The Write Stuff: Letters To Squall

A Brixton Challenge

Squall 15, Summer 1997, pg. 57.

Dear Squall,

I am writing to express the dismay and disgust that a number of local squatters and activists are feeling over your recent Reclaim the Screens benefit.

A bunch of us paid to see the films in the anticipation that it would be a night in support of squatting activism, not one that was aligned with anti-squatter interests. Whilst the films were enjoyable enough, the fact that the event’s costs were at least in part paid for by Brixton Challenge businesses (who form the frontline of gentrification in Brixton), and that the after movie gig was at the notorious Canterbury Arms, was enough to make anyone wonder what the whole point of the exercise was.

The situation we currently have in Brixton is one in which Lambeth Council, central government and other interests are making yet another attempt to gentrify the area. Unlike earlier attempts they are, this time, having some success.

The first tactic the council has been using has been to sell off the 100s of the empty properties they have left to rot in the past. Other than allowing them to evict around 50 squats this is also allowing them off the hook in terms of dealing with homelessness since they can now claim not to have lettable properties left. It also opens up large areas of Brixton to property sharks.

Their next tactic has been to rundown and close numerous libraries, shelters, schools, creches and other services, thereby paying off debts accrued through corruption and also freeing up money for the Brixton Challenge. Incidentally, the removal of schools and services also makes the area less-attractive to low-income people and families, these groups are already beginning to shift elsewhere.

The third tactic the council has used has been to launch the Brixton Challenge, a program which diverts money from public needs into the pockets of businesses that would not normally think of setting up here. Yuppie bars such as the Dogstar and the Satay bar have been the recipients, as well as restaurants, health food stores and the police (for CCTV cameras). Needless to say these businesses sell products out of the reach of low-income residents and attract wealthy hipsters. Due to Brixton’s obvious proximity to the Victoria line we now see increasing numbers of yuppies attracted by these businesses moving into the area and buying up ex-council housing.

Naturally this process has encountered resistance, albeit minimal due to the apathy and resignation of many squatters and residents. During the 1995 Brixton riots the Dogstar was burnt out and attacked along with other Brixton Challenge sponsored business whilst community-owned shops were left untouched. Since that time attacks have continued, most notably against the Dogstar which has had its windows smashed on a few occasions, as well as being gratified with the slogan “racist pub".

Squatters have also organised actions against council auctions (one successful, one not so), held protests outside the Town Hall, disrupted a council meeting and leafleted and letterboxed the neighbourhood with information about what’s going on. Whilst we are hardly beating back the tide of government-sponsored gentrification we have forced buyers into making concessions to squatters (paying them compensation, giving them time to move) and have done what we can to slow the process.

No doubt, having read this you can see why we are just a little pissed off that the Squall benefit was sponsored by the Dogstar, Satay Bar and other businesses who have stolen money that should have been spent on housing and services and who are helping undermine and force out the local community. When we spoke to the event organisers about this incredible contradiction (for squatting and the community, but associated with those against it) their only response was that they needed to get the money from somewhere and that those businesses were not anti-community because they provide jobs within it. Other than these hardly being excuses for associating with, and promoting, greedy entrepreneurs they are also obviously completely facile.

The Exploding Cinema group have been “reclaiming the screens" for years with events in a variety of locations and have not had to stoop to begging from businesses. By the organisers’ definitions McDonald’s, Costain, and Sitex are all community businesses since they too create jobs.

Whilst I realise that it was not Squall that specifically organised the event, you cannot just wash you hands of its failings as at least one editor tried to do so on the night. Hopefully, in future, both Squall and the event organisers will look a bit closer at what they are trying to achieve and try not to undermine the efforts of others.

To finish I should also mention that the choice of the Canterbury Arms as a venue for the Freetown show was an incredibly poor one. This pub is not only owned by a former cop, but is also the haunt of current ones. The owner has a history of ripping off local groups and acts and of cop brutality against patrons including bringing the TSG on a few occasions against squatters and patrons whose only crime was to hang around outside on the pavement.

Iain
(Brixton Squatters Aid)

Squall responds:

You’re right in saying that Squall did not specifically organise the event. We had very little to do with the work that went into putting on the night at the Ritzy, most of us could not get in because it was so rammed. We were simply grateful when the organisers offered to put on a benefit for us which did not involve the usual amount of graft. Nonetheless we have no intention of ‘washing our hands of its failings’ as you suggest.

Squall and the organisers of the event admit a level of ignorance concerning the Brixton Challenge and its affects on the Brixton community. Thanks for drawing this to our attention.

The organisers’ position is that they needed to raise money to pay for projectors, the band’s expenses and the hire of the Canterbury Arms. They were obviously keen to get cash from 'sound’ organisations and businesses and approached these first. None they put in this category had any money to spare.

The organisers consciously chose the Ritzy as the venue for the event to avoid what they have since described to Squall as 'cultural ghettoisation’. They were keen not to simply put on an alternative film night which effectively preached to the converted by holding it in an ‘alternative’ venue.

They encouraged activists and protest groups to have stalls in the foyer of the cinema specifically so that the crowd arriving to see Sense and Sensibility (which was also showing that night) would be exposed to radical literature and would know about the event.

You say the Canterbury Arms has a 'notorious’ reputation. The organisers of the event were aware that the pub is in close proximity to the police station and therefore coppers would probably drink there. They saw this as merely ironic and were not aware it was owned by an ex-policeman who has 'a history of ripping off local groups’ or 'cop brutality’ (please send us any info you have about him). They chose this venue for practical reasons: it has a stage and a reputation for putting on bands and because it is close to the cinema.

Both the Squall posse and the organisers take your point that we should ‘look a bit closer’ at the way future events are funded, although, with seriously limited resources, it is not always possible to be aware of the detail of local politics. We see the irony of holding an alternative evening which is partially funded by businesses who are, as you say, 'helping undermine and force out the local community’. This is a cause for regret and we’ll endeavour to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.