Jump to content

Crystal Palace cinema campaign - send objections to church use now


Recommended Posts

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.............

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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?)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...