Olympic test event- reactions to the XC

[Rachel Mawhood]

The main arena grandstand has a capacity of 600 people, yes 600. That wouldn't even cover the grooms and connections to the riders let alone paying spectators.

Greenwich Park doesn't have a grandstand/stadium.

As for flooding it is a big issue, may I ask what a flood in London is like?

It causes traffic gridlock. In Greenwich Park, because of the steep slopes and thin soil cover over rocky ground, the rain runs down to and collects in Le Notre's parterre - just south of the Queens House - which becomes a swamp. Normally, that doesn't matter. It would matter to horses and riders. It would be unsafe.

 

[Kokopelli]

Greenwich Park doesn't have a grandstand/stadium.

Yes but it has space to build one, there is no space at Hartpury for a grandstand which partly why most horses stabled there don't get turnout

It causes traffic gridlock. In Greenwich Park, because of the steep slopes and thin soil cover over rocky ground, the rain runs down to and collects in Le Notre's parterre - just south of the Queens House - which becomes a swamp. Normally, that doesn't matter. It would matter to horses and riders. It would be unsafe.

It doesn't stop the flow of traffic there does it? The course can easily be diverted around the 'swampy' part or horses and riders can be told to not go in it. As for unsafe I highly doubt that, in the winter many fields turn very swampy and the horses cope fine.

 

[meardsall_millie]

Greenwich and Woolwich is incredibly, undeservedly unfortunate in their MP.

Maybe if the vast numbers of G&W residents who are so vehemently opposed to the use of Greenwich Park for the Eventing had voted against Mr Raynsford, then you could have elected someone else - we do live in a democracy after all.

Let's face it, he has hardly been parachuted in against everyone's will when he's been voted in by over 20,000 local residents with a 10,000 majority.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, the vast majority of G&W residents are actually quite supportive of the Olympics after all?

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

It doesn't stop the flow of traffic there does it?

Flooding can stop the flow of traffic all over London. That's what "gridlock" means. It also causes trains to stop running and, sometimes, London Underground stations have to be closed due to flooding.

The course can easily be diverted around the 'swampy' part or horses and riders can be told to not go in it.

If you read around this subject, you will soon find that - because the Park is so small - there is no room for re-routing the cross-country course.

As for unsafe I highly doubt that, in the winter many fields turn very swampy and the horses cope fine.

Are they being ridden at top speed, having to pull up quickly to negotiate hair-pin turns, with a rider who desperately wants to win a gold medal? No, the horses you are thinking of are just standing around.

 

[mtj]

Whilst I don't doubt your sincerity, please have a think about these transport issues. You are doing your case no good at all.

Windsor would be dependent on exactly the same transport system that you claim could fail for Greenwich (and all the other venues).

Having lived in London, rural UK and overseas, I would much rather take my chances with the London public transport network than try to cope with difficulties in areas that do not have alternatives. Yes, I have had to get across London during tube strikes, flooded stations etc. Not pleasant, but i managed. Horsey folk are generally dogged, so we will cope.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

Maybe if the vast numbers of G&W residents who are so vehemently opposed to the use of Greenwich Park for the Eventing had voted against Mr Raynsford, then you could have elected someone else ... Or perhaps, just perhaps, the vast majority of G&W residents are actually quite supportive of the Olympics after all?

A number of factors caused Mr Raynsford to be re-elected:

1. Inertia - Raynsford has been MP here for a long time.
2. Labour - Greenwich has been a Labour constituency and a Labour council for about 40 years (with the except of a couple of years when the MP was a LibDem).
3. "Client" voters - ie lots of people on State benefits.
4. No credible alternative candidate - unfortunately, this part of the world does not produce credible alternative electoral candidates.
5. Infantilisation of the electorate - Greenwich has shamefully low turn-outs at elections.

And, of course, Raynsford did not actually seek re-election on an "Olympic ticket". I think his majority was reduced, though, at the last election.

 

[meardsall_millie]

A number of factors caused Mr Raynsford to be re-elected:

1. Inertia - Raynsford has been MP here for a long time.
2. Labour - Greenwich has been a Labour constituency and a Labour council for about 40 years (with the except of a couple of years when the MP was a LibDem).
3. "Client" voters - ie lots of people on State benefits.
4. No credible alternative candidate - unfortunately, this part of the world does not produce credible alternative electoral candidates.
5. Infantilisation of the electorate - Greenwich has shamefully low turn-outs at elections.

And, of course, Raynsford did not actually seek re-election on an "Olympic ticket". I think his majority was reduced, though, at the last election.

My point being though, the inertia could have been reversed if so many residents felt strongly enough about something which Mr Raynsford clearly has an interest in, even if he did not seek re-election on an "Olympic Ticket".

Other constituencies have switched allegiance - some showing enormous swings. Public feeling about key topics is often the reason for this.

I'm slightly confused about your comments regarding those voters on state benefits - do they not have a valid opinion? Are they incapable of voting?

If you feel your alternative candidates are not credible, could someone with strong views similar to your own not have been persuaded to stand?

Most areas have shamefully low turnouts, G&W is not unique in this matter - indeed that gives even more opportunity for a determined group to hammer their point home as less 'swing' voters are required to make a significant difference.

Your arguments don't stack up I'm afraid. I return to my original point - maybe the majority of G&W residents are indeed supportive and your voice is one of a tiny group of objectors?

 

[badattitude]

There is no balance to this discussion, rather like the articles I have reading in both Horse and Hound and Eventing today. Rachel is too far one way and most of the others too far the other. It is a pity that non of you appear to have listened to the BBC London radio debate this morning. It came from Greenwich but was about the Olympics all together. There is still much disinformation. Lord Coe himself refered to 'two weeks of disuption' so he has conveniently forgotten the Para Olympics, like many of the BE people commenting at the test event. The disruption will be more like six weeks and the representative from Transport for London would not confirm exactly which roads would be closed and for how long but there is a map if you search for Olympic Road Network. The residents they spoke to who whole heartedly supported the Games had businesses like B and B's. The residients without were much more ambivalent. Most expressing some dismay at the lack of local involvement, promised jobs and tickets. These concerns were echoed by the people who spoke from Stratford. Do the people on this forum realise that Londoners will each be paying approx £250 each in increased council taxes etc to pay for the Games. One Greenwich resident mentioned the bill for the equestrian is heading for 60 million pounds. Interestingly Lord Coe did not contradict him. There were many other interesting points raised but perhaps this one is the most important. A study was done to see the long term impact of having an Olympics in any city going back many years. It seems you need five or ten years to assess the impact properly. So far only Barcelona (1992, which by the way had the equestrian except the cross inside the city at an excellent facility still much used) has come out ahead. the most recent one in the study was Athens. I probably don't need to say what the impact was on their economy as this country along with many others are currently baling them out of bankruptcy (sp?).

 

[bseage]

My last post on this subject (thank goodness) but the evidence seems to indicate that the people of Greenwich are being inconvenienced so that Coe can have the ego trip of holding an Olympic 3 day event in London but on totally unsuitable terrain that may well be dangerous for the horses and the spectators and damage Greenwich Park.

That this is being enthusiastically supported by the Horse & Hound and British Eventing who should be upholding the standards and safety of a sport in which the horses, who have no say, are the athletes is a disgrace.

So, please do continue to campaign to get the event moved to a suitable, safe and tested venue just for the sake of the horses.

 

[millimoo]

the people of Greenwich are being inconvenienced so that Coe can have the ego trip of holding an Olympic 3 day event in London

And there lies the truth. You can all profess to care about protecting the park as much as you like, but I think this comment probably sums up the feeling of the minority who feel aggrieved

That this is being enthusiastically supported by the Horse & Hound and British Eventing who should be upholding the standards and safety of a sport in which the horses, who have no say, are the athletes is a disgrace.

What a desperate comment, that is verging on laughable.

And as for the previous posters comments about Greenwich residents paying an extra £250, well quite frankly that's small fry compared to what everyone is paying thanks to Lie-bours financial Legacy, so you won't get any sympathy from me. I contribute quite significantly as i'm in the 40% tax bracket. I'll never see the benefit of my contributions, but I have to suck it up as thats just how it is - i'm probably paying an extra 3-4 times that amount per annum with NI rises, reductions in Tax thresholds, cost of fuel / food etc.

And to RM, what has coming from 'faraway' Yorkshire got to do with it (It's 2hrs 20 mins on the train from Leeds??? we're not out of touch in the back of beyond). I regularly travel to London Windsor and Slough on Business, have done for years, and of the three, I know which location is more convenient to get to (London in case you were wondering). I accept, it will be a nightmare, but less so than getting to a venue elsewhere.
Whilst it would be lovely to have a venue nearer, you have to accept that the Olympics were awarded to LONDON... not Leeds, not Manchester or anywhere else in the UK.

I very much look forward to the party at Greenwich next year, I think we all deserve a bit of fun in the current financial doom and gloom. Rest assured, I will wear sensible shoes, dispose of my litter, and will make a point of walking very carefully whenever on the grass, and ensure I don't stand on the same spot for too long in case I squash a worm or something.

This is a few weeks of inconvenience out of your whole life - truly, where is the pain in that?
If I were you I would embrace this once in a lifetime event.

I officially sign off, all credibility went out the window at Equestrianism being an Elite Sport, and rubbing Seb Coe's ego.

 

[Danny1234]

I officially sign off, all credibility went out the window at Equestrianism being an Elite Sport, and rubbing Seb Coe's ego.

Well. If M.A. Rath gets his gold medal or two next year, it will be quite a stretch to make up those medals could have been won by anyone, if they were just talented, hardworking, and lucky enough.

 

[Vindaloo]

Have you not seen the film 2012? Acid Grass is going to be the least of our worries.

Lets all run for the hill!

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

The fact that you (I quote) describe 'Equestrianism is an "elite sport". completely undues any credibility you think you have.

OK - you close a public park in an area of social deprivation for two months or more at the height of summer for your own, closed competition; you undo decades of expert stewardship at public expense by the Royal Parks, for your own two-week, exclusive event; you sanction the destruction of rare habitat and protected species in a UNESCO World Heritage Site so that you can look good on telly. Then you rubbish the opposition, calling them "idiots", NIMBYs, "intelligentsia".

What's not elite about that?

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

Whilst I don't doubt your sincerity, please have a think about these transport issues. ... I would much rather take my chances with the London public transport network than try to cope with difficulties in areas that do not have alternatives. Yes, I have had to get across London during tube strikes, flooded stations etc. Not pleasant, but i managed. Horsey folk are generally dogged, so we will cope.

So all the announcements about how the Olympics is going to impact on transport and travel in London has completely passed you by? Londoners are being told to travel to work at different times, businesses are being told to take deliveries at night (when they don't usually have to employ staff at night) or close down for the duration. Here is a round-up kindly provided by a popular and well-known blogger:

http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2010/11/keep-on-running.html

Here is an east London MP's warning:

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/blackwall_tunnel_london_s_worst_nightmare_by_2012_mp_warns_1_961727

Even food distribution is going to be a "nightmare":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/london2012/7920990/London-Olympics-2012-transporting-food-will-be-a-nightmare.html

and during the Olympics there will actually be FEWER train services on the Greenwich line during the Olympics than we have at the moment.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

My point being though ... Your arguments don't stack up I'm afraid.

My arguments do stack up. I write from the perspective of someone who has been a member of the residential and small business community in Greenwich since 1977 - more than 30 years of immersion in the sub-cultures, watching the playing-out of the vaulting ambitions of poorly-educated (mainly Labour) councillors and the petty rivalries between groups (which, I have to say, LOCOG has expertly exploited) - observing the effects of vain politicians deliberately misleading the electorate (eg through the Council newspaper, known here as Pravda). I am on lots of local "networks".

If you don't already know what the implications of being a "client voter" are, I could suggest that you read up on it. This isn't the place for me to explain it.

I return to my original point - maybe the majority of G&W residents are indeed supportive and your voice is one of a tiny group of objectors?

The Council itself reported that 93 per cent of "neighbours" opposed LOCOG's application to hold the 2012 equestrian events in the Park. There were more than 2,000 letters of objection - a record for Greenwich.

 

[meardsall_millie]

OK - you close a public park in an area of social deprivation for two months or more at the height of summer for your own, closed competition; you undo decades of expert stewardship at public expense by the Royal Parks, for your own two-week, exclusive event; you sanction the destruction of rare habitat and protected species in a UNESCO World Heritage Site so that you can look good on telly. Then you rubbish the opposition, calling them "idiots", NIMBYs, "intelligentsia".

What's not elite about that?

"Your own closed competition", "Your own two-week, exclusive event", "so that you can look good on telly"????? - I'm sorry, I didn't realise the HHO faithful was actually designing, running and competing in the Olympics, and indeed that Equestrianism was the only sport that is happening and is not actually part of a huge sporting phenomenon that happens once every 4 years.

I was under the (obviously deluded) impression that this was a world-wide competition for those who are the best at their particular sport and are chosen to represent their country in competition.

Where are the entry forms.... I'll get mine downloaded, filled in and sent off now.....

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

One Greenwich resident mentioned the bill for the equestrian is heading for 60 million pounds. Interestingly Lord Coe did not contradict him.

Far be it from me to preen on behalf of NOGOE but - we did predict this, more than two years ago.

The Docklands
Tuesday 10 March 2009
http://www.docklands24.co.uk/news/50_million_olympic_cost_of_greenwich_park_1_619749

CAMPAIGNERS say using Greenwich Park as a 2012 Olympic venue could cost the economy £50 million.

Members of NOGOE (No to Greenwich Olympic Equestrian Events) have handed an independent economic report to the Olympic Board urging them to reconsider their decision to use the historic park.

NOGOE say Olympic authorities have not properly assessed the true costs and when they are compared with likely expenses in a more suitable location the savings to the economy could reach £50 million.

As well as the prolific NOGOE board members, Royal eventing world champion Zara Phillips has recently criticised the use of Greenwich Park and the lack of legacy it would leave.

NOGOE member and international barrister Sir Frank Berman said: "The rules governing Greenwich as a Royal Park are incompatible with its use for the equestrian events and the Secretary of State does not have unfettered discretion to change them."

Founder of NOGOE Michael Goldman, pictured, added given the current global recession it was particularly important Olympic organisers delivered value for money.

The report has been given to the four members of the Olympic board - Olympics minister Tessa Jowell, Mayor Boris Johnson, British Olympic Association chairman Colin Moynihan and London 2012 Organising Committee chair Sebastian Coe.

It has also been given to four of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) board members.

 

[meardsall_millie]

The Council itself reported that 93 per cent of "neighbours" opposed LOCOG's application to hold the 2012 equestrian events in the Park. There were more than 2,000 letters of objection - a record for Greenwich.

Define "neighbour" - 93% of how many. 10? 100? 222,000?

2,000 letters out of a population of over 222,000. Result!

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

I didn't realise the HHO faithful was actually designing, running and competing in the Olympics, and indeed that Equestrianism was the only sport that is happening

It is the only Olympic event that is happening in Greenwich Park - World Heritage Site, Conservation area, never been built on before in 600 years, was a "stronghold" of the protected species the stag beetle, the finest Baroque landscape in England (until LOCOG cut huge branches off 300 trees just for "access", ie for its construction vehicles, despite every tree having a Tree Protection Order on it).

Just so that a handful of equestrians can look good on telly. (They could easily compete for those medals in another venue.)

 

[meardsall_millie]

.... and once again, the actual tone and intention of my comment has flown straight over your head.....

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

Define "neighbour" - 93% of how many. 10? 100? 222,000?

People who are directly affected - by massive lorries passing their front doors (the pavements are very narrow), and there were a great many complaints about the noise of the generators during the Test Events that ran through the night as well as during the day, and about the racket made by some machine that was brought in to flatten the arena surface at 3.00am

2,000 letters out of a population of over 222,000. Result!

Well, children would not have written. People whose first language is not English would not have written (there are a lot of these in Greenwich, people from Somalia, Turkey, Bosnia, the Indian sub-continent), partly because they don't want to upset the Home Office. Employees of the Council, and anyone receiving Council-dispensed grant-aid or dependent upon Council permission for doing things, would not have written. It sounds as if you really don't understand this subject.

In Essex, Sally Gunnell's parents have just had to abandon their plans to have a caravan park on their farm near Chigwell - after only 600 letters were received by the local authority.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/shart/100017831/london-2012-olympics-diary-gunnell-shocked-at-nimby-response-to-olympic-caravan-club/

Sounds as if democracy is alive and well in Essex. Unlike Greenwich.

Incidentally, the Leader of Greenwich Council ordered local councillors not to meet residents in the Park to discuss their concerns, as the preparations for the Test Event were starting. We have the e-mail, copied to us openly - either by mistake or perhaps in exasperation - by the deputy leader. In Greenwich, democracy is being subverted by the Leader of the Council.

 

[meardsall_millie]

People who are directly affected - by massive lorries passing their front doors (the pavements are very narrow), and there were a great many complaints about the noise of the generators during the Test Events that ran through the night as well as during the day, and about the racket made by some machine that was brought in to flatten the arena surface at 3.00am

Well, children would not have written. People whose first language is not English would not have written (there are a lot of these in Greenwich, people from Somalia, Turkey, Bosnia, the Indian sub-continent), partly because they don't want to upset the Home Office. Employees of the Council, and anyone receiving Council-dispensed grant-aid or dependent upon Council permission for doing things, would not have written. It sounds as if you really don't understand this subject.

Ha, priceless! Clutching at straws now?
I don't feel any need to reply any more, your responses speak for themselves.

Enjoy the event next year. We certainly will

 

[Spudlet]

This is a shining example of how not to run a campaign. Don't build relationships, don't present anything approximating a balanced view, waste your energies commenting on forums and newspaper websites rather than engaging decision makers, adopt a hectoring tone, revert to using stereotypes, presume to speak for people rather than involving them in your work... if they ever write a 'how not to do it' guide, I suspect that's exactly what they'll put in it. You couldn't make it up!

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

Enjoy the event next year. We certainly will

If NOGOE succeeds in moving the 2012 equestrian events to a more appropriate venue - better for UK equestrianism, as well as better for Greenwich - the memory of gloating, triumphalist comments such as this by you (and a couple of others on this thread) will make our success taste even sweeter. But we won't come here to crow over you, we'll be too joyful, celebrating and getting on with our lives.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

Don't build relationships, don't present anything approximating a balanced view

We have done all that - and more - over the past three years, you just haven't bothered to look it up, and we have achieved a lot. Few organisations take on the - completely unaccountable - IOC and win but we might.

This is my last comment on this thread. There is more still to come out about LOCOG's incompetence, double-dealing, and stonking wastefulness. The UK equestrian community had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to secure its competiveness for future Olympics - and blew it, thanks to the BEF and everyone who went along with their baloney. Way to go, people.

If anyone wants to contact me, please use the reply@nogoe2012.com address - I am one of those who deals with messages received at that address.

 

[Vicki_Krystal]

I went to Greenwich Park on Tuesday this week - plenty of people were still running round it, still having picnics on it and quite frankly, seemed excited by peering through the gates to try and see some of the test event site.

There were other people clearly looking at the signs dotted around the park to see when / if the park would be closed. I didnt hear one complaint - i did however hear lots of excited chatter from people who have tickets working out where they will be queing / where the fences will be etc

Its the Olympic games - not some school fete.
Its a games that will bring (much needed) millions into our economy.

It would also seem that things in Greenwich have already been changed to suit the residents of Greenwich - this is taken from the website -

Total Park closure period reduced to four weeks

Cross Country course moved to avoid sensitive areas

Children’s Playground and Flower Garden will remain open except for Cross Country day

Arena moved to avoid archaeologically sensitive areas and reduce impact on Romney Road
Some operational facilities moved to Circus Field to reduce impact on the
Park itself

The new venue plan means we can also amend the transport plan and significantly reduce impact on the roads in Greenwich Town Centre and East Greenwich.

From 2010 - 2012 we will continue to attend and organise events and other activities locally to ensure you know what is happening in the Park in advance of the Games

 

[Spudlet]

We have done all that - and more - over the past three years....

It was evident from the outset that the BEF (and the IOC) was completely seduced by the idea of holding the event in Greenwich.

The BEF were your key, crucial allies. You HAD to get them on your side. You did not. You are wasting time and energy here. You have not swayed the balance of public opinion. You appear to have fundamentally failed to review and revise your approach throughout the course of your campaign. Have you considered WHY you are taking the actions you are? What was the point of the protest at the test event? What did you aim to achieve? A protest for its own sake, an empty PR stunt, achieves nothing - it MUST be backed up by useful action. You should have used it as an opportunity to present new, unseen evidence. You failed to capitalise on it. And with your language and approach you have made it impossible for the IOC to work with you now, even if they wanted to. You have allowed yourself to be presented as the outsiders, the mean-minded minority, the party-poopers. And you have then gone out of your way over the best part of a week to prove that judgement right!

I do this kind of thing for a living.

 

[windsorblue]

RM continues to use the word "elite".
I have a feeling she interprets it as something belonging to a small, priviliged minority, stress being on the "priviliged" bit. There's the stereotype....... priviliged, spoilt, posh, snobby etc etc , horsy types. I prefer to believe that ALL athletes at 2012 are Elite, being in a minority, at the top of their chosen sports through dedication and hard work. IF that makes them "Elite", then it's a bl****y good thing. What on earth is the point of having any Tom, Dick or Harry having a go - we'd never win anything. There is a huge difference between "Elite" and "Elitism". Sorry, Spudlet - I still think she's carrying a sackful!

 

[cefyl]

Question to RM (and I am too opposed to Greenwich venue as I strongly object to not having a lasting legacy to benefit the UK equine community or indeed the UK afterwards).

You are so against the venue and your postings here make some very very valid points. But it is also bringing up alot of "like it or lump it" remarks from HHO forum members, al la Princes "Pushy" Haya. Maybe the views would be better directed into the public domain more - i.e. Sunday Times, The Times, and so on (not the tabloids though). Radio and TV interviews. Even get Prince Charles involved, who after all is on of the most public of British conservationists. It is not too late to bring a back track from the Olympic organisers but I feel the debate is being limited to within the equine community and "Joe Public" have very very little idea of the whole truth.

The sailing venue is a fair way from the city yet there were some equally good locations much closer to London. Of course a certain foreign royal has no interest in sailing.

Also a knock on effect on the UK economy is highlighted here http://uk.news.yahoo.com/tourism-warning-over-london-olympic-games-022508290.html and it certainly was true of past Olympic venues. Surely spreading the events outside of London would encourage some addtional tourism rather than deter visitors.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

Evidently, am going to have to be selective about not commenting, when this forum is being used to propagate LOCOG's disinformation, as it would appear that no one else is bothered about disabusing the people of LOCOG's lies.

this is taken from the website ... Arena moved to avoid archaeologically sensitive areas and reduce impact on Romney Road

LOCOG originally wanted the arena in the tilt yard of the National Maritime Museum (north of the Queens House). You can still find folksy artist's impressions of this on the web. There is A RAILWAY TUNNEL not far below the tilt yard (the Greenwich main line). That's why they had to move the arena because it might have caused the roof of the tunnel to collapse. But the so-called "government permission" to use Greenwich Park for the equestrian events did not include siting the arena within the Park.

Some operational facilities moved to Circus Field to reduce impact on the Park itself

More lies. LOCOG do not have planning permission to use Circus Field because Greenwich Council do not have the power to give that permission. Ownership of Circus Field is vested part with the Crown and part with the earls of Dartmouth. Two laws are relevant: the Metropolitan Commons Act 1866 and the Supplemental Act for Blackheath of 1871.

The Metropolitan Commons Act 1866 states

The Commissioners shall not entertain an application for the inclosure of a metropolitan common under the control and management of a London borough council, or any part thereof; . . . and notwithstanding any proceedings taken under any Act other than this Act, or any provisional order of the Commissioners made but not already confirmed by Act of Parliament, proceedings may be taken under this Act in relation to any metropolitan common.”

Blackheath was then designated as a “metropolitan common” in the Supplemental Act for Blackheath of 1871.

Some of these laws were brought in to prevent powerful landowners from using their knowledge of state processes and their friends in high places to appropriate public land for their personal benefit, shut out the lumpen proletariat and disenfranchise them. Sometimes called “class robbery”, and all over the country it led to the destruction of whole villages. Read the history of enclosures/inclosures in this country. Without it, there would probably be no such area as Circus Field now, or any part of Blackheath open to the public.

Since 1871, Circus Field has been a protected metropolitan common and, thus , subject to quite rigorous legal control. LOCOG seems not have noticed that when it decided to encroach on the Circus Field without asking first. LOCOG's line on this has been that they will seek the relevant permissions. But you cannot obtain consent to do something that is unlawful.