Nando’s Campaign Gets Ugly
A while back I touched a bit of a raw nerve when I argued that a group of local campaigners, determined to stop a Nando’s chicken restaurant opening on Stoke Newington Church Street, had an unspoken motive for their action:
The campaigners are trying to find reasons to stop people they despise from spending time in a street they’ve claimed for themselves.
It’s a motive that anti-Nando’s campaigners have denied, but far from being the only one who believes many of these people simply want to preserve (as far as possible) Church Street as a playground for a certain middle-class clique, David T over at Harry’s Place put the argument equally bluntly:
In fact, all sorts of people eat at Nandos. Rich, poor, gourmets, snackers. And I’ll be one of them.
I reckon that the horror that Nandos represents to the “latte sippers”, is that it will attract people like us to Church Street.
Anyway, someone out there is desperate to prove us right. Last night a commenter calling himself (or herself) Mr S.Hitchchicken left this comment:
IF YOU CAN’T AFFORD TO LIVE IN STOKE NEWINGTON THEN FUCK OFF SOMEWHERE ELSE - YOU CUNTS MAKE ME PUKE JUST LIKE THE NANDOS CHICKEN..WATCH OUT BEN COS WE’RE WATCHING YOU!
It was quickly followed by an email:
You’re not welcome in Hackney..go away and disappear
All of which rather goes to prove my point. The anti-Nando’s campaign is less about stopping a chain store from opening its doors, and more about keeping peasants out of a middle class ‘village’.
It just suggests I’m right when someone starts threatening me for exposing their pathetic prejudices.
NEED A UK COPYWRITER? Someone who writes crisply, convincingly and without using ugly jargon? Websites, reports, commercial bids, trade magazines, newsletters, advertisements, press releases: any job tackled quickly, effectively and at a good price. Visit www.benlocker.co.uk to find out more.
Jesus, that’s appalling.
And frankly, people who can get so wound up about something so bloody inconsequential really have got too much time on their hands.
How about we make our next meeting at Nandos? Cunts.
Puss
Comment by Glamourpuss — 29th June, 2008 @ 12:14 am
bolshy
children of the revolution.
class wars.
storm the winter palace.
come to Australia - none of that class crap here.
Comment by dysthymiac — 29th June, 2008 @ 5:49 am
Bloody hell people.
The Vortex is in Dalston - get over it.
Even I’ve been to the subject Nandos. They have their issues, but are nowhere near a negative as that hideous squat.
I’m still up for all you can eat wings and unlimited full fat cokes at a time of your choosing!
Comment by kris — 29th June, 2008 @ 10:15 am
Ooooh, you’re being watched.
So, ‘blog meet in Nando’s then?
Comment by Dave — 30th June, 2008 @ 9:36 am
I went to Nandos last Wednesday, and it was lovely.
I have a (slightly blurred) picture here:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/06/25/come-to-nandos-n16/
Comment by David T — 30th June, 2008 @ 10:21 am
Even if this sounds a bit David Icke, I can’t help but think that “Mr S. Hitchchicken” (or whatever) comment is something of a “false flag” operation placed by supporters of Nando’s placed entirely to discredit their opponents. (”His” obviously made-up name, one-off pseudonym is surely a clue).
Comment by Venichka — 30th June, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
Just had my hair cut on church street and heard some trendy twat moaning to the barber about the destruction of the Vortex Jazz bar and the horrible Nando’s thats going to be there in it’s place. The posh twat said that Nando’s would ruin the street and the council should stop it. It’s a great idea that there will be a restuarant that normal people especially the young will be able to afford to visit. It’s hardly a Donar Kebabd joint or greasy chicken take way. There are some really horrible snobs in SN. Just go to the Cafe in Clissold Park and you’ll spot the biggest trustafarian Guardian reading cretins in London
Comment by Cassland — 1st July, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
For the benefit of Mr S. Hitchicken (which I strongly suspect is an assumed and fictitious name) and others, you can buy Nando’s sauce in the supermarkets. I’m not keen on battery hens either, but the sauce does go very well with the free range variety also.
I had some for dinner and imagined it had been bathed in the hot, salt tears of an affected snob.
Comment by bill — 1st July, 2008 @ 11:59 pm
Sorry - am I missing something here? Surely the thing to fear the most is the monopolising of food outlets by chains and the eventual demise of independent restaurants. There’s already a Nando’s five mins walk down the road. The strategy is obviously Starbuckian. I don’t want to see dining by franchise replace quirky little restaurants with odd chairs completely. I don’t think harmonious co-existence is the aim of global chains, somehow.
xxx
Pants
Comment by Pants — 4th July, 2008 @ 1:16 am
I side with the anti-Nandos brigade on this one. There are Nandos’ within spitting distance of Stokey so why another one? Fair play to those trying to stop the generic juggernauts from eating into Church Street’s twee indie nuances!
PS. Your post on the six letter story is now plaguing my waking hours! I will return in due course with my offering!
Comment by Chairman Meow — 6th July, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
Market forces will decide the fate of SN’s Nandos, and any other business. If you’re selling a product or service that people don’t want, you will go out of business… it’s really that simple. It’s commercial natural selection at work.
I think the real problem is that SN’s new wave of yuppies don’t like the idea that the area’s poor and young people might be able to afford to eat out in a restaurant in Church Street.
As for the destruction of the Vortex, it looked like it was going to fall down soon anyway and it’s no big loss to the area.
Comment by FG — 24th July, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
Hi There,
I’m Roger Heathcote, the guy who knocked up the website for this ‘disgusting’ and ‘racist’ campaign and I just wanted to drop by and comment on your well balanced piece and your and thoughtful and considered readership.
They, and you, are clearly our moral superiors.
>I think the real problem is that SN’s new wave of yuppies don’t like the idea that the area’s poor and young people might be able to afford to eat out in a restaurant in Church Street.
Yes, we are mainly motivated by the desire to starve the paupers and the young. I mean really! Who do you think we are?
It was noted quite early on that there were some snobbish, classist voices to be heard from some of the campaigns supporters, especially those on facebook, nasty language like the word ‘chav’ which I’ve always found deplorable. I raised this issue with Tony the guy who started the campaign and I believe it was also raised at the first meeting where it was made clear that such talk was both unacceptable and harmful to our common cause.
Even a fool can appreciate that the range of interested parties in single issue campaigns can often make for strange bedfellows. The recent and successful campaign to stop Satchmo’s getting a strip license brought together both ardent feminists AND orthodox religious groups who spend much of their time thinking up new ways to oppress women.
Anyway, I think the fact you have everyone from beardy liberal lefties through stuck up bigotted toffs against this ‘development’ speaks volumes about it’s broad base of support.
>I reckon that the horror that Nandos represents to the “latte sippers”, is that it will attract people like us to Church Street.
Well that’s kind of true Ben! From what I’ve read here at least. But don’t imagine I buy your self styled ‘people like us’ working class hero story.
For all your railing against the ‘middle class’ YOU ARE a professional writer and Boris Johnson campaigner. Is that ignorance? irony? or just self-loathing?
The fact is MANY people think more chain stores on our high streets are a bad thing. That’s what they think. You are welcome to disagree but I have to ask why you feel compelled to rattle off such a vicious and hateful stream of blog posts calling every one of us a MIDDLE CLASS RACIST when all that’s happened is some random trolls from the internet messaged you after you published some deliberatley contentious opinion piece.
Don’t you think that’s unfair?
Collective punishment is it not?
Honestly, as a blogger you’re gong to have to get used to that, especially if you pick the hotter topics - every kid on youtube has to deal with these idiots on a daily basis and you’re a grown up journalist.
It just so happens some people don’t agree with you. Not all of them are dicks. Take me for example ;p
I’m a tradesman and I don’t earn enough to eat out on Church Street very often BUT WHEN I DO I want to do it in an independent restaurant, like pretty much all restaurants HAVE BEEN since the dawn of eating out. You know one that’s different from all the others, has some atmosphere and quirks; and I’d like my children to have that option a couple of decades down the line too!
It’s quite simple (not that it’s stopped your readership from failing to grasp but…) allowing big chains in WILL raise the rents there and create bigger barriers to entry for new independents thereby creating a situation that sucks. There’s direct competition too but, assuming they don’t engage in outward destroyer pricing and internecine oversupply (like tesco, starbucks and those others that will follow) that’s not so much the issue.
While we’re on economics your reader FG’s comments are so deeply assinine as to suggest trolling… Yes market forces will decide this, duh… The market force of a 700 strong international chain rocking up in a market of 1s and 2s. What do you think will happen? Nature? Well naturally. It’s an outcome as natural as if you were to let a wolf into a chicken coop. The fact is that Church Street HAD the PERFECT restaurant market before Nando’s turned up…
Markets only work well when none of the players are so strong as to significantly affect the buying and selling prices of the market as a whole, it was true 400 years ago when Adam Smith said it and it’s just as true now… What we HAD was a collection of small entities competing on fairly level ground which drove diversity, innovation and quality up and kept prices down - That is why Church Street is the nice place it is today, that’s why Nando’s (and every other big chainstore) are a threat to it and that’s why it’s not “so bloody inconsequential” for anyone who gives half a shit about the area they inhabit..
It’s not even that cheap, especially if you have drinks! You people seem to be making the case that because poor people can’t afford 12 pounds for a meal we should destroy one of the nicest streets for food in the entire borough so they can eat for 10 pounds instead? Some of you seemingly want to save them the walk round the corner to the cheaper restaurants where I and the rest of Stoke Newington eat.
What a touching altruistic vision for the future that is! The depths of your sympathy and benevolence for these poor starving wretches makes my heart bleed.
I’m sure you’re not just a bunch of nasty, snide, cynical, selfish twunts.
Yours sincerely,
Roger Heathcote.
Comment by Roger Heathcote — 9th September, 2008 @ 10:36 am
Hello Roger,
Yes, I’m middle class if anything, and have never hidden the fact.
Anyway, I’ve trodden this ground enough. But to distill it once more, I’d much rather have kept the Vortex, which I liked. That wasn’t possible. I’d happily have seen an independent shop on the premises (oh for a decent record shop…..). That didn’t happen - and I’ve acknowledged that Midda’s behaviour wasn’t exactly exemplary.
I have no objection to campaigning against chain stores for the reasons you outline.
But the fact that riled me, above all others, was the attempt - when it was clear Nando’s was moving in and there was nothing to be done about it - to prevent the chain store from having an alcohol licence. C’mon: the Vortex served booze without food, and it was hardly contributing to disorder in the street. It was dishonest to say Nando’s couldn’t be trusted to serve drinks.
So, to campaign against the drinks licence was - at best - sour grapes, and at worst vindictive snobbery (of the sort you admit surfaced in the campaign). The chain would have moved in anyway, licence or not.
I think Nando’s may actually bring more people to Church Street, and that’s fine with me. Personally, I’ve eaten there when I wouldn’t have been in the mood, or had the time to eat anywhere else on Church Street. It’s great for a quick pitstop, which you wouldn’t be able to fit in at, say, Rasa or Karnaphuli. I’ve certainly not eaten in the independents like Il Bacio any less since Nando’s moved in.
That said, the service on my third visit to the chicken folk was very poor, and a marked contrast to my first two visits… if they don’t up their game, they’ll never make a success of it…
Comment by Ben — 9th September, 2008 @ 11:18 am
Hello Ben,
>I have no objection to campaigning against chain stores for the reasons you outline. But the fact that riled me, above all others, was the attempt - when it was clear Nando’s was moving in and there was nothing to be done about it - to prevent the chain store from having an alcohol licence.
Well Ben, in a fight like this theres no Marquess of Queensberry rules are there? It’s lopsided in the extreme and I contend you have to use whatever’s at hand.
I freely admit there’s some intellectual dishonesty in the anti-licensing tactics but, given no other legal avenues being open some people thought it worth a try. You know they got Al Capone on tax evasion eventually?
Inevitable though these things may be once they have been set in motion, keeping quiet, rolling over and admitting defeat can surely only encourage more of the same or worse in the aftermath.
When chain store planners are deciding where to put their newest outlets I like to think they may just think twice about choosing locations that have a history of fierce opposition to chain stores and have managed to stir up a load of bad PR in the past. They might equally well not give a shiny shit, clearly the bigger chains don’t - they will build despite enormous opposition and then manufacture consent after the fact: check out Tesco’s marketing director in this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtcpWIiQHC0
But even if the smaller companies are no more susceptible to campaigning and bad PR than the huge ones some people’s conscience still won’t let them give up til the bloody end, when they’ve exhausted every last crappy avenue. Some people manage to sustain hope beyond the point you or I might come to think “there was nothing to be done about it”. I’m not going to criticise those people for thinking that or for trying, as long as they stop short of physical violence and intimidation I’m happy they’re out there. Naturally I draw the line somewhere short of the lunatics who were sending you abusive e-mails though!
The problem boils down to the fact that communities have no (legal) recourse in situations like this. Zoning and planning law as they are afford no protection to small and local industry. There is some small protection given to high streets where a “reasonable need” must be shown in some cases but a) That doesn’t apply to Church street as it’s not _the_ high street in Stokey b) Retail is retail and makes no distinction between large or small, rich or poor and pays no heed to a places’ cultural significance and finally c) The monopolies comission recently recommended it be scrapped anyway, in order that Sainsbury’s might better compete with Tesco in the urban retail sector.
I don’t begrudge people playing the licensing card in situations like this where the only other options seem to be surrender or firebombing.
>I think Nando’s may actually bring more people to Church Street, and that’s fine with me.
You might have a compelling point there if Church St were in any way short of people, and if a perfectly good nay famous pre-existing business hadn’t been turfed out of there to make way for them.
>I’ve certainly not eaten in the independents like Il Bacio any less since Nando’s moved in.
As I said earlier, I don’t think the direct competition is a bad thing per se, indeed that may focus the minds and improve the offerings of other similar business in the area. What I am very concerned about however are the effects of a relative corporate powerhouse moving in on the rents in the area. What I’m concerned about is that the Richard Middas of this world will see this as a great example, a template if you will, of how you can ignore the law and the community and make a lot of money at the expense of a poor borough who’s representatives are too weak to even enforce the planning permissions they grant.
It makes me sick to the core that not only has this tick of a man Midda’s gotten away scott free for his ‘accidental’ fait accompli demolition but that he’s also undoubtedly made a fuckbunch of money from it, as no doubt will Nando UK.
So yes, my grapes are sour, are your not still?
>That said, the service on my third visit to the chicken folk was very poor, and a marked contrast to my first two visits… if they don’t up their game, they’ll never make a success of it…
Again, that’s all well and good in a balanced market, they wouldn’t last long if they were an independent with crumby service but they aren’t. Shit or not they can afford to sit it out far longer than any independent could, they can run at low to no profit for years if that’s what it takes to get a foothold in an area. Sadly unless the food and service are truly awful then a marketing budget of millions, massive economies of scale and good old brownian motion will see to it they have a business there for as long as they like. While they’re not entirely impervious to the whims of the market they’re certainly not increasing the dynamism of it are they?
Anyway, I’m gladdened to hear your last meal there was shit, but not in a schadenfreude sense of course!
Roger.
Comment by Roger Heathcote — 10th September, 2008 @ 8:35 pm