i used to love centreprise until a few weeks ago when I went in asking how to help. a man with a hitler moustache and a fake ss suit, which he claimed was some kind of spurious racial equality subversion, gave me a ten minute conversation on how my sexuality was an illness.

one local woman, selling lovely calendars, defended me. the rest of the people working there just sat back and listened.

this man is a scumbag, a centreprise volunteer and a constant fixture on kingsland road.

it's fucking shameful this bookshop devoted to empowerment did nothing to stop obvious homophobia in their shop.

again, i emphasise that i used to love the place and they've done a whole load of wonderful stuff.

OK, first off.

You should not be using the phrase "gentrification". That is a "progressive" term and helps to civilise and legitimise the policy which is being enforced, that being excessive over-capitalisation of public and voluntary services to the detriment of the economy and wider community.

Second, You need to be talking about what will be happening to the building and its grounds. This council will NOT have gone to the expense of forcing the buildings owners out by using the courts without a financial incentive. That means that the council will have received an offer to buy the building from a private source BEFORE they went to court. That source might even be originating from within the council itself. You have to understand that most UK councils are routinely corrupt.

And lastly, we do not need to know about the politics of the building or the politics of the people who use and have used the building. That is of no interest at all.

When mounting a fight against this sort of thing, you should NOT adopt the politics of "progressives". The "progressives" have become irrelevant because they are dishonest, bankrupt and almost always stand for "reformism" and nothing else.

The "progressives" are a disempowering movement and should be avoided at all costs. You will win nothing by following them.

"And lastly, we do not need to know about the politics of the building or the politics of the people who use and have used the building. That is of no interest at all."

Why? Don't you think reports of homophobia should be publicised?

Longbow, how refreshingly patronising, you are. Made my day!

Its true.

Progressives are a complete waste of space.

Its the Polly Toynbee effect.

"Why? Don't you think reports of homophobia should be publicised?"

Do you think that Homophobia is more important than a public building used by the whole community being seized for sale by profit?

Longbow, what is the better non-'progressive' term for gentrification that we should use?

I don't understand your objections to the original post... Who exactly are the "progressives"? What evidence do you have that we (as the poster of the original article) have "adopted their politics"? We in fact have our own ideas, but since you aren't specific about what you mean, I don't know if you are really disagreeing with us or not. We choose to use terms which have meaning to us - although sometimes these terms are problematical because words can mean different things to different people, we don't respond well to people lecturing us in a patronising tone about what words to use but without explaining what they object to. We also ARE interested in the ideas, history, changes and developments in the 'politics' (one term with problematical multi-meanings, it's true!) of Centreprise: that's WHY we posted; because the space has had meaning to us. We agree with the post from 'local queer' in fact that things have, as we would see it, gone downhill there in recent years, and some bad behaviour has been tolerated, even encouraged, which IS important; how a place like Centreprise relates to people who go in/use the space, or what it allows to happen between people, is part of how it reflects the local communities... a crucial question.
But on balance, with reservations, we support/ed its fight to remain there and opposed Hackney Council.

We don't know what will happen to the building. Hackney may have received another offer, I don't know, but its not necessarily true that they would not have evicted the centre without one: they won't have difficulty letting that building, given the social changes going on in Kingsland High Street. Maybe they would have been happy to see Centreprise continue there if the £37,000 a year could have been stumped up, and the motive is purely financial. At least one other, not dissimilar, project in another borough, which faced a huge rent and rates hike from the council (after a period on very low rent) there was able to haggle and negotiate paying less than what was demanded. But Hackney also has a recent history of Machiavellian (or should that be Hackneavellian) dealings with long-term tenants when it has a bright new vision for particular streets and the tenants don't fit. It's possible there is corruption, I don't know, I wouldn't rule it out, but sometimes its plain old social engineering - an old London tradition.


Gentification, broadly, to us, means changes in an area aimed at altering the social class of people who live there - specifically encouraging a 'higher' class of people to move in, whether to live, or run businesses, etc, and inevitably encouraging lower classes to move out. In reality, in London, this always means more middle class people and less working class people; it also generally transforms areas, often slowly and in a myriad of subtly different ways, in the interests of the middle classes, AND in the wider interests of capital. In the long run, past tense would like to see the abolition of all classes and a wholly different social system, not base on profit… this may be a way off, if it is ever to be achieved at all. In the meantime, we do what we can to oppose such change, to publicise others also resisting or being shafted by it (who may not agree with us ‘politically’ – we know Centreprise don’t), to flag up what we think are issues and contradictions. And there are contradictions – distinguishing gentrification from more locally controlled and egalitarian regeneration; illusions and romanticisation of poverty, disrepair and lack of opportunity; and a thorny tangle around the process of opposition to gentrification and whose interests such opposition serves… Too much to go into into detail here, though past tense has some ideas on the drawing board for a text on this issue…

NB: One mistake in the orignal post: Centreprise don't claim THEY bought the building in 1984; their position is that Hackney recived a grant to buy the place SOLELY for the use of Centreprise. Which makes more sense. Apologies for our error in understanding

Sorry if we misunderstand you, Longbow, but we would be interested what you actually mean by what you say…

I don't understand your objections to the original post... Who exactly are the "progressives"? What evidence do you have that we (as the poster of the original article) have "adopted their politics"? We in fact have our own ideas, but since you aren't specific about what you mean, I don't know if you are really disagreeing with us or not. We choose to use terms which have meaning to us - although sometimes these terms are problematical because words can mean different things to different people, we don't respond well to people lecturing us in a patronising tone about what words to use but without explaining what they object to. We also ARE interested in the ideas, history, changes and developments in the 'politics' (one term with problematical multi-meanings, it's true!) of Centreprise: that's WHY we posted; because the space has had meaning to us. We agree with the post from 'local queer' in fact that things have, as we would see it, gone downhill there in recent years, and some bad behaviour has been tolerated, even encouraged, which IS important; how a place like Centreprise relates to people who go in/use the space, or what it allows to happen between people, is part of how it reflects the local communities... a crucial question.
But on balance, with reservations, we support/ed its fight to remain there and opposed Hackney Council.

We don't know what will happen to the building. Hackney may have received another offer, I don't know, but its not necessarily true that they would not have evicted the centre without one: they won't have difficulty letting that building, given the social changes going on in Kingsland High Street. Maybe they would have been happy to see Centreprise continue there if the £37,000 a year could have been stumped up, and the motive is purely financial. At least one other, not dissimilar, project in another borough, which faced a huge rent and rates hike from the council (after a period on very low rent) there was able to haggle and negotiate paying less than what was demanded. But Hackney also has a recent history of Machiavellian (or should that be Hackneavellian) dealings with long-term tenants when it has a bright new vision for particular streets and the tenants don't fit. It's possible there is corruption, I don't know, I wouldn't rule it out, but sometimes its plain old social engineering - an old London tradition.


Gentification, broadly, to us, means changes in an area aimed at altering the social class of people who live there - specifically encouraging a 'higher' class of people to move in, whether to live, or run businesses, etc, and inevitably encouraging lower classes to move out. In reality, in London, this always means more middle class people and less working class people; it also generally transforms areas, often slowly and in a myriad of subtly different ways, in the interests of the middle classes, AND in the wider interests of capital. In the long run, past tense would like to see the abolition of all classes and a wholly different social system, not base on profit… this may be a way off, if it is ever to be achieved at all. In the meantime, we do what we can to oppose such change, to publicise others also resisting or being shafted by it (who may not agree with us ‘politically’ – we know Centreprise don’t), to flag up what we think are issues and contradictions. And there are contradictions – distinguishing gentrification from more locally controlled and egalitarian regeneration; illusions and romanticisation of poverty, disrepair and lack of opportunity; and a thorny tangle around the process of opposition to gentrification and whose interests such opposition serves… Too much to go into into detail here, though past tense has some ideas on the drawing board for a text on this issue…

NB: One mistake in the orignal post: Centreprise don't claim THEY bought the building in 1984; their position is that Hackney recived a grant to buy the place SOLELY for the use of Centreprise. Which makes more sense. Apologies for our error in understanding

Sorry if we misunderstand you, Longbow, but we would be interested what you actually mean by what you say…

"Gentification, broadly, to us, means changes in an area aimed at altering the social class of people who live there - specifically encouraging a 'higher' class of people to move in, whether to live, or run businesses, etc, and inevitably encouraging lower classes to move out. In reality, in London, this always means more middle class people and less working class people; it also generally transforms areas, often slowly and in a myriad of subtly different ways, in the interests of the middle classes, AND in the wider interests of capital. In the long run, past tense would like to see the abolition of all classes and a wholly different social system, not base on profit… this may be a way off, if it is ever to be achieved at all. In the meantime, we do what we can to oppose such change, to publicise others also resisting or being shafted by it (who may not agree with us ‘politically’ – we know Centreprise don’t), to flag up what we think are issues and contradictions. And there are contradictions – distinguishing gentrification from more locally controlled and egalitarian regeneration; illusions and romanticisation of poverty, disrepair and lack of opportunity; and a thorny tangle around the process of opposition to gentrification and whose interests such opposition serves… Too much to go into into detail here, though past tense has some ideas on the drawing board for a text on this issue…"


Without wishing to be rude...this is a moral shambles. I am very very grateful that I have not had you around on the campaigns that I have worked on. I say this out of concern for your politics, not out of spite toward you. It doesn't surpise me that your space has been lifted out from under you so easily and passed onto others who have volunteered to help prop up the councils coffers to a greater degree than you can.

Your council are not doing this because they are trying to "gentrify" the area. They are doing this because their jobs are dependent on cutting costs and searching out new ways to generate income streams for their council-business. "Gentrification" as you put it does not factor into the councils logic as a policy. The policy is determined by national government. That national government are not aware of what the consequences of this will be in your area and will not concern themselves with it unless it goes wrong and some minister has to deal with it.

As far as the policy is concerned...businesses are going under and shutting up shop. The high street is now falling away. Fewer and fewer people are shopping in the high street. In the not too distant future the high street won't exist anymore. The shops you see in the high street now, will be returned back to residential use (which is how many of them started, houses in streets converted into local shops). Even the large commercial parks will aggregate together into fewer and fewer sites. The closing of your "community space" is not "gentrification", it is the by-product of a failing economic system that has been mismanaged for almost thirty years.

Talking about this as "gentrification" masks and avoids what it actually is. You are suffering and you are suffering at the hands of your own damn council which has been forced into this by a failing governmental system which has prompted and brought about this failing economic system.

Calling your loss "gentrification" is a "progressive" act and it is tantamount to mindless vandalism and common thuggery.

This is not the time for being clever...this is a time for being effective.

Protect what you have and let those who have failed you...fail by their own hand.

c

longbow you are fuking prick ... for you homophobia isnt so importante as gentrification !! WHAT A IDIOT YOU ARE is people like you that we dont need to have around ANARCHO PUNK AGAINST PREJUDICE

" WHAT A IDIOT YOU ARE
is people like you that we dont need to
have around ANARCHO PUNK AGAINST
PREJUDICE"

On the contrary, I would say it is those who ignore a good and sturdy cause in favour of their own agendas who should be ignored and removed from the movements.

This is the way it is for "Progressives". They are not progressive, they are simply revisionists.

We dont need them. They have nothing to offer that we want or need. The only thing on offer from "Progressives", is distraction and misdirection.

And you Sony, are a case in point.

“Moral shambles”? Quite like the sound of that. Can I have that for a username sometime? We didn’t mention morality, and morality has nothing to do with the question. You say you’re glad you didn’t have us around on the campaigns you have worked on – since you don’t know who we are, it’s possible you did. We’ve been around. Maybe we even know you?

As we have made clear – though I suspect you are not really reading other people’s posts, so much as shouting over them – Centreprise wasn’t/isn’t “our” space in the narrow sense that we were not involved in running it, in its management, didn’t work there; although if you define “our’ wider then some of us have attended events there, ate at the café, found the bookshop useful for both obtaining books, magazines etc, and sometimes for selling publications we have produced/helped to distribute. Others of our close friends have had more involvement. We posted the original article out of solidarity.

Some of the other points you made about the economic motives of Hackney Council are good ones, and are factors in what is going on in many boroughs all over the country (and wider). But economics co-exists with social policy; both actually influence the other, econoimic ‘necessity’ can cause changes to social policy, and ideological views have an impact on economic policies. It is true to say that Hackney Council has to find immediate savings/raise revenue wherever it can; but it isn’t their only motivation. And long term, forcing out poorly paid (on average) people from a borough and replacing them with better paid people, businesses that can pay higher business rates (usually, though not always) branches of chains or large corporations is in itself financially lucrative for a local authority. It reduces its local welfare bill (possibly the most important guiding principle for local authorities for hundreds of years since local parish vestries first had responsibility for the local poor forced upon them), and increases its own income in rates, rent, council tax.

You say the issue is the “decline of the high street”. So people’s shopping habits are changing. That really isn’t the issue in Dalston, where most people are skint and will have to continue shopping at pound shops and the market. Go down Ridley Road market and see if it’s declining… What will likely happen is what has happened in Shoreditch and Hoxton, which has nothing to do with shopping habits. 20 years ago Shoreditch was “in decline”, it’s not now, it has been regenerated as a ‘cultural quarter” through art, trendy bars, etc. That is what will happen to Kingsland High Street. He places that will replace Centreprise etc will be funky nightspots, art galleries, expensive restaurants later… Not much use to many of the people who live there now, but it won’t matter, as some of the national economic policies you mention (eg benefit caps, erosion of social housing) as well as the (maybe slightly different) agenda of Hackney Council and the money it is trying to get into bed with will have pushed most of them out of the area by then. I’ve seen it happen elsewhere. Been one of those forced out.

I agree that This is not the time for being clever...this is a time for being effective.” We really aren’t ciaming to be lever. We try to find our way through by thinking and acting, and working with others where we find common ground. Sometimes some of the processes we have been talking about can be halted, if people resist them, sometimes not. Often however, it is worth a try. In a later post you criticize people with “their own agendas” – as if everyone doesn’t have their own agenda. Sometimes you need to support a “good and sturdy cause”, despite having differences with some of those you are standing shoulder to shoulder with, but you have to also be able to voice those differences, especially where ‘difference’ becomes prejudice, hatred and abuse. You advocate expelling people “with their own agenda” from “our” movements – but which movements are we talking about here? You shoot off terms like “progressives”, “revisionists” like your proverbial medieval archer but without any explanation of what you actually mean by these terms.

I also have no idea what you mean when you say: ”Calling your loss "gentrification" is a "progressive" act and it is tantamount to mindless vandalism and common thuggery.” Would it be possible to explain this further?

centreprise stopped being for the whole community some time back

what was a wide ranging book shop stocking independent radical, feminist, LGBT and black literature and fiction became a very narrow outlet for, homophobic, sexist and at times antisemitic nation of islam and christian literature - most of the community where thereby excluded and made explicitly unwelcome, it also became the site for some dodgy scam businesses

that is why though sad to see the building go as a space for community use centreprise itself had stopped being that building some years ago

Longbow - wtf are you on about? ignore homophobia for a good cause? could a racist cause also be a good one if it opposed gentrification?

from the centreprise website "The Centre’s indefatigable Chief Executive, Emmanuel Amevor... became its first Centre Director in 1994, when the collective system of management was replaced with a hierarchical one."

"Longbow - wtf are you on about? ignore homophobia for a good cause? could a racist cause also be a good one if it opposed gentrification?"

Its pretty clear that no matter what I write, I cannot overcome your propensity to willfully misunderstand what I am saying.

There is a public building, used for the public good. That building has now been seized and you can DO NOTHING but complain about it.

So now you are now a disempowering force which itself is a by-product of your failure. You cannot see what has happened and what that community has lost because you are too wrapped up in your homophobic nonsense to care about what has actually happened. Whinge, whine and bleat about the people that were running it all you want, cry your eyes out about homophobia all you want, tear your hair out about "gentrification" all you want...

Its failure you represent and for some reason you seem to think that the rest of the world needs to share it!!!

That community has lost an important resource. Just because you didn't agree with the way it was being run now or in the past does not in any way change the fact that the publics use of that building, in whatever form that might take now or in the future, has gone for good.

This is how it is for "progressives". They do nothing but FAIL and then advertise the fact to the rest of the world.

By that act, we are all encouraged to fail too.

By that act, our movements die.

I reject you.

From the Centerprise website published 3 November 2011:

 http://www.ligali.org/article.php?id=2261

"Although involved in lease negotiations the Council have disingenuously resorted to legal action to close the centre.

The premises at 136-138 Kingsland High Street, Dalston, Hackney, London E8 2NS was originally bought by Hackney Council for the sole use of Centerprise by a capital grant awarded to Centerprise in 1984 under the Inner City Partnership Fund.

The Council's legal director, Gifty Edila has refused all entreaties to settle the matter through negotiation and mediation. Hackney Council have filed papers at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court, 29-41 Gee Street, London EC1V 3RE to have the building repossessed by the Council.

The hearing is expected to be held on 11 November 2011 at 3.00pm.

'We are astonished that the Council is using the law to enforce an illegitimate act' says Michael Daniel, a Stoke Newington resident, who is also a Trustee and long time volunteer at the Centre.

Michael Daniel continued ‘in taking such a drastic action, Hackney Council has failed in its statutory duty to undertake an Equality Impact Assessment under the Equality Impact Act of 2010, which enjoins all public bodies to undertake such assessments before taking any such action’.

‘Our clientele is mainly, minorities such as women, children and black and other ethnic minority communities’, he further stated.

Emmanuel Amevor


Public Meeting

Emmanuel Amevor, Chief Executive of Centerprise and founder of Word Power, International Black literature Festival and Book Fair commented: 'We are calling on the wider local, national and International community to come to our aid to fight this gross injustice, which flies in the face of natural justice, equity and fairness'.

As the only book shop in Hackney dedicated to radical thought there will be a democratic deficit should the Centre close, coupled with the loss of vital services to the most vulnerable in the community.

To date officers of Hackney Council has refused any form of mediation on this matter, further calling into question Hackney Council's commitment to Lord Justice Jackson's Review of Civil Litigation Costs.

The Centre is calling a meeting of all its members, supporters, users and the general public on Thursday, 3 November 2011 at 7pm, at Centerprise, 136-138 Kingsland High Street, London E8 2NS to find ways of stopping this officer-driven policy which has no basis with the visions and aspirations of local people.

We will also be launching a defence fund to help with this ugly and unnecessary action by Hackney Council.

For more information please contact, Emmanuel Amevor on 020 7254 9632 or  centerprisetrustltd@gmail.com.

www.centerprisetrust.org.uk