campaign without the cinema behind it" you say.

Are you for real? The whole campaign is taking place because (a) there *is* a cinema, D2 use class (and was used as a bingo later, but now legally can no longer be a bingo hall in any case, so cinema-cinema it is); and (b) a group of people, who mostly don't live locally, want to stop it being a cinema and © another group of people, who live locally, want to keep it as a cinema.

And your response is: "Picture this whole campaign without the cinema behind it"

So what campaign is that then?

Do you really think Tessa Jowell MP, *who has gone on the record in the past supporting the work of KICC*,

http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/minister_speeches/5768.aspx

(and elsewhere)

and so is, we can perhaps assume, not conspiring against KICC, would have written a letter of support for this cinema returning to being a cinema, for the reasons she outlines, if it wasn't about the cinema? What do you reckon her letter is about, then?

Are you aware of the vast amount of ongoing work in Crystal Palace concerning regeneration across the area, involving hundreds of people, residents, local politicians, committees etc.? And of how scores of local traders are actively seeking cinema footfall? And of the ongoing attempts to get the five boroughs to work together on the future of the Triangle? And all because the people of the area want to improve their own area, make it a great place to live. Are these people all conspiring too?

The fact is, we have planning laws and planning policies for a reason: it's part of being a democracy. Cash is not always king, in this country. Yet. (Though I know that in some others, flashing the cash and lining certain pockets will generally get you what you want.) People have the right to take part in the decision-making process concerning what happens in their own neighbourhoods.

You are clearly not interested in cinema, or indeed in anything other than religion (going by your posts on this forum, and by the reasons you gave me before on here about why you didn't post about anything except religion). So be it. But I think that your obsession concerning religion is clouding your judgment. Perhaps a case of 'to a hammer, everything looks like a nail'. Most of the rest of us never even think about religion or churches or any of that stuff.

[louisiana]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Louisiana backing Huguenot? That'll be the day.

>

> I remain totally isolated on this one, for good

> reason.

Have we had some falling out somewhere Huguenot? I can't recall, but my memory is not what it was :-S

[Huguenot]

1974, about whether the Tefal electric waffle iron represented a threat to self-expression through music piracy ;-)

[Bizzy]

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.

[SeanMacGabhann]

bizzy - it is surely possible to be genuinely pro-cinema and also have suspicions about this particular church isn't it?

If louisiana is strident in her tone, it is easily matched by your own

[Bizzy]

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.

[Keef]

I have to side with Bizzy there. I have no interest in falling out with Louisiana, but I do find her tone patronising on occasion, and it wins me up. Better to just be nice and have proper debate about something.

[SeanMacGabhann]

But bizzy, one the one hand you say you don't call people crazy, and on the other hand you say they have "deluded suspicions" - which doesn't sound a million miles away from crazy

[Keef]

Ha ha, touche! Although deluded isn't crazy IMO.

[SeanMacGabhann]

possibly true, but the neither louisiana nor anyone else has used the "crazy" word on this thread - that was bizzy introducing that

I'm not saying louisiana hasn't been aggressive on the thread but I'm not sold on the counter-arguments having made any claim to the high ground

I don't even think this debate IS about religion - many religious people can look at the myriad evangelical churches and have issues with them.

[louisiana]

Some of the strongest attacks on these churches have come from other, established churches.

Even the Pope. He's been attacking the African ones and their religious fundamentalism. In the newspapers today.

But then he would say that, wouldn't he? (self interest?)

[louisiana]

Bizzy Wrote:

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

> 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.

I would be interested in hearing your views on why Jowell supports the cinema, but you seem to be only interested in making accusations against just about anybody posting on this thread (now it's 'bigoted' and 'crazy'), not dealing with any issues or questions raised herein.

I said nothing about you being or not being a regular on the forum. I pointed out that you had previously explained the reason why you didn't post on other subjects except religion was because you were not interested in other issues. That was part of your explanation at the time (when I was encouraging you to contribute elsewhere). Which is a highly unusual position in 20thC Western society. I do think that blinkers your interpretation of events in wider society: as I pointed out, most of us do not spend our time preoccupied with either religion or churches, and do not view the world through those particular spectacles.

I am in no way in favour of the church in question, I am in no way in favour of churches in general, or of religion. And as I have said before, I do think that prosperity gospel churches have some serious issues (including with the authorities), most of which have been raised in critiques by other religions/churches, not by humanists/secularists/atheists... because frankly most of the latter prefer not to spend time thinking about something that holds no interest. For me, it goes in a pot with football, rugby, TV soaps, celebrity culture and a whole long et cetera of things not in my life. But, as I have said before, people have the right to believe what they want. It's totally up to them.

I think it's a tenable position to not be in favour of religion and churches; to think that people should be able to believe and follow what they wish; to expect democracy and the rule of law to be upheld; to be in favour of local communities actively participating in their own development; and to support the retention of a cinema.

I don't know whether you're aware that there are several pentecostal tradition churches which run on very similar principles to KICC already in the Triangle area, and I've never heard of anyone protesting against them at all, and I most certainly haven't, and have no plans to. They are not on my horizon really, or anyone else's as far as I know, because they are not trying to take over a cinema.

And 'dirt-digging mission', 'crazy', 'bigoted', all that jazz? Can't be bothered. It's the language of the News of the World. Right, back to work.

[Bizzy]

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.

[louisiana]

Bizzy Wrote:

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

> 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.

Bizzy, it does come across sometimes like you're hurling words around ('entice', 'crazy', 'bigoted', 'dirt digging' etc.) but without ever responding any of the actual factual or more philosophical points or questions that people raise here.

> 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.

Good point Bizzy.

>

> 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.

There I would agree with you, which is maybe not a surprise to you.

I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of people who don't have a lot being asked to give what is quite a lot for them, based on such a promise. That strikes me as unethical. I tend to be in favour of the person 'without'.

I would like to see wealth generated in the minority ethnic communities in the UK (that is after all KICC's stated membership) and in *all* communities in the UK, being based on people doing stuff that is good and wanted and valued. Not on the basis of poor people giving to rich people; which I regard as immoral.

There will only be *real* transfer of wealth (and there's quite a transfer of wealth 'story' going on in the PG community) when this happens: when those who have real money and power transfer to those with less, because we decide to value and measure things in such ways. And this is not about religion at all: this is about New Economics (see NEF), about social equity etc. etc.

But then I don't regard wealth as a measure of value, so what do I know? ;-)

> 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.

I posted the link to her letter here before, when I originally raised the issue, but I'll do it again:

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

The link is also on her home page.

Bear in mind that TJ has supported KICC specifically in the past, support to which I've previously posted links. So, as I said before, I don't think she can be accused of being part of some perceived conspiracy. She has stated her reasons in the letter. You'd be quite right to question the motives of *any* politician in the run-up to an election (2010), but that's kind of the price of living in the system we do.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Louisiana

I dunno - I see a lot of these churches around, and many of them (I'm thinking here of the one in Peckham near the Co-op building) tend to have a poster in the window along the lines of "I had nothing - I kept going for job interviews and always didn't make the grade? but then after joining Church O' Plenty I got a job on my very next interview)

So I think they actually help those without after all

(Holy sheeeet - I just looked up the KICC website to have a look see, and whaddya know - this very church trying to open in Crystal Palace has a testimonial page)

You can't make this up

Now some people might think I'm taking the p*** - but look, it says it there in black and white! These churches just can NOT be exploiting poor people

[Brendan]

Jesus!* That?s just voodoo.

*If you?ll pardon the pun.

[Jah Lush]

That's the work of the devil.

[Brendan]

Don?t insult the devil like that. I like to think he has more style and would at least have had some black candles and women with goats legs involved.

That is the work of delusional egomaniacs preying on the unsophisticated and vulnerable.

[Jah Lush]

Brendan, are you saying that Jesus was an egomaniac who preyed on the unsophisticated and vulnerable? If not. Why not?

[Brendan]

Perhaps, although more than anything I know that this post is offering this thread up like some sort of sacrificial lamb.

[SeanMacGabhann]

100