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?