Equibrit
Well-Known Member
That is incorrect, based on my experience working at the games. The facilities are pretty impressive, albeit temporary.
Message sent to HRH Princess Haya, FEI President
- Thread starter Rachel Mawhood
- Start date
That is incorrect, based on my experience working at the games. The facilities are pretty impressive, albeit temporary.
cefyl
Well-Known Member
Orwell
Active Member
Again, I find that personalising the debate in this way is distasteful. It looks like mudslinging. It also detracts from the force of any arguments that you may make. Play the ball, not the man (or in this case the woman).
This seems to be a re-assertion of the "Miss Jean Brodie" argument, followed by a retraction of it. Do you believe that arguments can be dismissed because you dislike the way that they are expressed? Or do you believe that they should be judged on their "substantive merit"?
I gather that she uses her own name so as to be able to express her views forcefully without hiding behind the cover of anonymity. You are right to point out that there is a downside to this.
As explained above, I'm urging you to raise your game. Don't attack Rachel Mawhood personally, attack the substantive points that she makes.
badattitude
Well-Known Member
Equibrit, once again you are displaying ignorance. I am sure if you search the web you will find the announcement regarding Bell Equine, it is no secret. They are an excellent practise but some way south of the venue. Despite your previous Games experience (mine includes Athens, Atlanta and Barcelona and I have visited Sha Tin for other reasons) the London Games is not the same. The permanent venue at Barcelona is probably the nearest thing and it's facilities are extremely impressive but Greenwich does not have the room. That is why the Circus Field is now being used. It was not on any of the original plans. Perhaps before rubbishing things said by myself or Rachel Marwood or anyone else that does not happen to fall within your unsubstantiated 'opinion' on what these Games will be like, perhaps you could look into it through sources that are not BEF/LOCOG puppets and you might have a moment of epiphany as I did. I assume you know for example, that at this Games, unlike any other, the fence judges on xc day will nearly all be provided with green screens and there will be a five minute delay on the transmission. Why do you suppose that is?
perfect11s
Well-Known Member
My view it's going to happen all this is too late , the other thing protest groups are largely a waste of time!!! if you want any infuence over local matters like planing you need to get people onto the local council ,
Orwell
Active Member
The requirements for the Modern Pentathlon are very modest:
To allow these to determine where the Olympic equestrian events are sited seems to me to be allowing the tail to wag the dog.
Moreover, I suspect that the claim that using Greenwich Park is cost effective is now not moot but false. Tens of millions of pounds have had to be spent on holding the events in Greenwich Park because it is Greenwich Park. For example they can't dig down because much of the Park is protected or because there are underground sewers, etc. As the lawns in front of the Queen's house slope by 3 metres, they have had to build an area platform, and to develop an artificial surface, etc. They will also (if they are to honour Lord Coe's promises and the FEI Code of Conduct towards the Environment) have to spend a fortune restoring the Park after the Olympics. And there is no positive legacy to justify this cost.
The other key reasons for choosing the Park are even less convincing. The last one is, if taken literally, nonsense:
Presumably they mean that holding the events in the Park will promote Greenwich and London. But Greenwich and London don't need promoting in this way. Maritime Greenwich is a World Heritage Site, some 4-6 million people visit it each year. In 2012, most of the WHS will be closed for almost a month and the Park in particular will be a building site for about half of the year.
Alec Swan
...
Rachel Mawhood
Well-Known Member
You are not telling the truth.
I won at the Lands Tribunal. I WON.
http://www3.eurolii.org/ew/cases/EWLands/2008/LRX_59_2007.html
Find me one other person who has represented him/herself at the Lands Tribunal and won, against one of the most corrupt property companies in the country?
I have never stood for election as a local councillor. Why are you making this up? Where do you think I made any attempts to be elected as a local councillor? I should HATE to be a local councillor - I am far too much of a geek - and I have never been a member of any political party.
I don't know where you get all your misinformation, particularly as - when I last looked - I seemed to be the only person in the world called Rachel Mawhood.
Please withdraw your wholly inaccurate remarks.
DragonSlayer
Well-Known Member
Things are getting interesting.....
ChesnutsRoasting
Well-Known Member
Things are getting interesting.....
Hehe, Friday night, a few drinks, yeeharrrrrr!
Mithras
Well-Known Member
Not possible in the law. If someone is renowned as building up the potential for becoming a vexatious litigant, then it is entirely delitus personnae.
I am afraid that a certain basic standard of written expression is necessary to enable comprehension. Her letter is almost impossible to interpret and the point is actually not made, or if it is, it is very unclear. The substance itself is rambling, overly individualised, biased and given unequal importance. In view of the numerous assistance easily available to produce letters to an acceptable standard, this is unacceptable.
I believe the person involved is a bit of a vexatious litigant but one who uses free procedures when necessary - someone who specialises in bringing nuisance cases, with little chance of success, often at expense to the taxpayer.
I am perfectly confident in my ability and experience to spot flaws such as this.
Mithras
Well-Known Member
Mithras
Well-Known Member
Oh come on. If you are going to expound such beligirent views on a public forum, and try and tell people more clever than yourselves what they should think, don't make a fuss simply because someone stands up and challenges you!
Oh, and if I don't instantly reply to your cybernaut-esque thinly disguised biggotry, its because I'm actually away competing this week and into the beginning of next. Some of us prefer to use our time productively achieving things, rather than obsessivly trying to control and micro-manage our own local environment.
Last edited:
Rachel Mawhood
Well-Known Member
An irresistable mental picture of Mithras is forming, of someone aged about 101 harking back to the good old days of being in the law when serfs knew their place. All this scattering around of Latin phrases.
Everyone, please Google "delitus personnae". It doesn't mean what Mithras half-remembers it meaning.
You are trolling, Mithras.
Everyone, please Google "delitus personnae". It doesn't mean what Mithras half-remembers it meaning.
You are trolling, Mithras.
MerrySherryRider
Well-Known Member
Go Mithras !
Its a little annoying that Ms RM and her sidekick Orwell have decided to use a horse forum to continue their obsession. Every single post is concerned with their own private battle.
Some of us are looking forward to the event. Quite a lot of us actually.
Its a little annoying that Ms RM and her sidekick Orwell have decided to use a horse forum to continue their obsession. Every single post is concerned with their own private battle.
Some of us are looking forward to the event. Quite a lot of us actually.
much-jittering
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I was just reading this for interests sake but had to post - I can understand all the arguements against Greenwich for the horse events, but IMHO it's now a done deal, it won't change, so you may as well calm down and sit back and say 'I told you so' if it does all go wrong.
However, the reason I posted was to ask, if Greenwich is too small for all the reasons that have been listed (safety, too tight for the course, emergency access etc), how on earth can somebody suggest existing London yards as an alternative?! Just because they've already got an arena and some stabling? Come on, do the maths, you've all come accross as having fairly screwed on heads (apart from still flogging this dead horse) - how does it all fit into Trent Park or similar without completely flattening 200 acres and starting again?
However, the reason I posted was to ask, if Greenwich is too small for all the reasons that have been listed (safety, too tight for the course, emergency access etc), how on earth can somebody suggest existing London yards as an alternative?! Just because they've already got an arena and some stabling? Come on, do the maths, you've all come accross as having fairly screwed on heads (apart from still flogging this dead horse) - how does it all fit into Trent Park or similar without completely flattening 200 acres and starting again?
Capriole
Well-Known Member
Mrs B
Well-Known Member
And you, Madam, come across as one stop past East Ham...
It's done and dusted - give it up and move on.
badattitude
Well-Known Member
Horserider, I do not think that Mithras should be encouraged for being so personal in her posts. And i do not disagree with you, many people are looking forward to the Games, including myself but that does not mean we cannot be concerned about aspects of it. Most of the other venues are gorgeous and will have a life afterwards and hopefully boost the economy in some very poor areas but it is a fact that many of the people most directly affected by the Games will get nothing from them except an increased council tax bill and much aggravation. Hardly anyone in our area and no one at the children's school has got tickets for example.
Mithras, How convenent that you are not her to apologise for lowering an albeit heated debate into a personal attack. There is no thinly disguised anything about my passion for this subject. If you wish to call that bigotry (only one 'g' in that word by the way if you are going to continue to harp on about grammar because your own argument lacks substance), then carry on. I probably an 'excessively zealous' about this as I want to keep equestrianism both in London and in the Olympics and I am terrified that the current plans and waste of public money with sound the death knell for both.
And you seem to be styling yourself as some sort of legal expert with regard to your comments on Rachel. In which case, you clearly did not pay attention to one of the first lessons which was assume nothing. Remember assume is the thing that makes an ass out if u and me? Once again, you have resorted to personal attack to divert from your weak argument. You know nothing about my life or what i have achieved or what I do in my spare time. You might be surprised to find out.
Further you have called me belligerent but I do not think this is a war, I merely joined in after several pages because I thought Rachel Marwood was getting a very unfair time. There are many people on this forum cleverer than I but I have not called any of them stupid as a personal attack. I told Equibrit she was displaying ignorance of the facts, which she is, but that is not the same thing which you should understand if you are such a master of the English language. No one yet has actually provided a single fact to challenge anything said by Rachel Marwood, Orwell, Cefyl or myself on this thread, quite the contrary, including yourself. And the worst thing about you Mithras is that you have made assumptions and said said things like the quoted test above that are rude, arrogant and as belligerent as any post of mine but not even had the grace to if not apologise, but keep quiet when someone has pointed out you are in the wrong.
People like you, who cannot have a debate without making it personal are the lowest of the low, particularly when they are hiding behind their internet identity. If you see a lady with long dark hair, two blonde children (one girl one boy) and a brown and white spaniel when you are running in Greenwich, that will be me. Feel free to run up and introduce yourself.
Mithras, How convenent that you are not her to apologise for lowering an albeit heated debate into a personal attack. There is no thinly disguised anything about my passion for this subject. If you wish to call that bigotry (only one 'g' in that word by the way if you are going to continue to harp on about grammar because your own argument lacks substance), then carry on. I probably an 'excessively zealous' about this as I want to keep equestrianism both in London and in the Olympics and I am terrified that the current plans and waste of public money with sound the death knell for both.
And you seem to be styling yourself as some sort of legal expert with regard to your comments on Rachel. In which case, you clearly did not pay attention to one of the first lessons which was assume nothing. Remember assume is the thing that makes an ass out if u and me? Once again, you have resorted to personal attack to divert from your weak argument. You know nothing about my life or what i have achieved or what I do in my spare time. You might be surprised to find out.
Further you have called me belligerent but I do not think this is a war, I merely joined in after several pages because I thought Rachel Marwood was getting a very unfair time. There are many people on this forum cleverer than I but I have not called any of them stupid as a personal attack. I told Equibrit she was displaying ignorance of the facts, which she is, but that is not the same thing which you should understand if you are such a master of the English language. No one yet has actually provided a single fact to challenge anything said by Rachel Marwood, Orwell, Cefyl or myself on this thread, quite the contrary, including yourself. And the worst thing about you Mithras is that you have made assumptions and said said things like the quoted test above that are rude, arrogant and as belligerent as any post of mine but not even had the grace to if not apologise, but keep quiet when someone has pointed out you are in the wrong.
People like you, who cannot have a debate without making it personal are the lowest of the low, particularly when they are hiding behind their internet identity. If you see a lady with long dark hair, two blonde children (one girl one boy) and a brown and white spaniel when you are running in Greenwich, that will be me. Feel free to run up and introduce yourself.
perfect11s
Well-Known Member
Cave quid dicis,quando et cui
MerrySherryRider
Well-Known Member
Cave quid dicis,quando et cui
LOL !
badattitude
Well-Known Member
You have mis-read that post. One argument put forward by LOCOG was that the Modern Pentathlon riding had to be in the main equestrian arena so all their phases could be completed on time. At other Games, the main equestrian arena has not always been used for this, e.g. in Bejing. There is no IOC requirement for it to be in a big arena, consequently I merely pointed out that some of the money could have been used to improve an already existing facility for the modern pentathlon riding, where the horses are only required to jump a track about a meter high with 12-15 jumping efforts. The horses for this generally are common or garden borrowed horses (the riders cannot ride their own) and so must (by FEI rules under which Olympic equestrian is run) be kept separate from the horses actually competing because of the fear of possible infections or contamination of facilities which might lead to a positive dope test for example. The London Games are making a massive effort to source former/current jumping horses to make things a little better than what was seen in Bejing but they will still be shipped in on the day and shipped straight home. The competitors still have to run after riding so there is plenty of opportunity to see them even if a tiny venue was used in the riding phase.
badattitude
Well-Known Member
Cave quid dicis,quando et cui
Precisely!
I couldn't have put it better myself perfect11s! Perhaps I am guilty of cacoethes scribende, looking at my posts, so I apologise for their excessive length!
Last edited:
Dab
Well-Known Member
Hi Rachel could you please explain what you mean in the captioned quote. Are you saying that just International equestrian competition is an elite sport? If so how do you see this as elite, i.e. only the best of the best compete internationally = elite; or a lot of money is required to compete in the international arena therefore = elite; or something completely different?
Are there any other sports contained within the Olympic suite that you would also consider as an elite sport?
badattitude
Well-Known Member
For those who didn't believe what I said about the Olympic veterinary care here is a quote from one of the partners at Bell Equine on his linkedin page.
"Julian Samuelson's Summary
As managing partner of the Bell Equine Veterinary Clinic, a 100% equine first opinion and referral practice based in the heart of Kent, I am responsible for the day-to-day management of the practice as well as developing and implementing our strategic objectives.
In addition, as a member of the LOCOG Veterinary Services Team, I am currently overseeing the preparations for Bell Equine's role as a trauma centre for the Equestrian Games at the London 2012 Olympics."
Here is the link http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/julian-samuelson/31/244/a54
"Julian Samuelson's Summary
As managing partner of the Bell Equine Veterinary Clinic, a 100% equine first opinion and referral practice based in the heart of Kent, I am responsible for the day-to-day management of the practice as well as developing and implementing our strategic objectives.
In addition, as a member of the LOCOG Veterinary Services Team, I am currently overseeing the preparations for Bell Equine's role as a trauma centre for the Equestrian Games at the London 2012 Olympics."
Here is the link http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/julian-samuelson/31/244/a54
quirky
Well-Known Member
And my mental image of you Ms Mawhood is of an unemployed dippy hippy in hemp sandals who has too much time on your hands to be able to waste tax payers money on a variety of personal crusades (GIYF)
.Mithras is absolutely not a troll. I suggest you look up the dictionary definition of it, as from where I'm sitting, that cap is sitting firmly on your head.
Say what you like about her but she is tenacious, has the ability to laugh at herself (and others
) and will actually hold her hands up and admit to being wrong.Maybe you could learn something from her
?Orwell
Active Member
No doubt the 50,000 ticket holders for the cross-country are looking forward to it. But Badminton regularly caters for 100,000. So at least 50,000 will miss out because of the decision to use Greenwich Park. Imagine that these are young people who are very keen on the sport, i.e. its future. If the Olympics are not for them, then who are they for?
Back in June, Stephen Glover wrote of the 2012 Olympics in general:
In the case of Greenwich Park, you can probably still buy tickets if you can afford a few thou. Drawings of the Prestige Hospitality tent have been submitted as part of the latest planning application. For example, it is on the right hand side of this drawing of the stadium:
It will clearly be a significant structure (two storeys high, longer than the South Stand). Note also that the cross-country course will actually pass through the tent, so that those inside can watch the event in comfort. The National Maritime Museum is also hiring out part of the Museum and part of the Old Royal Observatory during the Games:
badattitude
Well-Known Member
And my mental image of you Ms Mawhood is of an unemployed dippy hippy in hemp sandals who has too much time on your hands to be able to waste tax payers money on a variety of personal crusades (GIYF)
Mithras is absolutely not a troll. I suggest you look up the dictionary definition of it, as from where I'm sitting, that cap is sitting firmly on your head.
Say what you like about her but she is tenacious, has the ability to laugh at herself (and others
Maybe you could learn something from her
Well I don't think Mithras is a troll but she isn't a paragon of virtue either. She has made several assumptions about me, been rather rude while making them and not admitted she was wrong on any of them. This is a public forum and if Rachel Marwood wants to post her opinion on an equestrian matter she can, and this should open debate not personal slanging matches. People who do not agree and don't want to enter a debate should just not read her posts or not comment. Strangely I have not met Ms Marwood, although I am often away, but I admire her for standing up for what she believes in. Oh and having bothered to look (after one of Mithras' outbursts) I have found that she did indeed win her case as she stated.
Trolls, by the way, hide under an assumed cyber identity like you, me or Mithras, they do not post under their own name.
badattitude
Well-Known Member
Sorry Orwell, I missed your post earlier. Just to mention that actually the cross country course will go through the middle of the arena. They enter by the judges tower on your drawing and then the track goes right round the arena pretty much incorporating a jump or two and then the competitors leave by the corner top right of your arena plan. This is so the 25000 seats in the arena can be allocated as part of the alleged 50000 cross country tickets. And as yet there is still no evidence to support that any other tickets have been sold at all for cross country day, aside from LOCOG saying so. I had already heard that there will be no walking along the course as one does at other events, people will be put into pens and expected to stay there. Also there was a suggestion that to increase the capacity, the cross country would have a break at lunchtime (as they do at Rolex in Kentucky) so they could sell the tickets for two sessions.......
Rachel Marwood did post a copy of the small print for tickets which was entirely accurate, if anyone bothered to check, under those conditions LOCOG can do as they please and no one who has a cross country ticket is going to find out other wise, probably until they have the actual ticket in their hands or perhaps not even until they arrive.
Ps. the sun is now shining so am off to take the dog to the Park in question!
quirky
Well-Known Member
Or might that be Ms Mawhood
?The devil is in the detail
.As a matter of fact, one does not have to be an alias that acts as a troll. I'm sure if you took some time to look up the true definition, you'd agree
.
Last edited: