Dalston Lane closed

Home

News

Sainsbury's

Will Sainsbury’s really make much difference?

As all readers of the N16 Magazine and this website I hope are aware, we have, since our inception twelve years ago, always vigorously promoted the interests of local people, small businesses and the Stoke Newington area generally, and we will continue to do so.

Local resident and journalist Richard Godwin’s article in a recent article in the Evening Standard attacking Sainsbury’s attempts to move in here made interesting reading. In particular, the links he spotted between a couple of local councillors and the PR company running Sainsbury’s almost certainly successful attempt to get planning permission makes slightly sinister connections.

However, while I largely agree with Richard’s overall argument that it would not necessarily be a good thing were the supermarket to open on the High Street, that our neighbourhood ‘has retained its grocers, fishmongers and butchers’ and that he has ‘not met a single local who considers this desirable or necessary’ (I don’t know to whom he’s been talking, as my unofficial survey indicates otherwise), nevertheless I don’t share his view of this parish as a multinational-free oasis, a sort of little Shire full of self-sufficient Hobbits.

The mini Tesco’s and Sainsbury’s on the High Street are usually full, presumably with many of those people who object to the proposed new supermarket, as these shops are quick, relatively cheap and convenient and don’t appear to be harming other local food businesses. Furthermore, Whole Foods on Church Street is part of a large US company (with over thirty or so branches in California alone) and also appear to be frequented by those residents who would object to Sainsbury’s; Oddbins, while currently in administration, is one of the largest off-licence chains in the UK; Nando’s is overseas-owned and has at least fifty outlets in London alone; Bairstow Eves has branches across the country; the Rochester Castle is part of JD Wetherspoon’s five hundred or so UK bars; and let’s not forget Iceland and Halfords, who all appear to be doing good business without any damage being done to local trading concerns.

However, the Sainsbury’s proposal again highlights the fact that parking is at a premium, and particularly for local businesses who depend on regular road deliveries and car parking for heavier items. We fervently hope that Sainsbury’s are not allowed to take over Wilmer Place for their own use. Presumably, TfL will have to give the company approval for their entrance. If so, why can’t they relax their parking restrictions so that other local businesses can enjoy more freedom in this respect, rather than TfL putting big business before the needs of people who have been trading around here for years. Apparently, they don’t even have the decency to reply to businesses in this respect. Cazenove Road is a perfect example where traders, residents and Hackney Council have been in agreement for a number of years but have been completely ignored by TfL. One law for Sainsbury’s, another law for everyone else?

Also, it is at least arguable that, although Stoke Newington is, in many respects, one of the most attractive and interesting parts of London, it cannot be denied that the tentacles of large national and multinational companies have gradually snaked their way already into the area. It could also be argued that a large Sainsbury’s might even benefit many traders, with the influx of new shoppers spending their megabucks in the surrounding shops, bars and cafes.

It may also help concentrate local traders’ minds on trying to provide what Sainsbury’s can’t, for instance cheaper, fresher and different foodstuffs and continue to offer the friendly, personal service which superstores cannot do. I suspect, anyway, that many locals will remain loyal to their existing food suppliers and retailers, unless Sainsbury’s decide to move into bijou clothing, second-hand furniture, glass and frame supplies, jewellery, designer shoes, Turkish sweetmeats, Chinese objets d’art and the like.

On an optimistic note, I cannot imagine living anywhere else other than this little parish, with all its faults and foibles, and I don’t feel that this Sainsbury’s issue will displace my affections nor will it corrupt the moral fabric of our citizenry or bankrupt our businesses. Things change here all the time, little spats occur and disappear, friendships dissolve and are then quickly patched up, and life continues in its own ragged and bohemian manner.

Having lived in N16 for well over twenty years, I have noticed moral panics emerge and quickly disappear, while Stoke Newington retains its eccentricities, its multi-racial make-up, its radical ethos, its historical legacy and its eagerness to embrace change while stubbornly maintaining its small businesses, its cultural independence and its proud uniqueness.

N16 Magazine is pleased to have signed the petition calling for a meeting involving all parties with interests in this issue, and we are supporting the likes of the local Labour Party, Stokeylocal (stokeylocal.org.uk) and all the others who are concerned about the possible impact of Sainsbury’s on local businesses. However, it’s a complicated issue, with even the Stoke Newington Business Association seemingly divided about the matter.

But everyone who will be affected, in whatever way, has a right to make their views felt, and this can only be done at a public meeting with Sainsbury’s, Hackney Council, our local MP, the general public and local traders. Let’s hope this happens soon.

Written by Rab MacWilliam

Shop till we drop - and wait for Sainsbury's

Shop till we drop It is often said that whatever happens in America happens here twenty years later. Well, I hope that this is not the case when you consider the proposals for the fourth Sainsbury’s store in our neighbourhood, next to the overgrown wildness and nature reserve of Abney Park Cemetery.

The United States is where the mall was invented. In these mega retail sites with loads of parking and dozens of retail outlets, you can shop forever and not worry about parking. These malls also have multi-screen cinemas, banks, clothing and jewellery stores, bookshops, hairdressers, bars and so on: everything the average consuming family would ever need. It was the answer to America’s downtowns with their small streets and parking problems, and the need to go to the bakery, butcher, and fresh fruit and vegetable market all in different streets. Sometimes it takes a long walk between stores, trudging around with your shopping. Much better to shop in one place in the middle of the suburbs, put everything in your corporate trolley and drive it home.

The problem was that all the little family businesses which had existed for generations, and had supplied the people of the town with the necessities of life, could no longer sustain themselves.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH - IT'S TIME TO STOP THIS NOW

{jcomments on}The latest attack on Stoke Newington's business and cultural landscape by the big bad wolfs of big business, is reported to be coming from Sainsbury's who plan to build a 2,200 square metre monolith at Wilmer Place between Church Street and the High Street.

We feel strongly that a balance between small business and large corporations has been more than reached, and any further encroachment by big business, especially supermarket chains, can only serve to help destroy our community.

Sainsbury's - Have your say

There were so called drop in sessions to view the proposed plans for the redevelopment of Wilmer Place into a major new Sainsbury's supermarket. This was where you could submit your comments on Friday 1st July - 3-6pm; and Saturday 2nd July 9am-1pm in Abney Public Hall on Church Street.

Unless of course you happened to be of the Jewish faith and were working on the Friday or else couldn't find it because they didn't bother to put a sign out, until rightly pointed out by a Errol from N16 Flowers.

However you feel about this, there is no doubt that it would have a huge impact on the area.

The riots

Riots, reason and resistance - Mike Marqusee

By Mike Marqusee

Stoke Newington resident Mike Marqusee writes regularly for N16 Magazine, the Guardian and other newspapers and magazines. The following article was originally written for the Hindu newspaper.
www.mikemarqusee.com

"Criminality pure and simple" was Prime Minister David Cameron’s initial verdict on the rioting. From the right came the mantra, “Down with sociology! Up with water cannon!” Don’t think but do act – harshly, punitively,

In the wake of the riots, a powerful vested interest has been at work – a vested interest in people not making links, not searching for causes, not weighing contexts. Above all, an interest in derailing the growing resistance to the government’s austerity programme.

In the vast realm of human phenomena there are few things as impure or as complex as a riot, with its ever-shifting array of motives and circumstances. It is a social phenomenon and requires a social analysis and response. It’s the denial of that duty that’s reckless and irresponsible, not the alleged “socio-economic excuses” reviled by conservatives.

The opening scene was in Tottenham, an impoverished, multi-ethnic community in north London, where a young man had been shot dead by police in circumstances that remain unexplained. A peaceful vigil was held outside the local police station but the mood turned angry when no one from the police would come out to talk to the bereaved family. What ensued was a running battle between local youths – as multi-ethnic as the local population – and police. The arson and looting came in the wake of that.

The next major flashpoint came 48 hours later in Hackney, just south of Tottenham and sharing all its problems. Here groups of young people faced off against the police for several hours, during which time they took control of and barricaded a nearby public housing complex, to a decidedly mixed response from residents. Again, in this episode, looting was secondary to the confrontation with police.

In the hours and days that followed, various forms of disorder spread to other locales in London and eventually to other English cities, notably Liverpool and Birmingham. In Ealing in west London restaurants and cafes were attacked. In Enfield, to the north of Tottenham, a Sony warehouse was ransacked and incinerated. In Clapham, south of the Thames, a Debenhams department store was looted. Most tragically, in Birmingham, three young Muslims were killed as they protected their family shops. In the London suburb of Eltham, a vigilante mob assembled to hunt for “rioters” – backed by the Muslim-hating English Defence League.

What happened was a concatenation of actions and reactions, with the riotous behaviour taking several forms: confrontation with police, destruction of property (large chain stores but also small shops), sporadic assaults on individuals, looting (theft), sometimes as a secondary overspill and sometimes as primary purpose, plus a lawless reaction to all of the above.

All Londoners have been distressed by the riots, but only a small minority have been directly affected. At no time did London resemble a “war zone”. The main business of the city went on as usual. There are small scarred patches but no large burnt out areas. The exaggeration serves a purpose, however, selling papers, stoking mutual fear and licensing the authoritarian responses that go with fear.

Though no one foresaw the course the riots would take, it wasn’t hard to predict some kind of social outburst, and indeed such predictions were made by many, not least the police themselves. To anyone walking around certain areas of London with their eyes open, it was clear that patience was ebbing, anger brewing, grievances converging. And behind that lies the realm of context and causation that we are being warned not to explore.

The killing in Tottenham elicited a response because it was the latest in a series of events which have left the Metropolitan Police (London’s police force) deeply compromised. There have been fatal and near-fatal shootings of innocent young men, the death of a middle aged newspaper vendor as a result of heavy handed policing at the G20 protest in 2009, and the death earlier this year of reggae musician Smiley Culture during a police raid on his home (a peaceful protest of thousands was ignored). When student demonstrations against the tripling of tuition fees surged through central London this past winter, they were subjected to stringent police tactics, with many thousands “kettled” – forcibly confined for hours to small areas without facilities of any kind. Tens of thousands of London youth have found themselves subject to demeaning and discriminatory ’stop and search’ operations. Finally came the exposure of police complicity in the Rupert Murdoch-sponsored phone-hacking scandal, culminating in the resignations of the Met’s two top cops only weeks before the riot.

When historians look back I suspect they will be most immediately struck by the conjuncture of the rioting with the global stock market turmoil sparked off by the Eurozone crisis and the downgrading of the US’s credit rating. They’ll scratch their heads and wonder just how it was we missed this connection.

Britain as a whole is a wealthy country but the distribution of that wealth has grown increasingly and palpably unequal. In London in particular there’s a concentration of glamour and grimness, luxury goods and lifestyles next to poverty and exclusion. Fifteen yeas of GDP growth passed many of those in the riot-affected areas by, and three years of recession have hit them hard. Average male life expectancy in Tottenham is 18 years less than in wealthy Kensington and Chelsea (and youngsters there five times more likely to be injured in road accidents). Youth unemployment, running at 20% nationally, runs at double that figure in places like Tottenham and Hackney.

Recession is now being compounded by austerity, with the coalition government cutting public support for housing, education, healthcare, pension contributions, the disabled and the unemployed, while privatising state functions and further easing the tax burden on the rich. Young people face an exceptionally bleak future: it will be much harder for them than for their parents to get an education, a decent job, a secure home, or, in the remote future, a dignified retirement. The life chances of millions are being diminished. 150 people have been made homeless as a result of the recent riots, but tens of thousands will be made homeless by the government’s cuts to housing benefit.

There is widespread resentment about the way the burden of austerity has fallen much more heavily on some than on others. Tax evasion by the rich will this year cost the public about one hundred times what’s being spent repairing riot damage. And the anti-social behaviour of the banks and financial institutions has been as brazen as anything seen in the riots. Their reckless avarice triggered a meltdown that destroyed London’s property values to a far greater extent than the riots, but they go on rewarding themselves record-breaking bonuses – sharing among the few a pot of money worth twice the combined spending of all London local authorities.

As so often these days, whenever there is resistance to acknowledging a context of inequality, “culture” is dragged in as the preferred culprit. Or rather in this case a putative youth sub-culture of selfishness and indiscipline, usually held to be the upshot of an over-permissive society (or over generous welfare state). This seems to be Cameron’s current line and he will use it to push long-standing right wing ambitions, not least the curtailing of European Union human rights requirements.

There is, of course, a cultural context, and it is provided principally by the dominant culture of the day, a competitive consumerism in which self-aggrandisement is celebrated, brand names fetishised (see the clips of looters in footwear shops), and leisure thoroughly commercialised. Looting is shopping without money, a brief dose of retail therapy. In naked acquisitiveness and contempt for the law, the rioters were merely emulating their betters. One elite scandal has followed another – from MPs’ expenses through bankers’ bonuses to the Murdoch hacking imbroglio. There must be a cumulative impact, an erosion of authority, and it would be naïve to deny it.

Beyond culture, and informing it, there is the phenomenon of powerlessness, which is both a subjective and objective reality, and poverty’s constant companion. Watching the rioters, it was easy to see how pumped up and liberated some were by this brief taste of power, of possession. But in the end the only antidote to powerlessness is power, economic and political. The current route to that is through resistance to austerity, in Britain and across Europe. For that resistance, the challenge now, in the wake of the riots, is to expand in scope and diversity.

For the moment, we’re being treated to a familiar demonology – “feral” youths, an amoral underclass of the irresponsible and rude – a phantom menace that is dangerously elastic, easily shaped by racial, generational and class prejudices. Politicians and media want rioters stripped of benefits and evicted from public housing. The Sunday Express wants to see them conscripted into the armed forces (and handed guns). Cameron wants to import a super-cop from USA to run the Met. He’s even targeted “the obsession with health and safety” as a riot factor which must be addressed, of course, with deregulation. More ominously, the riots are being used as an excuse to criminalise protest and clamp down on internet freedom.

But the demonology has already been undermined by the diverse social profile of those appearing before the courts. Thousands will pass through this mill in the months to come. Politicians and the media are pressing for harsh penalties, and the 6 months sentence handed to a first offender for looting 4 bottles of water bodes ill for the future. Britain’s prisons are already over-crowed, costly and dangerous, with more than 300 deaths in custody in the last decade, including scores of children and young people.

The court appearances and jail terms will inevitably involve injustices, disruption of family life and depletion of family resources. And given what we know of the fates of ex-prisoners we have no excuse for not expecting that many of those imprisoned will re-offend or suffer joblessness, poverty, homelessness, mental illness. The scale of the human damage to be done in the coming months, most of which will go unreported, is disheartening in the extreme. Unlike the riots this damage will be done not spontaneously but deliberately, which makes it all the more chilling.

Discussion on the ground in London is more nuanced than the official version, with its prerequisite of mindless condemnation of “mindless violence”. There is confusion and disagreement and emotion, inevitably and rightly. But the government’s one-dimensional response has little credibility. The battle over the meaning(s) of the riots has only just begun.

Mayor Jules Pipe on the riots

It is now some weeks since Hackney, like many other parts of London and the UK, was the scene of terrible riots that wrought havoc on our streets. The Council’s cleaning teams had cleared the streets of all the debris by 7.30am that morning, except for the seven burned out cars that were gone by lunchtime. But the effects on the victims, and the wider community, of that night’s unjustifiable violence will last much, much longer.

The Hackney Gazette wrongly inferred that I thought that the perpetrators of this violence were victims themselves, and I’m pleased that it has published a correction and an apology. This was a gross misrepresentation of my words and views. Although the motivations of individuals were many and complex, there can be no excuses for their behaviour and the only victims that night were those who suffered at the hands of the vandals.

Whatever motivated individuals who took part in the rioting and looting, whether it was greed, anger, disaffection or just a momentary mob mentality, what was so disturbing was their lack of care for the effect they were having on others in their communities. People were in fear for their lives, and local small businesses were among those viciously targeted. In the days after the riots, I visited local businesses and residents that had been affected, and met community and faith leaders. There was a genuine sense of shock that something like this could happen in the heart of our community and inevitably, many people have looked for reasons.

Just one of many contributing factors may have been that the unequal and deeply consumerist society in which we live was used wrongly by some to justify looting and thieving from their own communities. People who have far less than others in a society understandably can feel angry and disadvantaged, but the only legitimate way people can achieve their aspirations is through education, training and applying themselves. With Hackney primary school results now joining the boroughs’ secondary results as being above the national average, there is every hope that more young people today than ever will have the opportunity to achieve their aspirations. That’s why, as Mayor, I will continue to put such an emphasis on supporting schools, raising standards and working towards equality of opportunity for all our young people, whatever their background.

There has been much to be proud of in the way Hackney has responded to the riots: the local business people, determined to get up and running again and not be beaten, despite severe damage; the cleaning teams who worked through the night; the 200 volunteers who turned up at Hackney Town Hall offering to help with the clean up; the residents organising appeals to help the real victims whose livelihoods have been destroyed. It is this spirit that defines Hackney and that will heal the damage inflicted on our community.

Jules Pipe, Mayor of Hackney

Diane Abbott on the Riots

Hackney is rebuilding. The heart-stopping wall-to-wall coverage may have ceased. And the foreign journalists that beat a path to the borough have gone home. But life in Hackney has continued. The response from the people of Hackney has been an inspiration – streets have been cleared, damage is being repaired, and our communities have pulled together. People are beginning to feel safe again.

It was heartbreaking to be out on the streets of Hackney as areas like the Pembury estate in Hackney became engulfed in flames, with years of incremental progress burning grotesquely for an international audience. But Hackney and its people are resilient, and the progress Hackney has made is resolute.

Cuts do not make criminals. Poverty does not make criminals either. Clearly, the causes are long-term, complex and difficult to confront. So we must ask, without fear or hesitation, why and how this happened. Because we must be sure, with people’s livelihoods at stake in a fragile economy, unnecessary tensions whipped up and with the Olympics on the horizon, that this does not happen again.

Theresa May, the Home Secretary stated glibly that it is ‘not helpful for politicians to speculate’ about what went wrong, and that ‘I’m absolutely clear that what underlay it was criminality.’ David Cameron’s analysis also puts the riots down to “criminality” pure and simple. And stops there. It says that to explain is to excuse.

But people in Hackney have invested more thought into the riots, whilst accepting that violence. Now is not the time for kneejerk responses, simplistic answers and the blanket condemnation of parts of British society, because it paints a distorted picture.

We must accept and acknowledge, to begin with, that Britain is failing to provide many of our most precious urban communities with meaningful occupations and hope for the future. For many people who were rioting, that week was a rejection of the future that was laid out for them. Economic inequality, consumerism and savage government cuts have given many poorer, urban communities a profound sense of hopelessness for the future.

The availability of media and information exchange has seen immeasurable advances for the lifestyles and opportunities for some of the poorest people in the country. Yet it is mass consumerism and aspects of our media that has eroded and replaced many of the social structures that the communities grew out of – relentless advertising, MTV and instant messaging has often seemingly replaced family networks, educational commitments and community gatherings.

Yet many of these issues are not confined to our urban communities. Far from it. It was an adrenaline-based ‘get rich or die trying’ culture that was the fuel for both the banking crisis, and for some of the riots on our streets. Those bankers who dragged the economy into recession made the same misjudgements and miscalculations as those people who took to the streets to drag the country into despair. In many cases, both groups believed that they had found a short cut to wealth in the face of a rapidly changing economy. Tragically, both made the awful miscalculation that there would be no consequences.

This article originally appeared in The Huffington Post

After the riots public meeting

Where do we go now?

The Springfield, Cazenove and New River branches of the Hackney Labour Party are hosting an evening of speakers to debate the recent public disorders in the borough, why they happened and what needs to be done now. All are welcome to turn up.

Chair of Springfield branch, Martin Dockrell, says: 'It will be a chance for the local community to come together to emphasise the remarkable journey Hackney has been on over the past 10 years and to highlight the positives, to ensure our borough remains strong and is not divided by recent events'.

Speakers include Diane Abbott MP, Owen Jones (Author of Chavs: the Demonisation of the Working Class), local residents, youth workers, local businesses, parents and teachers. The panel members will speak for five minutes each, followed by an open conversation where everybody will be encouraged to talk.

7.00pm-9.00pm, Wednesday 21st September Stamford Hill Library

Riots Symposium at Unitarian Church

The Unitarian Church on Newington Green is hosting a meeting on 20 September between 1pm and 3pm to discuss the recent riots, under the heading The Riots: Where Do We Go From Here?

Each speaker will present a short overview of their opinions on the causes of friction in the current social landscape and how relationships between the various facets of our local communities and the broader society might best be improved. This will be followed by input and questions from audience members before breaking into smaller groups for further, more focused debate and suggestions of how to put the proposals into action.

SPEAKERS

REVEREND ANDY PAKULA - Minister of New Unity.

DIANE ABBOTT - The first black woman elected to the British Parliament, she has worked for the National Council for Civil Liberties and is founder of the London Schools and the Black Child initiative. Currently Shadow Minister for Public Health and MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington.

LEE JASPER - For 8 years Senior Policy Director for Equalities and Policing in London, Lee was a founder member & Chair of the Operation Trident Independent Advisory Group, as well as chairing the world’s first Olympic Diversity Committee. He is currently Co-Chair of BARAC and Chair of the London Race and Criminal Justice Consortium.

LEON FEARON – 19-year-old Londoner who recently tackled Boris Johnson live on Sky News over the ongoing cuts to the city’s youth services.

MERLIN EMANUEL - Nephew of Smiley Culture and a key force behind the Campaign for Justice for Smiley Culture (working on behalf of all who have died in police custody).

OWEN JONES - Author of ‘Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class’, public speaker and former trade union lobbyist in Parliament.

RICHARD TURNER - The chief executive of Friendship Works (England’s oldest long-term mentoring charity), previously involved with The British Association of Art Therapy and The Koestler Trust.

Plus more speakers yet to be confirmed.

MODERATED BY JOHN BATES

For more info visit http://www.new-unity.org/events/the-riots-where-do-we-go-from-here