The debate over Greenwich Park being used as an Olympic venue continues to rumble on and the respective corners have taken to Youtube to get their message across.
First up is a new film (in two parts) from NOGOE, directed by Edward Hoffman and narrated by Sophie Aldred – born in Greenwich and an erstwhile assistant to Sylvester McCoy’s Dr Who.
And to get the opposite side of the story, here’s a video from the London 2012 team which features LOCOG Equestrian Manager, Tim Hadaway.
Hi
Just thought you should know, both of the Nogoe Videos are linking to Part 1 – one should be part 2 here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2R9MsyVy0Q
NOGOE film – very high production values – well done, everyone – the young people’s impromptu dancing brought tears to my eyes. By the way, Rob, at the time of writing this comment it looks as if you are linking to NOGOE film Part 1 twice, not to Part 1 and Part 2.
I’ve come back especially to say that this week’s Council paper, Greenwich Time (6 October), is still going out of its way to mislead everyone. In the opinion column, former deputy leader (1999) Bob Harris makes an irrelevant connection between the Olympics and Greenwich’s investment in housing and – hah! – transport .
The main article reiterates LOCOG’s empty promise that no trees will be cut down in the Park – judge this, people, in the context of LOCOG’s promises about protecting trees and habitat on the main Olympic site but which have been destroyed after all because they got in the way – from 2011 much of the Park will be a hard hat area and, once the Park is shut to the public, the barriers are up, the construction companies are in and working to a deadline, ANYTHING and everything that is “in the way” will disappear.
Then, on page 3, a “community champion” who supported the supercasino proposal – even, in every case, the opening of a resort-sized casino in every other developed country in the world has been followed by a huge increase in organised crime – and who lives miles from Greenwich Park reiterates all the myths about the assurances and supposed benefits. Even the one about tourism.
Lorraine Turton (East Greenwich Traders’ Association) may come to regret not having read the Olympic Act 2006 before she said all those things to Greenwich Time. Local businesses are going to have a very thin time of it, and no one will be able to “pop round the corner” to an OFFICIAL Olympic competitive event.
Derrick Spurr (former Parks manager and now Olympic liaison officer) asserts that the “original purpose of the park was for horses to gallop around” – WHAT! Noooo, Derrick, read your history; the Park was a sort of walk-in larder for deer.
Mick Gebbett (Town Centre Traders’ Association) recalls the last “great storm” which blew over a number of trees but fails to realise that these will have created new habitat for stag beetles, one of the protected species in the Park. He also alludes to the archive photo of allotments in the Park during WWII. Unless Mick knows something we do not, I don’t believe that World World Three is planned for 2012.
Finally (though I could say more), the double page spread in the middle reproduces that “photoshopped” image of thousands of dwarves apparently watching equestrian events on the north side of the Queen’s House – which is a complete fabrication. The area north of the Queen’s House is not one of the venues.
I am beyond disgusted by how many people have “sold their souls” to Greenwich Time black propaganda and disinformation. We all know that Pravda is rubbish but why help it be rubbish?
Thanks Indigo and Jo for pointing out my error with the second video. Fixed now.
I’m sorry but I don’t think the videos do the NOGOE campaign any favours at all. They start with a load of completely irrelevant sentimentality, rush through too many arguments in a short space of time, skirt over the really important issues and end with the inevitable cry of “noone asked me!”, as if every resident of Greenwich should be personally consulted on every public decision made in SE London.
Can anyone tell me, what is the single compelling argument against the plans? Is it:
The closure of the park to local residents?
The potential damage to local businesses?
The impact on traffic in the area?
The risk of fatalities from the ground collapsing?
The risk of damages to archaelogical sites?
The risk of damage to the environment?
The limited space available resulting in a poor experience for competitors and spectators?
The lack of any legacy for the local area?
The impact on tourism?
The cost compared to alternatives?
The lack of consultation with local residents?
In 15 minutes of video, 11 different arguments are made. Half of them are red herrings and take time and focus away from the important ones. But more importantly, the whole thing gives me the impression of a bunch of NIMBYs with a predetermined opinion who’ve then desperately searched for any old excuse to justify their opposition. As a result, the important issues that really do call in to question the wisdom of this plan are being overshadowed and the campaign is more easily dismissed.
So Indigo reckons Greenwich Time is full of propaganda and to prove his point he espouses all the usual…yes you’ve guessed it…anti-park propaganda.
Thankfully I dont need either Indigo or GT to form my opinions. I make up my own mind.
Like Indigo I too used to be wary of the park plans but I’m afraid NOGOE have lost the plot and lost the argument.
LOCOG have made lost of concessions and shown they have listened. People like Indigo say we shouldnt believe them. But why should I believe people like Indigo even more.
As for NOGOES videos – it is a total bore. Why drone on for 15 minutes? No one except NOGOE diehards and LOCOG PR people will watch it. Everyone know less is more.
@Blisset, “as if every resident of Greenwich should be personally consulted on every public decision made in SE London”
Well, duh, that IS what the statutory requirement to conduct public consultation does. Every resident consulted, including off-message Eltham MP and wildly out of touch “communities champion”.
“Can anyone tell me, what is the single compelling argument against the plans?”
There are many compelling arguments against the plans, why can you only cope with one?
There is another that you have not listed: the protected species in the Park (bats, stag beetles). Anyone convicted of breaking the laws that protect bats can expect to be fined at £5,000 PER BAT (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Section 21). The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW) amendment contains a provision for a custodial sentence of up to 6 months instead of, OR AS WELL AS, a fine. Along with a lengthy development delay until appropriate mitigation has been agreed and completed.
The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC) also lists bats as a species of principle importance under Section 41 and Section 40 requires every public body in the exercising of its functions to ‘have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’ . In addition, local authority planning departments should also meet the requirements of the Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9); which requires planners not only to protect biodiversity, but where possible to enhance it.
Bats are subject to strict legislation … any work that requires ‘disturbance’ (of roosts, flight paths, etc) requires an appropriate Natural England licence to be carried by a bat worker.
Sensitive times of the year for bats are: May to late August when bats are breeding; from November to late May during hibernation. Disturbance during this period can damage survival rates.
Can anyone tell me, what is the single compelling argument against the plans? Is it:
The closure of the park to local residents?
The potential damage to local businesses?
The impact on traffic in the area?
The risk of fatalities from the ground collapsing?
The risk of damages to archaelogical sites?
The risk of damage to the environment?
The limited space available resulting in a poor experience for competitors and spectators?
The lack of any legacy for the local area?
The impact on tourism?
The cost compared to alternatives?
The lack of consultation with local residents?
Or C – All of the above?
1. @Indigo In your delightfully patronising reply, you seem to have ignored the key word. I said “PERSONALLY consulted”. It really irritates me when people say “well they haven’t asked me” as though LOCOG should be going door to door, canvassing every individual opinion and only go ahead once they’ve cleared it with Mrs N Imby. As with the market development, people have wildly exaggerated expectations of what a public consultation actually means.
2. @Indigo Sorry, I didn’t realise that bats and stag beetles existed outside of “the environment” (see I can be patronising too).
3. Both Paul and Indigo have completely missed my point. There may be 11/15/100 reasons why people don’t think the Olympics should use Greenwich Park. The simple fact is the majority of these are far from compelling and are of little value to the campaign. Including all of them confuses the message.
If you present a list of 10 concerns and 7 of them get quickly discounted, it gives the impression that 70% of your argument has disappeared. But if the real weight of your argument lies in the remaining 3, you’d be much better off taking only those into battle with you.
I firmly believe that any good campaign should have a clear, concise and compelling message. There could be one for NOGOE but at the moment it’s buried under a mountain of NIMBYist irrelevance.
Blisset pwned.
Blisset’s right. The youtube ad is a blizzard of nimby arguments, which are assembled randomly – the point that individual residents haven’t been consulted, which is the payoff of the piece, is irrelevant. Do we expect people to knock on our doors?
The most convincing argument against the use of the park is contained in Tim Hadawy’s youtube video, which is even more vacuous and unconvincing. The fact that they’re having vague conversations about incorporating some sort of cross-country jump into the children’s playground underlines, in a quite stunning way, how the equestrian games will leave no legacy whatsoever.
@indigo
I was just looking through my LOCOG fanclub newsletter and loved the article where Judy MBE tells us how much her girls loved playing in the playground, flower garden and any other areas that LOCOG have said will be least effected by closures. Apparently good community minded children have no interest in any part of the park that may be closed for the building of the Olympic Stadium
I also found myself agreeing with Bob Harris’ comments that culture and the creative industries are an important driver in regeneration. I can’t wait until Greenwich actually start doing something to support the creative industries in the borough. The only radical action I have seen happen in the culural sector in the borough recently were the cuts they made to their funded arts organisations (savings to go to the Olympics of course!)
“The simple fact is the majority of these are far from compelling and are of little value to the campaign. Including all of them confuses the message.
If you present a list of 10 concerns and 7 of them get quickly discounted, it gives the impression that 70% of your argument has disappeared. But if the real weight of your argument lies in the remaining 3, you’d be much better off taking only those into battle with you.”
The closure of the park to local residents?
The potential damage to local businesses?
The impact on traffic in the area?
The risk of fatalities from the ground collapsing?
The risk of damages to archaelogical sites?
The risk of damage to the environment?
The limited space available resulting in a poor experience for competitors and spectators?
The lack of any legacy for the local area?
The impact on tourism?
The cost compared to alternatives?
The lack of consultation with local residents?
Which of these can in your considered opinion be quote “easily discounted”?
Surely the real question is not “What is the single overwhelming argument against holding the equestrian events in Greenwich Park?”, but rather, “What is the justification for holding them there, in the face of so many legitimate issues against?”
This isn’t just nimby-ism (and your list isn’t even complete, by the way – you don’t include the intolerable strain that these events will put on the local infrastructure, particularly transport ) – all of the issues that Boris Johnson has raised in the last few days with regards to erecting temporary, legacy-free, venues at Woolwich and the Peninsula apply with even more force to Greenwich Park.
I feel like this is now unstoppable so maybe the campaign should be for a better legacy than is currently on the table. My suggestion is a subscription to Horse & Hound for every child in the borough. No child left behind (when it comes to equestrian news).
Ha ha seems Locog have taken down their
advert on YouTube
I wonder if it was anything to do with the last
comment suggesting people should follow
the map of the proposed route to find
the sprouting stumps of the supposed
dead trees cut down six months ago
Ahhhh they’ve put it back up again
without the comments.
Damned right they should be consulting everyone. If by PERSONALLY you mean they should be making sure eveyone gets to know what’s going on, and gets to have their views heard, then yes they should.
Why should people have their views ignored just because they aren’t part of some cabal that gets to find out about these things?
I found out about this stuff last Saturday.