Olympic test event- reactions to the XC

[Rachel Mawhood]

Well I quite understand that 6 yo children couldn't be expected to understand the implications - they were just having a good time some of them even seeing a horse in real life for the first time.

One group of children that passed me, holding hands, were chanting "We're going to the Park". I think that that was what they were excited about, going to their much-loved local park - most of which has been closed to them for several weeks.

And as for handing out free tickets for a test event - shocking. Why they didn't charge everyone instead I just don't know.

They were not allowed to charge.

And as for the B&B-wannabe-hosts - they all seemed to be booked up with lots of individuals, and the hotels likewise.

You say "all" - you talked to all?

The ice-cream vendors I spoke to, and even the pub landlord, seemed to be very happy with the games coming to the Park.

You are an outsider, I take it. They may have thought that you might be a Council "spy".

They seem to be expecting quite a few visitors next year, indeed they seemed to have quite a few this year as a result of the test event.

A few Australian and German equestrians - hardly regular customers.

You - not I - are the one using the word "foolish" and "deluded" and "error". But I think that you are being naive if you think that local people are treating you as their confessor.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

drivel ... Suck it up, please. ... tedious ... pacifiers

One of the elements on this thread that prompted me to join is the slightly sinister portrayal by equestrians of Greenwich opposition as untermensch.

See also other posts describing opposition as, say, "idiots" and old ladies who claim to know what HM The Queen is thinking.

NOGOE - which leads the opposition, since all the amenity society executives were bought off with free tickets, flattery, and LOCOG hospitality - has several lawyers on its committee, as well as other highly-skilled professionals.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

Some of the horses competing were young and not that experienced. You cannot train for crowds at home so these horses are unaccustomed to the noise and sight of lots of people. However they soon learnt to cope and will have grown for the experience. Next year the horses will have competed at top level already in order to qualify so they will not be so raw.

It is still illegal to ride horses in Greenwich Park (unless you are a policeman, etc, in the performance of your duties). Everyone riding a horse in Greenwich Park last week was contravening the Royal Parks Regulations (which can be amended but only by Act of Parliament). Fine sort of host, LOCOG is - throwing a party at which all the guests are required to break the law - and failing to obtain permission to draw mains water or discharge to the mains sewers (thus massively increasing the cost of staging the Test Event).

I happen to think it was just luck that no one was thrown from their horse.

 

[mtj]

One of the elements on this thread that prompted me to join is the slightly sinister portrayal by equestrians of Greenwich opposition as untermensch.

See also other posts describing opposition as, say, "idiots" and old ladies who claim to know what HM The Queen is thinking.

NOGOE - which leads the opposition, since all the amenity society executives were bought off with free tickets, flattery, and LOCOG hospitality - has several lawyers on its committee, as well as other highly-skilled professionals.

Isn't this really the point of NOGOE - nimbyism of the local intelligensia cloaked by a screen of environmental and historic concerns.

I personally, with the approval of English heritage, summer graze "ancient monument" with horses. Horses are also being used in the management of a number of environmentally sensitive areas.

 

[mtj]

On a more positive note, can anyone please confirm what access there will be to the shops and restaurants/cafes? Is it accurate that we are just going to be herded into the venue?

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

Isn't this really the point of NOGOE - nimbyism of the local intelligensia cloaked by a screen of environmental and historic concerns.

Most of the 13,500 people who signed our petition were not "intelligensia". I really think that you should read our web site before pronouncing on NOGOE's "point".

I personally, with the approval of English heritage, summer graze "ancient monument" with horses.

Not in Greenwich Park, you don't, where the archaeological remains are found less than an inch below the surface of the soil.

Horses are also being used in the management of a number of environmentally sensitive areas.

Horse manure is death to acid grassland, a rare habitat - now even rarer, thanks to LOCOG's plans for a nine-day wonder for an elite sport.

 

[Spudlet]

There you go, there's the real objection - it's an 'elite' sport. Of course, all Olympic sport is 'elite' by definition. But for a certain kind of person, anything involving a horse has them frothing at the mouth about the 'elitism'.

Never mind the inner-city farms and riding schools providing discounted riding for local children that have benefitted from Hoof in Town of course... places like the city farm I used to volunteer at. Didn't see many rich kids there - although at least one rider who began there is now a professional rider himself, despite not coming from a rich background. Never mind the riders like me from pooper backgrounds, who worked for our rides and have only purr own hard work to thank for any progress we make. We're all elite too! Heaven forbid anyone should try to improve their lot in life - know your place, back to the shadows, don't dare to aspire to anything better - that's for the elite, not for the likes of you, you poor, disadvantaged person. Let your betters speak for you, there's a good child.

Anyway, to paraphrase: whine whine whiney whiney whine winge whiney whiney whine. London doesn't deserve the Olympics.

 

[mtj]

Horse manure is death to acid grassland, a rare habitat - now even rarer, thanks to LOCOG's plans for a nine-day wonder for an elite sport.[/QUOTE]

So acid grassland, this is the stuff that nettles docks and buttercups thrive on isn't it?

Yes, horse manure, as would any fertiliser, damage this habitat. The blunt truth is that horse owners end up spending lots of money having lime put on their fields to try to smoother the buttercups (toxic to horses). Thats even with horses grazing 24/7.

Right I'm off to roll over a few rotting trees and bother some beetles.

 

[SusannaF]

While I have sympathy with a lot of your points, Rachel, don't call riding an elite sport.

One in four riders in the UK earns less than £10K a year. We're all fed up with the reverse snobbery.

 

[SusannaF]

... and the reverse snobbery is an excuse to give equestrian sports less coverage, and less coverage means less sponsorship, and less sponsorship means fewer chances for people like Phoebe Buckley and Sam Martin (who grew up South London) to get good horses and compete to the best of their abilities...

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

There you go, there's the real objection - it's an 'elite' sport. Of course, all Olympic sport is 'elite' by definition. But for a certain kind of person, anything involving a horse has them frothing at the mouth about the 'elitism'. [et seq]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmpubacc/477/8040206.htm

Select Committee on Public Accounts
DEPARTMENT FOR CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT AND UK SPORT
2 APRIL 2008

Mr Davidson: ... Coming back to the question of equestrianism as well - I recognise that effort is being made but things like equestrianism, for example, it does help obviously to have a horse and there are not many people in my constituency that either have a horse or have ever had a horse or whoever indeed are likely to have a horse! ... What evidence is there that sports such as equestrianism and fencing are actually genuinely open to all? What statistics do you have about the make-up of the elite athletes group at the moment? How many of them are public schoolboys and girls? ...

Mr Steele (UK Sport): We see our mission as elite sport, so it is delivering medals, it is building a world class performance programme. Of course we want to have as many talented people in that as possible but participation and inclusion are not a direct objective for that. ...

Mr Davidson: One of the issues I did ask about is this question of role models and if we find that there is a disproportionate number of people in the elite sports group who have public school origins that might very well be a good role model for other public school youngsters, but youngsters at schools in my area would not necessarily see a public school boy or girl on a horse as being a role model because they would see that as something that was just beyond their capacity - not only possibly physically but also financially - and that is why I think it is important.

My emboldening.

although at least one rider who began there is now a professional rider himself

Names?

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

... and the reverse snobbery is an excuse to give equestrian sports less coverage, and less coverage means less sponsorship, and less sponsorship means fewer chances

Money follows money, as any professional fund-raiser will tell you. People give money only to people who can look after money.

At the moment, the whole UK equestrian sector is looking a £60 million gift horse in the mouth and saying: no thanks. It is totally incomprehensible to anyone who is used to making money work and generate more money and getting value for money. Unless the UK equestrian sector wakes up in the next few weeks, your chance to have a £60 million upgrade to national equestrian facilities paid for out of "Olympic" funding will have disappeared forever - certainly won't recur in our lifetime.

And the City will look on in utter amazement.

 

[SusannaF]

Funny that, because I remember a lot of opposition to the Greenwich plan from the equestrian sector early on. Are you sure they are the people to blame (and they're not monolithic)? A lot thought Stoneleigh or Badminton or Hickstead should be used.

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/272597.html

(incidentally, Ebony also offer elite fencing lessons to their kids).

 

[SusannaF]

There had been concerns about the suitability of Greenwich Park from local residents and figures in the horse world.

Members of the Olympic board met yesterday to discuss the potential cost savings of changing the venues for the 2012 Olympic basketball, equestrian sports, badminton, handball and rhythmic gymnastics.

But they announced that Olympic and Paralympic equestrianism, and the running and show jumping phases of the modern pentathlon, will stay at Greenwich Park after a review by accountants KPMG said no saving would be made by moving.

In a statement to the press, the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG), said: " None of the alternative venues for the equestrian events were close enough to accommodate the modern pentathlon show jumping event, which needs to be located close to the Olympic Park to allow the completion of all five events within one day.

"Any move away from Greenwich would therefore result in a doubling-up of facilities with the need to build a separate Modern penthalon show jumping facility close to the Olympic park.

"In addition all of the alternative venues would also require the funding of additional accommodation as they are not within guidelines for travel time from the Olympic village.

"Given these considerations, an alternative location for equestrian and modern pentathlon would also not result in lower costs than Greenwich Park."

Sounds like the "equestrian sector" didn't have much of a choice. In fact, it appears to be "The City" in the shape of KPMG who endorsed the £60 million funding splash on Greenwich.

 

[Spudlet]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/dec/08/sam-martin-horse-riding-olympic-dream

ETA
Personally I think an Olympic legacy of young people like Sam getting into horses is far more valuable than any new shiny facilities. We have good facilities, but the difference that places like VCF make to people's lives is far more valuable IMO.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

Funny that, because I remember a lot of opposition to the Greenwich plan from the equestrian sector early on. Are you sure they are the people to blame (and they're not monolithic)? A lot thought Stoneleigh or Badminton or Hickstead should be used.

I am not apportioning "blame". There are, however, some individuals and organisations and government departments who are directly responsible for what is an utter out-of-control mess at the moment. I understand that it was the BEF that signed off the equestrian part of the London Bid for the 2012 Olympics, complete with map of Greenwich Park drawn to the wrong scale - showing Greenwich Park as nearly twice as big as it actually is.

The Secretary of State, in the last government, gave the so-called government permission for the Park to be the equestrian venue, without there having been any formal application or contract (with terms and conditions) and didn't say anything when the stadium was moved into the Park as well - which meant there was less room for all the logistical stuff. (In the London Bid, the stadium was proposed to be sited in the tilt yard of the National Maritime Museum.)

Now LOCOG's own ticketing organisation is advertising a hospitality suite with a capacity larger than the Painted Hall in Greenwich and which is sited over Sue Benson's jumps 14a and 14b.

Complete and utter out of control mess.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

Personally I think an Olympic legacy of young people like Sam getting into horses is far more valuable than any new shiny facilities.

I suppose it boils down to: does the UK want to be able to compete in the next Olympics (2016) with some chance of winning medals? Have you ever asked equestrians in your competitor countries: how do you manage to afford to upgrade the national equestrian facilities in your country without disadvantaging young people who want to "get into horses"?

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

Sounds like the "equestrian sector" didn't have much of a choice. In fact, it appears to be "The City" in the shape of KPMG who endorsed the £60 million funding splash on Greenwich.

If you look at KPMG's terms of reference for that report, you'll see that all they were asked to do was

Consider and comment on the study presently being carried out by LOCOG (which will be made available to use [KPMG] on completion) looking at the issues associated with the delivery of the Olympic and Paralympics Games Equestrian and Modern Pentathlon events at Greenwich Park, London.

Source: letter from Head of Legal, Olympic Delivery Authority, dated 11 December 2008

It is a joke. At the time of the KPMG report, the cost of staging the equestrian events in Greenwich Park was reported to be £42 million. KPMG said there would be no savings by moving the venue. Today, two years later, LOCOG don't deny that the cost is nearer £60 million. So much for KPGM's "expertise" - they just "found" what LOCOG told them to find.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

Sounds like the "equestrian sector" didn't have much of a choice. In fact, it appears to be "The City" in the shape of KPMG who endorsed the £60 million funding splash on Greenwich.

If you look at KPMG's terms of reference for that report, you'll see that all they were asked to do was

Consider and comment on the study presently being carried out by LOCOG (which will be made available to use [KPMG] on completion) looking at the issues associated with the delivery of the Olympic and Paralympics Games Equestrian and Modern Pentathlon events at Greenwich Park, London.

Source: letter from Head of Legal, Olympic Delivery Authority, dated 11 December 2008

It is a joke. At the time of the KPMG report, the cost of staging the equestrian events in Greenwich Park was reported to be £42 million. KPMG said there would be no savings by moving the venue. Today, two years later, LOCOG don't deny that the cost is nearer £60 million. So much for KPGM's "expertise" - they just "found" what LOCOG told them to find.

It is vested interests, not the City, that are hell-bent on using Greenwich Park. One of those with vested interests is the MP for Greenwich and Woolwich.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

"There had been concerns about the suitability of Greenwich Park from local residents and figures in the horse world."

Why didn't figures in the horse world point out that when you are assessing a venue for suitability and value for money, "iconic background pictures" are not an intelligent reason for choosing Greenwich (such backgrounds can be dropped in digitally, when broadcast on tv) and neither is the stated wish by equestrians not to feel left out of the Olympic Village "party".

If the equestrian events were held at Windsor, the equestrians could stay in hotels or at Royal Holloway College (just two miles down the road) which is empty in August (and they have already said that they could accommodate the equestrians). Windsor Great Park is very close to the Olympic rowing at Eton, so equestrians could go and have a party with the rowers and make the rowers feel less out of things.

There would then have been fewer flats etc needed in the Olympic Village, thus saving money. And this is where the MP for Greenwich and Woolwich comes into it. He seems to have forgotten whose interests he is meant to represent, and he has "good" reasons not to want the Olympic Village to be smaller.

I sent this to Private Eye at the end of June but they haven't used it so I can reproduce it here.

As you will have read, in the Financial Times of 18 June 2011,

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/fb2afa80-969a-11e0-baca-00144feab49a.html#axzz1PudEMhUy

Triathlon Homes has the contract to convert, and presumably sell, 1,379 out of the 2818 flats that will be created from the Olympic Village. The Chairman of this company is (since July 2010) one Nick Raynsford MP. Can this be the same Nick Raynsford, Member of Parliament for Greenwich and Woolwich, who was opposed to reducing the cost and size of the Olympic Village by moving the equestrian events to Windsor?

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

Funny that, because I remember a lot of opposition to the Greenwich plan from the equestrian sector early on.

And now there is enormous dissatisfaction with this venue. Consider some headlines:

"Greenwich Park sparks ground for complaint" - The Times, 7 July 2011
"British Showjumpers criticise Greenwich arena after Olympic test" - The Guardian, 7 July 2011
"British Trio Raise Surface Concerns" - Sporting Life.com

Top equestrians are concerned that the ground was too much for the horses, and there were also health and safety issues for the spectators:

The cross-country terrain is steep, with riders such as Piggy French and William Fox-Pitt widely quoted in the media saying it is "intense," and like "riding in a tumble-dryer."

Fox-Pitt hoped that one "punishing" slope can be modified. LOCOG-employed cross-country course designer, Sue Benson, told the media that the terrain is "in your face." Altering the course is not possible because of the Park's limited available acreage and the presence of so many heritage features.

The stadium surface has also been criticised in the media by show jumpers and dressage riders, as a direct result of insufficient water being available, confirmed by venue manager Tim Hadaway. This critical issue of Thames Water not permitting access to the mains or sewers was long ago brought to the attention of the DCMS, LOCOG and Greenwich Council (by me, as it happens, more than once).

Fans of the cross country event next year will be disappointed because only 50,000 will get tickets (at Badminton, there can be 200,000-250,000 spectators), and their freedom of movement would be restricted by the tightness of the cross-country, and the low canopy of the trees.

There's another insane thing - by holding the equestrian events in Greenwich Park, LOCOG is depriving itself of the revenue from selling four-five times more cross-country tickets. Apart from unnecessarily disappointing 200,000 more people, you do have to ask: what about LOCOG directors' legal duty to act in the best interest of the company?

 

[gmw]

If there are thousands and thousands of old, young, rich, poor etc etc using the park on a daily basis. Shouldn't they be stopped in their tracks ,they must be doing untold damage!

 

[SusannaF]

Talk to the LOCOG, but I suspect that it's beyond the power of most of the equestrian sector, who, as I pointed out earlier and as your sources show, are no monolith, but now have to make the best of it. There was even a question of removing equestrian events from the Games altogether, so I doubt they are truly in a position of influence.

The juggernaut was primed some time ago, and is rolling. The prime concern of LOCOG seems to have been that the equestrian events would be close to the rest of the venues, and Windsor doesn't fit that bill.

I have friends, an elderly couple, who live right on the park and have done so for fifty years now. They are much involved in the conservation of Greenwich. I walked a scrap of the course with the lady in February, and have heard how inconvenienced they will be by road blockages etc and about their doubts about the legacy. They still hope to attend with their kids and grandkids, if they can get tickets.

I'm curious to know where the buck has stopped with the Shooter's Hill development as Ebony are having no problems going ahead (foundations of the stables were all laid out in Feb when I last went to see them). I had stuff about Shooters Hill on file but hadn't heard anything lately and had forgotten about it. Hoof London might know.

Please don't be so dismissive of Ebony and say it's just about benefits. They are an amazing organisation and I've spent time with them, interviewing the organisers and the kids, and it's much more deep rooted than you appear to believe. In a few years they'll have their second generation of Ebony kids, and everyone on that estate knows a child who rides. There's one graduate employed at a racing stable, a few more teens going through the British Racing School and some cracking young riders who are seriously considering a career in horses.

Right now, they can barely watch any equestrian sports on mainstream TV –*coverage has plummetted in the last few decades, and a lot of that's inverted snobbery. There was practically no coverage of the World Equestrian games last year, even though Britain topped the medal table. No, there won't be a lasting architectural legacy for Greenwich, but if the sport is at the heart of the games it might squeeze out wider coverage, and that will only make it easier for people like Sam Martin and Phoebe Buckley. I utterly understand your other arguments, but can't get on board with the whole "elite sport" thing or "money follows money" - there has to be publicity before that happens.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

Talk to the LOCOG, but I suspect that it's beyond the power of most of the equestrian sector

LOCOG thought that they could stage a Test Event without mains water. They were wrong. It has led to very bad publicity for them. There has been widespread criticism of the course. LOCOG might start listening to others, now.

The prime concern of LOCOG seems to have been that the equestrian events would be close to the rest of the venues, and Windsor doesn't fit that bill.

I think it is now about Tim Hadaway hanging onto the remnants of his reputation. Tim Hadaway was part of the BEF team which recommended Greenwich, which we now know was a back-of-envelope calculation with inaccurate measurements and no idea at all where the acid grasses and archaeology were (which they should have avoided).

The sites considered in the original evalution, in 2003, were:

Greenwich
Regents Park
Hyde Park
Lea Valley
Royal Vet College, Potters Bar
Hickstead
Windsor (considered but not visited)
Great Leighs racecourse (now in administration)
Fairlop Waters (proposed racecourse never built).

I think Great Leighs is nearer the Olympic stadium and village than Greenwich is. Had LOCOG chosen either that or Fairlop Waters, you might now have a state-of-the-art equestrian centre - instead of a £60 million travelling circus that leaves nothing behind but damage.

Normally, when you are evaluating a proposal, one of the top criteria is value for money, and you commission comparataive analyses of the options so that you can make an informed decision. As a result of a Freedom of Information request to the ODA, we know that NO financial analysis of the other sites was done. So KPMG were asked just to review what analysis had been done and concluded that this was the cheapest option rather than a split site option to accommodate Modern Pentathlon. Ever since then, LOCOG have used the Modern Pentathlon as the lynchpin of their justification for using Greenwich Park. And, in a reply to a written question last October, the Mayor of London admitted that no costing had ever been done of security for alternative sites.

I'm curious to know where the buck has stopped with the Shooter's Hill development

We did ask Greenwich Council but didn't get an answer. Sorry but we have too much to do to pursue this and absolutely no desire to talk to Hoof London.

Please don't be so dismissive of Ebony and say it's just about benefits.

I didn't mean to come over as dismissive. But seen from Greenwich, people don't understand why Ebony got Olympic funding (despite not being in an Olympic borough) whereas the much-respected, popular and long-standing Mudchute Farm got nothing (despite being in the largest Olympic borough). The general feeling is that the reason must be political, therefore.

but if the sport is at the heart of the games it might squeeze out wider coverage

You are assuming that the publicity is going to be good. But, for many reasons, it won't be. Eg the lack of space for the world's media as well as all the other logistical stuff; the truly terrible travelling experience the spectators will inevitably have. The Test Event tested nothing but the arena and part of the cross-country course.

 

[teapot]

If the equestrian events were held at Windsor, the equestrians could stay in hotels or at Royal Holloway College (just two miles down the road) which is empty in August (and they have already said that they could accommodate the equestrians). Windsor Great Park is very close to the Olympic rowing at Eton, so equestrians could go and have a party with the rowers and make the rowers feel less out of things.

Errrrr RHUL isn't EMPTY over the summer. You've got close to 500 postgrads, if not 1000 still on site over the summer. I know that for a fact as I was one of them once! Also, you'll find that the postgrads are living in the accommodation that would be suitable for Olympic athletes. The accommodation that would be available is shockingly bad (which is why they only give it to first year undergrads during term time only). Plus that brings into the whole security situation, they don't have any of the facilities open bar the library and the college shop. Parking's rubbish, traffic on the A30 at those cross roads is awful and it's not that easy a drive to Windsor.

Plus Windsor as a facility - crap ground, not particularly good travel links, security logistics again given it's the Royals' main residence these days...

Hickstead would need to be entirely re-built to be used as an Olympic facility.

With regards to media, I follow a number of media reps on Twitter and most, if not all were impressed at what was on offer in terms of internet speed, space etc.

 

[windsorblue]

Oh Lord! Never mind a chip - it sounds as if she's carrying the whole sack of spuds.

 

[SusannaF]

I didn't mean to come over as dismissive. But seen from Greenwich, people don't understand why Ebony got Olympic funding (despite not being in an Olympic borough) whereas the much-respected, popular and long-standing Mudchute Farm got nothing (despite being in the largest Olympic borough). The general feeling is that the reason must be political, therefore.

No, as I explained earlier, Ebony had absolutely no facilities at all – no stables, no horses, unlike Mudchute – and the kids were spending more time in the bus than on a horse. It took an hour or more to get them to Lewisham for lessons. With the new facilities they'll be able to reach far more children at local schools, too. I don't see what's political about that. I don't see why Mudchute shouldn't get some funding either, but Ebony really had nothing but a waiting list of kids and a heap of volunteers.

 

[Spudlet]

Mudchute, from memory when I was involved with city farms in London, was pretty well set-up, well known and pretty well funded too. Maybe the Olympics decided to put resources where they were needed most? Anyway, surely the NIMBYs should be glad that part of the Olympics has been taken out of their backyard...

And yes, you do sound dismissive. A lot of people work very hard on these sorts of projects, doing an awful lot with not much in the way of resources. And they do it out of more than self-interest.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

Errrrr RHUL isn't EMPTY over the summer. You've got close to 500 postgrads, if not 1000 still on site over the summer. I know that for a fact as I was one of them once! Also, you'll find that the postgrads are living in the accommodation that would be suitable for Olympic athletes.

From the Royal Holloway web site

Facilities Management designate a certain number of rooms in halls as ‘Vacation Residence’. These rooms are available to book for any period time, subject to availability.

The accommodation that would be available is shockingly bad (which is why they only give it to first year undergrads during term time only).

Strange, then, that Royal Holloway has

Royal Holloway, University of London, has secured the national ‘Hospitality Assured’ Accreditation for the 4th successive year.

http://www.instituteofhospitality.org/hospitality-assured/royal_holloway

No doubt they won this accreditation for all this "shockingly bad" accommodation that they advertise -

During vacations, Royal Holloway offers you a mix of standard, en-suite and premium en suite accommodation, all of which represent exceptional value for money.

The majority of accommodation can be found on the main campus, while Kingswood Hall, ideal as a self-contained venue, is situated just under 1.5 miles from the main site, providing an additional 400 plus rooms. ...

Superbly situated in Surrey, Royal Holloway has an excellent selection of affordable, 3 and 4 star campus rated accommodation available for conference guests, holidaymakers and college visitors – all within easy reach of some wonderful visitors’ attractions.

You will be spoilt for things to do during your stay, with Ascot Racecourse, Windsor Castle, Kew Gardens, Legoland, Eton College and much more all nearby.

http://www.conferences.rhul.ac.uk/accommodation/

They have banqueting facilities, conference and break-out rooms, a full liquor licence, and

all residentail conference delegates are able to use the fully equipped gym and tennis courts.

Plus that brings into the whole security situation, they don't have any of the facilities open bar the library and the college shop. Parking's rubbish, traffic on the A30 at those cross roads is awful and it's not that easy a drive to Windsor. Plus Windsor as a facility - crap ground, not particularly good travel links

From the above web site

The College is easily accessible from London Heathrow, London Waterloo, Surrey and the Home Counties.

Hickstead would need to be entirely re-built to be used as an Olympic facility.

Er, what, like in Greenwich Park?

With regards to media, I follow a number of media reps on Twitter and most, if not all were impressed at what was on offer in terms of internet speed, space etc.

Which venue are you referring to?

When were you at Royal Holloway, then?

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

Oh Lord! Never mind a chip - it sounds as if she's carrying the whole sack of spuds.

You do know, don't you, that making ad hominem attacks only demonstrates that you have lost the argument.