An intimate guide to life in Greenwich
Art - Ask The Phantom - Basics - Books - Cafes - Days Out - Debates - Drinking - Eating Out - Events - Favourite Haunts - Food and Drink - Free Greenwich - Gay - Going Out - Green Greenwich - Greenwich People - Mostly-Accurate History - News - Not-Quite-Greenwich - Open Spaces - Places of Interest - Regional Greenwich - Reviews - Secret Greenwich -Services - Shopping - Streets - Takeaways - Things to Do - Weird Greenwich - Where to Stay
Greenwich is one of the coolest "uncool" places there is in London. It's not profoundly unfashionable - rather somewhere where it doesn't occur to people that there is anything more than a few museums, a nice park and the Cutty Sark. The really adventurous might know about the Trafalgar Tavern or venture out to Greenwich market on a Sunday afternoon, but essentially, Greenwich is still relatively undiscovered for one of the great regions of London. I adore Greenwich - but I'm not blind to its faults either. In this journal I take an affectionate but honest - at times brutally so - look, giving my own personal low-down on the things to do - and one or two of the things NOT to do in Greenwich. I am being unashamedly parochial here. I will talk about the tourist sites, of course - how could I not when we have a World Heritage Site on our doorstep - but also about the things which make our town great - the little things. Interesting vistas, cool shops, bizarre novelties and quirky one-offs which make this place buzz. Greetings, by the way, to all of you who have travelled with me from Livejournal - and thank you for making the journey.
RSS Feed [Atom]
44 Comments:
Blimey! The Standard supporting SE London! Putting my sarcasm aside, he talks a lot of sense, i.e. he is repeating what many of us have been saying for ages. Greenwich will be benefiting from Olympic visitors regardless of Equestrianism in Greenwich Park. It's not needed, and more importantly could do more harm than good.
Everybody I talk to is against using the park and various articles that have been published, like this one, supports this view but it seems the powers that be have firmly stuck their heads in the sand.
Thanks for posting didn't realise there had been an update...
I should state up front, I'm for the Equestrian events in the park (not least becuase the Standard opposes it).
If I were the ODA and wanted to put my message across, I can think of no better way than to get the Standard to repeatedly trot out the totally speculative and unconfirmed 10 month closure rumours, then reveal that the closure will be for a much shorter period.
Why would anyone believe a word Gilligan says? His track record is hardly good is it?
"unconfirmed 10 month closure.." Rumours (if this is just a rumour) get about precisely because nobody who kows will tell us what the plans are, even though they must know exactly what the intend to do. This in itself is disturbing, and suggests clearly that they have something to hide.
Could Will tell us exactly why he is so much in favour of the Olympics in the Park?
I think the points that the article raises are all very valid, especially the issues of cost and complete lack of legacy.
Phantom, what is the best way to draw the Council's attention to this article and challenge them to answer the points and issues it raises?
Will, your position seems very strange - to support something just because a newspaper opposes it. As for Gilligan, his track record is actually superb. I should be suprised if anyone now doubts that Hutton was a whitewash and Gilligan substantially correct in his reporting
I cannot see one good thing about having the equestrian event in Greenwich. I don't want to be blinkered though, so to echo Rod, why are you in favour?
Fair enough.
I'm in favour becuase I like living in an area with interesting things happening, be they Air races, Thai festivals, museums, air craft carriers in the Thames or the Olympics.
I'm in favour becuase I don't believe that the park will be shut for a year. (It's a temporary course and stands - not permanent, so while there is no legacy, it must surely take less time and money to build). I'm sure bits of it will be shut at a time, but the Observatory was shut for years and we all managed to survive. Ditto the Cutty Sark.
I'm in favour becuase I like the idea of being able to walk to the Olympics with my kids.
I'm in favour becuase I have volunteered and would love the opportunity to tell visitors about the Park, becuase it's a great place.
I'm in favour becuase I like being for things, rather than against, and as yet I have nothing to be against - there are no details to oppose. I'm not so cynical as to suppose that no details = conspiracy. Maybe that's naive, but that's how I see it.
On the other hand, if the Olympics requires the Park to closed for a year, trees chopped down or land concreted over, then I shall be lying in front of bulldozers with the rest of you.
I do not work for anyone with any kind of vested interest in the Olympics. With my limited knowledge of local government, I think this has very little to do with the council. If you want to pressurise anyone, I would have though Royal Parks, ODA and LOCOG are your starting points.
Oh, and the Standard? Everytime I read it, I end up certain that the people who wrote it hate London, and I'm not having that.
In answer to Will: the ten-month part-closure of the park is not "totally speculative and entirely unconfirmed." It was confirmed, by LOCOG's director of sport, Debbie Jevans, in an earlier piece in the Standard.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-olympics/article-23522363-details/2012+and+the+threat+to+an+iconic+London+landscape/article.do
The relevant passage runs: "We anticipate starting major building works in March 2012 and will hand back the park about six weeks after the end of the Paralympics," says Debbie Jevans, London 2012's director of sport. The Paralympics end on September 4.
There will be closures of similar areas for "two to three months" in spring and summer 2011, as smaller versions of the facilities (an arena without tiered seating, for instance, and only 30 stables) are built for the test event that the IOC requires. Ms Jevans said work to prepare the cross-country course will start "about two years before, in 2010" but only small areas will be required at any one time.
It is rich to read this cheap abuse of the Standard and Andrew Gilligan from someone who has made no effort to check that his own statements are factually right.
Apologies: the full link is as follows.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-olympics/article-23522363-details/2012+and+the+threat+to+an+iconic+London+landscape/article.do
For some reason the end of the link I just gave has been truncated. It is "/landscape/article.do" and there is no colon at the end.
The link to the June article says: "Olympics organisers say work on the arena, stables and ancillary buildings is likely to close most of the lower park for seven to eight months over the spring and summer of 2012."
So 'the lower Park' will be closed, whatever that means (and, yes, it absolutely does need clarification). Still sounds far less than most of the park to me. So do comments about 'similar areas' being closed for a few months in 2011.
So, absolutely, we need to know what will be closed, and when.
But closure (within reasonable limits) surely isn't the issue. The deal breaker here is damage to the fabric of the Park, of which we as yet know nothing (as far as I know, and I am ready to be corrected).
The July article also says "The stakes could scarcely be higher." Oh, do come on, they really could. Just think back to why some people objected to an Olympics in Bejing. That kind of overblown nonsense is why I don't like the Standard.
anon, if my comments upset you, I suggest avoiding the interweb. In turn, I'll continue to avoid the Standard.
@Will 26 September 2008 14:55
I'm in favour becuase I like being for things, rather than against
Sorry but what a fatuous statement. You like being for things - how about being for hanging, child prostitution, protection rackets, people trafficking ... rather than against.
Well put Will, Indigo don't be such a fool you know what he meant.
I'm gald to see I'm not the only one that finds Gilligan a bore.
His arguments over the park are now so weak all he can do is offer a critique of the council's newspaper. This from a so called award winning journalist. How the mighty have fallen.
eg first trees he said trees would be uprooted - now they are just going to be pruned! Why he also admitted that the event didnt damage the park used in Hong Kong.
I also find it very strange - but very typical - of London's regional paper that yet again they are talking London down.
They actually want to see the events shipped out of London to Essex and a second rate horse track. Only the Standard could do that. They should be ashamed!
As for the charge from Gilligan that Greenwich Time only prints positive stories about the events in the Park, can Mr Gilligan show me anything but negative articles printed by the standard about the same issue. One word - no!
He has just become a joke.
Perhaps he is just worried that he would be disturbed whilst drinking G and Ts out in his garden very near to the park for a few weeks in 2012.
Either way his articles on the park are just plain embarassing!
"As for the charge from Gilligan that Greenwich Time only prints positive stories about the events in the Park, can Mr Gilligan show me anything but negative articles printed by the standard about the same issue. One word - no!"
I don't know what sort of point you think you're making here - the Standard (not my favourite paper either) prints negative stories about the equestrian events because they oppose them, as does everyone I know in Greenwich. No-one who is posting here has answered the central point that these events (a wildly minority sport follwed only by the Royal family and brain-dead rich toffs) will actually damage the tourist industry and town centre businesses that Summer.
My point Rod is simple.
The bore Gilligan attacks Greenwich Council for printing nothing but positive news in Greenwich Time about the park - but forgets in his hypocritical moment that the Standard only do the opposite.
At least Greenwich Time prints letters from both points of view.
I've sent in 3 letters to the standard opposing their line.
And guess what - none have been printed.
London's "paper" is a disgrace.
Well, you know I don't really want to be seen as an enthusiast for either the Standard or Gilligan, but I think that the points he raises are all fair comment, are what I'm hearing local residents saying, and require a response from the Council and the Royal Parks. I'm thinking particularly about closure of the park, damge to Greenwich's tourist trade that summer, damage to the park, cost, whether the park is in fact big enough, cost and complete lack of legacy.
All of these are real issues, and as yet we don't have answers - that's what the problem is. I believe the answers to all these questions are known by the people organising the event and should be made public without further delay. If they can satisfy everybody that the park isn't going to be closed for too long and categorically won't be damaged then fair enough, but the Council propaganda in Greenwich Time hasn't answered any of these concerns in any detail. I want to see something rather more than the council's own paper blandly reassuring everybody that "course the park will be alright"
The Standard's comment pieces make clear where it stands. That is the purpose of comment pieces. But if Sam bothered to read the Standard's news pieces about the park, all available online, you will see they give lengthy space to the Olympics organisers to defend their proposals. They also printed two letters in Friday's paper defending the use of the park. As far as I know, they have never claimed that trees would be uprooted. The difference between the Standard and Greenwich Time is the difference between journalism and official propaganda.
Sam and Will: the key question remains. How can the organisers of London 2012 and the council assure us that the park will not be damaged when, by their own admission, they have not yet drawn up detailed plans or conducted detailed impact studies?
Oh Rod you bias is laughable.
The Standard's one sided version of events are "fair comment", yet Greenwich Time's opposing views are propaganda.
Funny how when one sided comment matches your stance its alright but when it doesn't it is not.
As for the Standard/Gilligan never mentioning that trees would be cut down - it just goes to show you haven't followed his constantly changing (and weakening) lines.
Gilligan did make these claims - as did other anti-Greenwich cheerleaders. The only difference is you won't see those claims now as they were proved to unfounded - just like most of the other anti Greenwich nonsense.
As for "anonymous" - you fall into the same trap as Rod and your arguments are just as futile.
But to answer your final question - let me turn it around. How can you claim the park IS going to be damaged when the plans have yet to be published.
I can only hope you are not a judge if that is the way you formulate opinions - without having all the details to hand.
More sensible local residents like me, prefer to wait and see the plans before making up my mind.
But if the authorities (Royal Parks and LOCOG) have given a public commitment (as they have) not to cut down trees and not to close the whole park, I will accept that.
Many local people I know are also starting to see through the cheerleaders for moving the games from Greenwich. They can see there are vested interests at play here.
I just think it is a shame that Rod and anonymous continue to spout fiction as if it were fact - and are intent on taking away a once in a lifetime opportunity for which they should be ashamed
Sam, you are Chris Roberts and I claim my five pounds!
I'm afraid you have a basic misunderstanding when it comes to the Standard and Greenwich Time.
The Standard is a commercial enterprise and I can choose whether or not I spend my money on it - if I find it disagreeable, I don't buy it.
Greenwich Time is a council publication and therefore I have no choice as to whether or not my hard-earned dosh is spent on it.
Therefore I find it particularly galling that it's being used as a propaganda rag
So far Rod and others have come up with a long list of reasons as to why they are opposed. I have read your messages and, with the exception of disliking Gilligan, can find nothing written by you that counters their point of view. Your argument seems to revolve around ad hominem attacks on others
I would like you to explain how buiding a 23,000 seat arena, ancillary buildings and having a number of horses trotting around a 4 mile course will NOT damage the park. It just isn't possible
There clearly will be damage to the park, what damage will entirely depend on teh course and facilities which have to be put in place. A lot of the paths will have to be removed for the cross country and also the ones in teh areana will need to go. They should be able to work the course around the trees with a bit of forethought but i'm at a loss where they will fit enough stabling facilities for all the horses (personally i'd put them on blackheath myself.....)
"Oh Rod you bias is laughable." (sic - I'm starting to infer that English is not Sam's mother tongue)
Sure I'm biased - I don't want uor Worls Heritage site damaged for three days of a completely minority sport. Yes - putting my hand up.
"As for the Standard/Gilligan never mentioning that trees would be cut down - it just goes to show you haven't followed his constantly changing (and weakening) lines."
Where did I say that the Standard never said this?
"I just think it is a shame that Rod and anonymous continue to spout fiction as if it were fact"
Where exactly have I done this?
Oh Paolo - that's not a very English name. Rod won't like you
After all is English your mother tongue????
And Paolo
I'm afraid its you that has a basic misunderstanding when it comes to the Standard
The Evening Standard standard prides itself on being London's premier regional paper.
You would have therefore thought it would have got behind the LONDON Olympic Games.
But no it would rather see LONDON Olympic events go to Kent and Essex.
I'm just amazed it didnt come out in favour of paris when it had the chance.
The paper is a shambles. Gilligan is clearly obsessed.
And Greenwich Time is clearly rattling all the local NIMBYs.
Keep up the good work!
PS Yet another desperate attack from you again shows the NO campaign up for what it is.
I am not Chris Roberts - your silly attack hardly worthy of response.
As for Rod - are you wary of people who do not have English as a first language?. I am English.
Would you have a problem with me if I wasn't...
As for your fiction there is far to much to list here but please explain these sweeping statements:
1) that the events will "actually damage the tourist industry and town centre businesses that Summer". SOURCE please?
2) you then repeat the same claim that the park will be damaged again (presented as a fact) ignoring the real fact that people were playing golf on the Hong Kong site just five days after the event.
3) you say the park isnt big enough. SOURCE? So do you know the size of the course? Dont you accept that the only fact is that Greenwich Park is twice as big as the HK course.
I could go on but it would be too easy.
Phantom - STOP THEM!! This bickering between Will, Rod, Anonymous etc does no good.
FACT - a 23,000 seat arena, 6.5k cross country course, 250 horse stables - there is BOUND to be some damage and health and safety closure and if any of us locals think we will be able to get a cheap or free peak into what is bound to be a very secure area we are kidding ourselves. LOCOG will have to deliver to the IOC high standards. They have assured the Royal Parks they will return it to its previous state - BUT - they cannot vouch for how that will be funded - by which time they will have disappeared as an accountable body.
I understand that the Hong Kong course was considerably bigger than Greenwich's proposed site
"As for Rod - are you wary of people who do not have English as a first language?. I am English.
Would you have a problem with me if I wasn't..."
Actually, I'm half German - do you have a problem with that? Shall we have some tired "don't mention the War" jokes? I'm happy to say that I regret the little joke about English not being your native language - it wasn't even original, I've heard the very smae joke about John Prescott and everyone thought it was very funny. I regret it because now everyone thinks I'm a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
"As for your fiction there is far to much to list here but please explain these sweeping statements:
1) that the events will "actually damage the tourist industry and town centre businesses that Summer". SOURCE please?
2) you then repeat the same claim that the park will be damaged again (presented as a fact) ignoring the real fact that people were playing golf on the Hong Kong site just five days after the event.
3) you say the park isnt big enough. SOURCE? So do you know the size of the course? Dont you accept that the only fact is that Greenwich Park is twice as big as the HK course."
I knew that Sam didn't really read what I (and others) wrote - I refer to my post of the 28th September, where I say that these points raised in the Gilligan article are fair comment and require answers from the Council and the Royal Parks. I have never referred to these issues as matters of fact - I say that we don't have answers and that is what the problem is.
Incidentally Sue, I am absolutely not bickering with Will, whose stance on this, as he has explained it, is perfectly reasonable. He's a lot more optimistic about the Olympics than I am but, you know, I hope he's proved right.
Interesting to see that Rod is hiding behind what Gilligan printed.
He cannot back up his comments - but then again neither can Gilligan himself.
That's why as others have pointed out - his arguments have weakened and weakened and weakened to the point that the best he could come up with this time was a second rate rant against a local newspaper.
How funny.
Talking of which anyone seen Greenwich Time this week.
I'm afraid all the doubters will choke on their words.
LGM - you are wrong. The fact is that Hong Kong was half the size of Greenwich Park. FACT.
But Greenwich Time which has just come through my door shows LOCOGs draft plans that they will consult local residents over.
The map - on the front page - shows how all the various bits and pieces to do with the events easily fit into the park.
It also reaffirms - no cutting down trees. Local people will be consulted and shape the final plans. The whole park will not be shut for a year. Looks like somebody has rained on Gilligan's parade...
I could go on.
Now what scraps with the scaremongers thrive on - now a number of their lies have been disproved and a draft plan is out there for local people to have their say.
This event will be great for Greenwich. Lets not let the whingers ruin it! Let the consultation begin...
Kelly I said, I understand that the Hong Kong course was bigger, I didn't make a statement of fact. Are you able to show me the size of the Hong Kong course compared to Greenwich please? I might be more willing to accept your rudeness! To be honest Greenwich Time (in my opinion - before someone shoots me down in flames) is hardly a purveyor of fact - it invariable hits my recycle bin in record time!
LGM - ignoring the fact you have yet again adopted the regular policy of all the whingers
ie
1) Make a statement using weasel words in order to pour scorn on the park hosting equestrian events
2) When your facts are challenged and you are asked to quote your source - claim you never stated it as a fact in the first place.
3) Refuse still to name your source but chuck the question back at the person questioning your claim.
Time and time again the NIMBYs have done this on this thread alone. How very predictable.
What's also laughable is that the very same people dont believe Greenwich Time - but do believe the Standard.
Yes the Standard - that well known bastion of the truth.
More fool them.
I could easily source stats on the size of the Hong Kong course v the park.
But as I say no need now. The draft map of the plan for the park is out there.
Not in the Standard. Too factual for them? But in Greenwich Time.
Anyone can see the course and all the facilities fit quiet easily into the park.
As I said before let the consultation with residents begin - and let stop all the misinformation like the park is too small!
Kelly Jones
Wow ruder still :-] and thanks for providing the dimensions of the Hong Kong course and the 'proposed' Greenwich course ROFL.
I shall eagerly await the audit and report from KPMG!
Kelly Jones
Your failure to provide any proof of what you call fact demonstrates the contempt running through your postings.
Here's a fact for you - equestrian facilities in HK 350 acres. TOTAL available acres of Greenwich Park 180 acres
Then we get onto the FACT that the HK event was spread over 3 different venues rather than shoehorned into 1. Not to mention, the FACT that the Greenwich cross country course will be a third longer than the HK one.
I have not yet seen Greenwich Time however, it will not put my mind at rest. I am sure that they have printed something showing that everything will be hunky-dory. I doubt it bears any relation to what the reality will actually be. After all, it is not just the course and the stadium that are a concern - but all the ancillary buildings, stabling, parking, etc, etc
The idea that you can use one the UK's most ancient parks for this kind of event strikes me as utter lunacy - above all when this country has brilliant facilities for this very sport within easy reach of London
I may be pessimistic but I cannot help feeling that this is going to be an absolute disaster. And the question remains, if after the event is held and everything removed, we find the park in tatters and previous promises unkept, who do we hold to account??
Thanks for posting that Paolo - I *thought* that Greenwich as smaller. I too hold some of your concerns. If that makes me a NIMBY then so be it.
Wow, this is obviously a heated issue. What I fail to understand is this: Greenwich Park is under the care of the Royal Parks Commission, not Greenwich Council. Any "closure" of a designated public park is forbidden by Act of Parliament. The park is part of the Greenwich World Heritage Site, ultimate responsibility for which lies with UNESCO. Why Greenwich Council is therefore stomping up and down and implying to people that they are in charge therefore confuses me completely. Making any "alterations" (ie constructing any temporary buildings etc) on a World Heritage Site is subject to Act of Parliament. I know Chris Roberts has a God Complex (I did work for him once so I know what Im saying here) but I think even he would find it difficult to take on UNESCO.
As a Landscape Historian, I deplore using Greenwich Park because of the short and long term damage it will cause. I dont see what "benefit" holding the events in the park will have for "local people". Can you imagine X thousand people arriving at Greenwich Station or the DLR and walking to the park? Utter chaos.
At the recent Olympics, the equestrian events were held in Hong Kong for reasons of health and safety. This set a precedent in that it shows events dont all have to be held in geographically close proximity. So, send the equestrian events to somewhere like Badminton or Windsor Great Park instead.
"Kelly Jones, Greenwich said...
Interesting to see that Rod is hiding behind what Gilligan printed."
I absolutely give up - if these people (if they are indeed different people) won't actually read what is posted by others, then there is no point continuing this discussion.
One last time, for the record, I said -
"I think that the points he (Gilligan) raises are all fair comment, are what I'm hearing local residents saying, and require a response from the Council and the Royal Parks. I'm thinking particularly about closure of the park, damage to Greenwich's tourist trade that summer, damage to the park, cost, whether the park is in fact big enough, cost and complete lack of legacy.
All of these are real issues, and as yet we don't have answers - that's what the problem is."
Oh the usual moaners are definitely rattled alright.
It's just a pity they STILL cannot deal in facts...
Paolo pedals that age old lie that the equestrian facilities in Hong Kong covered 350 acres.
This is simply untrue. The 350 acres refers to the total size of all the 3 venues in Hong Kong - not the area covered by the course and facilities.
The actual area of the course and the facilities in Hong Kong is HALF the size of Greenwich Park.
But I can understand why they are clinging on to this lie for dear life.
The draft proposal for Greenwic Park is now out there as LOCOG start their consultation and exposes their misinformation for all to see.
For instance Paolo admits she hasn't seen the plans, but her scaremongering doesnt stop there.
She says that:
"I doubt it bears any relation to what the reality will actually be. After all, it is not just the course and the stadium that are a concern - but all the ancillary buildings, stabling, parking, etc, etc"
I'm but your position of ignornace again lets you down!
The plans do indeed include the competition area, training areas, stabling and event compounds.
It is a shame the moaners continue to peddle fiction as fact - even when they admit they haven't even seen the plans.
Who can trust them now?
here's a link to the consultation and a time line. sam it would appear the public consultation is not planned until Autumn 2009.
If you take away the respective sizes of HK versus Greenwich - its like comparing apples and oranges. A golf courses' landscape does not compare to a park and world heritage site!
http://www.london2012.com/documents/locog-publications/greenwich-park.pdf
no doubt I will be viewed to be pedalling fiction by posting the link :-]
I'm enjoying all the fanatastic typos in the LOCOG's press releases - superb.
Thanks LGM
So that's the answer to all out concerns is it? A badly spelt brochure and a diagram that gives us no real detail at all
Wow Sam - I can see why you're so convinced.
BTW for your info - you are being somewhat duplicitous by using solely the figures for the cross-country course in HK. Total area for all the equestrian events that were held in HK (and that will be held just in the Park) was 350 acres compared to 180 for Greenwich
The Standard (much vilified by you, although you've to come up with any factual opposition) counted over 300 ancillary buildings at the HK cross country alone, without even considering the jumping and dressage. For the avoidance of doubt, here are the details...
"Dotted throughout the cross-country venue alone, the Standard counted a total of 311 separate temporary buildings or structures brought in for the event, ranging from 7ft by 7ft tents and dozens of standard-sized shipping containers to numerous massive portable buildings up to 100ft long. There were also at least 41 separate portable generators sprinkled around the course.
Among the larger buildings were: two two-storey luxury viewing areas for high-rollers, a broadcast compound, a supply vehicle depot and delivery centre, a venue operations control centre, a media centre and press conference room, a staff canteen, an athletes' and grooms' canteen, a police command centre, stables, a 52-portable-cabin grooms' village, a souvenir shop, three security search areas, grooming boxes, a farrier's tent, a briefing tent, a veterinary clinic, a stewards' office and three public refreshment areas.
Each of the 29 substantial fences had a small tent for security and officials beside it and the course was also sprinkled with temporary first aid and service buildings. Miles of cabling and temporary hard surface had been laid beneath and across the grass of the venue and around 150 golf buggies, with their own depot, provided transport around the vast site.
In addition to the course and the sites occupied by buildings, two huge areas had been set aside as warm-up arenas for horses and riders. One, about 200ft long, was so large that it even had its own viewing stands. A third compound was a finishing area where competitors could cool down and unsaddle, lined with tents, one for each nation competing. There was also a massive logistical support compound where supplies were received and stockpiled."
And that's just the cross-country!
Now how's that going to fit in the little yellow and green blobs on LOCOG's diagram. I'll tell you - it ain't
In fact they don't really know either "Mr Hadaway admitted that almost all these ancillary facilities and areas were things that "the IOC will require" in London. Asked if they could all fit into Greenwich Park, he said: "I cannot judge that yet. It is a fair observation you make. What I'm thinking of is other ways these requirements can be met."
Furthermore, looking at their diagram, I must be stupid because I can't see the parking for the 23000(!) people who will be watching the dressage. Or are they all coming by DLR?
This "plan" tells us nothing and reassures me even less. Its a joke really
And I'll ask again, if we get the park back and its ruined - who do we hold to account??
PS - I'm a bloke. Paola would be a female name
Very interesting post, Paolo, thank you - it looks to me like they're going to have to take over most of Blackheath too, by the look of it. It'll be great if they have to close Shooters Hill Rd for a few months! (Sam, Kelly Jones - That's. A. Joke.)
"The draft map of the plan for the park is out there.
Not in the Standard. Too factual for them? But in Greenwich Time."
The map in Greenwich Time shows the cross country course going through the boating pond and the flower garden. So - the pond is to be drained and levelled, and the flower garden is to be torn up. And you still persist in saying the Park isn't going to be damaged? What colour IS the sky on your planet?
Paolo - I'm sorry but you are still wrong.
For your only line of defence to be that the "fact" you quote has appeared in the Standard is laughable.
Last time I looked journalists were trusted less than estate agents - yet you cling on to this journalist's claim as though he was the new Messiah!
The fact is the HK equestrian events DID NOT cover 350 acres - they covered half the area of Greenwich Park.
But you put your faith in the words of one journalist (just because it suits your cause).
I mean now I know why encyclopedia sales are dropping when 3 million people read The Sun...
The fact is that Gilligan's piece also showed that the Hong Kong course was used for a golf tournament just five days later. Somehow though Paolo doesnt believe that part of the Gilligan article - in fact she didnt even post it.
Indeed whilst hong kong's course was good enough for an international golf tournament less than a week later, Greenwich Park will be left in "tatters!" (source: Paolo so it has to be so)
Paolo has therefore become the first official resident of Rod's World whereby the only form of public transport is the DLR and there is going to be chaos, chaos I tell you, as they all descend on this form of transport at the same time.
They conveniently take out of the equation that the games will take place in August. And its not as if that the most popular month for people leaving London for a holiday abroad meaning that numbers of people using public transport fall to an all time low. No siree. And its not as if more than 23,000 people leave london in August. Course not.
And Rod - what colour is the Sky in my world? Today it was a lovely shade of bright blue.
But in Rod's world its always overcast, a doomy outlook.
Dont forget THE END IS NIGH! You heard it here first from Rod!
Sam if that's your view of journalists then your argument falls down. Why should Greenwich Time be anymore trustworthy than the ES? Are you able provide an impartial link to the true dimensions of the hong kong site.
How do you know that Londoners will be leaving in their thousands during the olympics. Perhaps they will want to be part of potentially the best sporting event? I commute and I did not notice much of a drop off. Still had to stand on the train!
I located this - not sure of its providence but even so the section titled reprovisioning of HKSI makes interesting reading....
http://www.equestriancommittee.gov.hk/press/pdf/songsheet_7July_e.pdf
Sam says -
"Paolo has therefore become the first official resident of Rod's World whereby the only form of public transport is the DLR and there is going to be chaos, chaos I tell you, as they all descend on this form of transport at the same time"
We ask legitimate questions, and you don't answer them, prefering to just take the piss. Well done!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home