An Olympic Moan

[Wondermare]

I'm a Greenwich resident. And a horse owner. I also have a ticket for the Cross Country event, but I'm so angry about the way us locals have been treated that I no longer want to go. The ticket was a gift so I'm not in a position to sell it on, otherwise I would.

I deliver drugs education to young people, and have to use a car to travel to north and central London schools with equipment, etc. The park has been closed to traffic for a month nearly and our journey has already become unbearable.

The park is closing to the public next week and won't re-open to traffic until October.

They were going to try and keep the Observatory open but they've decided that's no longer an option.

The area is gridlocked. Passing through at midnight last Sunday, the traffic was at a standstill and the queues went all the way back to East Greenwich.

Worst of all is the feeling that it's a privilege, somehow, and we should be grateful.

If there was any kind of legacy, fine, I'd shut up. But there really isn't. There are acres of wasteland in Erith, in Slade Green, in parts of south east London with 20th century road systems where they're desperate for any kind of re-generation. When I think of the environmental waste, all the cross country fences torn down, all the stabling torn down, the 26,000 seat arena (whose construction involved the removal of precious park topsoil), the surface, where's it all going? What a tragic waste. (Although if anyone knows what's happening to the temporary stabling, do let me know as I could do with a new field shelter).


Here's just a little example of how us locals are feeling:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/save_greenwich_park/7456512478/

Moan over.

 

[Benjamin Brown]

I can't imagine how frustrating it must be and I hate being stuck in even the shortest of traffic jams so I feel for all the residents.

However, I just don't get the legacy argument. This country has the most fantastic equestrian facilities and some of them are struggling at the moment so more equestrian facilities, leaving fences and stables behind etc. isn't really that necessary.

The legacy for equestrianism imo is that kids who may never otherwise have had the chance to see horses will get to see them at the top level and who knows what that may inspire. To me its far more important that equestrian sports are at the very heart of the action and part of the Games than that they leave a physical mark on the landscape. Inspired performances, inspired kids and greater awareness of how fantastic our sports are is the legacy.

 

[Samuelissimo]

I do sympathise and it is no fun for you at all! I know there was a big and still-ongoing argument about using Greenwich as it is in London versus the established x-c courses, but the London argument won out. Locals are the losers, I am afraid.
It seems to me as you have had to put up with so much grief, at least take advantage of your ticket. Be a shame for you to put up with the hassle and get none of the opportunity.
All of London is a complete pain in the neck to get around. Endless, endless traffic works that never stop it seems to me. Greenwich seems to have drawn and extremely short straw in this regard.

 

[Orwell]

The legacy for equestrianism imo is that kids who may never otherwise have had the chance to see horses will get to see them at the top level and who knows what that may inspire. To me its far more important that equestrian sports are at the very heart of the action and part of the Games than that they leave a physical mark on the landscape. Inspired performances, inspired kids and greater awareness of how fantastic our sports are is the legacy.

If you want to inspire city kids why not just put them on a coach and take them down to Windsor for the day? Why squander a £60 million Olympic windfall? Why deprive city children (and the disabled, and pensioners, and park-footballers, and dog walkers, etc., etc.) of the most heavily used lawns in Greenwich Park for a total of seventeen months (three months last year, eight this year, two periods of three months while the destroyed lawns are restored)? Why close the Park for nearly a month at the height of summer?

Holding the events in Greenwich Park has also meant that the number of spectators on cross-country day will be restricted to 50,000, and that is probably 20,000 too many for comfort given the size of the park and the way it has had to be cluttered up. So about 50,000 young keen enthusiasts will have to settle for watching the events on television (so they might as well be being staged in Hong Kong). These young people are the future of the sport, and if the Olympics are not for them, then who are they for?

As for the people of Greenwich and the regular park users, imagine if your summer was made a misery for two years running because the fatheads at the BEF, the IEF and LOCOG have insisted on holding the Olympic events at the wrong venue for the sport.

Then of course, there is the fact that the park is a world heritage site and normally attracts about 4 million visitors each year. Many millions of them will have had their visit spoilt when they have discovered that the Park is a building site, or that it is closed or that access to it is restricted.

How the fatheads can think that staging the events in Greenwich Park will promote the image of the sport is beyond me. All that they have succeeded in doing is to reinforce the prejudice that it is an an elitist sport, reserved for the rich and powerful; for the landed gentry, politicians, and fat cats who can afford the hospitality tickets. In a throwback to feudal days, the public have been evicted from a heavily used urban park for two summers in a row so that a few riders can ride around it for the entertainment of the rich and powerful and the financial benefit of the Olympic broadcasters and sponsors.

If I had a ticket, I would follow the lead of the person who wrote on the notice linked to above. I would write "SHAME!" on it and send it to Lord Coe.

 

[mahonenx]

I don't understand why they didn't use Windsor!

 

[Wondermare]

Thank you, Orwell, I wasn't brave or articulate enough to vent that well!

However, here's another thing: I can't take any of my own food or water to the event. How tight is that? And I must be prepared to queue for up to four hours to enter the park.

And three sets of ground to air missiles within a five mile radius of my house. And an aircraft carrier on the river. Feels less like a deterant than a terrorists' target.

And breathe......

 

[Xander]

Thank you, Orwell, I wasn't brave or articulate enough to vent that well!

However, here's another thing: I can't take any of my own food or water to the event. How tight is that? And I must be prepared to queue for up to four hours to enter the park.

And three sets of ground to air missiles within a five mile radius of my house. And an aircraft carrier on the river. Feels less like a deterant than a terrorists' target.

And breathe......

This is not true. You can take a reasonable amount of food with you - enough for lunch, for example. You can't take more than 100ml of liquids with you, but you can take an empty plastic bottle and fill it up at the free water coolers inside the venue.

I suspect you'll find there are a lot more dangerous things than ground to air missiles within a five mile radius of your house. An aircraft flying over central London every two minutes is one example that springs to mind. Or how about a few tube lines - I seem to recall they were quite popular with terrorists a while back.

Yes, you are being inconvenienced (and compensated in a small way) but is it really the end of the world?

 

[Wondermare]

Xander, I'm only relaying what I've been told by the person who bought my ticket.

Wow. 100ml of liquid. How generous of them.

No, it's not the end of the world, but it IS a ridiculous waste of money. As I said earlier, I'd shut up about the inconvenience if there was any real legacy, but since it's all going to be torn down anyway, the waste makes me rage.

 

[skint1]

I'd be hacked off too in your position Wondermare, but as you've got a ticket and put up with all the hassle you may as well go and try and enjoy it, I think there are a lot of people who would have preferred it held at Windsor or somewhere but alas it was not to be.

 

[Orwell]

I suspect you'll find there are a lot more dangerous things than ground to air missiles within a five mile radius of your house. An aircraft flying over central London every two minutes is one example that springs to mind. Or how about a few tube lines - I seem to recall they were quite popular with terrorists a while back.

Life is dangerous. Why make it more dangerous for no good reason? Holding the Olympics in London will make life potentially much more dangerous, as it will increase the threat of terrorism. There was no need to hold the equestrian events in Greenwich Park. It was not even desirable from an equestrian point of view to do so (as I argued above in Post no. 4 and as I argue below). So there was no need to expose the people of South East London to a heightened terrorist threat.

That there is a very real threat to the venue and to South East London was made clear by the MoD's Exercise Olympic Guardian and the measures that they think should be in place. In particular, HMS Ocean will be moored at Greenwich with Lynx helicopters and inflatable boats manned by Royal Marines ready to stop a Mumbai-style attack on the river. And it looks like, despite intense local protest, there will be rapier missiles stationed on Blackheath. The purpose of these missiles will, it seems, be as a last line of defence to shoot down any airborne threat to the Greenwich Park Venue. That threat would crash somewhere and would almost inevitably cause a lot of damage and destruction in a heavily populated area. There are all kinds of other threats which are perhaps best not thought about (such as the threat of a bomb in the DLR tunnel under the Thames, a chemical attack, an IRA mortar-style attack on a weak point, etc.).

There is also the question of crowd safety. As I said earlier, 50,000 spectators on Cross-Country Day is 20,000 too many for comfort. If the events pass off without anyone being killed or seriously injured, I will be greatly relieved. I could say a lot more about all of this, but I don't think that it is wise to do so publicly.

Yes, you are being inconvenienced (and compensated in a small way) but is it really the end of the world?

It seems to me that you just don't get it. The Park has in effect been stolen from the public and is being used for commercial purposes; to enrich the Olympic sponsors and broadcasters. By the time that LOCOG eventually leave on 30 November, Park users will have put up with eleven months of occupation and the reinstatement of the Park will take many months. This effects not just regular the Park users, but the millions of visitors to the World Heritage Site.

There is no compensation as far as the Park is concerned. The lawns will be destroyed for a second year running, 600 trees will have been pruned (many permanently mutilated) and the acid grasslands that have been destroyed may never recover. If LOCOG were leaving a legacy of, say, £100m which could be used to ensure that the Park is properly maintained and kept open to the public in future, then there might be some justification for what has happened. I say "might" because I believe that, as a matter of principle, public parks, and especially urban ones, should not be "pimped out" to private companies. There are some goods that money should no be able to buy, and public parks are among them.

What makes it all especially galling is that it is obvious, and always has been obvious, that Greenwich Park is the wrong venue for the Olympic equestrian events. The cross-country course has had to be squeezed into the Park using all of the available space (including the Flower Garden and the Main Arena). The tight turns and the steep slopes are unprecedented, and the course is about 1,000 metres shorter than normal. It is very demanding even for the best horses and riders. It is hazardous for the less able. It could prove lethal if it rains. I have walked the course many times and I know it well. The riders have my sympathy. They are being asked to risk their necks and their horses, not in the name of sport, but to produce good television pictures for the broadcasters and sponsors. This is not an Olympic equestrian event, it is a made-for-television horse-circus extravaganza.

To return to the beginning of this discussion: SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!

 

[Sussexbythesea]

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference

That's all I'm going to say.

 

[Xander]

I agree that there are more suitable venues than Greenwich Park to host the equestrian events , but the fact is they will be held there. I'm afraid we are all just going to have to deal with it.

Not have the Olympics in London because of increased risk of terrorist attck - are you serious? How do you ever leave the house after 7/7?
There are measures in place to STOP terrorist attcks? What is the world coming to? FYI similar security measures to the ones you described were in place for the Athens Olympics, including some of our more - ahem - specialised military forces helping to protect people. Best not to say to much publically though eh? I can, however, divulge that Nothing Bad Happened.

Addressing the point of risk to the athletes - they are highly skilled, mostly intelligent and used to it. I remember seeing a very bad injury(ultimately fatal) to a horse at the Sydney games(at a relatively simple fence), so having plenty of room is no guarantee. The vast majority of riders will ride according to the conditions and any loonies will be stopped on course.

I guess I didn't 'get it' - until I read down further and saw the theoretical 'legacy' sum of £100m mentioned. It seems that payment of this could overcome your undoubtedly highly principled objections? If you truly feel that some construction equipment, a large-ish crowd and about 90 horses could trash the place beyond redemption, then surely the Park should be permanently closed to the 'hundreds of thousands of tourists' and locals who use it? Anyway, don't worry too much about it as the average eventing crowd can probably put that kind of money through the tills of your local shops,pubs and tobacconists. And, no, that wasn't a serious comment.

You have lost your park for a while, sure, but there are others around. People lose their own homes forever because you and I want to get to Birmingham/Edinburgh etc. 20mins sooner, so it's really not that big a deal is it? We're getting our park back. The eco system will recover on its own - I base this assertion on the fact that the oldest Royal park seems to have done OK on its own up to now.

I really hope you get in to the party spirit and enjoy welcoming the thousands of visitors to our country and your area. Some of them might even want to come back.

Oh yeah - and what sussexbythesea said.

 

[madmav]

It had to be in Greenwich because it was sold on the day with the iconic image of the Observatory in the background. The powers-that-be do not give a hoot about the disruption to locals or to the park or if it isn't a particularly great place to event horses. It was a done deal and just had to be there. Becks was also a part of the package. And look what happened to him.

 

[finbarrk]

And if any of the Greenwich residents would like to swap their tickets for nice compensation contact me! I'm going to be there with my daughter trying for tickets.

 

[Miss L Toe]

The whole Olympics is a fiasco, yes it would be nice to have world wide competition every X number of years, but it need not be inside London, a city with hundreds of tourist attractions already.
I live hundreds of miles away, but even if it were within travelling distance the thought of four hour queues would turn me off.
The whole idea that the general public, including those nearest and dearest to the athletes can only get tickets by a lottery system is ridiculous.
If the UK have to spend zillions on sports facilities it would have been better spent on facilities around the country which could be used afterwards by the locals.
The temporary horse facilities are a classic case of mis-management at the highest level. It could be held anywhere, somewhere more central in the UK would be cheaper and permanent, a legacy. Most people will watch on TV anyway, so there is no benefit to having it in a park which has to be ruined in the process.
I recall years ago we had the Canadian Team staying locally, using local farriers, hotels, shops and so on, the whole area had "Canada Fever", it was all very exciting. The horses were taken by lorry to the X-country venue, I don't remember any nonsense about tickets, those who were interested went to the venues, and paid for their tickets.

 

[Miss L Toe]

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference

That's all I'm going to say.

Well, I think we all know that politicians do U turns whenever it suits them, and it suits them when the "public" rebel against their "off key" ideas, Yes it is too late, but then when the Olympics in London" were "Rolled out" only the positives were mentioned, not the negatives, which only became clear when the bulldozers moved in.
God only knows how much this is costing, far more than it generates that is for sure.

 

[Wondermare]

And if any of the Greenwich residents would like to swap their tickets for nice compensation contact me! I'm going to be there with my daughter trying for tickets.

I would love to, but as I said, they're a gift, plus selling them on is illegal. You have to sell them back to LOCOG. I will let you know if my friend decides to do that, although I'm sure there will be a queue. Also, I'm not 100% about this, but I think ticket holders have to be registered before entry, a bit like Glastonbury Festival. I don't think you can just turn up and buy off a tout.

 

[Orwell]

I agree that there are more suitable venues than Greenwich Park to host the equestrian events

Well at least we agree on something.

Not have the Olympics in London because of increased risk of terrorist attck - are you serious? How do you ever leave the house after 7/7?

This is not what I said. There are lots of good reasons not to have the Olympics in London. But setting them out would take us some way from the point at hand, namely the equestrian events in Greenwich Park. You agreed that this was not necessary or even desirable to hold them here. Despite your attempt to brush it off, this attracts a serious threat of terrorism to the area and there is no good reason why the people of South East London should be exposed to it.

Addressing the point of risk to the athletes - they are highly skilled, mostly intelligent and used to it. I remember seeing a very bad injury(ultimately fatal) to a horse at the Sydney games(at a relatively simple fence), so having plenty of room is no guarantee. The vast majority of riders will ride according to the conditions and any loonies will be stopped on course.

In an interview after the Sydney Games, Princess Haya (President of the IEF) said:

The IOC has very reasonable and legitimate concerns about eventing safety ... walking away and saying "thank God nobody died", isn't good enough" [Horse & Hound 29 August 2008]

Given these very reasonable and legitimate concerns, why have they chosen a course which is more dangerous than any seen before? The riders will do what they can to cope with it. But they and their horses are being put at risk unnecessarily. As I said before, they have my sympathy. They should do what the Formula 1 drivers did back in the 'seventies; form a union and force the organisers and profiteers to take their safety more seriously.

I guess I didn't 'get it' - until I read down further and saw the theoretical 'legacy' sum of £100m mentioned. It seems that payment of this could overcome your undoubtedly highly principled objections?

What I said was that if LOCOG were leaving a legacy of £100m there might be some justification for what they have done and are doing. I didn't say that I thought that they would be justified. A supporter could argue, along with sussexbythesea, that the events were going to go ahead anyway and that the legacy would help to ensure that the Park is properly maintained and that it stays fully public in future, for the benefit of the people of Greenwich and of the world. In the circumstances, I would probably have to agree, provided that a "Never again!" clause was enshrined in law.

But in reality LOCOG are leaving absolutely no positive legacy for the Park at all. They are leaving a negative legacy of destruction, and they have set a terrible precedent for the future commercial exploitation of the Park.

If you truly feel that some construction equipment, a large-ish crowd and about 90 horses could trash the place beyond redemption, then surely the Park should be permanently closed to the 'hundreds of thousands of tourists' and locals who use it?

Last year's Test Event destroyed the main lawns, and they took months to recover. This year there will be much greater damage to lawns all around the Park. It will be much worse if there are heavy rains and the crowds churn up the grass all around it. The sports turf used for the course will probably die back when they stop watering it, leaving a nasty scar all around the Park. The destroyed acid grasslands will take years to restore, if they can be restored at all. The branches of the 600 pruned trees cannot be put back and the trees will be come increasingly deformed as they grow.

I really hope you get in to the party spirit

I think that my experience is typical in many ways, so my personal feelings are relevant. For three months last year and eight months this year my enjoyment of the Park has been or will be spoilt. When I walk in the Park,which is on most days, and see it being destroyed and exploited by a gang of profiteers, it is difficult to restrain my anger. I look forward to the day when LOCOG begin leaving and will celebrate on 1 December when they have finally gone.

... and enjoy welcoming the thousands of visitors to our country and your area. Some of them might even want to come back.

The Park normally has about four million visitors each year, and everyone who wants to enjoy it while respecting the right of others to do the same is welcome. Both last year and this, many millions of visits will have been ruined, and for no good reason.

 

[stencilface]

Aside from any other points about holding the event in Greenwich, I just love the one re the grass.

People are so protective over it, it's grass, it will, and does grow back, even acid grasslands will if the same conditions are presented. I am certain there would have been some detailed ecological an botanical surveys completed and reports produced before any damage happened, and the park will be restored to its former glory.

 

[AmyMay]

I was up in Greenwich over the weekend, picking up a new bike.

The people from whom we got the bike were really positive about the olympics. The whole road had applied for, and received show jumping tickets for the park, many were also volunteering.

In fact they had no complaints whatsoever.

We also had no problem with the traffic (but appreciate that a Saturday lunchtime may not be a true reflection of how busy it can get round there).

 

[Orwell]

Aside from any other points about holding the event in Greenwich, I just love the one re the grass. People are so protective over it, it's grass, it will, and does grow back ...

The point is that the main lawns were occupied and destroyed last year:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/save_greenwich_park/7240171092/in/set-72157629418402501

and have been again this year. Even the venue manager, Jeremy Edwards, thinks that work may not be able to begin until March next year:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/save_greenwich_park/6825959542/in/set-72157629397205479

And that was before the rains:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/save_greenwich_park/7175959466/in/set-72157629397205479/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/save_greenwich_park/7175958506/in/set-72157629397205479/

Lawns in much of the rest of the Park will also be destroyed, and the course itself will probably die back and have to be reseeded with grasses similar to those around it.

... even acid grasslands will if the same conditions are presented. ...
I am certain there would have been some detailed ecological an botanical surveys completed and reports produced before any damage happened, and the park will be restored to its former glory.

You many be sure, but Natural England are on record as saying that there is no guarantee that the acid grasslands can be restored and attempting to do so will take many years [Comment on LOGOG's test Event Planning document, 14 April 2011]. The problem is that acid grasslands grow on acid soil, but the cross country course running through them has been fertilised and watered with London tap water, both of which have made the soil alkaline. The acid grasslands are described by The Royal Parks as a rare habitat and relict; that is, they have probably been there since the last ice age.

Lor Coe has promised that the Park will be properly reinstated. But I understand that no budget has yet been agreed for this. Many of us respected him when he was an Olympic athlete, but that respect has been dissipated because of what we see as a long series of lies and misrepresentations by LOCOG. Consequently we expect to have to fight to get the Park restored to anything like "its former glory". To borrow Oliver Cromwell's injunction and at the risk of appearing irreverent, our motto is "Put your trust in the Lord, but keep your powder dry!"

 

[BigRed]

I agree with pretty much everything you have said. It is absolutely the wrong venue. We already have better sites in the South OF england that could have been used for the horse events. I actually think the Olympics has become far too big. It should go back to track and field events only. You should not have olympic tennis, football, beachball etc, it is madness.

 

[Miss L Toe]

I agree with pretty much everything you have said. It is absolutely the wrong venue. We already have better sites in the South OF england that could have been used for the horse events. I actually think the Olympics has become far too big. It should go back to track and field events only. You should not have olympic tennis, football, beachball etc, it is madness.

^^^^^ this
There are far too many people on the Olympic bandwagon, and I include ex athletes cum politicians.

 

[mtj]

Erm, equestrianism is an Olympic sport in both the ancient and (original) modern context.

I think the cancellations at this year's Windsor Show amply illustrate why this location was not chosen.

But, look on the bright side, the Olympics will soon be over, you will get your park back, and unless someone is heavy handed with the fertiliser, your acid grassland will soon return. My fields are acidic - don't like to fertilise for horses - and any lush conditions soon deteriorate.

 

[teapot]

What makes me laugh is the 'our park' attitude. Technically it isn't. It's the Queen's run by the government under the 1851 Crown Lands Act (in the same vein, residents of Virginia Water and Egham moaned ten fold when part of Windsor Great Park was shut off once. It's OUR park, why can't we access it? Ummm?!)

Access to Hyde Park is being restricted quite a bit during the Olympics and there's not been much moaning about that has there? Granted Hype Park isn't getting an arena in it, but I'd hazzard a guess that Hype Park's busier during the rush hour than Greenwich is!

The decision's been made. In 8 weeks time it'll over be over and the park will be left to recover. Actually once the eventing's over, the parkland will be recovering immediately, as further events will only be using the arena & stabling. The xc course is being removed pretty quickly if I remember rightly.

Regarding terrorism? So it's ok for the residents of East London to be exposed to potential terrorism because of the park at Stratford, but not for Greenwich residents? Well that's very NIMBY of you. Simple logic but that's effectively what you're saying. In all honesty, if it does happen, I don't think Greenwich during the equestrian sports will be the prime target. Part of a joint effort with other events, maybe, on its own? Not so sure.

Regarding other venues/a lack of legacy. Well, if the UK wants a national equestrian centre, they need an event to go with it to rival somewhere like Kentucky or Aachen. Where's the money going to come from to fund said event once the facilities are in place? One of the beauties of the British equestrian calender is the joy of going to so many different venues for different things. Windsor's unsuitable, the ground's rubbish, access is rubbish transport wise and has added security issues of being the Queen's preferred place of residence. Plus the policing and security of a park the size of Windsor would be a logistical nightmare. Hickstead's also not suitable, it's run down and traffic access is worse than Windsor. Places like Burghley/Badminton/Barbury - all privately owned. Don't think established dressage or show jumping centres have the space for a xc course let alone spectators.

I just hope it all goes well, whatever the weather does and it is a complete success. The 'I told you so' comments if something goes wrong are going to be unbearable.

 

[stencilface]

The point is that the main lawns were occupied and destroyed last year:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/save_greenwich_park/7240171092/in/set-72157629418402501

and have been again this year. Even the venue manager, Jeremy Edwards, thinks that work may not be able to begin until March next year:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/save_greenwich_park/6825959542/in/set-72157629397205479

And that was before the rains:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/save_greenwich_park/7175959466/in/set-72157629397205479/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/save_greenwich_park/7175958506/in/set-72157629397205479/

Lawns in much of the rest of the Park will also be destroyed, and the course itself will probably die back and have to be reseeded with grasses similar to those around it.



You many be sure, but Natural England are on record as saying that there is no guarantee that the acid grasslands can be restored and attempting to do so will take many years [Comment on LOGOG's test Event Planning document, 14 April 2011]. The problem is that acid grasslands grow on acid soil, but the cross country course running through them has been fertilised and watered with London tap water, both of which have made the soil alkaline. The acid grasslands are described by The Royal Parks as a rare habitat and relict; that is, they have probably been there since the last ice age.

Lor Coe has promised that the Park will be properly reinstated. But I understand that no budget has yet been agreed for this. Many of us respected him when he was an Olympic athlete, but that respect has been dissipated because of what we see as a long series of lies and misrepresentations by LOCOG. Consequently we expect to have to fight to get the Park restored to anything like "its former glory". To borrow Oliver Cromwell's injunction and at the risk of appearing irreverent, our motto is "Put your trust in the Lord, but keep your powder dry!"

Short term, the damage to the lawns will be forgotten, it is managed manicured grass, a thing that is not in short supply in England.

Natural England are not necessarily a body who's word I would take as gospel on many things tbh! On some topics depending on who you speak to they don't know their arse from their elbow, yet always produce their answers as absolute truth

 

[Orwell]

What makes me laugh is the 'our park' attitude. Technically it isn't. It's the Queen's run by the government under the 1851 Crown Lands Act

You may well be right in a technical sense. I don't know much about the legal ownership of the Park. I do know that King George IV opened the Park to the public, all year round, in 1820. It appears to be run as a public park. LOCOG applied to Greenwich Council for planning permission to use it. The Council consulted a whole series of bodies (The Royal Parks, UNESCO, etc.). There was no mention of any royal input to the decision at any stage.

Access to Hyde Park is being restricted quite a bit during the Olympics and there's not been much moaning about that has there? Granted Hype Park isn't getting an arena in it, but I'd hazzard a guess that Hype Park's busier during the rush hour than Greenwich is!

Hyde Park is much bigger than Greenwich Park. I believe that the Olympic events being held in it are of a much smaller scale. Even if you closed all of it, there is still Kensington Gardens next to it. It has always been obvious that Greenwich Park is far too small to host the equestrian events, and doing so has had a massive impact on regular users and millions of visitors.

The decision's been made. In 8 weeks time it'll over be over and the park will be left to recover. Actually once the eventing's over, the parkland will be recovering immediately, as further events will only be using the arena & stabling. The xc course is being removed pretty quickly if I remember rightly.

LOCOG don't leave until the end of November. The main lawns (the stage on which the buildings of the World Heritage Site are situated) will be destroyed and won't recover until next year; possibly well into the year. Other damage will take longer to restore (as discussed in my earlier posts on this thread).

Regarding terrorism? So it's ok for the residents of East London to be exposed to potential terrorism because of the park at Stratford, but not for Greenwich residents? Well that's very NIMBY of you. Simple logic but that's effectively what you're saying. In all honesty, if it does happen, I don't think Greenwich during the equestrian sports will be the prime target. Part of a joint effort with other events, maybe, on its own? Not so sure.

To argue that I am a NIMBY, you would have to argue that the Olympics are a good thing for the country in the first place and that Greenwich Park was the best choice of venue for the equestrian events. It seems to me to be very doubtful that the Olympics are a good thing for the country. I have argued at length that Greenwich Park was not only not the best choice of venue for the Olympic Equestrian events, but that it was a bad choice for them.

You seem to be arguing that Greenwich Park was the only possible venue for the events, but I don't buy the "we've run out of countryside" argument. The events are being held in Greenwich Park for the benefit of the Olympic broadcasters and sponsors.

I too hope that it all goes well. But if it does, all that proves is that the organisers were very lucky. In any event, the damage to the Park will remain, so will the bad memories of LOCOG's two occupations of it.

 

[social outcast]

Well whether you agree with it or not, there nothing we can do. yes it could have been done differently but at the end were lucky to have Greenwich on our doorstep , it not a right and the Olympics will be brilliant in lots of other way so just breath as nothing can be changed now.

 

[Joeyjojo]

I keep on switching between excitment at seeing the events and horror/worry at the sheer carnage it's going to cause to my life for a couple of months!

My road is closed during the Olympics - got told officially about that last week! Excellent communications from the Olympic organising committee there. No-where to park now (as road is closed), traffic chaos, not sure how I'll get to work (at the busiest time of year at work). Can't see me getting to see my horse at all unless I can somehow sneak her into the stables handily erected a 10 min walk away!

Blugh, cant say im all together looking forward to it! Anyone in north Kent fancy some free riding during the Olympics?

 

[cbmcts]

Orwell

You're preaching to the converted here!

I really, really wish I could get excited about the Olympics - I so want to. But those of us who have to live or work in London have had YEARS of bloody roadworks/restrictions in preparation for 2 x 2 weeks of events and are now treated as third class citizens during them! There is no point telling me to avoid driving into London from the 15th July until mid September - I'm not doing it for fun you know, I have to work.Trains aren't an option at the best of times due to cost and the hours I work and they certainly aren't an option during the games as the commuter service will be terminating at Stratford...really helpful, not. The road restrictions are much more widespread than was originally publicised, now that the 'games lanes' are in place you can see that there will be gridlock - ask anyone who has seen the effect on traffic of a broken down vehicle in one place at any time between 5am and 7pm (that's rush hour in London folks, every single week day!) and imagine that city wide. Imagine ALL the traffic (cyclists, motor bikes, taxis, cars, vans, lorries and buses all except the games cars) sharing a single lane - everytime a bus or a taxi stops, ALL traffic has to stop - and despite what that disingenuous website Getaheadofthegames recommends cycling, already a dangerous game in London will become absolutely lethal. As for the tube well, it's horrible albeit efficient at the best of times but during the Games...?

It's very easy to point out that that they are a 'once in a lifetime event' and so on and easy to do so if you haven't had the sheer inconvenience for so long already and you'll be able to visit, see what you want and then escape the insanity to another city but remember that for us that are stuck here we have all the clearing up and restoration to look forward to for many months after September. It's been too long already and the games haven't even started yet!

Let's not even talk about how much money this has cost every taxpayer in the country and please note that Londoners have been paying extra Council Tax for this years...