cefyl
Well-Known Member
Just tried again changing my room criteria and I can get dressage GP final for £5,000 for 2! Or SJ individual final.
Freedom of Information request to Olympic Delivery Authority
- Thread starter Rachel Mawhood
- Start date
cefyl
Well-Known Member
Apparently THomas Cook as official sponsor got a large allocation which they can resell!
teapot
Well-Known Member
Jesus christ. Re-sell starts tomorrow too.
foxy1
Well-Known Member
Why are people being so hostile? What if she has a point? 50,000 people is a lot!!
Rachel Mawhood
Well-Known Member
Bury Farm is 300 acres. Greenwich Park is 183 acres in total: the space available to use for the 2012 equestrian events is much, much less. Probably less than 150 acres.
If, as you assert, "there is no way [Bury Farm] could cope with the Olympics", why on earth do you - or anyone - think that Greenwich Park, half the size of Bury Farm, could cope?
It is this sort of disconnect from reality that has got LOCOG into so much trouble.
mtj
Well-Known Member
Tickets: my understanding is that the agencies such as Thomas Cook will have paid more for their tickets than those available in the lottery. Thus they are contributing more to the cost of running the games and subsiding the publicly available tickets.
Bury Farm: Lovely venue as mentioned before, but totally lacking in public transport. The lack of public transport would cause total mayhem for the M1, local roads etc. Not in London, incase anyone hasn't noticed. Yes, I have been there.
Bury Farm: Lovely venue as mentioned before, but totally lacking in public transport. The lack of public transport would cause total mayhem for the M1, local roads etc. Not in London, incase anyone hasn't noticed. Yes, I have been there.
cefyl
Well-Known Member
Rachel Mawhood
Well-Known Member
You. Have. No. Idea.
Greenwich is nothing but small businesses. Now those living near the Park have been told that during the Olympics they cannot take deliveries during daylight hours but either hold a lot of stock (they can't, they have tiny premises) or receive deliveries during the night like the supermarkets. It is going to cost them a lot, whatever they decide to do: keep going and pay increased delivery charges or close down for the Olympics.
Residents living near the Park have seen a 75 per cent increase in their buildings insurance because, although the ABI hitherto has said that residential property does not require terrorism insurance, now that Greenwich Park is to be a prime terrorist target (Olympic venue), that impacts on local residents insurance.
How would YOU like to have a 75 per cent increase in your buildings insurance, just because a horsey competition is taking place for two months near where you live?
Rachel Mawhood
Well-Known Member
You haven't read the Transport for London reports on the impact on London's transport system? You haven't heard how LOCOG wants working people in London to work from home (how does a doctor work from home?) You haven't seen the crowd-modelling results. You haven't heard anything about the expectations of over-crowding at London terminals, or that it could take between two and 8 hours to get out of Greenwich after the day's competitions?
London during the Olympics is going to be nothing like London in normal times. And that includes the transport.
Rachel Mawhood
Well-Known Member
Thomas Cook is only a Tier Two sponsor, which starts at £20 million.
Lloyds TSB sponsorship is £80 million which, coincidentally, is the same as the amount by which the taxpayer bailed them out. So I think the Lloyds TSB sponsorship is really being paid for by us.
cefyl
Well-Known Member
Unless people have actually experienced first hand being in a city where the Olympics have been held they cannot possibly imagine what it is really like. The closest to the scenario that will hit London is probably Atlanta in 1996 whch was utter chaos. So bad some competitors missed their various events. The London transport plan is at best vague, to add to it the security measures which are growing by the day it has implications of a repeat of '96.
Atlanta actually had the equestrian events well outside of the city, 30 miles east at Conyers. In fact many events were held well outside the city, some at Stone Mountain 20 miles away, and even prelim rounds for other sports like soccer held in different cities altogether. Now Atlanta back then (as now) had a far lower normal population than London, and a far better road infrastructure and look what happend.
The biggest mistake Lord Coe et al have made so far is being hell bent on ALL the events (bar sailing) as far as I can see within the London city limits. He seemed to forget there is a UK population outside of the city who would love to have had the chance to attend OUR Olympics but the ticket fiasco, and associated costs of getting to and staying in London to see live events has put it out of the reach of too many.
Fragglerock
Well-Known Member
Does it matter what the competition is? I agree with a lot of what you say, particularly about the transport, but your derogatory tone about the equine community in some of your posts doesn't do you any favours.
Sagittarius
Well-Known Member
Nope - go and look at the venues for football - all over the country, as a deliberate "inclusive" policy so that the millions of UK football fans get a chance to see a local event. Funny that - especially as London as plenty of stadia and could easily host the lot.
Though picking Bury Farm as an alternate is silly - far better to go for Windsor - which has space and proven ability via the European Champs there a couple of years back - especially as there are events next door at Eton Dorney. Though the traffic would be equally chaotic for the locals, so doubtless another NIMBY group would instantly appear.
Mithras
Well-Known Member
Ms Mawhood, you have an exceptionally condescending writing style which you would be advised to lose if you wish to persuade people to your case. Although as I have said before, I do have a problem with people less intelligent than me telling me what to think. I say that simply as a professional and academically recognised individual who has reached the stage in life that enables me to make confident judgements on others based on the evidence of their character they present.
(I also recall the "Hellooooooo" "word" being used by you to attempt to call a critic to heel. By the way, the correct description is "equine" competition, not "horsey").
You present arguements so heavily biased in favour of your own NIMBY viewpoint that you also come across as being the type of person to not be entirely open or fair in what you say. In other words, you attempt to manipulate. The impression I have of you, from what you have written on this and your two related threads, is that you dislike equine competition and see it as elitist and unnecessary, and you think your own needs and interests outweigh those of anyone else. At no point do you demonstrate any kind of normal human understanding of those on the other side of the arguement from yours. Neither do you demonstrate any awareness at all that yours is the minority viewpoint, nor do you demonstrate anything beyond a very superficial understanding of sport.
However, rather than rehash the points I have already answered in relation to yours (as you are not interested in the thoughts of anyone but yourself), I would remind you that I find it objectionable to use free forums such as this, which are designed for people who are interested in equines, to publicise your minority viewpoint. If, for instance, you had actually put some of your own resources into it, I might actually respect you more. As it is, I simply think you have a very minor type of psychological disorder/s going on which prevents you from acting in anything but a selfish, self-interest way, and empathising with your fellow members of the human race. You may well be unaware of this.
ps hows the application for judicial review going?
Last edited:
Mithras
Well-Known Member
Dearie me! Headline! Some Things May Not Be Entirely Perfect, But We Are Not Sure Yet.
Not much of an arguement, is it?
Evidence of this?
How does it compare to other recent Olympic cities?
What about public transport?
What did happen?
This paragraph, along with the above, is actually pretty meaningless, and not backed up by evidence. Its just your own personal interpretation of things.
Just Lord Coe? This is a valid enough arguement, but it was made around page 1 of this thread. The trouble is, you can't please everyone. There are arguements for and against London. Its very much being sold as the London Olympics, not the British Olympics, and thats not exactly new. I personally think having the different events spread all over a nation detracts from it, and I welcome the cohesive approach to this Olympics as a step forwards.
Oh sorry, I forgot, we aren't going to have half the Olympics after all, because some NIMBIES in Greenwich might be inconvenienced. Or alternatively, they are going to be moved to some riding school in Middlesex.
Well, thats sorted then!
(would trying to move on and make the best of things be too ridiculous a suggestion? Adapt to changing circumstances? I have already suggested to Ms Mawhood that she either accept the Olympics or go on holiday for their duration (possibly renting out her house for a ridiculous sum and thus profiting enough to distill the alleged inconvenience). But that wouldn't allow her to make a little bit of a name for herself by spearheading this doomed "campaign".
millimoo
Well-Known Member
Here here Mithras... If I could applaud you I would.
And following the recent spate of horse attacks in the UK I hope we don't hear anymore from Ms Mawhood on this forum. Her personal mission has been done to death, and I'd rather she just poodle off and let us horse lovers discuss the real issues as mentioned earlier in my post.
And following the recent spate of horse attacks in the UK I hope we don't hear anymore from Ms Mawhood on this forum. Her personal mission has been done to death, and I'd rather she just poodle off and let us horse lovers discuss the real issues as mentioned earlier in my post.
cefyl
Well-Known Member
As in your own words a "professional and highly respected individual", may I suggest you read other posts thoroughly before flaming them? I clearly stated a comparison to another recent Olympic city and named the city / clearly stated the transport issues / what happend.
No, it is NOT just my own personal interpretation of things, though I was there in 1996. The possibility of London transport infrastructure descending into chaos is a publicised concern of LOCOG and they have stated in several documents (all publicly available) a direct comparison to the Atlanta games of 1996 which I mentioned in my prior post which you clearly did not pick up on. And LOCOG appear to have studied the Atlanta 1996 problems thoroughly to try and avoid the same thing occuring this summer in London.
Also you may like to peruse the Oxford English Dictionary for the meaning of the abbreviation ET AL as in "Lord Coe et al" and it will hopefully make clear I did not mean "just" Lord Coe.
I have no connection to Miss RM, nor am I a save Greenwich fanatic. I merely posted a comparison between a previous games and London and an official concern (as per LOCOG) of repeat transportation chaos for 2012. So before you denigrate others as having condescending writing styles please look at your own in the first instance.
Thank you to Sagittarius for pointing out football is another event with venue allocation outside of London. I had not looked that thoroughly into it, was only aware of the sailing venue.
Mithras
Well-Known Member
I don't need to look into any dictionary explaining the misuse of Latin terms in order to make your arguement appear more authoritative. Why pick on one government minister? Simply because he is high profile? If so, it backfires, because Lord Coe, unlike any of the London Olympic detractors, is the one person who knows what it is like to be an extremely successful Olympic athlete.
Furthermore, why pick on individuals, and not the process? After all, it is only by challenging the process that your circular arguement is likely to bear any fruit. I have lost count of how many times I have pointed out to you that the only legal method by which to challenge this decision is by judicial review. Therefore why don't you tell us how that is coming along? Or is your challenge limited to sniping on an internet site?
For example, why don't you go into the requirements for a successful judicial review application? Or the substantive content you will be putting into it?
Otherwise, I fail to see any purpose from your continual attacks on the process. And if you feel that strongly about it, then surely you are very remiss in not actually doing something concrete about it. Otherwise, your arguements would appear to be entirely without any purpose.
Just saying...
Mithras
Well-Known Member
And no, you didn't. You simply gave your opinion, your own personal interpretation of events, and failed to back it up with any evidence. You did not clearly state a comparison at all or "state"[d] the transport issues. To me, it sounds like you are just making it up, to suit your own arguement.
There is so much utter claptrap on the internet. But I do think that most people are now so aware of the unwritten rules of internet discussion, or who have some semblance of education, that they can at least make some semblance of providing some form of link to back up what they say. Preferably not Wikipeadia, which is unchecked.
Then you can get progress into the battle of numerous lengthy internet links, some of dubious empirical propriety, which usually involves into a war of numbers of links posted.
OTOH you can actually do something productive in the real world. Such as challenging a decision effectively which you believe to be unfair, since actually having the dedication, talent and committment to become an Olympic competitor yourself, never mind facilitate an international world class contest, is presumably beyond you. Or even simply stopping moaning so much and doing whatever works best for you to deal with the Olympics being held in London.
badattitude
Well-Known Member
Mithras, having good command (or otherwise) of the English language is not a measure of intelligence, merely learning, or I would imagine that Oxford, Cambridge, Mensa and various other august institutions would use it as a method for deciding elegibility. My written English improves everyday although I find the grammar most difficult! I am, by the way, a member of MENSA and scored 169 but I would not be so arrogant to claim to be more intelligent than anyone, just because they made a few grammatical errors. I believe I have made similar observations about your assumptions on this thread before.
Cefyl is quite correct that Atlanta has been used as a comparrison for London in many aspects. I would also imagine that she used "Lord Coe et al" as her quoted member of authority because, whatever his official title in regard to the Games, he is certainly the public front of the London bid at the very least. The fact that you do not recognise this perhaps leads one to believe that you are not quite as clever as you think you are. He did in fact use Atlanta as a reason for the extremely extensive Olympic Road Network, which will cripple transport for everyone else in central London, when speaking on a BBC debate in the last two or three months.
The evidence of an improved public transport systemin London are little in evidence so far, which you must know if you are really a London resident. I have not noticed any significant work on thesouthern end of the DLR, in particular more access for stations such as Greenwich Maritime. The surrounding British Rail stations look much as they ever did, although at least one of them will be closed (Maze Hill) during the Games and the buses will not be able to run along Romsey Road as normal because of it's proximity to the Park, even if the Olympic Road Network's closure of the Blackwall Tunnel was not going to cause enough problems as it is.
I do not mind the Equestrian being in the Park per see, if it were bigger I would be happy in many respects. But what I really object to is the increases in my rates, insurance and all the other things that only Londoners are paying, some that only residents are paying as it happens, when so few of us have got anychance of going in person. I doubt very much that 50'000 cross counrty tickets have been sold, I expect the number is far less, for two reasons. Firstly, I do not believe LOCOG would ignore the safety regulations pertaining to the Park, particularly when they are closing so many of the gates. Second, we only have LOCOG's word that is the number, until the day no--one will know for sure, but I would put money on at least 25'000 being stadium tickets. There is an arena fence so you will still 'see' cross country but not as many of those attending might expect.
The Games will go ahead as planned but we will have to wait a good few years to really judge the cost of them and a few people having a lovely day on the day in Greenwich will not change the all the negatives that doubtless will be percieved in time.
Cefyl is quite correct that Atlanta has been used as a comparrison for London in many aspects. I would also imagine that she used "Lord Coe et al" as her quoted member of authority because, whatever his official title in regard to the Games, he is certainly the public front of the London bid at the very least. The fact that you do not recognise this perhaps leads one to believe that you are not quite as clever as you think you are. He did in fact use Atlanta as a reason for the extremely extensive Olympic Road Network, which will cripple transport for everyone else in central London, when speaking on a BBC debate in the last two or three months.
The evidence of an improved public transport systemin London are little in evidence so far, which you must know if you are really a London resident. I have not noticed any significant work on thesouthern end of the DLR, in particular more access for stations such as Greenwich Maritime. The surrounding British Rail stations look much as they ever did, although at least one of them will be closed (Maze Hill) during the Games and the buses will not be able to run along Romsey Road as normal because of it's proximity to the Park, even if the Olympic Road Network's closure of the Blackwall Tunnel was not going to cause enough problems as it is.
I do not mind the Equestrian being in the Park per see, if it were bigger I would be happy in many respects. But what I really object to is the increases in my rates, insurance and all the other things that only Londoners are paying, some that only residents are paying as it happens, when so few of us have got anychance of going in person. I doubt very much that 50'000 cross counrty tickets have been sold, I expect the number is far less, for two reasons. Firstly, I do not believe LOCOG would ignore the safety regulations pertaining to the Park, particularly when they are closing so many of the gates. Second, we only have LOCOG's word that is the number, until the day no--one will know for sure, but I would put money on at least 25'000 being stadium tickets. There is an arena fence so you will still 'see' cross country but not as many of those attending might expect.
The Games will go ahead as planned but we will have to wait a good few years to really judge the cost of them and a few people having a lovely day on the day in Greenwich will not change the all the negatives that doubtless will be percieved in time.
Last edited:
cefyl
Well-Known Member
You replied ONCE to ONE post I made regarding Atlanta 1996 and you have lost count already? Oh dear, MENSA must be slipping in their requisite to join the society.
LOCOG just one of several referals to Atlanta and the proposals to avoid a repeat occurance of the transport chaos. http://www.london2012.com/olympic-route-network/orn-expanatory-memorandum.pdf
As I said before try throughly reading posts made by other contributors before jumping in.
Diligentia maximum etiam mediocris ingeni subsidium.
Mithras
Well-Known Member
No idea what you are talking about. Can you put it in correct English usage so it is clear what it is you are trying to say?
I am a practitioner in my field, and also teach at postgraduate level within it, and mark exams. Your "arguements" simply don't stand up to any kind of basic scrutiny as they are not attributed but simply your own rather poorly thought out personal opinions.
If you want to try to persuade others of your viewpoint (which is presumably your aim), try dropping the sarcasm and including well presented evidence (from a variety of neutral sources), arguing against any counter-indications for your point.
btw what is it you ARE trying to achieve here? You have spent an awful lot of time and words on it so far, but I am none the wiser as to your actual aim (if any)?
Mithras
Well-Known Member
Indeed. However one would hope that the ethos of sacrifice for the greater good could operate for the duration of the Games and the relevant aftermath. It is hardly that much to ask.
Personally I think excluding all but dog walkers and NUMBYs from public parks is an utter waste and morally objectionable.
As it is, the only "sporting contest" some of the posters on here would have any chance at is moaning and whinging - marathon length, at that! Its a shame when people try to project their own self doubt and negativity onto others who are higher achievers, particularly in the sporting field.
Would it be too much to actually appreciate the talent and dedication of the specatators and organisers, or does the desire to nitpick, whinge and moan outweigh all?
Donkey66
Well-Known Member
It doesn't happen often but, I agree with Mithras.
cefyl
Well-Known Member
I have realised that you do not understand plain English. And that you cannot read posters names. I am NOT RM posting endlessly about Greenwich.
I made ONE post commenting on transport issues highlighted by LOCOG in line with the 1996 games. Period. Simples. It was not an argument for or against Greenwich, not a petition, not a legal argument, simply a statement of comparison backed up by a link to the documentation of LOCOG.
YOU replied with "you have lost count of the number of MY posts YOU have replied to". PLAIN ENGLISH (sorry for the caps folks but Mithras seems to have trouble reading) - I have made ONE - 1 - Uno - Un - Unus, how many more times do I have say YOU replied to ONE post of mine!!! AND YOU SAY YOU LOST COUNT??? Good grief G-d help your students.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Last edited:
badattitude
Well-Known Member
I do not believe that anyone has cast any doubt over the skill and dedication of the athletes involved. Please stop making your sweeping assumptions. Nor is everyone excluded from either Greenwich or any of the other venues a dog walker or a NIMBY, whatever that may be. On the other hand, those of us paying extra to fund the Games, without receiving anything in return, are surely entitled to moan a bit. I expect those of you who pay large amounts to ride at BE Intro level (whatever it's current title is) would do just as much moaning, if BE increased the fees and then decreased the chances of actually competing.
As for who could or could not compete in a sporting event, once again you absolute arrogance is astounding. i believe several well known riders in various disciplines post on here and I expect there are many more who do not. I have represented my country on one sporting field and would have loved to compete at an Olympics but that highest of honours eluded me. However, I would not denegrate the readers of this forum just to make myself sound clever. Many of them propbably have no desire to ride at a Games and merely just love and enjoy their horses. It sounds like you believe their opinion is therefore not valuable and just 'whinging'.
Mithras
Well-Known Member
One presumes you are capable of reading the whole thread? As in the discussion you are attempting to participate in?
ps sarcasm generally only works when you don't try to overdo it.
Mithras
Well-Known Member
Or maybe some people's contribution to society is greater than partipation on an internet forum?
cefyl
Well-Known Member
Yes which is why I realise you have not retained any information at all from any of the posts on this thread. Although now we can see why you use this alias, how arrogant.