The Museum of London is free to enter. This isn't theft, is relocation to a place where people can view many similar artifacts in one place.

Sad that the big museums are becoming repositories for these sort of objects.

The Museum of London is, as has already been pointed out, free to visit.

If its archaologists had not been involved, the remains of the theatre may never have been discovered or could have accidentally been destroyed.

As far as I can tell, nearly all of the old theatre - the foundations that are still there - are going to remain, protected, under the new theatre.

The museum is also in east London. It's not that long a walk from Shoreditch. So it's not like the Elgin marbles being taken to the other side of Europe.

Is the concern that tourists may not not visit Shoreditch? Do you really want that? If so, one solution might be to stick up a poster in Stratford tube station for all the tourists who go there thinking it's Shakespeare's birthplace, not realising there's another Stratford in Warwickshire.

One of the things that comes up constantly in ne-liberalism and globalisation
is the divorce of peoples from their cultural roots and inheritances.

1. There should be a consultative process with regard to relics and the like owned
by the people.
2. Museum design and exhibiting techs should be open to query at planning process
level.
3. Blackwater types have been known to fund private collections and museums
in San fran (not apparently mercenary ill-gotten gains, but more the $$$ spoils
of war).
4. Blair was gonna demolish the Sitwell home and the National trust have a limited
remit.

= not everything is for sale and that which is to be exhibited freely should be tied
into open consultation with the communites of the area.

cos people don't like being preached to.

:-)

The Museum of London Group is funded by the City of London, whose Corporation of London's main interest is encroaching on the East End to change the demographic of bohemian and ethnic groups including white east End to a City. Colonialism by another way.

In addition, Norville B or whatever you are called, I think it is obvious that Shakespeare was born in Stratford but thanks for pointing out the obvious. The theatre they found in London is where the magic occurred not in Stratford.

It is odd that the City get to retain their treasures and constantly dig up and destroy the East End for cultural mining or office and other forms of negative development. All of this is usually paid for by taxpayers odd, if they are so successful why can they not pay for things themselves.

You can go several ways on this one. In no particular order the first could be legal & bring us through the delights of English land law & the definition of treasure. If it's gold or silver and old - it's your Queen's - apply for a finder's reward. If not we move into the question of deed or title on the lands in question. "East end" of London sounds very quaint in a Dickensian sense, dangerously sprawling in a Sax Rohmer sense, or proto-chav-metropolis in its soap opera sense. But for the most part the trinkets and baubles alledgingly being stolen from the populace of the area (by dint of them all being purebred descendents) [with just short stays abroad in Asia, the Indies or Africa] are being taken from land which was granted to monastic, priory or convent associated parishes.

Yep - indeed, the land belonged to the RC church till Henry the 8th and fat bollox confiscated it. Since when the title of the lands of east London were never issued as privilege to any nobility, posh folk or toffs. Thus the lineage of the City of London's ownership and the guilds all the more starkly compares with the vast swathe of the city of Westminster and helps the keen student (you) further understand the creation of ghettoes and communities of non-Londoners as _rent paying_ refugees & then _leaseholding_ tenants from the 17th century influx of Huguenots onwards. Of course we've skipped the role of the jewish community, its expulsion- return and the great plague & fires of London & the role they played in land distribution.

Or---------- widen the scope - this might interest you if you live in the East End but are not convinced your ancestors did so and have a proper claim to either the trinkets or are even suspect yourself of not really belonging to the Cockney Theatregoing Genepool & its rightful heritage.

you could do the Elgin marbles thing but move it up to date.

I reviewed a book earlier this year from Princeton Univ Press which was written by the curator of Chicago's Art Institute, James Cuno, the title of which is "Who Owns Antiquity?" - the man has his own very simple answer to the Elgin Marbles, El Dorado, Sphynx basement & Alien mothership in Antarctica question - the USA owns it. Because they have the nicest biggest museums and will gladly put images of everything on the internet so people like you can understand them & it would be a crime against humanity to deprieve the largest collection of baubles and trinkets, dinosaur eggs and dustcollecters in the world from continuing to grow.
But his arguments aren't as a crass as that. He picks up on the kernal that the modern Greek, Mr Joe soapy Stavros, as it were, has as little in common with the Forum going Democrat intellectual of Socrates time as anyone of us has to do with either Lord Elgin or a Warty grub eating illiterate born within earshot of Clement Danes chapel.  http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8602.html

_______________________________________________________________________________

It's not who owns the past that really matters - it is how the past is packaged to be relevent to the present. & in today's London that means how the extra theatre tourist income will be spent..... probably on little cameras and charms for techno-plod or new foilage for Giles Cripplegates pond.
Know your past, & most of all realise that your past is not really yours - it just something you were taught to connect to, thus helping you know and keep your place.

You said a very positive way forward of how people should be treated, they need to be consulted, not in the Blair and Brown fashion but in the real democratic sense so people's views are not just dismissed.

I think the City of London needs to change a whole lot before anybody in the East End would want a positive engagement with them though

Am senseing a huge whinge over nothing here!

The East end was primarily the industrial part of london since around the time of the romans and has stayed in the same trade since.
If you have a public consultation over everthing you will have to have a meeting over buying a box of staples for the dole centre.

Some things are done for the good of all, If not placed at a good museam then these thing degrade and are lost forever, and the public purse can't afford 10,000 museams for every trinket pulled out of the mud. Of course if it's made of wood then some nut will argue that it ourght to go to a museam where the tree was felled, and anouther stating it must go to where the artisan came from.

What does the items use or provinance have to do with where it gets stored, whats next, we find something that belonged to the aristocracy, do we hide it away, leave it where it lays just so that only YOUR views are shown in history, Peoples Pulpit! hah!

as for neo colonialism, OMG get over it, you live in the UK how do you colonise the UK? Bringing civilisation and culture to the east end was given up on in 204BC and even the Victorians regarded it as worse than the Stews, as it was far from mudlarking and cockneys (unless they enjoyed child abuse, dieing at the age of 35 and a lack of sanitation).

The City of London has its pies all over the world

The Corporation of London owns land all over the show and it sits on London's land while ordinary people in London cannot afford housing because the Housing Corporation (also linked to the City of London) introduced policies which led to the often forcible removal of public housing council estates to private housing associations, which charge extortionate rates, reduce rights and generally are the future slum landlords ordinary people fought so hard to be rid of.

The City of London sits on its colonial past and not only steals from the poor in London, the UK but the world, it houses companies which pay no taxes and asset strip land and exploit people everywhere and the finance industry is responsible for the worst assaults on human rights, the environment and destruction and pillaging of the earth. The City of London are linked to the most right wing organisation agendas in the UK, many of which siphon off UK taxpayers money and hand it over to rich corporations rewarded for incompetence, asset stripping and general exploitation. This is what the City call an eco system full of the lawyers, accountants and financiers who eat from the trough that only the pigs in Animal Farm could have created. They are the real thieves of the world.



Check out the website below to find out the kind of things corporations and the OECD headquarters, which resides in the City of London does.

 http://www.eca-watch.org/WhatsNew/WNV6_2007/WhatsNewV6N4.html
at www.eca-watch.org today! Questions? Email info-at-eca-watch.org
1) OECD approves weakened environmental and social standards for ECAs
2) The Ilisu Dam: Downstream water impacts on Iraq are adverse and serious
3) BAE/ECGD corruption scandal expands to include OECD
4) ECGD's first civil deal in Saudi Arabia - $5 billion Yansab petrochemical project
5) India's Exim Bank's credit commitments hit $2.30 bn
6) New trends in trade Finance: It’s a Buyer’s Market for Export Credit Insurance
7) Conservatives press EU to suspend export credits to Iran
8) Chinese export credit agencies expand relations with western ECAs
— View Back Issues of What's New

1. OECD approves weakened environmental and social standards for ECAs
(ECA Watch, Paris, 26 April 2007) On April 23-24, 2007, the OECD's secretive Export Credit Working Group (ECG) apparently approved revised and weakened environmental and social standards governing projects supported by export credit guarantees or loans of greater than 10 million SDRs (US$15.3 million or 11.2 million). Article 13 of the virtually final negotiating draft of these standards, known as the Recommendation on Common Approaches on Environment and Officially Supported Export Credits, allows OECD export credit agencies (ECAs) to opt out of applying any standards at all should they so decide, provided that they report this to the notoriously secretive and effectively unaccountable OECD working group.

2. The Ilisu Dam: Downstream water impacts on Iraq are adverse and serious
(Corner House/KHRP/WEED, 25 April 2007) Despite misleading ECA and Turkish claims of Iraqi approval of the Ilisu dam, Iraq's Water Minister has stated that no consultations or negotiations had taken place prior to the ECAs’ decision despite this being prescribed by international law. Turkey did not provide comprehensive information to Iraq and Syria, thus violating the conditions tied to the export credit guarantees before they were even given. German, Austrian and Swiss ECA agreement with Turkey's unilateral fixing of a minimum downstream flow undermines Iraq’s and Syria’s water rights under international law.


3. BAE/ECGD corruption scandal expands to include OECD
(ECA Watch, Paris, 25 April 2007) The UK Government's decision to drop a Serious Fraud Office investigation of allegations that BAE Systems was involved in the bribery of Saudi officials linked to a major ECGD supported arms sale has led to a series of charges that both BAE and the UK Government are sabotaging OECD and NGO efforts through behind the scenes diplomacy and paid agents investigating peace campaigners.

4. ECGD's first civil deal in Saudi Arabia - $5 billion Yansab petrochemical project
(ECGD, London, 23 April 2007) The Yansab (Arabic for "smooth") complex, will be built on the Red Sea coast in the industrial city of Yanbu by SABIC (Saudi Basic Industries Corporation). The complex, which is due to start production in mid-2008, will contain the world's biggest ethane 'cracker' and will be one of the world's largest petrochemical complexes. ECGD is providing $150m of support alongside Italy's SACE which is providing $550m of support.

5. India's Exim Bank's credit commitments hit $2.30 bn
(Financial Express, Mumbai, 14 April 2007) Export Import Bank of India (EXIM) has extended two lines of credit worth USD 40 million to Mali and Dijibouti, taking the aggregate credit commitments by the bank to USD 2.30 billion.

6. New trends in trade Finance: It’s a Buyer’s Market for Export Credit Insurance
(World Trade Magazine, Washington, 1 April 2007) Eleven US companies are competing to sell protection against the risk of non-payment by foreign customers. That has brought expanded capacity to handle risk, an intense rivalry, lower premium rates, and more varied underwriting strategies. There’s also a “European transplants” group, three large credit insurance specialists that bought U.S. insurers, including Atradius Trade Credit Insurance (Amsterdam HQ), Coface North America (Paris), and Euler Hermes ACI (Paris).

7. Conservatives press EU to suspend export credits to Iran
(Guardian, London, 4 April 2007) During the crisis triggered by Iran's capture of 15 British naval personnel, Charles Tannock, conservative foreign affairs spokesman in the European parliament, suggested Europe should take a united stand on the Iranian crisis by suspending export credit guarantees. Iran remains one of Germany's top trading partners in the Middle East, with up to 65% of trade financed by Germany's ECA Hermes.

8. Chinese export credit agencies expand relations with western ECAs
(SinoFile.net, Beijing, 10 April 2007) German ECA Euler-Hermes continues to expand its business in China, partnering with Sinosure, the country's official export credit insurance agency. Euler Hermes, the world’s premier credit insurance group has a global market share of some 35%, and is part of the Allianz Group. Standard Chartered Bank has also signed an agreement with Sinosure to help support local companies expand overseas as well as aiding international firms entering China.

The East End has a wall which separated it from the City of London and has a history of wanting nothing to do with the City and vice versa. Its poverty stemmed from exclusion not choice but the values of the City is awful where as the East End has a rich heritage most people are very proud of. So the East End is separate to the City and the wall represents the proof not your ignorant comments. The East End does not want any part of the City and this is why there is land assembly going on to put the kind of people who want links with the City in the area. The politicians support the City for their own self-interest but rest assured the people do not.

Most interesting artistic people choose to live in the East End because most places where there are mixed communities end up being the most vibrant. Taking the Theatre to the sterile greed fuelled City Museum of London is about taking ownership of cultural materials so they can be mined and reduced to the sterile format pushed by the City. The City is the opposite of pure art and the history of theatre which is base on revolt, controversy and artistic expression. Who wants to visit the City of London except culturally defective right wing Americans?

Harry Purvis' comments carry a lot of contempt and he should be called Judith Mayhew, the woman who engineered moving away poor ethnic people so what is the City fringe could be taken away. A New Zealander who is desperate to be part of the English establishment but for that hideous accent and desperation for acceptance was then rewarded with a job with the English Opera House. Mayhew now sits on another taxpayer funded failure. Harry Purvis is probably racist and thinks he is superior and what is this based on. The hate filled aspect for the other stems from being highly insecure and the hatred of the other also helps you to accept awful atrocities because the other is not considered human. The reality is that Harry Purvis is so representative of the City of London, who he defends, he sounds like a hate filled insecure person who thinks wealth and superiority equates to self-worth. The problem is the people in the City have no self worth if you took even one aspect of your life away and therefore their only way to exist is to exploit and maintain their hidesouness. Creating wealth from exploitaiton, buying champagne makes you feel good and going to lap dancing classes forcibly housed in the East End are just some of the aspects of City life that reveal how sterile puerile these people are.

The East End does not need the permission of Harry Purvis to be interesting or of any value because thousands of people visit it and call it an icon. The East End is where people want to be and interesting people come to live here. Which interesting bohemian person would choose to live in the City? After all this is where the desk killers work for companies that contribute nothing and steal from the world's poor work. Not many would want to be associated with the City of London and even less if we were allowed to find out everything it does to England, we know for a fact it benefits from ordinary Londoners and what does it give back to ordinary people? Nada.

Even William Blake who worked there hated the City and he had good reason, it is one of the most evil places in the world and this stems back to England's colonial past.

Private enterprise accounts for how art is displayed, regurgitated and presented
to us in ireland.

That is because the state has starved the public systems in museums and galleries
and introduced a nasty thing called interpretative centres. This way people can go
to an interpretative centre on the shore facing Skellig Michael and never have to
see either the fragile island (!) or the interesting engineering system that
lives beneath the beehive huts (or the helipad and tech that has been added since
the island was closed)

In the last ten years the move to privatisation has allowed profit-driven bodies
free reign on planning and reduced data collection and museum work to the minimum.
This effects govt responsibility to heritage preservation and of course to providing
a true picture of such controversial things as the data recovered from places such as Tara.

=we get our history served up to us by a bunch of eejits who imagine that
we like bite sized hors d'ouevres (sic) and polished halls in which to display
out Shhelagh-na-gigs and etceteras.

Consultation with communities is a step but funding decent national heritage
policy for the future generations is wheres it's at, that means stopping people
buying and dispersing bits of history to have something to waffle about with
their rich palsies- cos they have no right to take what is actually communal
property.

(they stopped busking on the Cliffs of Moher and introduced and interpretative
centre, you can get your name on a bench for 25,000 grand. it's a well known
suicide spot- but I wouldn't attempt a memorial service)

I have also been looking at human responsiveness and the death of monuments and why it causes grieving and loss and thought maybe real places have memories. People notice the response of the loss of some monuments especially when they are taken away to be represented in a sterile way without any indication of their settings and their cultural climate. The East End is vibrant, dynamic, true and peaceful to its communities where as the City is staid, stagnant, dishonest and violent. So the question is why should the Theatre be housed in the Museum of London. The disregard of some monuments like the vile reference to the People's pulpit is a very poor attempt to make one ashamed of its value, you have failed. The People's Pulpit is an identity of freedom, expression and equality not oppression, censorship and the discrimination the City would dearly like to exist.

Some City historian made a speech not so long ago asking why were people in the East End concerned with monuments being sold off and demolished and they should be put to use. When he was asked as to how many City monuments are sold off for privatised use only. He was not the brightest sort and did not have an answer as to why City monuments were more important than East End monuments because it would have exposed his prejudice in a room full of East Enders...he thanked everyone for the debate.

Harry Purvis condemned the East End's uncleanliness. The sanitation problems in the East End was access to prevent such conditions so I really think he is actually describing the English...

The English did not use baths until the Romans and did not even have any examples of the written word until Chaucer. Everything in England is an empty cultural invention right down to the German Nazi monarchy. Perhaps this is why they have to fight and think about their military prowress of how applaud their soliders who drop bombs on communities and how brave they are? And how when they resisted Hitler, it was resistance but Iraqis who resist occupation are insurgents to be killed. The English invented the industrial revolution and that is perhaps the dirtiest invention of all and is the primary reason for climate change. Their factory work invention showed up the merchant classes now companies and corporations for what they were. But even the supposed goodies, the Guinness, Peabody Estate and the Trade Unions just created subservient working communities loyal to their boss. A bit like their soliders, they do their murderous bidding of the MOD and the stupid Queen to whom they have to declare allegiance and none seem to have a conscience or mind of their own - the people who work for the City, the MOD and corporations are like sheep. But hey that is what they are about - removing identity.

Perhaps arty thinks it would be better for the many hordes of tourists who encroach the "gaeltacht" or supposedly exclusive gaelic Irish language zone, without even a phrasebook to help them, and then beach themselves on the Skellig islands to connect with the beehive constructions. As if they built them. As if any contemporary Egyptian could build a pyramid. As if any contemporary Chinese would fire a terracota replica of themselves to be buried with an emperor, as if any contemporary Greek could be a philosopher. Why does nobody who pretends to class consciousness in the 21st century ignore their obvious antecedents slavery, thralldom, serfdom, vassaldom? How do they ignore their mycrochondrial DNA passed from rightless and voteless mother to daughter to somehow think a bunch of male monastic hermitages or male church trinkets represent their history? Oh! so someone could read and write a form in English in Chaucer's time. The introduction of primary level education to teach the masses English happened in the 19th century.

It's neither our past nor our heritage. & everytime that anarchists or leftists become involved in campaigns to hold on to the "art" of the past, they not only give oxygen to the fires of the narrowest national identity clubs which exclude the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural realities of contemporary London or Irish communities - they deftly ignore the question of the capitalisation of creative activity, its reification and internalisation in the system of money values.

Burn the museums! Rip them down brick from lying brick. Who amongst us would prefer to see the Colleseo snuff theatre in working order in the middle of Rome? Do any of us really regret the sacking of the Empire's evil heart? Do you really think you wouldn't have burnt it yourself given the chance? Do you think you would have left the gold and marble on the pyramids for posterity?

Humanity's History did not begin with its first empires, emperors, scriptures, priviliges, slavery systems. It began with locks and keys and falsification and booty. The slave of Rome had no notion where the conquered came from as they filed past in procession under the triumphal arch - but they knew the meaning of trophies. The Americans of the shopping mall might not know where mesapotamia was, where Babalon was, nor where Hussein kept his WMD - but they know the value of the gun Bush keeps in the Oval office.

Museums are nothing but the public display of booty and trophies for the delusion of the masses.

History will not end if you cease to believe those fairy tales of an ancient "English identity" in times when plainly there was no national conscience. Or do you prefer narratives devoid of serfs and slaves, masters who spoke Saxon usurped by masters who spoke French?

Both Eastendfact and Arty could learn a lot more about history by focussing not no their own local myths but seeing the universality of faked and falsified identities, the best place to start is far far away from your own assumptions and emotions.

No woman or jew or foreigner ever took the peoples' pulpit.

you have speakers corner.
you have your media.
rant rant rant rant rant rant rant. ;-)

how are the kids to learn unless they see and judge for themselves?

I think them perfectly capable of discerning what is 'dinky' and useful
and realising a 'fnord' when they see one- now the beehives are V interesting
cos they have little water gathering wells beneath the beehives which are
simple engineering, but tell a tale of survival on top of a rock.

The stories too reveal that the monastic men were not celibates
and they had womenfolk on the mainland.

I take issue with the interpretative centre, which I alluded to with regard
to Moher, a young girl jumped with her infant recently and within a week
or two the ex-taoiseach was down there selling 25,000 euro benches
to the ne'er do well.

it's all about engagement Mr pirate, would you burn a Bach , a Mozart?
but art and image it seems, a lesser art. We make do and mend what
we have and trust that kids can judge beauty . otherwise we are becoming
the censorious-

take a look at how art and parks effect the war children, how open air
and ingenuity has benefited the kids who come from Chernobyl. no-one is
perfect- but art is a communality- a shared possession.

unless you are Berlusconi and like to have nipples painted over for fear of
offence!

Avast.

[who do ye sell the booty to , whilst you wash the stones and clean the sky??)

Ahem.

“the owners of the proposed new playhouse on the site, Tower Theatre Company, say they will keep the archaeological remains in situ and are in discussion with English Heritage to help them do so.”

 http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/nwh_gfx_en/ART59874.html


So what was the fuss about again?

PS) Not sure what the "whatever your name is" snipe was about - I'm Norville B. Are you really Mr Eastendfact?

Hey Eastendfact, you were right, he is a plant, Norville B behaves like a plant, sounds like a plant in his posts and then likes to be provocative.

The standard mechanism is as follows. Join a group, give them worthless information, a Norville B trait, when challenged and up against it, give them something that costs you nothing to prove your worth. Here Norville B performs so well again. His only problem is that he like the rest of them remain quite predictable and thick...

Well Norville B, I know about what you have stolen. Thanks to you and your cronies for giving the East End area some credit after your stealing episode and stupid attempts in these posts to dismiss the people of the East End in various ways including being rude about the People's Pulpit (the other postee should note that the People's pulpit was for the use of anyone but I think it is hard to understand the significance of the pulpit from a few posts (your explanation could be better eastendfact) but the reason why you will not know its history isbecause the City sickos do not want people to feel equal or united and work tirelessly with their partner in crime, the Museum of London to remove any trace referencing the history of the hopes and desires of ordinary people - this must be because they are honest, virtuous and honourable compared to the barbarians in the City, the monarchy and the idiots elsewhere. Anyone was welcome to use the People's Pulpit and if you knew anything about the East End you would not be trying to say that their is disparity between jews and black people etc etc - the City have tried to create division but its actions are always recognised by ordinary people.

But back to Norville B, your post will not be enough as you are destroying the history and the present of the East End every day and you and your cohorts will pay. Eastendfact need not tell you their name for there are many of us, there are few of you and you have to be paid to do it. we are many, we care and we do this because we believe...

iosaf you are wrong as pointed out, if we had retained the People's Pulpit, it would have shown people are capable of unity, equality and expression not just as a monument but as a representation of that memory when a significant place existed for this to occur.

I hope you will agree, we must record the positive moments where we can and bring them into our lives whenever and how we can for everyone.

The original post said “a secret dig removed the traces of the real Shakespeare's theatre to the City of London's Museum of London”.

I pointed out that this statement did not seem to be true.

All the reports so far suggest the remains of the theatre are going to stay in Shoreditch – I’d guess they’ll probably make it part of the attraction of going to the brand new theatre. Indeed, almost a month ago, The Times reported "The Tower Theatre Company, which performs a Shakespeare work every year, will design its modern playhouse around the remains of the original".
 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4466781.ece

This is not “useless information”. This is crucial information that is pertinent to the original post.

If there is evidence to the contrary, then I’d be keen to know it too. If someone was posting, "Well, yes, obviously, they are publicising that they are keeping the theatre on the site, but if you go here you'll find they are planning a massive exhibit at Museum of London and they're nicking an original manuscript of Titus Andronicus they've unearthed" or "I've seen them carting stuff away", then I’d go “fine – something is up”.

Instead I get accused of being a plant and a troll, and wanting to destroy the history London’s East End. I’m sure you’d love it if any of those accusations were true, but, sadly for you, they are not.

You seem rattled because I’ve pointed out what seems to be a glaring error in your piece. I’m happy to apologise if you can prove me wrong.

Norville B, have you read your own post, which you seem to be so proud of, the owners of the site... does this not tell you the reason for the objection. W

Historians are the worst propagandists of our time. Churchill is a fine example of the lies peddled by your sort as here was a clear example of a man who behaved like a Nazi in every way being peddled as some war hero.

So lets look at some of the statements by the evil war criminal Churchill, who said:
"I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes," and for ordinary Germans "or any other method of warfare we have hitherto refrained from using." This was rejected but lets look at what else this barbaric fat ugly warmonger wanted to do.

On Palestine, Winston Churchill said this about the Palestinians in 1937 and proved how much of a Nazi he really fascist he really was: "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

Churchill even wrote to Benito Mussolini and said this: "if I had been an Italian, I am sure I would have been entirely with you from the beginning to the end of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism." Even after the advent of WWII, Churchill found room in his heart for the Italian dictator, explaining to Parliament in 1940:"I do not deny that he is a very great man but he became a criminal when he attacked England."

Churchill also thought "everyone" was bombing civilians. "It's simply a question of fashion,"

Churchill's support for fascist racism is recorded and his bombing of Dresden was a disgrace to any civilised society but for the fact that this barbaric warmonger is dressed up by historians as a peace loving hero.

You are clearly deluded in thinking that poor people should be grateful for any sanitised crap history version your sort like to give but we are not because we are independent free thinkers who reject your authoritarian version because it is never a true reflection of life, character or place. The Theatre is not a cultural artefacts created by you and your idiots at the Museum, it existed as part of the fabric and character of a place and the people although it is clear that appropriation is your game. Your original derogatory comments about Stratford suggested you thought us ignorant but having found the opposite, you and Mr Purvis seem to be clutching at any straws so you can make these forms of appropriation palatable, they cannot be.

History belongs to the people and we all know how historians like to make their version of history and present it as fact. Some people in the UK may have believed Churchill is great because of the misinformation peddled by your sort but most do not unless they are brainwashed army sorts. The reality is he was an evil warmonger and criminal who had more in common with Blair. I am sure your game is to seek to quell the desire for true, independent representation of history but you cannot I am afraid. This is why you and Purvis deserve no comment, so go back to your Museum of London City cronies and tell them that.

I asked you if you had any proof that the theatre was being moved to the Museum of London.

Clearly, you don't because you've just responded with a diatribe at historians (and I'm not one of those either).

The owners of the site are, as I mentioned, the Tower Theatre Company, a non-professional company made of, mostly Londoner, actors who've been putting on plays around London for the last 75 years. The Museum of London are not the site's owners, unless you have information to show otherwise.

And no, I wasn't trying to insult anyone's intelligence with the light-hearted line about Stratford DLR station. Just ask the staff who work there - they get American tourists there all the time who think it's Shakespeare's birthplace. It seemed a good opportunity to get disappointed visitors to the new theatre in Shoreditch. I know you're not a tourist, so I was obviously not referring to you.

Is the concern that tourists may not not visit Shoreditch? Do you really want that? If so, one solution might be to stick up a poster in Stratford tube station for all the tourists who go there thinking it's Shakespeare's birthplace, not realising there's another Stratford in Warwickshire.

No, no one is concerned about tourists visiting Shoreditch or the East End, they do that with or without Shakespeare and the morsels your sort at the Museum of London dare to return. They have already destroyed countless history in the area and decimated it for their own agenda. What will they put on it? Who knows? Now it seems you were concerned about tourism in the East End. How lovely? Not me though, because I am not a tourist, how kind...

It is odd you go to great lengths to tell us you are not a historian but you seem quite intent on telling the history of a theatre company going for 75 years, is this because you consider them to be more important than those involved in the history of independent theatre in the East End. You are an appropriator of artefacts as a supporter of the Museum of London and your general defence of historians in what you refer to as historians also makes you an apologist for the state and all the evils it generates and this is why you people are so wrong in being allowed to preserve anything.

We do not want you, the Museum of London or any other company whoever they taking away, demolishing or doing anything without consulting local people who live in the area. Do you, your City of London trash, your museum and historian cronies actually get that Norville B? No I will be right in thinking I presume not.

I have just been informed of the following. Oddly enough the Tower Theatre company had been looking to acquire new premises. The Tower of London on the website say they accepted the challenge of building a new home on the spot. Accepted the challenge of exploiting the site more likely, who had bothered to go and see these people before?

Why?

The Tower Theatre Company I am told are not known for Shakespeare plays and more known for trashy comedies and dramas, so why did they have the first opportunity to own the site?

The Tower Theatre Company are involved with the area of Canonbury and are now in the heart of the City, Bridewell Passage in fact.

So people in the East End want to know why the owners of the site are a trashy City theatre company?

gets more interesting.

Still trying to get over the handing over The Theatre to The Tower Theatre Company, does anyone know how much it was sold for? What stake do local people get in the site?

 http://www.towertheatre.org.uk/

First heard of the new owners of the site from Norville B who is desperately trying to be pleased for the East End and is now evening making tenuous links to the increase in tourism.

Question is how much was The Theatre site of Shakespeare sold for?
Who was consulted?
Who owned the land previously?
Which local groups and theatre groups were consulted?
Why are some group not known for putting on any thing of any real substance being involved with something of international importance?


There are so many questions and very little answers.

If the plan was to move or demolish the theatre, I’d understand your anger. I agree there are too many sham consultations by local authorities in London, and elsewhere.

But you’re working yourself up over a plan to… err… preserve the theatre and keep it in Shoreditch.

That would get my vote and I hope English Heritage can help make that happen. Strangely, I think the preserving-the-theatre-in-Shoreditch option would also get the vote of most people in the East End.

It is interesting that Norville B reckons the people of the East End would support giving ownership of the Theatre to the Tower Theatre company. Where Norville B is the evidence you are so clearly fond of?

There is none and it sounds like the kind of sham consultation a local authority in the East End would be proud of. You do not know because you have not asked but you would like to assume because it fits in with your 'it is all right nonsense'.

Your little jibe about office blocks is below the proverbial belt. No one in the East End is looking for protection from sell-outs such as English Heritage. How many sites and buildings have English Heritage idiots let the City destroy and how they cower in the face of Government. So much so, that the Govt set up a repeat organisation called CABE and they were too hopeless at dealing with that too. Please keep your English Heritage, they are not wanted as local people have a much better idea of what is worth saving than they do. What is the point of some fool from English Heritage telling a person that a meaningful historic site or building is not worthwhile, you are bowing to someone suggesting they are superior, when we have seen that they are not. Enough of Norville B time wasting.

Please does anyone know the questions about the Theatre site ...

There's a lot of stuff about the theatre company on their website.

Looks like they've been offered the site for £3 million, but panicking about raising the cash to build it.

There's even a picture of what the theatre might look like on here:

 http://www.towertheatre.org.uk/frameset.htm

"We are encroaching on the interest from our £1.7 million for running costs, but as things stand, the basic sum is untouched. We could wait and see, but we would lose Curtain Road because the option expires on July 7th. Could we raise £3 million?

"Action Planning’s research identified about 40 trusts and foundations which might fund an appeal like the Tower’s project and a similar number of companies. However, Margaret emphasised that they would want evidence that the Tower’s members and supporters were also making a substantial contribution. She concluded that the Tower currently has the potential to raise about £500,000 from outside sources, matched by another £500,000 from our own resources. In order to raise more we must attract some major individual or corporate donors. This is a leap of faith that will need commitment from everyone."

Who the corporate donors are will be interesting. I'll be apologising to EastEndfact if the theatre is emblazoned with Nestle logos. (But I'm not going to apologise for pointing out that his claims the Shakespeare theatre would be destroyed or moved to the Museum of London still seem total bollocks).

Norville,

You are a plant but for the benefit of the audience of these posts. The City plan is like this. They call the East End the City fringe these day because people have been documenting the purchase of land by the Corporation and they ahve spoken to people about plans to extend out of the City walls into what they previously made and called the cesspit, the East End, which has been getting on really well without the City but now it is doing well, the City want to get their blood drenched filthy hands on it.

Spitalfields Market loss countless treasures to the City of London Museum, they are there not in the area of East End where they belong but in the City. There are countless examples of national and international treasures being stolen in the UK. Egyptians revealed a stolen sarcophagus pair had been "stolen" and was now in the Sir John Soane Museum and one need not mention the "stolen" Elgin marbles. Your lot steal so sugarcoating the facts will not help you.

The Theatre has been handed over to this trashy group called the Tower Theatre company without so much of a word and when I asked about consultation, you said the East End would support it. Where is the evidence of this assertion? There is none but you have attempted to write your post in a way that attempts to make them worthy recipients of an international treasure but on what basis? The Theatre has been stolen because Tower Theatre have nothing to do with the site, nor are they a theatre of any merit and certainly are not representative of the East End.

I along with many people in the East End did not even know about the Theatre until recently so that is how little we knew and certainly not consulted. So now you say the Theatre is not going to be removed but it is going to be handed over to profiteering City linked Theatre group, who want to profiteer from the value of the site which no doubt they want to bring into the City boundary.

Extending the City bounday is an attempt to turn the East End (not the City fringe as the desk killers call it) into part of the evil that resides in the City, we will not have it.

Well oddly neither I nor the people of the East End are pleased about the Theatre or the City's plans but under a sham consultation post on Indymedia by you, I would be