Published with no alterations except if the following are perceived to be problems: length, language (obcenities.. tempting but ultimately may not be appropriate), libel (we can't afford to be sued): if you wish use the write-back form; this allows you to object to publication..... or just e-mail us
Ben and Jerry
Collect 9 tokens from Cadburys chocolate bars-namely WispaGold, TimeOut, Twirl, Crunchie and DoubleDecker-take them into a UCI cinema for a free ticket.
They should be advised that if they must buy the bars they must NOT use the tokens or give them away. They should not even throw them in the street or in public wastebins in case someone picks it up who is collecting - take the wrapper home.
I will be writing to Cadburys to advise them that there is a many thousand person CPC boycott against UCI and especially for residents in our five boroughs. I shall also ask them if they would like to make a contribution to the campaign as a way of public appeasement/compensation.
If your readers would like to write to Cadburys as well the promotion address is:
PO Box 12
(name and address supplied)-Sept 1999
Webmaster: our petition does call for non-attendance at the multiplex! However, we are not against cinemas in general. Cadbury's may be surprised to know about the protests at Crystal Palace Park. They may even suggest to UCI that it is probably not a good idea for Cadbury's to be associated with such a venture - but then I wouldn't dare to speak for Cadbury's.
Ben and Jerry
Referring to your item about Ben & Jerry's connection with UCI, I thought that the following attachment might be of interest.
It would seem that Ben & Jerry are still concerned about social justice, as indeed they should be. They having campaigned against and beaten a large food corporation in the US who tried to put them out of business when they were just beginning. I think therefore, if they personally (they are real people) could be contacted and given the facts of the Crystal Palace campaign they might well put pressure on UCI to pull out.
I hope you will find this useful, carry on with the good work.
(name and address supplied)
Ben & Jerry's Surrenders!
New Yorkers for a Just Middle East Peace
Ben & Jerry's issued the below letter today (September 15, 1998), announcing that their licensee in Israel will no longer purchase water from the Golan Heights. Ben & Jerry's responded to protests concerning a reported deal with Eden Springs, an Israeli company based in the Golan Heights. At issue was not only Israel's illegal occupation of the Golan Heights, but also the fact that Ben & Jerry's would be encouraging the expropriation of Golan water. The profits from this expropriation go to Israeli companies, not to the people of the Golan Heights.
Congratulations to all those who voiced their concern to Ben & Jerry's, and who helped get the word out.
Please note: This is a newsworthy item. We have not publicized the issue beyond a relatively small group of people connected by the Internet. We can inform local media, especially progressive media. Clearly, the interest lies not only in Middle East issues, but also as an example of how we can successfully bring pressure to bear on corporations. We can make use of two letters issued by Ben & Jerry's: today's letter and one they sent out on August 31, 1998.
Ben & Jerry's Response
To: 'Nathan Krystall'
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 9:49 AM
Subject: RE: Attn: Perry Odak
Thank you for contacting us about reports that water from the Golan Heights was being used in Ben & Jerry's products in Israel.
Ben & Jerry's products in Israel are manufactured and sold by an independent company that we have licensed to produce Ben & Jerry's products. This licensee chooses its own suppliers, and we are advised that our licensee in Israel has switched water suppliers and is no longer purchasing water from the Golan Heights.
All Ben & Jerry's products sold in the US are made in Vermont.
Again, thank you for bringing this issue to our attention.
International Product Specialist, Ben & Jerry's (Aug 1999)
Land Use Consultancy-& Three Themes-
I SUPPORT your campaign at present because available information reasonably convinces me Bromley Council have used procedural irregularities or expediency in connection with impact assessment and public consultation of the revised Crystal Palace Park proposals.
The Crystal Palace Park proposals create three distinct themes:
THE THREE THEMES are three issues which in the Crystal Palace Park Campaign are bound as one. In ardent debate primary issues can be confused. Any large scale development on Paxton's foundations will have similar consequences to those associated with the UCI proposal, however to a greater or lesser degree and of a shared or different kind. It is the (nature of a) proposed activity in a new development which gives character to the social and environmental consequences. It is the (nature of a) proposed activity that can stimulate and lend spirit to a new architectural expression. Primary issues are further confused when a council is perceived to be interested only in raising quick capital whilst paying lip-service to existing legislation and using methods of expediency to manipulate community.
I can therefore support the main platform of the Crystal Palace Campaign which is "to have this scheme brought to a halt and for people to be given a say as to how their historic Park should be used".
THE ISSUE OF AESTHETICS of a new building on a Grade II * listed site, in particular on the foundations of Paxton's renowned masterpiece, is not one for evaluation by local councillors (the parochial view) but for national consideration. That the Fine Art Committee and English Heritage have given their approval is only one strand of opinion. The aesthetics towards which the Ritchie building aspires may be regarded as contrary in spirit to Paxton whose "style" in the Crystal Palace was also celebratory of light. The intentionallity in Paxton's building, apart from economically pushing the limits of new technology, was to let light in, walls and roof became "windows". Cinemas can only operate successfully by excluding light; this contrary aspect in the buildings is perhaps reflected in current design proposals. Use of glass in the design is not determined by the buildings function, arguably it is a facade or sham aesthetic.
THE CRYSTAL PALACE CAMPAIGN makes no reference to an independent Land Use Consultancy report which one would have thought essential to the overall consideration of the Parks future. In such a report impact assessment would be considered for various scenarios - the effects of different kinds of options would be weighed. One of the many aspects of such analysis would be the relationship between the site of proposed development and the parks function in the community: the relationship between the proposed new activity and the existing function of the park - how would they affect each other ?
Given the existing proposals arguably they have in common the concept of "recreation", perhaps little else ? The leisure/cultural activity which is the park is unlike the activity which is the cinema. One is dependent on the "natural" environment the other is not. A landscape analysis would consider these types of relationships, it would ask to what degree does a proposal for the development of the site enrich, enhance or amplify an individuals existing experience of Crystal Palace Park. Is the new development a divorced element having no fit or is it an overall asset. Is it an alien element a dead zone, does it represent loss or gain for the Park, are its effects desirable or undesirable, etc, etc. Arguably the council has found a way of creating money, arguably Crystal Palace park has just lost 24 acres in a change of land use, arguably commercial developments should be on commercial sites similarly parkland is sacrosanct. Land Use Consultancy can lead to preferred solutions, options which can be offered for council or public debate, contingent on the debate being genuine.
I can have no informed view of the current proposals for a multiplex cinema in the absence of access to an architects model or drawings of the proposed scheme, (has it been reviewed or supported in architects journals) equally I can have no informed view of the need for a commercial development of this kind without comparative independent study (other than a gut reaction).
I would encourage contributions from national and international architects and planners to the debate and analysis of what is both a community issue and major national land mark.
Rowland Box (28/02/00)
minor updates by the author (24/03/00)
Return to letters index; Top of Page
24/9/99 Last updated 24/9/99