Last Night's Meeting...
...of the FoGP.
Ok - so who was there? Hands up - I wasn't. But Noel was and he notes:
"A good couple of hundred people in a hot lecture theatre in Greenwich Uni.. One comment from a local Labour Councillor left me in no doubt that there will be no support from the Council whatsoever (call that representation? how do these jokers ever get elected?).
The decision really seemed to be about whether you trusted the Authorities not to do something stupid, or not. Unsurprisingly most seemed not to trust them. LOCOG have allowed 'myths' to circulate due to their lack of communication so it will be interesting to see whether these stirrings will make any difference to that.
Actually as someone pointed out, it was classic white English middle-class stuff. Everyone being keen to point out how well meaning, if slightly misguided, everyone else was. All jolly polite, and it would have been entirely unsurprising if we had suddenly broken for an interval of cups of tea and cucumber sandwiches. Needed a bit more of the Swampy element to really rattle the authorities I think."
What do YOU think? Are the promises we've had so far from LOCOG enough to let us relax - or do we need to actually see physical plans?
Don't forget that there will be an extraordinary general meeting of the Westcombe Society on Saturday morning. It's members-only - so get joining now if you want to attend.
A number of you have been asking where to find different bits of the debate we've been having here - so here are the most interesting threads on the Phantom:
General
My Letter to Boris
Promises, Promises
Early Days
What's at Stake
House of Lords Debate
Ok - so who was there? Hands up - I wasn't. But Noel was and he notes:
"A good couple of hundred people in a hot lecture theatre in Greenwich Uni.. One comment from a local Labour Councillor left me in no doubt that there will be no support from the Council whatsoever (call that representation? how do these jokers ever get elected?).
The decision really seemed to be about whether you trusted the Authorities not to do something stupid, or not. Unsurprisingly most seemed not to trust them. LOCOG have allowed 'myths' to circulate due to their lack of communication so it will be interesting to see whether these stirrings will make any difference to that.
Actually as someone pointed out, it was classic white English middle-class stuff. Everyone being keen to point out how well meaning, if slightly misguided, everyone else was. All jolly polite, and it would have been entirely unsurprising if we had suddenly broken for an interval of cups of tea and cucumber sandwiches. Needed a bit more of the Swampy element to really rattle the authorities I think."
What do YOU think? Are the promises we've had so far from LOCOG enough to let us relax - or do we need to actually see physical plans?
Don't forget that there will be an extraordinary general meeting of the Westcombe Society on Saturday morning. It's members-only - so get joining now if you want to attend.
A number of you have been asking where to find different bits of the debate we've been having here - so here are the most interesting threads on the Phantom:
General
My Letter to Boris
Promises, Promises
Early Days
What's at Stake
House of Lords Debate
posted by The Greenwich Phantom at
10:30
38 Comments:
Was a vote taken and what was the result ??
Practically unanimous to support the opposition of a cross country equestrian event. It got quite heated when Nick Raynsford said that we "were all of a certain age and not at all represenative of the people of Greenwich". I thought he was going to be torn limb from limb.
He really said that?
Good heavens.
I can't believe Raynsford said that.....!!!
There's a short piece about the meeting, proposals etc (quite favourable) in this evening's Standard.
I am afraid that he did say it - the roar of disapproval nearly took the roof off. The zimmers were shaking, the walking sticks were held high & hearing aids were flung in his direction.
I tremble to ask this but - well - did he have a point? I wasn't there for reasons too embarrassing to admit, so I didn't see. Was everyone d'un certain age?
If so, then more young people need to be brought in. I don't know that their saying nothing is necessarily a vote of confidence in the authorities but they will take teenage apathy as tacit consent.
In other words, the Council finds support and bases its decisions on the most apathetic segment of the community?! If only they were so attentive to the engaged and tax-paying element that happens to be able to vote.
Raynsford is more self-serving than a representative of the people. We might reasonably expect to find that he's already taken a couple of directorships in landscaping firms... setting himself up before the Greenwich Park tree-felling contracts are let. He's had enough practice with HIPs to know there's money to be made here.
Quick question - I care very much about opposing the proposals for Greenwich Park (I am also reasonably young!) - but I'm not a Greenwich resident. Would I be able to join in at meetings such as this one?
Article in Evening Standard
Anyone can join the Friends of Greenwich Park, although I am not sure they will have a meeting like this again. Anyway,what is old these days? there was a good cross section of thirty and forty somethings, a fair smattering of
50-and in their prime and yes, I admit, lots of 60 plus. However, this was a meeting of the members of the Friends of Greenwich Park - we were not there as representatives of Greenwich, we were there because we care about the park. I therefore fail to see what our ages have to do with anything at all.
Sorry, I am clearly coming to this a bit late but I just read the Evening Standard link and..... 15 months?! The park will be closed for 15 months beforehand?! Surely that is a joke? How can any sane human being consider shutting one of the most used green spaces in SE London for 15 months in order to prepare for an event that will last two weeks? That makes no logical sense whatsoever and could never happen, surely?
And regarding trees? No one can really be serious about pulling up oak trees to cater for this event...? These are oak trees, things that live for hundreds of years (almost)...so lets pull them up to allow a few thousand people to watch horses running around for a bit while some corporate whores sup champagne and prevent real fans from seeing any action. Great.
I may have missed the point completely and apologies if I have. I thought I was pro the olympics but now am clearly not. Where do I sign up to be chained to a tree?
I was at the meeting. Here's the shocking news: I'm in my mid-30s... Yes, there were lots of older people there, but I have to say, I found it very refreshing. Political movements are so often backed by the younger generation, and their presence made it no less meaningful. And if Nick Raynsford genuinely believes that young people are in favour of Greenwich Park hosting the cross-country event (which is what he implied at the meeting) then he should log onto Facebook and check out the number of young people who have joined the group against it on there. The main problem here is the lack of information. Raynsford is to blame and so are LOCOG. And without it, rumours fly and hysteria develops. Which leads me to wonder why they're stamping out the rumours when they start, since they're so detrimentral to LOCOG's PR campaign? Is it because the rumours are right?
Join the Facebook group
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=21076315126
or sign the Downing Street Petition
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/GreenwichOlympic/
I can't think of one local 'young person' I know - be that 8, 18 or 28 who would give a toss about cross country equestrian events in Greenwich. But they WOULD understand, and care about, their park being screwed up.
thankt to anonymous for the links...joined, signed etc.
I gather that the Westcombe Society is the only local amenity group to have actively polled its members individually about the proposal to hold the Olympics cross-country equestrian event in Greenwich Park. Yes, only the Westcombe Society has gone to the trouble and expense of giving each individual member a vote on a formal motion and a counter-motion. In the other two amenity societies, the executive just tell their members what to think; and there I have seen, close up and personal, some fairly repulsive active suppressing of members' dissent from the official executive "party line".
An excellent campaign worthy of the People's Front of Judea.
Step One - Postulate theory about decapitating 200 year old trees, moving hillsides by stealth, killing off loads of our deer, raping our wives and children and being forced to loan our priceless land indefinitely to a bunch of common foreigners who share neither our religion nor conservation beliefs being obsessed as they are by horses. (Blaggards, no better than Blackheathens. Blasted Romans.)
Step two: Put allegations to the Romans at the next Senate. Unless we receive an immediate denial and complete apology and a promise never to darken our door with their hairy legs again we will take all said rumours to be obviously and categorically 100% factually correct;
Step Three: raise an army to fight the blaggards and help protect us from these dastardly olympian Romans;
Step Four: Convene an emergency meeting in 3 weeks time to object to everything ever proposed by the Romans including santitation, (Margery you take the minutes) - oh and all Romans are henceforth banned from Greenwich and needless to say from all meetings of the People Front,... Roman assurances simply cannot be trusted Margery.
Step Five: Hold meeting... Motion carried unanimously... Margery writes minutes.
Step Six: Have a cup of tea.
Sorry ... I found it amusing anyway. Perhaps I'll go and join the Judean People's Front. They do seem a bit better organised having already actively voted on a formal democratic motion following a lawful debate - no Mugabe-like tactics there at all it would seem.
Naturally, no one must lay a finger on our old trees and I totally support you all on that point. ;-)
@anonymous 18 July 2008 16:39,
You don't get it, do you.
Um. Anonymous: what a twot. Have you been following the debate at all? There have been no 'assurances'. LOCOG have made vague promises 'not to damage ancient trees'. But it's very clear that someone sitting on a horse can't get underneath the ancient trees without cutting off at least the lower branches. And what about all the others not classified as ancient? LOCOG have promised to return it to how it was before the games. What if they run out of money? (Not unlikely in the current economic climate, when all of the profit from the games was going to be made from selling off luxury flats on the Olympic site). Speak to a cross-country equestrian about holding the event in Greenwich Park, and find out what they think about it. Then you may be a little less glib. Oh...and well done you for remaining anonymous. How brave you are.
My biggest problem with all of this is the dreadful waste of money. We won the Olympics with our promise of 'legacy'. What legacy does the cross-country event leave behind? Would it not be better to pour tens of millions into creating or improving an existing venue? How much cash does the Olympics need to haemorrhage before people start making sensible decisions about how they're going to make it happen without it crippling us financially?
I feel bad. I'm young but I missed the meeting as I was on holiday. I strongly object to the cross country in the park. What do I do? When is the next meeting other than trying to join westcombe parks society in the next 12 hours...
Westcombe Society Special General Meeting was, happily, a sort of caucus race. Everyone won something.
The Goldman motion was won "on the floor". The Society's executive motion was won in the postal vote. The NOGOE supporters derived considerable satisfaction from the "awareness raising exercise". The Society must organise some standing orders for itself in the near future, so that motions can be amended before being voted upon - had that been possible this morning, Goldman's motion would have been amended to something that included continuing dialogue with LOCOG, and the result might have been more like that at the FoGP meeting.
MP Raynsford and Cllr Fahy were present. Cllr Fahy called "lies" in a stage whisper anything that he didn't like (he is or was the Council's man for the Olympics). Raynsford said that no public money would be spent on the Olympics, and it appears that no one in the room believed him. (Isn't Lottery money "public" money, scandalously diverted from good causes to be used instead to pay the VAT that the Government forgot about?)
Raynsford said that surveys and things were being carried out in the Park. Someone said that surveys and impact assessments should have been done before the UK bid to host the Olympics. The point was made more than once that the legacy - if the equestrian events are held in Greenwich Park - will be really nothing.
I for one will not be voting for any of these, jokers masquerading as councillors/MPs.
If the rumours of a 15 month closure and the wanton destruction of trees are true, what can be done to overturn this dumb arse decision. (besides signing the petition, join the facebook group and write to our local cllrs/MPs)
@lgm, If the rumours of a 15 month closure and the wanton destruction of trees are true
Every time LOCOG or some local official denies the 15 month closure rumour, I recall that at the Greenwich Society AGM last autumn, the Chairman - who had been in correspondence with LOCOG - actually said that the closure would be for TWO YEARS and trees would be felled.
Incidentally, this morning, when it was suggested that the "whole shebang" should be moved to Hixstead (because, among other things, there would be legacy stuff possible), Cllr Fahy sprang to his feet and said that Hixstead wanted that to happen "because they want the money". To which revelation, someone retorted, "So what?"
Like we should care that Hixstead should have Olympic money to put on an Olympic event and build legacy stuff, including paraOlympics legacy stuff.
How realistic would it be move it all to Hixstead, and where do I sign?
The window of opportunity is closing fast. If they're going to move it, they need to decide early on the in the proceedings.
Nick Raynsford's comments about people's views at the meeting being 'not representative of his constituents' don't surprise me at all - its his standard repost to anything he disagrees with. I went to meet him in 2006 to ask him to support the Climate Change Bill - he refused to support it and said that I - plus the group of people I was with (2 people in their 60s, 2 in their 30s, 2 in their teens) didn't represent the views of local people. My question to him was did that mean that he'd been approached by lots of locals asking him not to support it? Of course it didn't! he cares about what suits his own personal interests not local people.
Could I offer two "heads-up" -
First, one "inside track" at LOCOG has said that the plans for the 2012 Olympics will be locked-down by the end of 2008. Which makes the offer to participate in public consultation in 2009 look really cynical. LOCOG must have plans already for the stabling of the horses nearby and the entourage of 40 people that has to accompany each horse, and who have to remain with/close to the horse to comply with anti-doping measures. So whose houses are going to be commandeered or knocked down?
Second, Hickstead's biggest sponsor (£300,000 every year for the last 50 years) can no longer afford to continue to underwrite the cost of eventing at Hickstead. So it seems to me that not only is Hickstead - world-famous already as the home of the All England Show Jumping course, with excellent transport connections and nearby hotel accommodation already geared to big events - a brilliant venue for the 2012 Olympics equestrian events (and lots of legacy stuff will be possible there), it is also a much more deserving candidate.
Directors of Hickstead: Douglas and Lizzie Bunn, and Edward Bunn is the Show Director who supervises the year-round arena and showground maintenance.
How about we all e-mail edward@hickstead.co.uk and say something like:
Dear Edward, You might be interested to know that, if you want the 2012 Olympics equestrian events to be held at Hickstead, a lot of ordinary people in Greenwich would support you in this. Go for it - we look forward to watching "Olympics at Hickstead" - but you only have until the end of 2008 to get the venue changed.
Ooo, Blogger doesn't like mailto: links but you can see what Edward Bunn's address is.
I have written to Edward Bunn. My e-mail is rather long, so I won't reproduce it here, but I'll send a copy to Michael Goldman at NOGOE and a couple of other people.
Here is the reply from Daisy Bunn, Hickstead:
"We too share your fears for Greenwich, and in particular the lack of any lasting legacy for the sport after 2012. We think it would be a tragedy for the equestrian Olympics not to be held somewhere in an exisitng facility in England, that would benefit from the investment. Ideally, of course, that venue would be Hickstead.
We have had lengthy discussions with our National Federation and LOCOG, as well as instigating a media campaign to have the Games moved, however, unfortunately there is little more we can do at this point as we are being told that the games will not be moved.
Lets hope that LOCOG decides somewhere with a legacy is preferable to Greenwich before it is too late!!
Kindest regards, and keep lobbying from your end."
I was pondering on this yesterday as a wandered through a packed Greenwich park. It would be so easy to leaflet visitors. Is that too simplistic a thought.
I hate to say it though reading your response from the Hixstead team that the decision will not be change: even with a groundswell of opinion. And that thought depresses me. I just want to do something to get them to see sense!
apologies for the anon status (I'm a regular contributor) but I'm at work and the not sure how much IT monitor....
In the interests of much needed balance I am posting a link to the LOCOG site which sets out the assurances given to the Greenwich societies.
http://www.london201.com/news/media-releases/2008-06/london-2012-commits-to-greenwich-consultation.php
Again, I think you are right to be concerned about tree protection but wrong to oppose the games before the plans have been laid. Your position effectively allows LOCOG to point to your being fundamentally opposed in principle to the games taking place in Greenwich, a position which will undermine any genuine concerns you raise during the consultation process. And yes - I do get it.
@ anonymous, 21 July 2008 18:45
Your position effectively allows LOCOG to point to your being fundamentally opposed in principle to the games taking place in Greenwich
No, it doesn't. I am not opposed to the events at the Dome or on Woolwich Common.
Read my lips: Greenwich Park is too small, and the "legacy" of holding the equestrian events there will be zip.
I am not the only person to feel that LOCOG's assurances are designed to keep the lid on public opposition until it is too late to change anything. Any information that LOCOG has released so far has had to be dragged out of them.
From your link, LOCOG is conducting "feasibility work". Believe me, the proper time to conduct a feasibility study was BEFORE London put in its bid at all to host the Olympics.
quote: Greenwich Park will be returned to its existing state after the Games
Yeah right! Gah.
And what about consulting the residents not the pretentious societies - I bet a pound to a penny that they are not representative of the community at large? Does anyone know what the demographic of:
Friends of Greenwich Park;
the Westcombe Society;
the Blackheath Society;
the Greenwich Society.
I know something about the demographic of two of those amenity societies but can't go into detail because of client confidentiality. However, as far as I can remember, none of the members live on the Pepys Estate or in those flats on Horseferry Place and Welland Street.
The people who will be really badly affected by any closure of the Park will be - not those with a big garden, or even a bit of garden of their own - but those living in poky flats, in unstable communities (some of the children in one of those estates are said not to know who their real parents are, as their "carers" change so often), perhaps sharing their living accommodation with a rottweiler or Staffordshire bull terrier (as so many do).
The Blackheath Society met last night and those present voted 84-42 for a motion opposing the CROSS-COUNTRY in Greenwich Park. However this was not binding on the Society and there now will have to be a postal ballot of the entire membership.
Some more information was revealed:
* LOCOG have promised to leave the Park as they find it.
* The Park will only be totally closed to the public during the Games.
* No threat to commandeer Blackheath for stabling, parking etc.
I think the vote came down to a failure to trust LOCOG.
Nick Raynsford made his usual "old fogies" point and also insinuated that voting against holding the events in Greenwich Park jeopardised the chances of disabled children having riding lessons at Woolwich Barracks when the Horse Guards relocate there!
@anonymous, 24 July 2008 22:23
Thank you for reporting on that here. Actually, I think people's distrust of LOCOG is completely justified.
There is no contractual obligation to put Greenwich Park back the way it was - "the way they found it" would have pages and pages devoted to defining the Park as it is now - and there is no arrangement for the payment of liquidated damages or having to repair things at their own cost (taxpayers' money, of course) if they fail to leave the Park as they found it. LOCOG officers and the politicians will just walk away.
Nick Raynsford is being disingenuous, I believe, when he winds people up by saying that they are "not representative".
It is the way we do things in Britain - by single-issue pressure groups selflessly working often long hours, and leveraging their own networks of contacts, totally unremunerated - for the good of everyone. To oppose Govt policy and vested corporate interests, on behalf of the common weal, takes a lot of "bottle": a stonking amount of self-belief, rigorous attention to detail, sacrificing days and weeks to marshalling arguments and analysing information, and above all dealing with intimidation. I am sorry to say that only the well-educated, cosmopolitan, and socially confident middle-class can pull this off on behalf of all of us. Someone who left school at 16 with 5 O-levels does not, normally, have the intellectual tools to deal with powerful, well-resourced and ruthlessly ambitious operators (I don't mean Raynsford here, I mean Labour placemen like those who wrecked the Dome and national Millennium celebrations project).
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home