House of Lords Debate
Paul posted elsewhere on the blog this transcription from a debate held in the House of Lords yesterday about the Olympics, and it makes worthwhile reading, if only for the complacency held by some on the "Oh, it will be ok, let's just let them get on with it and every thing will be fine, I'm sure," stance.
We can't just 'wait and see.' IF the games can be held without significant damage, I'm fine with it. I have no objection in principle - I even rather like the idea. But if it means harming one of these ancient chestnuts, smashing through one ancient conduit or thundering over one ancient barrow (accidentally or otherwise) I'm at the barricades.
I noticed one well-meaning peer (Lord Addington) suggesting that "if we lose the odd tree, we plant two instead?"
Erm, despite numerous pleas by The Phantom, Homebase still doesn't sell 300 year-old trees planted by Charles II. I will continue to lobby Dobbies (nice rhyme, huh) to get some in stock, but until they do, that's going to be a problem. We're stuck with the ones we've got.
Something that also very slightly bothers me is the attitude of some of The Friends of Greenwich Park who are mentioned here as "an important community group" (which they are - I usually have a huge amount of time for them; they're one of my fave local associations.) Lord Oldham states that the group "seems satisfied that the site can be constructed," but I have had several emails from FoGP members who are anything but happy about this. Are they too taking the 'oh-I'm-sure-it-will-be-fine" stance too?
Ok - maybe this is getting hysterical. But we fail to ask questions, and ask them big now, at our peril. Just waiting and seeing is not good enough for me.
Am I getting tedious here? Ok. I'll shut up for a few days...
We can't just 'wait and see.' IF the games can be held without significant damage, I'm fine with it. I have no objection in principle - I even rather like the idea. But if it means harming one of these ancient chestnuts, smashing through one ancient conduit or thundering over one ancient barrow (accidentally or otherwise) I'm at the barricades.
I noticed one well-meaning peer (Lord Addington) suggesting that "if we lose the odd tree, we plant two instead?"
Erm, despite numerous pleas by The Phantom, Homebase still doesn't sell 300 year-old trees planted by Charles II. I will continue to lobby Dobbies (nice rhyme, huh) to get some in stock, but until they do, that's going to be a problem. We're stuck with the ones we've got.
Something that also very slightly bothers me is the attitude of some of The Friends of Greenwich Park who are mentioned here as "an important community group" (which they are - I usually have a huge amount of time for them; they're one of my fave local associations.) Lord Oldham states that the group "seems satisfied that the site can be constructed," but I have had several emails from FoGP members who are anything but happy about this. Are they too taking the 'oh-I'm-sure-it-will-be-fine" stance too?
Ok - maybe this is getting hysterical. But we fail to ask questions, and ask them big now, at our peril. Just waiting and seeing is not good enough for me.
Am I getting tedious here? Ok. I'll shut up for a few days...
posted by The Greenwich Phantom at
11:57
6 Comments:
I wonder what Friends of the Earth Greenwich make of it? Does anyone know if they've commented?
I wonder where the agencies are who were so concerned about damage to the Chestnut trees by pickers last Autumn. This park and it's ancient trees and gardens is essential to Greenwich children. It is their playground, sportsfield, garden and meeting place. Greenwich suffers from traffic pollution and congestion and needs all it's green spaces and trees..
I caught the tail end of a discussion on the subject on LBC radio this morning. Apparently Katie Brethwick, one of the presenters is a Greenwich resident and was horrified by the prospect and by the fact that the residents had not been properly informed.
Got my letter from Nick Raynsford today. He is extremely pro the games coming, but promises to keep an eye on the plans.... but I get the sense they would have to cut down everything, level the park and shut it to residents for a decade before our representative rocks the olympic boat.
There's an online petition about all this - I'll post the link tomorrow when I get it from my work email!
Kate P
As a Friend of Greenwich Park, I have been astonished at their attitude, which seems to be 'we have been told it will be alright, so therefore it must be.' I, like many others, use the park everyday. The park is an absolute joy. I walk my dogs, and yes I do clear up after them! But it is not only people like me, even on the greyest day the park is well used. On a weekend, it is packed with people.Everyone from children playing football to film crews. For some of the people I meet on a regular basis it is their social life. How this can be even suggested is beyond me. I have always thought the Friends of Greenwich Park to be a positive organisation with the welfare of the park, its wildlife...I note not mention is made of that, and its users...who seem to be being ignored, however I am now wondering if we urgently need a new organisation to protect the Park which is not afraid to make a fuss.
I'm going to use the freedom of information act to see what evaluation work has been done with respect to the effect on the park of holding the equestrian events there.
I'll keep you posted.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home