Cautiously Good News
Laura has just sent me a link to today's Standard.
Do you reckon we count as part of the "unprecedented levels of opposition?'
Rock on...
Mark has found the press release for us.
I'm cautiously welcoming this, but I still think we need to keep a beady eye on things.
What do you think, guys?
Do you reckon we count as part of the "unprecedented levels of opposition?'
Rock on...
Mark has found the press release for us.
I'm cautiously welcoming this, but I still think we need to keep a beady eye on things.
What do you think, guys?
posted by The Greenwich Phantom at
14:08
12 Comments:
I thought the qualifier 'of ecological importance' in the plede to 'not damage or remove trees of ecological importance' made the assurances meaningless. Who decides what is 'ecologically important'??
I'm not reassured in the least.
So basically they aren't going to cut down ancient trees but they are still going to cut down less ancient ones. Not much of a concession.
Although I'm happy to declare that I am for making full use of the park for the Olympics (provided disruption is kept to a minimum- and I know that is the sticking point) I'm somewhat dismayed that the consultation will not take place until sometime next year. By then, plans will presumably be much further down the line and the scope for any local input will probably be minimal.
Perhaps we can begin our own public consultation? Then we can submit all our info early - and have longer to get it together?
I'm sick to the back teeth of all this whingeing about the Games.
Here we - about to host an international event that captivates and inspires millions of people around the world - and all people can do is MOAN.
Worse still, you can bet your life most of the people complaining wont even get off their fat backsides and take part in the consultation. They'll jus snipe from the sidelines.
I for one am proud that the Games are coming to London. I'm proud that will host a large number of the events in our backyard.
Isnt that so typically un-British of me...
Actually Stop Moaning I'm really pleased that London has the Olympics. And I was really excited about the equestrian events being around the corner. But then in the cold light of day I looked at Greenwich Park - and thought - where exactly are these events going to be?? Where are all the spectators going to be?? It's a pretty small park.
If they can promise me that the landscape of the park won't be permanently altered, and that we won't lose access for the rumoured 12 to 18 months then I promise you won't hear me whinging. Until I get that promise (and not vague, qualified pledges) I'll be making sure my voice is heard.
agree that the promise not to cut down tress of 'ecological importance' is pretty meaningless. also, still no mention of how long they will need to shut the park for prior to and after the games.
Susan g - as you say it is just a rumour that the park will be shut for 12 to 18 months.
Just a rumour - nothing more nothing less.
Its easy to start a rumour. Its often harder to back it up with fact.
Worse still in this case the rumours put around about the park and equestrian events are started by people who have a vested interest in the games going elsewhere.
A shooting group who want the shooting events to move to their venue in Dartford (ie outside London - so much for London 2012) so that they can benefit from millions of investment that will push their land values up.
And a mish mash of has beens who are leading the calls for the equestrian events to move to Manchester (bizarely) or to Lea Park for very similar reasons.
Yet people still put more weight on the rumours started by people with vested interests than LOCOG who have yet to consult and finalise their plans.
How typically British of the people who prefer fiction to fact
I'm guessing this Stop Moaning fellow doesn't use the park, doesn't live in Greenwich and has about as much regard for the heritage upon which London's tourist economy and general well-being as Our Ken had (none).
It's depressing to think that a public space as beautiful as Greenwich Park will be altered in any way by these nylon-shirted halfwits; the Olympic Commitee has no interest in how it's actions will impact London in the long run and proposing to pile vast amounts of people, horses and equipment into the area with no thought to infrastructure or envirnmental impact is merely reflective of the single-minded nature of the beast.
Instead of having all this nonsense foisted upon us for the sake of some egomaniac's two week fix of power and fame, could we not be left alone, forever, to carry on as we were?
Is "stop moaning!" suggesting that Manchester is too far from London? I'll admit that 165 miles isn't exactly just down the road. However, the equestrian events at this year's Olympics are being held in Hong Kong, 1220 miles from the host city of Beijing.
By the way, although the major reason for siting the events in Hong Kong is the high level of equine disease in Beijing, one of the reasons is economic. Hong Kong already has facilities for hosting equestrian events.
As the costs to the UK, and London taxpayers in particular, are predictably bloating, how about saving a little money and using Hickstead? It has some other features not available to Greenwich - like an international airport almost next door, somewhere to park a car and easy access. and it's only 65 miles from the rest at Stratford.
And don't start banging on about Greenwich's advantage in public transport - ever tried to use the DLR on a weekend? Ever found it working on a weekend?
Who cares about Beijing!
I care about Greenwich.
That's why I'm so pleased the Games will take place here.
All this nonsense about sending events to Manchester is just plain stupid.
Now I know why the term NIMBY was invented....
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home