cefyl
Well-Known Member
Don't you remember an article in H&H back around 2008 when the debate was getting heated about Greenwich and Princess H was recorded as saying "it will be at Greenwich like it or not".
Olympic test event- reactions to the XC
- Thread starter SusannaF
- Start date
Don't you remember an article in H&H back around 2008 when the debate was getting heated about Greenwich and Princess H was recorded as saying "it will be at Greenwich like it or not".
Orwell
Active Member
Thanks cefyl. I missed the article. If anyone has a detailed reference to it and can give the printed quotation from Princess Haya, it would be worthwhile posting here.
LCH611 said:
Does LCH611 mean that the BEF supports the use of Greenwich Park, despite all the reasons for not doing so and the evidence against it provided by the Test Event, because Princess Haya ordered them to do so? Surely the BEF should be able to challenge the IEF? Surely what matters is not what the IEF say but how the IOC will judge next year's Olympic events?
bseage
Member
LCH611 is just pushing the views of BE, BEF and H&H. To quote H&H of 14 July 2011:
'If the only legacy of 2012 is nailing down equestrianism's place in the Olympic pantheon then it will have achieved something momentous' H&H. Eventing Correspondent of H&H.
They miss the point. Sailing is at Portland because they need SEA. So logically eventing should be in the country because to be successful it needs COUNTRY.
Now how difficult is it to get your head around that?
On! On!
'If the only legacy of 2012 is nailing down equestrianism's place in the Olympic pantheon then it will have achieved something momentous' H&H. Eventing Correspondent of H&H.
They miss the point. Sailing is at Portland because they need SEA. So logically eventing should be in the country because to be successful it needs COUNTRY.
Now how difficult is it to get your head around that?
On! On!
cefyl
Well-Known Member
badattitude
Well-Known Member
Lee Bridge is no harder to get to than Greenwich in many ways abd already has an equestrian community. It was on one list of proposed sites but I believe it was discarded when they decided to have the BMX biking there, later moved elsewhere or something like that. It has much better road links being within minutes of the motorway, is closer to the Olympic Park and adjacent to waste ground which no doubt could have been made use of to expand the site. I do not think the organisers even really considered the site to be honest.
LCH611
Well-Known Member
To be clear I am speaking only about my own views as thankfully I am able to draw my own conclusions from all the information available to me as opposed to merely considering the argument that suits me best, snatching at half truths and pronouncing them to be fact.
That is the first time I have seen that particular quote from the Eventing correspondent of H&H but as ever she seems to me to be well-informed.
I am however going to bow out of this debate as I am beginning to feel guilty that I am feeding the trolls!
bseage
Member
Sorry to lose you LCH611 and a shame that you bow out on such a broad brush unfounded personal comment on those who disagree with your views.
Hopefully, you will reflect on the views of those who like me support eventing every day of our lives (writing this before I go out and muck out my BE100 eventer) and just want to see a successful Olympic Event at a suitably challenging venue that also allows a high degree of audience participation and produces some sort of legacy in return for the £64million that will be spent.
That venue is not Greenwich.
All the best. On! On!
Hopefully, you will reflect on the views of those who like me support eventing every day of our lives (writing this before I go out and muck out my BE100 eventer) and just want to see a successful Olympic Event at a suitably challenging venue that also allows a high degree of audience participation and produces some sort of legacy in return for the £64million that will be spent.
That venue is not Greenwich.
All the best. On! On!
bseage
Member
Cefyl..the article was in H&H 29 August 2008
THE president of the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) has warned that the status of equestrian sports within the Olympic movement is precarious.
Princess Haya told H&H that despite the undoubtedly great sport and brilliant organisation of Hong Kong, there is no guarantee that horse sports can survive in the Olympics beyond 2012 — or even get that far — and could follow sports such as cricket and polo out of the Olympic door.
"The FEI has a huge fight to even get to 2012," explained Princess Haya, who is also a member of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the FEI's first elected president.
"The IOC have heard from our stakeholders and wrote to us about the set-up and presentation of dressage.
"The popularity of dressage is abnormally low and there are complaints about judging and the make up of judging panels and committees," she said. "Anyone who thinks equestrian sports are secure for London is mistaken."
"The IOC has very reasonable and legitimate concerns about eventing safety and the way the dressage committee is working.
"It could also be the end of show jumping as an Olympic sport, too, as they are unlikely to leave it on its own."
The controversy at the Olympics last week, when four show jumping riders were suspended following positive dope tests on their horses, will not have helped boost the sport's image.
Alluding to the eventing, Princess Haya said Mark Todd's comeback, the spirit shown by Mary King, the proliferation of new names and Mike Etherington-Smith's "super" course, were high points of the competition.
"The amazing standard of dressage on the first day was great for the sport. And we have roped in a whole new audience from outside.
"But walking away and saying 'thank God nobody died,' isn't good enough."
The princess also urged the British equestrian community to back Greenwich as the venue for the equestrian competition at the London 2012 Games — and to be more welcoming.
"I don't think any city has looked forward to a Games more than London. Everyone knows the sport is going to get the best possible platform. We [the FEI] see Greenwich as an equestrian Games," she said. "But the message we are hearing all over the world is that Britain doesn't want it, and the discord is sad to see."
The Princess regards herself as the FEI and in the same year forced the resignation of the full FEI Dressage Committee. I get the impression that its Haya's way or no way.
On! On!
THE president of the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) has warned that the status of equestrian sports within the Olympic movement is precarious.
Princess Haya told H&H that despite the undoubtedly great sport and brilliant organisation of Hong Kong, there is no guarantee that horse sports can survive in the Olympics beyond 2012 — or even get that far — and could follow sports such as cricket and polo out of the Olympic door.
"The FEI has a huge fight to even get to 2012," explained Princess Haya, who is also a member of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the FEI's first elected president.
"The IOC have heard from our stakeholders and wrote to us about the set-up and presentation of dressage.
"The popularity of dressage is abnormally low and there are complaints about judging and the make up of judging panels and committees," she said. "Anyone who thinks equestrian sports are secure for London is mistaken."
"The IOC has very reasonable and legitimate concerns about eventing safety and the way the dressage committee is working.
"It could also be the end of show jumping as an Olympic sport, too, as they are unlikely to leave it on its own."
The controversy at the Olympics last week, when four show jumping riders were suspended following positive dope tests on their horses, will not have helped boost the sport's image.
Alluding to the eventing, Princess Haya said Mark Todd's comeback, the spirit shown by Mary King, the proliferation of new names and Mike Etherington-Smith's "super" course, were high points of the competition.
"The amazing standard of dressage on the first day was great for the sport. And we have roped in a whole new audience from outside.
"But walking away and saying 'thank God nobody died,' isn't good enough."
The princess also urged the British equestrian community to back Greenwich as the venue for the equestrian competition at the London 2012 Games — and to be more welcoming.
"I don't think any city has looked forward to a Games more than London. Everyone knows the sport is going to get the best possible platform. We [the FEI] see Greenwich as an equestrian Games," she said. "But the message we are hearing all over the world is that Britain doesn't want it, and the discord is sad to see."
The Princess regards herself as the FEI and in the same year forced the resignation of the full FEI Dressage Committee. I get the impression that its Haya's way or no way.
On! On!
badattitude
Well-Known Member
And did I mention that the Lee Valley Park Authority is already hosting the canoeing and that in total they have 10'000 acres of land to choose from stretching from essex to central London........ compared to the paltry 145 acres of usable space in Greenwich. And horses already there to benefit from the legacy. it even has the iconic view in some places but i suppose Princess Haya didn't fancy it!
Orwell
Active Member
Thanks bseage for posting (no. 369) the extract from the article from H&H 29 August 2008.
Princes Haya was, it seems, talking just after the Beijing Olympic equestrian events; which were held between 9-21 August, according to Wikipedia.
She says that there were problems with the dressage committee, and concerns about the safety of the XC: "The IOC has very reasonable and legitimate concerns about eventing safety ... walking away and saying 'thank God nobody died,' isn't good enough."
She also urged the British equestrian community to back Greenwich as the venue for the equestrian competition at the London 2012 Games — and to be more welcoming. ... "But the message we are hearing all over the world is that Britain doesn't want it, and the discord is sad to see."
It seems me that urging, even by the President of the IEF and a member of the IOC, does not amount to commanding. Combine this with her concerns for safety and there is no reason why the BEF should not insist on moving the venue. If this is correct, then I am still at a loss to understand why the BEF don't do so.
One reason I have heard is that the BEF will not move the events because of inertia or loss of face: having spent a lot of money and insisted that Greenwich is a good venue, it would be difficult for those in authority to be seen to be changing their minds. Nevertheless, if the right thing to do is to move the events (and I think that it clearly is on grounds of safety, universality, spectators and legacy), then they should do so.
The only other reason that has been suggested to me for sticking with Greenwich is that the television companies and the sponsors insist on it; they want pretty pictures and they don't care about safety, or spectators, or legacy, or the future of Eventing as an Olympic sport. I suspect that this, and related corporate interests (e.g. companies selling expensive hospitality packages) are the real reason why the events have not (yet) been moved from Greenwich.
I am interested in hearing what people think of this suggestion. What I am trying to do at this point is to establish what exaclty is the case for holding the events at Greenwich. I am trying to do so in order to give the pro-Greenwich arguments a fair hearing. I believe that the anti-Greenwich arguments are overwhelming, but I don't want to be accused of setting up and then demolisihing a straw man. My problem with this programme is that there don't seem to be any good arguments for Greenwich.
Princes Haya was, it seems, talking just after the Beijing Olympic equestrian events; which were held between 9-21 August, according to Wikipedia.
She says that there were problems with the dressage committee, and concerns about the safety of the XC: "The IOC has very reasonable and legitimate concerns about eventing safety ... walking away and saying 'thank God nobody died,' isn't good enough."
She also urged the British equestrian community to back Greenwich as the venue for the equestrian competition at the London 2012 Games — and to be more welcoming. ... "But the message we are hearing all over the world is that Britain doesn't want it, and the discord is sad to see."
It seems me that urging, even by the President of the IEF and a member of the IOC, does not amount to commanding. Combine this with her concerns for safety and there is no reason why the BEF should not insist on moving the venue. If this is correct, then I am still at a loss to understand why the BEF don't do so.
One reason I have heard is that the BEF will not move the events because of inertia or loss of face: having spent a lot of money and insisted that Greenwich is a good venue, it would be difficult for those in authority to be seen to be changing their minds. Nevertheless, if the right thing to do is to move the events (and I think that it clearly is on grounds of safety, universality, spectators and legacy), then they should do so.
The only other reason that has been suggested to me for sticking with Greenwich is that the television companies and the sponsors insist on it; they want pretty pictures and they don't care about safety, or spectators, or legacy, or the future of Eventing as an Olympic sport. I suspect that this, and related corporate interests (e.g. companies selling expensive hospitality packages) are the real reason why the events have not (yet) been moved from Greenwich.
I am interested in hearing what people think of this suggestion. What I am trying to do at this point is to establish what exaclty is the case for holding the events at Greenwich. I am trying to do so in order to give the pro-Greenwich arguments a fair hearing. I believe that the anti-Greenwich arguments are overwhelming, but I don't want to be accused of setting up and then demolisihing a straw man. My problem with this programme is that there don't seem to be any good arguments for Greenwich.
Last edited:
bseage
Member
Orwell...I also want to support my sport at the 2012 Olympics but can see no persuasive arguments in favour of Greenwich as the venue for the equitation events. Just about workable for Dressage and Show Jumping, but a long way from suitable for 3DE.
After the test Event, Haya is quoted as saying 'the IEF test event was a success,. So imagine she sees it that way, as a IEF event and so beyond the real influence of BEF or BE.
Other than providing the spectacular that track and field, swimming etc cannot provide and giving the sponsors ( who also sponsor and pressurise the riders) maximum exposure there are no arguments in support of 3DE at Greenwich.
I feel it makes as much sense as doing the sailing events on the Thames. Sailing needs water, but for a successful event you need SEA....Eventing needs ground, but for a successful event you need COUNTRY.
Surely the arguments supporting sailing at Portland would be the same as those supporting eventing at a recognised international venue adjacent, in as far as that is possible, to London. (Badminton is closer to London than Portland)
The argument being that for the Olympics a compromise venue and one at £64 million with absolutely no legacy is just not good enough.
After the test Event, Haya is quoted as saying 'the IEF test event was a success,. So imagine she sees it that way, as a IEF event and so beyond the real influence of BEF or BE.
Other than providing the spectacular that track and field, swimming etc cannot provide and giving the sponsors ( who also sponsor and pressurise the riders) maximum exposure there are no arguments in support of 3DE at Greenwich.
I feel it makes as much sense as doing the sailing events on the Thames. Sailing needs water, but for a successful event you need SEA....Eventing needs ground, but for a successful event you need COUNTRY.
Surely the arguments supporting sailing at Portland would be the same as those supporting eventing at a recognised international venue adjacent, in as far as that is possible, to London. (Badminton is closer to London than Portland)
The argument being that for the Olympics a compromise venue and one at £64 million with absolutely no legacy is just not good enough.
CarolineB1962
New User
Well said bseage. It really is not good enough but what can be done?
Wishful
Well-Known Member
Where would you have put the Olympic equestrian events then? Can't think where we'd put a Kentucky or Aachen style venue in this country...
I would imagine there was a requirement that the equestrian venues were not already privately owned - that is not a problem for the sea and shore, which is all crown property.
Badminton would be massively unsuitable - the vast majority of the parking is around the course, which would be a massive issue for security for the Olympics. The queues in and out are fairly epic with tradestands available (highly unlikely at the Olympics) and there are no non-car options for getting there. The railway line it is nearest to (First Great Western at Chippenham) is more or less at capacity so running more trains is not an option (FGW would LOVE to operate more trains at peak times on that line - the track capacity doesn't exist (rolling stock could be found)). Assuming a full train takes 2000 (guesswork here) to accomodate 50k spectators you'd need 25 trains arriving and departing chippenham within a 3 hour window (much earlier wouldn't be practicable or popular with spectators) - not realistic or reliable. Assuming coaches take 70 people (big coaches, therefore entertaining on access roads), each train would take 30 coach loads. Probably a 30 minute drive from Chippenham to Badminton, so 1 hour round trip per coach = massive logistical nightmare!
Obviously driving and parking would be more popular, but you'd be pretty well limited to the car parks well away from the track, stables etc because of security concerns - think that's basically charcoal clump and ice house - which would be marginal on capacity.
Orwell
Active Member
You seem to be suggesting that a cross-country event has to be held in a small public park in the middle of London because there is nowhere in the countryside to hold it. I find this difficult to believe.
Badminton regularly caters for 100,000. That is, already, 50,000 more than can be admitted to Greenwich Park. Badminton is also surrounded by fields. Surely some of these could be used as car parks? Doing so would have the advantage of freeing more space at Badminton for spectators.
The aim would be to admit as many young people as possible. Could they not camp in nearby fields and walk to the venue?
Last edited:
Wishful
Well-Known Member
Badminton runs over parkland, the course and existing car parks use the available parkland. The remainder of the Badminton estate is farmed - the fields which aren't already used for the event are generally in use for farming - of the arable variety, which are generally unsuitable for the parking of cars and the pitching of tents. At this time of year the vast majority of fields are either in use for hay, crops or grazing, and none of these activities are really compatible with camping and parking.
The normal Badminton campsite is within the confines of the event, so wouldn't be available for security and ticketing reasons.
The countryside isn't just pretty open space, it is a working environment.
Where would the much vaunted legacy be if Badminton was chosen?
Permanent grandstand?- unwanted by the owner
XC fences? Got our own thanks, unsuitable for Olympics as a little on the tough side.
XC Track? Got one, don't need another one.
Add in massively annoyed tenant farmers who would be frustrated if the only good haymaking weather was disrupted by masses of traffic for the event.
No legacy I can see.
The normal Badminton campsite is within the confines of the event, so wouldn't be available for security and ticketing reasons.
The countryside isn't just pretty open space, it is a working environment.
Where would the much vaunted legacy be if Badminton was chosen?
Permanent grandstand?- unwanted by the owner
XC fences? Got our own thanks, unsuitable for Olympics as a little on the tough side.
XC Track? Got one, don't need another one.
Add in massively annoyed tenant farmers who would be frustrated if the only good haymaking weather was disrupted by masses of traffic for the event.
No legacy I can see.
bseage
Member
Looking back to H&H 23 June 2011, Mark Phillips is quoted:
'Are we lagging behind? When you look at how the Americans have upgraded their facilities in Kentucky and the French at Fontainebleau, not to mention the Germans at Aachen, you cannot help wondering if we are getting a little left behind here.
We are all excited about going to Greenwich for the test event in a few weeks time, but for the Brits it will be a little poignant as the post Olympic legacy will be nothing like the facilities we are seeing elsewhere'
We all know that there will be no legacy in return for an estimated and rising spend of £64million on an unsuitable venue...Greenwich.
How far would £64 million get us towards a national centre to rival the Americans, French and Germans? Mark seems to be indicating that it would go a long way. Could that centre be at an established quality 3DE venue?
Reasonable questions when £64 million of taxpayers money is on the line.
Greenwich is an unsuitable compromise.
'Are we lagging behind? When you look at how the Americans have upgraded their facilities in Kentucky and the French at Fontainebleau, not to mention the Germans at Aachen, you cannot help wondering if we are getting a little left behind here.
We are all excited about going to Greenwich for the test event in a few weeks time, but for the Brits it will be a little poignant as the post Olympic legacy will be nothing like the facilities we are seeing elsewhere'
We all know that there will be no legacy in return for an estimated and rising spend of £64million on an unsuitable venue...Greenwich.
How far would £64 million get us towards a national centre to rival the Americans, French and Germans? Mark seems to be indicating that it would go a long way. Could that centre be at an established quality 3DE venue?
Reasonable questions when £64 million of taxpayers money is on the line.
Greenwich is an unsuitable compromise.
Wishful
Well-Known Member
Where would we put this venue?
Badminton and Burghley are both privately owned stately homes - their owners will NOT want a national equestrian centre in their back garden - it would get in the way of the hunting!
Badminton and Burghley are both privately owned stately homes - their owners will NOT want a national equestrian centre in their back garden - it would get in the way of the hunting!
Sleighfarer
Well-Known Member
I was supplying you with information about the area, which you said you didn't know. That is all.
bseage
Member
The sailing community will walk away from the Olympics with a superb national sailing centre at Portland. Surely, with £64 million available expressions of interest should have been called for to provide a national equitation centre? I cannot see an established 3DE venue turning up even a blue blooded nose at that sort of investment.
What do BE and BEF do, if they lack the vision to grab this opportunity with both hands rather than accept the LOCOG view that it has to be an unsuitable venue as long as its in London.
Its a mess. The test event was a farce in that it in no way replicated the Olympic event. Tickets are only available to a selected few, a very lucky minority and those who can afford to pay £2k to Thomas Cook for a package. A much loved Royal Park will be closed for months and the park is highly likely to be damaged. An international heritage site will be closed with loss of tourist revenue. There will be no legacy from a spend of over £64 million.
How much worse could it be?
What do BE and BEF do, if they lack the vision to grab this opportunity with both hands rather than accept the LOCOG view that it has to be an unsuitable venue as long as its in London.
Its a mess. The test event was a farce in that it in no way replicated the Olympic event. Tickets are only available to a selected few, a very lucky minority and those who can afford to pay £2k to Thomas Cook for a package. A much loved Royal Park will be closed for months and the park is highly likely to be damaged. An international heritage site will be closed with loss of tourist revenue. There will be no legacy from a spend of over £64 million.
How much worse could it be?
teapot
Well-Known Member
What Mark fails to mention though is that having some of the best facilities in the world doesn't always help performance. I've made this point before but the US failed miserably at their home WEG with regards to the eventing. The French and German performance will be seen at the Euros, especially the Germans on home soil (and they've just lost one of their best xc horses to a US rider)...
I'm all for a legacy, I really am, but I wish people would maybe appreciate that a.) space is lacking in some ways in the UK (think anyone who's been to Kentucky is bowled over by its sheer scale), b.) BEF may well be far more concerned with keeping Equestrianism in the Olympics so have said 'ok fine, we'll show you it can be done in a small, perhaps unsuitable venue' in order to strengthen the future of the sport, which on some levels needs doing. Only having events in the back garden of some country estate doesn't really help the 'accessibility' clause does it? c.) location would divide the horsey world big time as someone somewhere would be inconvenienced by getting there, d.) the Brits may well have bigger problems than facilities, especially with regards to show jumping. The eventers and now the dressage team seem to be producing the results under the current system, so why change something that's working? e.) Britain's known for its individual events, we don't have an Aachen in any way, instead we having individual events catering for the best of the best - Hickstead for sj, Badminton/Burghley for eventing, loads of known dressage venues, Olympia, Hoys, Windsor... Be a shame to lose that in return for having everything at the same place.
Orwell
Active Member
I was expecting a reply of this sort. I'm sure that with a bit of effort, appropriate fields could be found and measures could (if necessary) be taken to make them suitable for camping or parking. The disturbance to local tenant farmers should be compared with the disturbance to those who would otherwise use Greenwich Park next summer (at least one million people) and the disruption to (hundreds of thousands?, millions?) of local residents (from Greenwich and surrounding areas) caused by the increased traffic, exceptional measures, etc.
I think that there could be a movable infrastructure legacy which could be used at many venues (stands, PA systems, large viewing screens, etc.). More importantly, there would be a human legacy. As I said, Badminton regularly caters for 100,000 spectators 50,000 more than Greenwich. Moving the parking and campsite to nearby fields would mean that even more spectators could be accommodated. Especially young, keen, eventers who won't be able to get into Greenwich. The future of the sport lies with these people, and the Olympic Games should include them. If not the young, then who are the Games for?
There may also be better venues than Badminton.
It may be too late to propose a permanent equestrian centre, but this is what the BEF and BE should have done to start with, rather than going along with the foolish idea of holding the events in Greenwich Park and simply squandering the Olympic windfall.
teapot
Well-Known Member
Are you seriously comparing a farmer's livelihood and need to farm to survive to that of a local resident who might have to queue for the DLR for a little longer, or not go for a walk around the part of the park THEY want to for what, less than a week's worth of Olympic level competition?
Jesus.
Orwell
Active Member
I don't think that any farmer's livelihood needs to be threatened.
Also, you seriously underestimate the impact on Greenwich Park and the locality.
This year, the Main Lawns of the Park have been closed for three months in midsummer so that the stadium can be used for two days, and half of the rest of the Park was closed for three weeks in midsummer so that the riders could ride around it once. The Main Lawns are so-called because they are the most heavily used part of the park, for recreation and as a set of footpaths connecting the areas outside the Park walls. The elderly and the disabled, who cannot get up the hills, have been particularly badly affected by this. The area is still enclosed and the lawns are destroyed. And next year, the disturbance would be much greater (as a stadium 10 times as big is proposed) and the whole Park would be closed for 4 weeks. These measures affect millions of people, merely so that an unnecessary sporting event can be held. As you say "Jesus!".
As for the locality, people still need to sleep, to have somewhere to exercise and relax, and to get to work. And the livelihoods of local traders will also be affected. I have heard that some of them will not be able to trade, that others will have to trade for restricted or unusual hours, and that many are worried by a potential lack of regular customers who will not be able to get to their shops. In the near future I intend to investigate this more thoroughly.
teapot
Well-Known Member
By proposing that if Badminton was used as a venue, local farming land could be used for parking and camping, you are threatening livelihoods. That land would have be to left fallow for a number of weeks before the event, and I can't see anyone wanting to park or camp directly onto muddy fields anyway.
I just don't get the attitude of wanting somewhere else to be used, a park, a country estate, another RP an allowing that land to be damaged or destroyed, but not Greenwich.
Surely any parkland, whether royal park or private estate should warrant the same care and attention. Or do Greenwich residents only care about 'their' park...
Last edited:
Orwell
Active Member
The land would be rented from the farmers and they would be paid handsomely. The fields would be chosen for their suitability as car parks and campsites, and they could easily be prepared beforehand, e.g. by laying down grass on campsites.
At the risk of being repetitive, Greenwich Park is a very special place. It is a public park, a World Heritage Site and a national treasure. Over 4 million people visit it every year (I have seen the figure of 6 million). The ancient acid grasslands on Croom's Hill have already been defaced, and it may well be the case that they can never be restored.
My suggestion, of using fields as car parks and campsites, would actually protect the parkland on the Badminton estate. A few fields would be affected for a few months. But they would just be ordinary fields. There is no comparison between them and Greenwich Park.
teapot
Well-Known Member
Tell that to the farmers...
bseage
Member
I'm involved in eventing and just cannot accept that eventers would disregard the views of anyone over whose land we plan to ride. We, eventers, do not own Greenwich Park. If anyone does then its the residents of Greenwich.
If the park was the only and perfect venue for the Olympic 3DE then even in those circumstances I would hesitate to enforce it on a reluctant community. But it is not the best venue and there are better ones.
So lobby everyone we can to get it changed. No audience, no legacy, a farce of a test event. Greenwich Park is just so wrong!
If the park was the only and perfect venue for the Olympic 3DE then even in those circumstances I would hesitate to enforce it on a reluctant community. But it is not the best venue and there are better ones.
So lobby everyone we can to get it changed. No audience, no legacy, a farce of a test event. Greenwich Park is just so wrong!
Wishful
Well-Known Member
This seems to give away the lack of knowledge about country/farming stuff... The only type of ground that will "do" for camping and parking is established grassland (aka pasture/ ground for making hay). Ground that has been ploughed recently would be horrible to camp on, it is pretty rough. Parking might be entertaining... The chosen land would have needed to be seeded months ago to have a chance of being usable as parking or camping land.
The parkland on the Badminton estate copes quite nicely with the existing event, which allows cars to be parked all around the course and people to camp within the boundaries. The Olympics' special security requirements are what means that the time honoured arrangements won't be permitted.
The fields might well be "Ordinary" fields, but each farmer own or rents specific fields. They can't just go and grow food for their animals/cash crops somewhere else because there is no somewhere else that actually belongs to them. Greenwich Park is a special park, but there are other public parks with grass for people to walk in and play on (assuming that is even allowed) in the general vicinity.
Glastonbury is a completely different kettle of fish - it trashes the grass belonging to the farmer who runs the thing - he gets £££££££££ directly from the attendees and it is his choice to do it.
Early July is peak hay harvesting season - it is massively weather dependent and a field that is out of action for the season will make a massive dent in the farmer's forage stores - probably would lose 2-3 crops of hay through an event in July. April and September are far better times. I wouldn't fancy camping (or trying to camp) on a field that was only recently a crop field - the tent pegs probably wouldn't stay in, and it would be rather lumpy...
Orwell
Active Member
If this is the reason for the BEF choosing Greenwich Park, then it seems to me that they are going to prove the very opposite of that they are trying to prove. Please see my replies: to Wishful (24/7, No. 272), toffeesmarty (24/7, No. 278), Wishful (25/7, No. 281), teapot (25/7, No. 286), Wishful (25/7 No. 290), and teapot (26/07, No. 295).
On the particular matter of safety, remember the quote from Princess Haya in H&H after the last Olympics (see bseage's post, 2 August, No. 371):
In choosing Greenwich Park, which on a good day is challenging for the most experienced riders and the best horses, and which on a bad day is potentially a death-trap for less experienced riders and weaker horses, it seems to me that the Sport's organising bodies are being negligent in their duty, and sacrificing the safety of riders and horses for the possibility (if it is not raining) of "spectacular" television pictures.
Orwell
Active Member
I am happy to admit that I am not a farmer. But my father was a specialist in agriculture and I have lived on a farm for a year or so, so I am not an entirely ignorant townie. In post No. 382 I did talk of appropriate fields and measures to make them suitable for purpose. Grass turf can be laid very quickly for campsites and some sort of temporary protective surface could be put down for car parking.
I would be very surprised if there was any shortage of farmers who would be willing to rent their fields out for the purpose, provided that the price was right. In my experience, farmers tend to be unsentimental businessmen. They also tend to be patriotic, interested in country sports, and to have social consciences.