Urgent Appeal: Occupation Of 34 Broadway Market, E8
- Thread starter Divisive Cotton
- Start date
My post was quoted, in my defence I should say that I originally posted it within a week of the St Agnes eviction.
So OK the parallels aren't exact at all, but it was on my mind at the time.
So OK the parallels aren't exact at all, but it was on my mind at the time.
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
They came this morning at 4.30am.... more info when I have it...
lighterthief
Well-Known Member
Yeah, my gf has just texted me say there is police activity down there. Good luck...
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
Street party/protest/picket this evening at 6.00pm on Broadway Market.
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
This is footage taken of the eviction at 4.30am this morning from a secret camera positioned across the road... Download here
Right click on the movie... then "Save as QuickTime Movie"... then that will allow you play it on your stand alone QuickTime application - this is quite essential because it needs to be a big size to able to view it.
Also... there is a public document on the Met police's website regarding the eviction... but I can't find it - can anybody else?
Personally directing the operation was the Borough Commander of Hackney, Simon Pountain, and, so I'm told, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner the Met, which is the number two.
Right click on the movie... then "Save as QuickTime Movie"... then that will allow you play it on your stand alone QuickTime application - this is quite essential because it needs to be a big size to able to view it.
Also... there is a public document on the Met police's website regarding the eviction... but I can't find it - can anybody else?
Personally directing the operation was the Borough Commander of Hackney, Simon Pountain, and, so I'm told, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner the Met, which is the number two.
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
laptop said:NopeAnd there's more than one DAC, besides Brian Paddick, isn't there?
Yeah... I may have got that wrong... people were saying second in charge of the met... which is not Paddick. I will try and track down the link to what is on the Met site - I have it on good authority that it is there somewhere.
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
Divisive Cotton said:
No got that wrong... it was a press release and metioned an individual from Scotland Yard.
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
Happy Harry
New Member
On the same type of issue as Broadway: http://www.iwca.info/cor/cor0036.htm
boohoo
No.
I was on the train on Friday and met a couple of young fellas who had been security in the cafe after the place had been evicted. They said it was awful and had left - they hadn't really been aware of what it was all about and had had local residents spitting at them and calling them names as well as the conditions in the building being very unpleasant. So they were on the first train home on Friday morning.
I think they were more on the residents' side by the time I chatted to them.
I think they were more on the residents' side by the time I chatted to them.
lighterthief
Well-Known Member
Anyone know how the meeting went last night at the Town Hall?
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
boohoo said:
Excellent post boohoo... thanks for that... I'll pass it around I'll email group
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
lighterthief said:
Very dull really... it gave an opportunity for Arthur, Tony and Spirit to speak... but really depends now on us offering hard facts, which hopefully should be coming at next Monday's session.
lighterthief
Well-Known Member
Cheers for that DV. I'll try to make it next Monday. My (admittedly cynical) view is that this is an attempt by Hackney council to kick the issue into the long grass.Divisive Cotton said:
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
lighterthief said:
I'll take back what I said about dull... did you go last night? It was two and half hours of pure entertainment... fuck spending the evening watching tv - go and find yourself a council scrutiny committee to watch!
The evidence was damning, but whether in their hands it becomes 'some slight irregularites...' who knows.
The next one is at 2.00pm next Tuesday... I've booked an afternoon off work
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
An email I've just received from Arthur...
Governance & Resources Scrutiny Committee
Member Working Party Panel Review
Hearings 27th February, 6th March & 14th March 2006
On 20th February 2006, following a motion put before
the Full Council on 1st February, Hackney’s Overview &
Scrutiny Commission met to record its proposals for a
Review Panel to examine how the property sales
procedures adopted in 2000 had impacted on local
business and residential communities and to
investigate the role of Nelson Bakewell auctioneers in
the sales procedures.
The public review lasted, effectively, for six hours,
with much behind the scenes gathering of documents and
written submissions and responses.
This was a mammoth task in reality and there were
unlikely to be any concrete proposals coming from any
recommendations that the panel could be expected to
formulate in such a short timeframe.
The enquiry sat on 27th February and Chair James
Cannon set the remit for the 3 session debate. Week
one concentrated mainly on the cases of Spirit and
Tony from Broadway Market, both of whom gave
unscripted evidence before the panel.
Andrew Boff, Tory panel member and Councillor for
Queensbridge ward asked many sympathetic questions and
drew the expected responses, particularly from Tony
who referred to the previous administration as a bunch
of corrupt thieves.
Bill Hodgson, outgoing Labour Queensbridge Councillor,
did his best to salvage his party’s image by implying
that Tony and Spirit could have acted quicker to get
their freeholds and were up against market forces over
which the Council had little or no control.
Our fears about Tony were not realised and every
member left the first hearing in one piece and
returned on 6th March to hear evidence about Dalston
Lane.
Bill Parry-Davies, local solicitor (who has acted in
the past for both Tony and Spirit) and is Director of
OPEN-Dalston, gave evidence about how 14 properties in
Dalston Lane had been gifted to an offshore Company
(which still owns Spirit’s Broadway Market unit under
a different name) because the leaseholders who had
operated their businesses from the area for many years
were not informed in advance that Nelson Bakewell had
reached the decision to sell the units as a job lot.
The leaseholders had turned up at the auction as
individuals with well over £ 3 million to spend in
total, but were not even given the chance to pool
their resources because they never knew they might
have to, and the entire site sold for just £ 1.8
million.
Yes, if the Dubai based buyers were hell-bent on
buying the site they could certainly have outbid the
leaseholders, but at least that way the people of
Hackney would have gained some benefit from the extra
£ 1.5 million that would have raised. Instead, the
Dubia group (who operate their business from a tax
haven in the Bahamas) were allowed to rob the local
community and have since watched as mysterious fires
have forced out all but the last few remaining
leaseholders and have damaged the buildings so much
that they will now need to be demolished. This is
exactly what the owners wanted to happen and even
Councillors are now openly stating that the new owners
set the fires for this purpose.
Bill Parry-Davies also used his legal influence to
mention the OPEN-Dalston campaign and to highlight the
methods by which Hackney Council has pushed through
its plans for the Dalston Theatre site and the
underhand way that local planners have bullied
Councillors into passing demolition plans.
Then 3 leaseholders who have managed to survive in
their Dalston Lane properties told the Panel that they
had never really been offered the opportunity to buy
their business premises and were never allowed to seek
advice or group themselves together. Their evidence
was compelling and clearly shocked the Labour Panel
members who had already decided how to defend the
Council from any further damage.
Part 3 of the Inquiry was listed for hearing at 2pm on
14th March. The day before, the panel chair informed
us that thee was no time for any further verbal
submissions and that the hearing would concentrate on
past submissions and responses from the Council. If
we wanted any further evidence to be considered it
would have to be drawn up in written form and
presented to the Council’s officers within a few
hours.
With a lot of running around, we managed to get
statements drawn up and written evidence copied and
got this all to the Town Hall 15 minutes before the
deadline.
The hearing begins on the following day and we are
told that the evidence which we had submitted at the
last minute was too defamatory and ‘put the Council at
risk’. The Panel then set about reading out a list of
questions which had been raised and the brief and
irrelevant answers which had been listed on papers
handed out before the hearing began. After a protest
from one of those attending, which was given short
shrift, the assembled campaigners simultaneously stood
up and walked out of the Chamber in disgust, leaving a
shaken panel to ponder on whether their tactics may
have rather backfired.
Fearing that this was censorship rather than genuine
concern for the legal standing of the Council, e:mail
traffic became intense. At a private hearing of the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 15th March (which
turned to a public hearing at the insistence of
Councillor Boff) the Chair conceded that, following
legal advice, some of the withdrawn documents would be
taken into consideration and made public and that all
documents were now before the Panel.
So the Panel sat again and we waited for the
anticipated whitewash. Only to find that the Committee
had decided that they should recommend the immediate
repurchase of the Dalston Lane units by Compulsory
Purchase Orders, and that Council officers should
retain the option to repurchase Tony & Spirit’s shop.
There was intense debate over whether there should be
a recommendation to continue the inquiry as soon as
the Council reformed in May. Andrew Boff fought hard
for a commitment to do so. The 3 (Labour) against 1
(Tory) argument was not won and we now have a few days
before the final verdict is announced to persuade the
Committee to make a firm recommendation that the past
2 1/2 weeks was simply the start of a much wider
inquiry into just exactly what went on and who did
what?
Councillor Elaine Battson (Labour – Dalston) – who had
been extremely quiet to this point, and even failed to
attend when the Dalston Lane evidence was heard –
suddenly became very vociferous and repeatedly said
that the evidence before the Panel was too weak to be
seriously considered so why should there be any
further hearings?
We now have to ensure that the Met, the Public Sector
Fraud Office and the FSA properly and thoroughly
investigate the allegations, which will not go away,
and it may well be the case that this can only be
achieved by the occupation of Scotland Yard,
Wellington House and Canary Wharf! But the truth will
come out in the end - to that aim we are totally
committed – and all those who have abused their
positions to rob the local population and feather
their own nests will learn that people power is far
greater than their own influential contacts.
Unless this is achieved, there will be Nelson
Bakewell’s springing up everywhere and victims like
Tony and Spirit will dominate the world’s press for
many decades.
The Campaign against property sell-offs has achieved
many victories in a few short months. Mounting local
support, liaisons across class divides, a six thousand
signature petition, worldwide media attention and a
full public inquiry which shook the Council to its
core.
Corrupt property developers have retracted into their
shells and the flack is still falling all around them.
Their former associates in positions of power are
left wondering how much longer before the s**t really
hits the fan and we continue to fight for their
activities to be fully exposed.
This seems to be the start of something far more
powerful than any local protest has ever achieved
before, not least because there are Broadway Markets
and Dalston Lanes in every London borough and across
the Country and beyond.
So the fight goes on and the ballot box results in a
few weeks time may well give an indication as to who
exactly is winning the war.
Governance & Resources Scrutiny Committee
Member Working Party Panel Review
Hearings 27th February, 6th March & 14th March 2006
On 20th February 2006, following a motion put before
the Full Council on 1st February, Hackney’s Overview &
Scrutiny Commission met to record its proposals for a
Review Panel to examine how the property sales
procedures adopted in 2000 had impacted on local
business and residential communities and to
investigate the role of Nelson Bakewell auctioneers in
the sales procedures.
The public review lasted, effectively, for six hours,
with much behind the scenes gathering of documents and
written submissions and responses.
This was a mammoth task in reality and there were
unlikely to be any concrete proposals coming from any
recommendations that the panel could be expected to
formulate in such a short timeframe.
The enquiry sat on 27th February and Chair James
Cannon set the remit for the 3 session debate. Week
one concentrated mainly on the cases of Spirit and
Tony from Broadway Market, both of whom gave
unscripted evidence before the panel.
Andrew Boff, Tory panel member and Councillor for
Queensbridge ward asked many sympathetic questions and
drew the expected responses, particularly from Tony
who referred to the previous administration as a bunch
of corrupt thieves.
Bill Hodgson, outgoing Labour Queensbridge Councillor,
did his best to salvage his party’s image by implying
that Tony and Spirit could have acted quicker to get
their freeholds and were up against market forces over
which the Council had little or no control.
Our fears about Tony were not realised and every
member left the first hearing in one piece and
returned on 6th March to hear evidence about Dalston
Lane.
Bill Parry-Davies, local solicitor (who has acted in
the past for both Tony and Spirit) and is Director of
OPEN-Dalston, gave evidence about how 14 properties in
Dalston Lane had been gifted to an offshore Company
(which still owns Spirit’s Broadway Market unit under
a different name) because the leaseholders who had
operated their businesses from the area for many years
were not informed in advance that Nelson Bakewell had
reached the decision to sell the units as a job lot.
The leaseholders had turned up at the auction as
individuals with well over £ 3 million to spend in
total, but were not even given the chance to pool
their resources because they never knew they might
have to, and the entire site sold for just £ 1.8
million.
Yes, if the Dubai based buyers were hell-bent on
buying the site they could certainly have outbid the
leaseholders, but at least that way the people of
Hackney would have gained some benefit from the extra
£ 1.5 million that would have raised. Instead, the
Dubia group (who operate their business from a tax
haven in the Bahamas) were allowed to rob the local
community and have since watched as mysterious fires
have forced out all but the last few remaining
leaseholders and have damaged the buildings so much
that they will now need to be demolished. This is
exactly what the owners wanted to happen and even
Councillors are now openly stating that the new owners
set the fires for this purpose.
Bill Parry-Davies also used his legal influence to
mention the OPEN-Dalston campaign and to highlight the
methods by which Hackney Council has pushed through
its plans for the Dalston Theatre site and the
underhand way that local planners have bullied
Councillors into passing demolition plans.
Then 3 leaseholders who have managed to survive in
their Dalston Lane properties told the Panel that they
had never really been offered the opportunity to buy
their business premises and were never allowed to seek
advice or group themselves together. Their evidence
was compelling and clearly shocked the Labour Panel
members who had already decided how to defend the
Council from any further damage.
Part 3 of the Inquiry was listed for hearing at 2pm on
14th March. The day before, the panel chair informed
us that thee was no time for any further verbal
submissions and that the hearing would concentrate on
past submissions and responses from the Council. If
we wanted any further evidence to be considered it
would have to be drawn up in written form and
presented to the Council’s officers within a few
hours.
With a lot of running around, we managed to get
statements drawn up and written evidence copied and
got this all to the Town Hall 15 minutes before the
deadline.
The hearing begins on the following day and we are
told that the evidence which we had submitted at the
last minute was too defamatory and ‘put the Council at
risk’. The Panel then set about reading out a list of
questions which had been raised and the brief and
irrelevant answers which had been listed on papers
handed out before the hearing began. After a protest
from one of those attending, which was given short
shrift, the assembled campaigners simultaneously stood
up and walked out of the Chamber in disgust, leaving a
shaken panel to ponder on whether their tactics may
have rather backfired.
Fearing that this was censorship rather than genuine
concern for the legal standing of the Council, e:mail
traffic became intense. At a private hearing of the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 15th March (which
turned to a public hearing at the insistence of
Councillor Boff) the Chair conceded that, following
legal advice, some of the withdrawn documents would be
taken into consideration and made public and that all
documents were now before the Panel.
So the Panel sat again and we waited for the
anticipated whitewash. Only to find that the Committee
had decided that they should recommend the immediate
repurchase of the Dalston Lane units by Compulsory
Purchase Orders, and that Council officers should
retain the option to repurchase Tony & Spirit’s shop.
There was intense debate over whether there should be
a recommendation to continue the inquiry as soon as
the Council reformed in May. Andrew Boff fought hard
for a commitment to do so. The 3 (Labour) against 1
(Tory) argument was not won and we now have a few days
before the final verdict is announced to persuade the
Committee to make a firm recommendation that the past
2 1/2 weeks was simply the start of a much wider
inquiry into just exactly what went on and who did
what?
Councillor Elaine Battson (Labour – Dalston) – who had
been extremely quiet to this point, and even failed to
attend when the Dalston Lane evidence was heard –
suddenly became very vociferous and repeatedly said
that the evidence before the Panel was too weak to be
seriously considered so why should there be any
further hearings?
We now have to ensure that the Met, the Public Sector
Fraud Office and the FSA properly and thoroughly
investigate the allegations, which will not go away,
and it may well be the case that this can only be
achieved by the occupation of Scotland Yard,
Wellington House and Canary Wharf! But the truth will
come out in the end - to that aim we are totally
committed – and all those who have abused their
positions to rob the local population and feather
their own nests will learn that people power is far
greater than their own influential contacts.
Unless this is achieved, there will be Nelson
Bakewell’s springing up everywhere and victims like
Tony and Spirit will dominate the world’s press for
many decades.
The Campaign against property sell-offs has achieved
many victories in a few short months. Mounting local
support, liaisons across class divides, a six thousand
signature petition, worldwide media attention and a
full public inquiry which shook the Council to its
core.
Corrupt property developers have retracted into their
shells and the flack is still falling all around them.
Their former associates in positions of power are
left wondering how much longer before the s**t really
hits the fan and we continue to fight for their
activities to be fully exposed.
This seems to be the start of something far more
powerful than any local protest has ever achieved
before, not least because there are Broadway Markets
and Dalston Lanes in every London borough and across
the Country and beyond.
So the fight goes on and the ballot box results in a
few weeks time may well give an indication as to who
exactly is winning the war.
Similar threads
