Brixton Somerleyton Road development, Ovalhouse and Brixton Green - funding, proposed rents etc

[editor]

An "undetermined link"? Only if you ignore the obvious.
Mr Groce was a contractee of Brixton Green, charged with managing the community asset that Brixton Green were responsible for - i.e. Number 6. The link is clear - contractee of Brixton Green engages in moody behaviour.
That's not to say that Brixton Green are responsible for Mr Groce's actions, but there's no escaping that he acted as he did as someone paid to apply Brixton Green's policies and wishes regarding that community asset.

Indeed. Which is why it is entirely reasonable to expect Brixton Green to make a statement to the community about the affair. Or perhaps they're only interested in posting up statements full of nasty lies and bullshit?

 

[Gramsci]

If anyone has an exaggerated sense of the importance of BG's role it could be because of the weirdly exaggerated importance they are accorded in this thread.

'

Have you had dealings with BG? I have had to.

I have explained on previous post that they have been going around calling the planning application the "Brixton Green planning application". You can either believe me or not.

Its not this thread or Urban75 that is giving "weirdly exaggerated importance" to BG. Its BG that have been going around exaggerating there importance.

Also this weekend I had two locals ( who do not post here) complaining to me about BG.

Issues with BG are not confined to this thread.

 

[Gramsci]

Do you know what involvement they have had in the planning application?

Do you know that they are not using the term in the collective sense?

No they are not using it in the collective sense.

The planning application, design work, hiring of Igloo has all been done by Lambeth Council. It is a planning application put together by Lambeth Councils officers and those hired by Council.

Ovalhouse hired there own design team.

The involvement that BG would have in the planning application is as the appointed representatives of the community on the Steering Group. That is they would have been consulted about the planning application.


So for BG to go around the local community calling it the "Brixton Green planning application" is totally incorrect.

 

[editor]

No they are not using it in the collective sense.

The planning application, design work, hiring of Igloo has all been done by Lambeth Council. It is a planning application put together by Lambeth Councils officers and those hired by Council.

Ovalhouse hired there own design team.

The involvement that BG would have in the planning application is as the appointed representatives of the community on the Steering Group. That is they would have been consulted about the planning application.


So for BG to go around the local community calling it the "Brixton Green planning application" is totally incorrect.

Didn't Brixton Green once claim that it was thanks to them that Ovalhouse was onboard?

 

[Gramsci]

Didn't Brixton Green once claim that it was thanks to them that Ovalhouse was onboard?

They still trot that one out. Have to regularly explain to people that OHT had looked at the site as an option before BG arrived and that OHT are going to have there own lease with the Council for the land the theatre is on.

I get tired of having to keep explaining this. Did it again in the last week. It annoys me that BG mislead people about the project.

 

[leanderman]

An "undetermined link"? Only if you ignore the obvious.
Mr Groce was a contractee of Brixton Green, charged with managing the community asset that Brixton Green were responsible for - i.e. Number 6. The link is clear - contractee of Brixton Green engages in moody behaviour.
That's not to say that Brixton Green are responsible for Mr Groce's actions, but there's no escaping that he acted as he did as someone paid to apply Brixton Green's policies and wishes regarding that community asset.

With only a partial account to go on, it seems undetermined to me.

 

[editor]

With only a partial account to go on, it seems undetermined to me.

Did Brixton Green appoint Groce to run No6: YES/NO?
If they did then their judgement has to be called into question - even more so given the fucking chaos that surrounded the running of that place and the lies they posted up as a board statement about some of the people involved.

If they can't even handle running a small community building for a short time, I'd suggest that that they may not be fit to run any kind of community project. I certainly will never trust them after the lies they posted up about me.

 

[teuchter]

It remains the case that no-one reporting on this story has managed to establish what exactly the disagreements were about, as far as no 6 was concerned. We know that some users of the space felt entitled to be there and it appears that BG were of the opinion that they weren't.

Now we know that someone working for an organisation linked to BG got pretty angry about whatever the disagreement was, and behaved inappropriately as a result.

But an important bit of the story remains a mystery.

 

[SpamMisery]

I don't think it calls anything into question other than your objectivity on the situation

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't think it calls anything into question other than your objectivity on the situation

You're a fine one to prate about "objectivity".

 

[SpamMisery]

You're a fine one to prate about "objectivity".

How so?

 

[Gramsci]

It remains the case that no-one reporting on this story has managed to establish what exactly the disagreements were about, as far as no 6 was concerned. We know that some users of the space felt entitled to be there and it appears that BG were of the opinion that they weren't.

Now we know that someone working for an organisation linked to BG got pretty angry about whatever the disagreement was, and behaved inappropriately as a result.

But an important bit of the story remains a mystery.

Basically Brixton Green were given the building to run as a "Meanwhile Space". The agreement was between the Council and BG. So the Steering Group for the project were not involved.

Brixton Green ( that is the leading lights) had no real experience of running a space like this and dealing with different sections of the community.

This requires a people skills and management skills. None of which BG have or would take advice on.

The upshot was it ended in failure.

I have talked to Small World Urbanism and Brixton Come Together. I have already posted previously on this. One of SWU who did the garden outside Number 6 still tended the garden outside. Groce turned up and took offence to this and turned violent.

The situation should never have been allowed to arise in the first place. Groce/ Green Man Skills should not have been near the place until the dispute between BG and Brixton Come Together was resolved.

The important part of the story is not Groce the inability of BG leading lights to deal with community. As they want to manage the site ( in a new community body) my opinion is that the Council should look seriously at how and who will manage the finished site.

I am off the site and know I will not play a role in future. But I do have knowledge of having to deal with BG and also the project overall.

 

[Gramsci]

I don't think it calls anything into question other than your objectivity on the situation

If it had not been for the Ed and Tricky Skills none of the events at Number 6 would have made it into news. The Groce case and its link to Number 6 would have not been known about.

 

[teuchter]

Basically Brixton Green were given the building to run as a "Meanwhile Space". The agreement was between the Council and BG. So the Steering Group for the project were not involved.

Brixton Green ( that is the leading lights) had no real experience of running a space like this and dealing with different sections of the community.

This requires a people skills and management skills. None of which BG have or would take advice on.

The upshot was it ended in failure.

I have talked to Small World Urbanism and Brixton Come Together. I have already posted previously on this. One of SWU who did the garden outside Number 6 still tended the garden outside. Groce turned up and took offence to this and turned violent.

The situation should never have been allowed to arise in the first place. Groce/ Green Man Skills should not have been near the place until the dispute between BG and Brixton Come Together was resolved.

The important part of the story is not Groce the inability of BG leading lights to deal with community. As they want to manage the site ( in a new community body) my opinion is that the Council should look seriously at how and who will manage the finished site.

I am off the site and know I will not play a role in future. But I do have knowledge of having to deal with BG and also the project overall.

We know that something went wrong. We know that BG failed to stop something going wrong. However we don't actually know what they were trying to deal with. It was suggested at some point that some groups were using the premises without proper permission or without paying, and that this meant that other groups weren't able to use them. No-one seems able to give any details on this. Without knowing what problem BG was trying and/or failing to resolve it's not really possible to know what they could or should have done differently and whether it was reasonable to expect them to foresee these problems and deal with them without any kind of confrontation.

It seems they found that they were unable to resolve things and they were handed over to Green Man (under what kind of formal arrangement I don't know). As I posted earlier, if you look on urban75 for mentions of Michael Groce you get the impression that he is fairly well liked and embedded in the community. I'm not suggesting that a cursory search of urban75 is sufficient as a means of assessing someone's suitability for a job but it also doesn't seem so outlandish that Brixton Green (whose "leading lights" are portrayed here as wealthy business-owning types distant from the "real community") might have considered him, in the context of the organisation he seems to work for, to be someone who might be able to sort things out when they couldn't.

It turned out that he couldn't. It makes me wonder why. It makes me feel pretty sure that there's a lot of backstory to all this that we aren't seeing here. On both sides of the disagreement we have groups who say they are acting for the benefit of the community. I expect that they all are basically well intentioned but I'm not sure why we don't seem to be considering that both sides might have made mistakes or behaved in ways that perhaps could have been better.

You've compared BG's position with that of LJAG. I agree with you that it's unhealthy for any group of that kind to have a special relationship with the council, or to become the de facto representatives of a local community. But I think that we could probably also agree that LJAG had a certain amount of mud slung at them in recent events that they didn't entirely deserve. Their response was largely not to get into online battles of words with their detractors which is not disimilar to BG's response here and I can understand why.

 

[Gramsci]

It seems they found that they were unable to resolve things and they were handed over to Green Man (under what kind of formal arrangement I don't know). As I posted earlier, if you look on urban75 for mentions of Michael Groce you get the impression that he is fairly well liked and embedded in the community. I'm not suggesting that a cursory search of urban75 is sufficient as a means of assessing someone's suitability for a job but it also doesn't seem so outlandish that Brixton Green (whose "leading lights" are portrayed here as wealthy business-owning types distant from the "real community") might have considered him, in the context of the organisation he seems to work for, to be someone who might be able to sort things out when they couldn't.

It turned out that he couldn't. It makes me wonder why. It makes me feel pretty sure that there's a lot of backstory to all this that we aren't seeing here. On both sides of the disagreement we have groups who say they are acting for the benefit of the community. I expect that they all are basically well intentioned but I'm not sure why we don't seem to be considering that both sides might have made mistakes or behaved in ways that perhaps could have been better.

You've compared BG's position with that of LJAG. I agree with you that it's unhealthy for any group of that kind to have a special relationship with the council, or to become the de facto representatives of a local community. But I think that we could probably also agree that LJAG had a certain amount of mud slung at them in recent events that they didn't entirely deserve. Their response was largely not to get into online battles of words with their detractors which is not disimilar to BG's response here and I can understand why.

There is more to the backstory. I have been posting up as much as I am able of it on a public forum.

I did compare BG and LJAG. As I said if LJAG really wanted to get control of LJ they would take a few lessons from BG. However BG could learn lesson on management from LJAG who appear to run the Platform with no problems.

Funnily enough some of the leading lights of LJAG have an admiration for the leading light of BG. There is an aspect of community politics where one gets strong minded characters who think they know best who have utter inability in the people skills department.My past life in Coop I had to learn to deal with people. With the Coop either people worked together or it fell apart.

LJAG have finally come unstuck over road closures and BG may have on Number 6. Both lack in the "soft skills" area.I have to see if BG final goal of getting control of the finished project ( and they have said they want this in more unguarded moments) will still happen. Given BG political nouse Id say they are still on track.

I have had more dealings with BG as they wanted the Somerleyton road site. You will have to take my word for it they are a nightmare to deal with. And its not just me who thinks this. I know some officers/ Cllrs and others who find the same. But no one will say anything in public. Its frustrating for me as it would corroborate what is posted here.

It would not matter much except that the Somerleyton road project is important big project for the Council and local community. How its managed and by whom is what concerns me.

Yes and getting Groce in as he appeared "to be someone who might be able to sort things out". Quite. One might entertain as a possibility that the way he did it may have been foreseeable by BG. Why he should not have been given the place until the other dispute was resolved. Thats a management issue. If there is an dispute going on I would not have dumped it onto some other community group to deal with.

I know some of the better Council officers tried to intervene in the dispute. They know what BG are like.

 

[leanderman]

It makes me feel pretty sure that there's a lot of backstory to all this that we aren't seeing here. On both sides of the disagreement we have groups who say they are acting for the benefit of the community. I expect that they all are basically well intentioned but I'm not sure why we don't seem to be considering that both sides might have made mistakes or behaved in ways that perhaps could have been better.

Spot on. It's pretty obvious that the narrative is incomplete, to be as damaging as possible to BG, for whom I hold no candle.

 

[teuchter]

I have had more dealings with BG as they wanted the Somerleyton road site. You will have to take my word for it they are a nightmare to deal with. And its not just me who thinks this. I know some officers/ Cllrs and others who find the same. But no one will say anything in public. Its frustrating for me as it would corroborate what is posted here.

I'm happy to take your word that you've found BG a nightmare to deal with. But you have dealt with them in a certain context and in a certain role.

There might be people who would tell me that one or other of the groups that BG got into the dispute with are "a nightmare to deal with".

I can tell you for certain that a local prominent community member with a grudge against BG is "a nightmare to deal with". In my experience.

All this anecdote may be true and might not be irrelevant. But it doesn't tell us terribly much about the bigger picture and how fair it is for the entirety of the blame to be laid at the door of one group amongst those who managed to get tangled in this situation.

 

[ViolentPanda]

How so?

Because you lack it.

 

[editor]

One thing is for sure. Brixton Green are liars.

 

[SpamMisery]

Pics or stfu

And by pics, I mean evidence

 

[editor]

Spot on. It's pretty obvious that the narrative is incomplete, to be as damaging as possible to BG, for whom I hold no candle.

Why are you choosing to completely ignore the opinions of people - like Gramsci, for example - who have either had many hands-on dealings with Brixton Green or are knowledgeable about what took place and know the people involved? If you think the narrative is so 'incomplete' why don't you post up your reasons for such a claim?

I've sat in meetings with Brixton Green and seen them in action. I know many people who had dealings with them and their opinions are very much in line with what's been said here. I know quite a few of the people who were directly involved in No 6 and have spoken to them on the matter.

I have also found myself being defamed by the bullshit and lies that were published in a (hastily withdrawn) official statement supported by all the board. So that's partly what I'm basing my opinions on. Actual evidence. I've seen how they work first hand and it's not pretty.

So what supporting evidence have you got to back up your assertions that it is so "obvious" that people are offering an incomplete narrative to be 'as damaging as possible to BG'?

Have you spoken to any of the people who were involved in No 6, for example? In fact, have you spoken directly to anyone involved?

 

[leanderman]

Yes - I did bother to speak to people directly involved.

Their story is different.

 

[editor]

Yes - I did bother to speak to people directly involved.

Their story is different.

Oh, be sure to tell us who you spoke to and what they said. No need to be coy here! Who did you talk to at No 6?

Did you ask BG about the defamatory claims they posted about Brixton Buzz and me too? Why do you think they took the statement down as soon as they were challenged and then quietly put it back with several paragraphs missing? What's your opinion about that?

 

[leanderman]

Oh, be sure to tell us who you spoke to and what they said. No need to be coy here! Who did you talk to at No 6?

Did you ask BG about the defamatory claims they posted about Brixton Buzz and me too? Why do you think they took the statement down as soon as they were challenged and then quietly put it back with several paragraphs missing? What's your opinion about that?

I started posting their claim, but thought better of it. Because this would breach a confidence, be second-hand, be potentially defamatorily awkward etc. Besides it's their fight.

Putting aside what they said, I am afraid I am not prepared to take at face value what vociferous and long-term critics of BG say about a BG-related dispute. This should be obvious.

In the same way, my evidence for my 'assertions that it is so "obvious" that people are offering an incomplete narrative to be "as damaging as possible to BG"' is that there is little or no evidence of anything here from the perspective of BG, or its partners.

Having both sides of the story is a journalistic principle. BG et al have not put their side, thus it's incomplete.

The retraction of the defamatory claims was embarrassing.

 

[editor]

I started posting their claim, but thought better of it. Because this would breach a confidence, be second-hand, be potentially defamatorily awkward etc. Besides it's their fight.

Putting aside what they said, I am afraid I am not prepared to take at face value what vociferous and long-term critics of BG say about a BG-related dispute. This should be obvious.

In the same way, my evidence for my 'assertions that it is so "obvious" that people are offering an incomplete narrative to be "as damaging as possible to BG"' is that there is little or no evidence of anything here from the perspective of BG, or its partners.

Having both sides of the story is a journalistic principle. BG et al have not put their side, thus it's incomplete.

The retraction of the defamatory claims was embarrassing.

They've had every opportunity to put forward their side of the story. They have full access to their website, Twitter, social media etc. They have a print budget.

They could post here (despite their defamatory claims to the contrary, there is no policy of removing their posts, nor has there ever been). Sure they may not get the warmest of welcomes from all members, but if you're setting yourself up to represent the community, then you should be prepared to engage with everyone - including those who don't agree with you.

They could - and should - have been quick to make a statement about someone they appointed being charged with provoking unlawful violence in a facility they were responsible for.

But instead: nothing. A community mouthpiece that remains strangely quiet when the spotlight turns on them and that posts up lies and bullshit and then cowardly vanishes it away when challenged.

And for that they should be rightly be judged. As far as I'm concerned, they only represent their own interests.

 

[leanderman]

Agreed. Their silence is embarrassing.

 

[editor]

Agreed. Their silence is embarrassing.

Almost as embarrassing as them having the brass neck to stick their fucking misleading banner outside my block declaring that "WE SUPPORT BRIXTON GREEN" before they'd never even bothered to approach the Resident’s Association for their opinion on the matter. It's that kind of thing that fucks me off.

They're only here to promote themselves and their own interests.

 

[Rushy]

Self promoting feckers shamelessly banging on about selflessly representing The Community whilst single mindedly progressing their own personal interests and agendas. It seems such folk are everywhere these days.

 

[Gramsci]

I started posting their claim, but thought better of it. Because this would breach a confidence, be second-hand, be potentially defamatorily awkward etc. Besides it's their fight.

Putting aside what they said, I am afraid I am not prepared to take at face value what vociferous and long-term critics of BG say about a BG-related dispute. This should be obvious.

In the same way, my evidence for my 'assertions that it is so "obvious" that people are offering an incomplete narrative to be "as damaging as possible to BG"' is that there is little or no evidence of anything here from the perspective of BG, or its partners.
.

If you are to be totally even handed then you should not take as you say" their claim" as the facts either.

In which case you should regard both sides as vociferous critics of each other and therefore not reliable sources on factual information.

Which logically leads to you should not be making any assertions either way with the lack of "incomplete narrative".

Then we come onto what is a complete narrative.

Listening to a historian on the radio an he said, in a way journalism is history. History of the present day. All history is incomplete and continually revised.

To be realistic historians and journalist have to make judgements based on the incomplete evidence they have.This can be revised as later date.

The idea that giving both sides a right to reply leads to more factual accuracy might not necessarily happen.

I also am restrained as some of this has been told to me in confidence. Which I know makes the narrative incomplete. Its also info thats second hand.

But in historical/ journalistic terms this is not unusual.

What is factual and done with witnesses is way recently Brixton Green have been going around talking to individuals and groups about "their planning application". This is totally factually incorrect. Whether one likes BG or not. And its annoying for me to listen to and have to correct. I know enough about the scheme to know thats incorrect. And the bringing a theatre to Brixton. Also factually incorrect.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Self promoting feckers shamelessly banging on about selflessly representing The Community whilst single mindedly progressing their own personal interests and agendas. It seems such folk are everywhere these days.

Some actually come through with real support though, including the person you don't have the guts to confront openly.