# 2012 Olympics: when the "master race" within UK equestrianism ate the seed corn



## Rachel Mawhood (16 August 2012)

In the current issue of H&H, it is suggested that critics of using Greenwich Park as the Olympics venue were won round or "disappeared".  They haven't disappeared; rather, their reasoned voices have been drowned out by the white noise of propaganda and hype.

Consider this: 7 years ago, the BEF feasibility study concluded that the 2012 equestrian competition could be staged for £6.2 million.  By 2010, the budgeted figure was £42 million.  Guess how much it has actually cost to stage the Olympic equestrian events ... £120 million.

This has massive implications for the future of UK equestrianism.  Once the "feel good" factor passes, and you start the next equestrian seasons with reduced prize money and increased registration fees; when more shows and events struggle to  survive, will you only then appreciate that 95% of the same effects could have been achieved at Windsor - with that little shack as the iconic backdrop, instead of Canary Wharf - and perhaps also feel that in hindsight £120 million could have been better spent!?

From where I am standing, it looks as if the "master race" within UK equestrianism have played a blinder.  Not only have they spent three times the budget - remember, these are millions we are talking about, not thousands - they have "pulled up the ladder" after themselves at the Olympics.  They have eaten the seed corn - taxpayers' money - that could have built up the facilities for the whole of UK equestrianism.  Their sense of entitlement has been pandered to, indulged and reinforced: look, they were allowed to take over and massively damage a Grade I Listed Baroque English landscape, a UNESCO World Heritage Site no less, with a palace in the background.  They broke every international and domestic wildlife, environment and conservation law that protected Greenwich Park.  They almost got away with stealing mains water and electricity for the event.

"Inspire a Generation"?  Such hypocrisy.  In future international competitions including the Olympics, the up and coming young competitors are likely to be those anointed by the master race within UK equestrianism, mostly from their own class.  (No matter how talented a young equestrian from a council estate, the master race don't want to find themselves having to share facilities and glory with the untermenschen.)  And that is because it is still the 14th century in UK equestrianism - the master race have eaten all the pies.


----------



## Bearskin (16 August 2012)

You miserable cow.  Why not take a look at the bigger picture.  If you can't see it then you may need glasses.


----------



## JustAnotherNeddy (16 August 2012)

What the ******* is the 'master race'?!

Have we been invaded by aliens? Thank goodness Doctor Who is returning this autumn...


----------



## Joeyjojo (16 August 2012)

Well I thought it was ace - absolutely loved every single second of it and was pleased that the equestrian community got to join in the party atmosphere in London for the duration of the Olympics especially at the Gold and Saddle  

Whilst its not a venue which arguably we don't need they have at least done this http://www.hoof-in-town.com/ which is aimed to encourage Londoners to ride and to seek the funding that is required to bring elite riding to the council estate masses (see free riding section). I honestly can't say I've ever experienced people being background checked when turning up at shows so I can't see how the 'master race' would be turning them away with their new found riding skills. 

As for budget - I'm pretty sure I paid a good chunk of the cost by buying some pretty expensive tickets (worth every penny I may add) 

PS where do you get your figures from - just out of interest, I'd like to take a nosey at how much they spent (the accountant in me).


----------



## Capriole (16 August 2012)

*yawn*

Well you were wrong weren't you, wasn't the crashing disaster you'd hoped for.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 August 2012)

Capriole said:



			Well you were wrong weren't you, wasn't the crashing disaster you'd hoped for.
		
Click to expand...

Define disaster.  Three times the budget sounds like a disaster to me.

The attempt to steal electricity would likely have been a disaster, if they had not been found out.

Catastrophic dereliction of duty by all the statutory authorities is a disaster for democracy and the rule of law.

It has been disastrous for Greenwich Park and Circus Field but I know that you don't care about that.


----------



## HashRouge (16 August 2012)

I don't get what the budget has to do with anything...I thought the Olympics as a whole went over budget, so why single out the equestrian events?

And Greenwich was a brilliant venue! We had a poll on here not too long ago and the majority of people, many of whom had been skeptical to begin with, said they'd been won round. I certainly though Greenwich was wonderful when I was there for the team SJ finals D) - well laid out, well organized, and so central!! Basically, you're just annoyed that it wasn't the huge flop you'd hoped for. I'll admit that I wasn't too sure Greenwich was the right place originally (I was in the "what's wrong with Windsor?" camp), but I'm happy to admit that I was wrong.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 August 2012)

Joeyjojo said:



			As for budget - I'm pretty sure I paid a good chunk of the cost by buying some pretty expensive tickets (worth every penny I may add) 

PS where do you get your figures from - just out of interest, I'd like to take a nosey at how much they spent (the accountant in me).
		
Click to expand...

You are not really paying attention: what proportion of £120 million is the amount you paid for your tickets?  (More about the source of the figures eventually.)


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 August 2012)

HashRouge said:



			I don't get what the budget has to do with anything...I thought the Olympics as a whole went over budget, so why single out the equestrian events?

And Greenwich was a brilliant venue!
		
Click to expand...

Read my lips: £120 million of taxpayers' money.  Someone in Government must have been signing off bought invoices like there was no tomorrow.

Greenwich Park is a brilliant public park (open every day of the year since 1820 until your lot took it over totalitarian-fashion for the Olympics) and UNESCO World Heritage Site.  To make it your "brilliant venue", more than 600 trees were vandalised (for things like "horse walks" and tv views, nothing to do with normal Park management) and poisoned.  In the soil under the cross-country track every living thing has been killed - insect, fungi, micro-organisms - by the surfactant used to try to made the grass hold water; yet the going was still hard as nails on the day it mattered and probably cost TeamGB the gold medal for the eventing.

Part of this famous and much-loved public Park is still closed because - revoltingly - it was used as an open-air toilet by hundreds if not thousands of spectators because LOCOG failed to provide enough portaloos (although I did warn them, when their loo arrangements were published back in April).


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 August 2012)

Bearskin said:



			You miserable cow.  Why not take a look at the bigger picture.  If you can't see it then you may need glasses.
		
Click to expand...

First time I have been on this forum since early January.  I see that the standard of the debate on this subject is much the same as it was then.

I am looking at the bigger picture - the one in which UK equestrianism threw away a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have its national facilities upgraded at no cost to the sport - and, as the UK's opponents in other countries are already using their upgraded facilities, UK equestrianism is likely to weaken over the coming decade.


----------



## HashRouge (16 August 2012)

You know what, I was going to type out a massive long response addressing all your points but in the end I decided I would be wasting my time. The Olympics were wonderful, equestrian events included, but some people are born to moan and complain even when, as it turns out, there wasn't really that much to moan and complain about in the first place. And you, it would appear, are one of these people. So excuse me while I go off and bask in my happy memories of the Olympics...I shall leave you to your doom and gloom.


----------



## Capriole (16 August 2012)

Good plan HR. I will do the same and leave the thread too, as frankly, I don't care for a second what she's droning on about.


----------



## Joeyjojo (16 August 2012)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			You are not really paying attention: what proportion of £120 million is the amount you paid for your tickets?  (More about the source of the figures eventually.)
		
Click to expand...

I am paying attention - that was something called humor, sorry if it was lost on you.

I'm off too - long live the Olympics in Greenwich - was amazing.


----------



## angelish (16 August 2012)

Bearskin said:



			You miserable cow.  Why not take a look at the bigger picture.  If you can't see it then you may need glasses.
		
Click to expand...

 this ^

it was "mint" i really enjoyed watching all the equestrian events


----------



## Sussexbythesea (16 August 2012)

At least be honest Rachel - you don't give a toss about Equestrianism! 

Greenwich Park was a fabulous venue for spectators - I had a wonderful time that I will never forget. 

What's done is done, it's a waste of energy to keep going over it, surely your energy is now best spent making sure the Park is restored?


----------



## CalllyH (16 August 2012)

Seriously! No need. Wonder what you will moan about next after the Olympics?


----------



## CalllyH (16 August 2012)

Also just to be clear what damage has been caused by having it at Greenwich, absolutely none. The parks looking better than it has for a long while.


----------



## teapot (16 August 2012)

Actually Cally, you can see quite clearly where fences have been and a bit of wear & tear on the spectator parts of the course. But going by the photos on flickr I've just been looking at, the Royal Parks have already cut, raked and re-sown those areas affected, thus making the damage highly unllikely to be noticeable in 6/8 weeks time. 

As much as I adored Greenwich as a venue and still don't believe the UK can afford to run a national competition centre (everywhere else is going bust as it is), I will be interested to see what the lawns are like behind Queen Anne's house come September when it all comes down...


----------



## cptrayes (16 August 2012)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Read my lips: £120 million of taxpayers' money.  Someone in Government must have been signing off bought invoices like there was no tomorrow.
		
Click to expand...

Rachel I voted in the poll mentioned above that Greenwich was a success. If I had known that was the cost, I would not have done so. Thankyou for highlighting this. I am sure there are others who feel like me who are not contributing to this thread because of the unreasonable vitriol it has raised.

Sailing was held extremely succesfully at Weymouth. The Equestrian events would have been just as brilliant, and cost a shedload less taxpayers' money, at any one of a number of more suitable venues than Greenwich.

I think people are confusing you criticising the venue with criticising our wonderful results, which would equally well have been achieved at Badminton, Burleigh, etc.


----------



## teapot (16 August 2012)

Cptrayes - if you think that's too much for a venue, what about the cost of the Olympic Park? Is that not a success despite it costing far more than Greenwich? Moreover, for the most part is actually only temporary (the hockey pitches will be removed, the sides of the aquatic centre are going and the entire waterpolo venue is again only temporary). Also pretty sure the very top of the stadium will be taken down too...


----------



## CalllyH (16 August 2012)

Teapot there's no damage to the listed buildings though and someone on here posted pictures of what it looked like the other summer a couple of years ago and how lush and green it is now. Agree with you there is cosmetic work to be done when it all comes down but that's all


----------



## millimoo (17 August 2012)

Oh she's back.... I don't understand why???
OP, you have tried to make arguments from every angle.
You are now resorting to cost and legacy - coming from someone who was banging on about equestrianism being elitist in one paper, so why do you care?

Also what about the extra revenue and coverage bought to Greenwich. The place was buzzing, busy (in a good way) and I plan to go back. Surely that's a good thing, or do you not like visitors to Greenwich who support your local economy and business.

The park is in better condition than it's ever been, and I'm sorry, but you really need to get over this. You must have a very limiting life if all you can do is spend years trying to cover every conceivable avenue to ban the games from Greenwich, and now it's coming to an end you continue to stretch this out... Totally pointless.

I was there, it was easy to get to from Kings Cross, the trains and tube were not busy, the roads were quiet, and everyone was happy and smiling.
Yes, we won Gold, Silver and Bronze medals, for which I'm thrilled.
But the venue itself was a triumph, stunning setting, well organised, and being so central was attended by none horsey folk who would not have travelled to a venue out of town. On Dressage finals day, there were certainly no problems with loos, and to be honest first I heard of it.

I feel sorry for you, that this appears to be your main focus in life... What will you do in 12 months time, when the Olympics are a memory, and the park is still looking better than pre Olympics.

Can't you just sit back and revel in how well we as a nation have done, and how fortunate Greenwich was to have played a major part in that success. I have even heard it said, that Greenwich was seen as the most desireable & stunning venue to be at.

Please go away... You are on a forum for all things Equestrian, do you honestly think we want the joy of success tainted by your diatribe.


----------



## Hippophilia (17 August 2012)

Well said, Millimoo!


----------



## Miss L Toe (17 August 2012)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			First time I have been on this forum since early January.  I see that the standard of the debate on this subject is much the same as it was then.

I am looking at the bigger picture - the one in which UK equestrianism threw away a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have its national facilities upgraded at no cost to the sport - and, as the UK's opponents in other countries are already using their upgraded facilities, UK equestrianism is likely to weaken over the coming decade.
		
Click to expand...

Long live the Revolution, Rachel you really want to wind up a few alarm clocks here!
I can't help but agree that an opportunity was missed, OK Dressage venue excellent, but all temporary, and as for the going in the X-country, I would not be surprised if there were several very lame horses from slipping. The course was designed for TV footage it was spectacular, no doubt, though now it seems it is all about time, and this is not what I really want to see tested to the limit.
The existing venues are all struggling to make eventing viable & I don't see this as a great way to spend money tbh.
PS if you read few George Orwell novels you might come up with a more appropriate mixed metaphor


----------



## SusannaF (17 August 2012)

For the one millionth time: Shooter's Hill, Ebony Horse Club, Wormwood Scrubbs Pony Club and all the other urban riding spots that benefitted from the Olympic legacy cash...

And please, don't reiterate that thing you trotted out earlier about how the kids in Brixton are only riding because they're on benefits and they'll stop when the benefits run out. Because it is so untrue in so many ways. But it was very revealing of how you thought about them.


----------



## stencilface (17 August 2012)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			I am looking at the bigger picture - the one in which UK equestrianism threw away a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have its national facilities upgraded at no cost to the sport - and, as the UK's opponents in other countries are already using their upgraded facilities, UK equestrianism is likely to weaken over the coming decade.
		
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you've never visited some of the uks already established venues? We already have some of the best competitive venues in the world, temporary like badminton and permanent like arena uk etc. Which is why youll find many of the 'lesser nations' already base themselves here to take advantage of our established and extensive equestrian network.

Many venues already struggle to get enough money in, this is not due to lack of enthusiasm for the sport but more and more due to increasing costs for every owner such as fuel costs, a major issue when driving a lorry or 4x4.


----------



## Bestdogdash (17 August 2012)

Bearskin said:



			You miserable cow.  Why not take a look at the bigger picture.  If you can't see it then you may need glasses.
		
Click to expand...

No need to be offensive. This lady has a different view than you (not one I agree with by the way) and she has a right to voice it for others to consider. It's called freedom of speech. Insulting someone just because you don't agree with them is demeaning for you and for our sport. 

Personally I think she makes some valid points (around the budget) but on the whole I think the pleasure given to millions across the world in seeing the sport at Greenwich (majority) outweighs the objections of the objectors, mostly local/London based (minority).


----------



## Bestdogdash (17 August 2012)

Sorry phone cut me off before I could finish ...

I also wanted to say I was fortunate enough to go to Greenwich for the games - it was fabulous! Great for Greenwich too, showed one of Londons poorest boroughs in a wonderful way to the world. It's economy can only benefit.

Nobody likes a sore loser Rachel ! Accept you have lost this one and move on..


----------



## TarrSteps (17 August 2012)

Re the budget, I doubt there has been an Olympics on recent memory that came in anywhere near the estimate, unfortunately. It seems to be the nature of the beast. It took Montreal 27 years to pay off '76, although that admittedly was before the modern revenue production organisation. And thee doesn't seem to be much doubt Athens contributed to Greece's problems.

They seem to be a bit like Grand Designs - think of a number, then triple it.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (17 August 2012)

SusannaF said:



			For the one millionth time: Shooter's Hill,
		
Click to expand...

To obtain permission for planning permission to build something equestrian on Metropolitan Open Land at the Shooter's Hill, LOCOG and the Council lied, claiming that there were no other riding schools in Greenwich.  The fact is that there are already three riding schools in Greenwich.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (17 August 2012)

HashRouge said:



			You know what, I was going to type out a massive long response addressing all your points but in the end I decided I would be wasting my time. [et seq]
		
Click to expand...

This is stating the obvious but ... you and the others who dismiss what I say have just illustrated why the master race within the UK equestrian world get away with squandering your money and resources.

Next time the master race want to appropriate a piece of land for their personal glory, it might be moorland or park or protected species habitat that you love and want to conserve.  Then we won't tell you to stop moaning, we'll say: why weren't you there for us in Greenwich, while there was still time to move the equestrian venue to Windsor, before £120 million of public money was spent and evaporated with the morning dew?

Destroyed rare habitat, site of nature conservation of metropolitan importance obliterated, mature trees damaged beyond recovery, every relevant law broken, public park used as a public "convenience" by those attending a ticket-only event, and no legacy for your sport.  For some pretty tv pictures.


----------



## tasel (17 August 2012)

I think the Greenwich venue was great - and I also was one of those "not into it" before. I thought it could have been done elsewhere, but hey, I admit I was wrong. London had a hard act to follow: Beijing. In communist China, the work force costs peanuts. I think they tried estimating how much a similar event would have cost when staged elsewhere... and the truth is, you better not think about it.

I looked at some of the comments the OP has said before. Greenwich Park may be a UNESCO world heritage site, but it's not exactly Ankor Wat, is it? She comes across as one of those people who would rather see a listed but dilapidated building crumble to the ground (yeah, great way of preserving it!) than someone doing it up not exactly the way they would have done hundreds of years ago. Or maybe she's just one of those people who hates change and wants to be stuck in time. I'm pretty sure Greenwich Park wasn't always "Greenwich Park". Quick summary is - it was previously just another landscape that turned into an estate used for hunting, and before it was made available to the public, it was landscaped. Not too dissimilar to what has happened for the Olympics. Why didn't people stop them from "landscaping" it back then? There were Roman, etc. artifacts there even then, surely?

As to how much it cost... when you think about the fact that the opening ceremony alone - a 3-hour long spectacle - cost £27 million, then it brings into perspective the £120 million spent on staging the equestrian events (which is still less expensive than the £140 million penthouse at One Hyde Park). Truth is, EVERYTHING in the UK is massively expensive. I think the first estimate of being able to stage it for £6.2 millions was too optimistic.

I've been abroad for some of the days of the Olympics, and the images captured on screen were spellbinding - everyone agreed that the venue looked gorgeous. It was pretty much a free advertisement for London. I don't know how many millions get spent on advertising the country for tourism purpose, but the Olympics pretty much did that for future years.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (17 August 2012)

millimoo said:



			Also what about the extra revenue and coverage bought to Greenwich. The place was buzzing, busy (in a good way) and I plan to go back. Surely that's a good thing, or do you not like visitors to Greenwich who support your local economy and business.
		
Click to expand...

Do you read anything but _Horse & Hound_?  The Olympics have been an absolute disaster for the local economy and business - takings down 50%-70% - and some will not survive because it happened during what is usually the height of the tourist season.  The Old Royal Observatory's loss of visitor revenue will be in the millions.  LOCOG used National Maritime Museum facilities without paying for them, while at the same preventing the NMM earning revenue with them.



millimoo said:



			The park is in better condition than it's ever been,
		
Click to expand...

That is completely untrue.



millimoo said:



			What will you do in 12 months time, when the Olympics are a memory, and the park is still looking better than pre Olympics.
		
Click to expand...

Repairing the acid grasslands will take a decade, not a year.  It will be fifty years before the tree landscape has been restored.



millimoo said:



			Can't you just sit back and revel in how well we as a nation have done, and how fortunate Greenwich was to have played a major part in that success. I have even heard it said, that Greenwich was seen as the most desireable & stunning venue to be at.
		
Click to expand...

Your sport cannot build on that profile.  You don't have the money to do so.  Greenwich was chosen for the tv pictures.  The BEF said it would cost £6.2m to stage the Olympics there.  In the event, it cost £120m, and there is no money left.  There may have to be a Parliamentary enquiry into how £42m (budgeted) became £120m (actual spend) of public money.


----------



## tasel (17 August 2012)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			This is stating the obvious but ... you and the others who dismiss what I say have just illustrated why the master race within the UK equestrian world get away with squandering your money and resources.
		
Click to expand...


OK... what master race are you on about?!? I only do riding recreationally, but I guess if you do it professionally, it will be the same as in ALL THE OTHER PROFESSIONS out there, where people move up through contacts/family. Yes, in my job, I have seen people move up and overtake me, though they had less skills, and daddy put in a good word for them. It's bl**dy annoying, but unfortunately, that's how the world is. Not just the equestrian world. I mean, I'd do the same if I had kids, so I understand why other parents would. That's why it would be hypocritical for me to bemoan it too much. Is that what you are talking about?

Because otherwise, I don't know what master race you're talking about.


----------



## stencilface (17 August 2012)

I'm sorry, but the grass and trees argument just does not wash with me. Grass and trees were pretty successful at growing before, and surprisingly, with some rain and sun, life will continue just as it has always done.

Yes the park will not be restored in 5 years, or even 10, but is this such as disaster? Have you been to other areas of the country far more beautiful than greenwich where pylon way leaves and pipeline routes run? Yes there's disruption, but trust me on this, grass does grow back.

And don't quote natural England at me, they live on a different planet to the rest of us, and half of them don't know their arse from their elbow quite frankly.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (17 August 2012)

So you didn't manage to stop Greenwich being used, you're a sore loser. 

Greenwich is not a museum, its a living breathing park for *people* to enjoy. Millions of people around the world benefited from it, it was one of the park's finest moments.
The legacy of the equestrain events is for all of us to be inspired with. Just last night I met a group of very non horsey engineers who were fascinated by 'dancing horses' and I have already introduced a couple of young canoe coaches to riding because of what they saw at the games. Hardly elitist.

Now go away and find another cause to annoy someone with. Street lighting, refuse collections....


----------



## tasel (17 August 2012)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			To obtain permission for planning permission to build something equestrian on Metropolitan Open Land at the Shooter's Hill, LOCOG and the Council lied, claiming that there were no other riding schools in Greenwich.  The fact is that there are already three riding schools in Greenwich.
		
Click to expand...

Ehm... which riding schools are you talking about??? I lived in London a few years back and I found the nearest riding school to have crap facilities (i.e. no paddocks, horses were turned out in school when not in use, school itself was tiny). Although geographically, it wasn't that far (a few miles), it took me an hour to get there due to London traffic. I'm now outside of London, it takes me 8 minutes to get to my horse, covering the same distance. This alone warrants riding schools in not too great distance apart in London. If you're talking about Mudchute... that's still a long distance away.

If they can create one nice proper riding school, then great!


----------



## tasel (17 August 2012)

TarrSteps said:



			Re the budget, I doubt there has been an Olympics on recent memory that came in anywhere near the estimate, unfortunately. It seems to be the nature of the beast. It took Montreal 27 years to pay off '76, although that admittedly was before the modern revenue production organisation. And thee doesn't seem to be much doubt Athens contributed to Greece's problems.

They seem to be a bit like Grand Designs - think of a number, then triple it. 

Click to expand...

I love that Grand Designs quote!!!


----------



## Spudlet (17 August 2012)

The time to object about the Olympics was when the bid was being formulated - not now, after it's all over. It's over for goodness sake! Now rather than whining here, why don't you put your considerable, if negative, energy into something constructive for the community you claim to care about (even if you do clearly hold some of it in contempt)?


----------



## Orangehorse (17 August 2012)

The Park will recover.  We held a big event on our clay land in one wet summer and with the cars and marquee, etc. the field was completely trashed.  12 months later you couldn't see where it had been.  Old turf is very resiliant.

Watching the event on TV - it was great - I did think that it was a good thing it wasn't wet with all those people walking around.

As for the money - well it has happened now and it would have cost a lot to stage where ever it had been held.  There would have been the arena, practice facilities, stabling, security, preparation of the cross country course.

There is a "legacy" organisation, a lady spoke at a BHS conference, something to do with "hoof"????????????????  I think she was disappointed that most of us said we hadn't heard about it, although I have seen one or two articles in various magazines.
We DO know about the Ebony Club though so their marketing is obviously more successful.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (17 August 2012)

tasel said:



			cost £27 million, then it brings into perspective the £120 million spent on staging the equestrian events (which is still less expensive than the £140 million penthouse at One Hyde Park).
		
Click to expand...

Er, if you spend £140 million on a penthouse at One Hyde Park, you actually own a £140 million penthouse.  Not only the memory and pictures of a £140 million penthouse.



tasel said:



			I think the first estimate of being able to stage it for £6.2 millions was too optimistic.
		
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you like to take this up with the BEF?  To find out why they misled everyone?

I'll come back later with something on the history of Greenwich Park.  It was, and will be restored again as - God willing - the finest Baroque (a 17th dreamscape) landscape in England.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (17 August 2012)

Spudlet said:



			something constructive for the community you claim to care about
		
Click to expand...

It was I who blew the whistle on LOCOG's plans to steal mains water and electricity.  I think that that was constructive for the community I care about.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (17 August 2012)

Orangehorse said:



			The Park will recover.  We held a big event on our clay land in one wet summer and with the cars and marquee, etc. the field was completely trashed.  12 months later you couldn't see where it had been.  Old turf is very resiliant.
		
Click to expand...

I realise that it is not comfortable for you to acknowledge this but Greenwich Royal Park is a fragile, biodiverse Grade I Listed Baroque English landscape containing rare habitats and internationally protected species.  Not a field of clay.



Orangehorse said:



			As for the money - well it has happened now and it would have cost a lot to stage where ever it had been held.  There would have been the arena, practice facilities, stabling, security, preparation of the cross country course.
		
Click to expand...

If the Olympics equestrian venue had been elsewhere, you could have built a brand-new, state-of-the-art equestrian centre for less than £42 million.  And at the end of the Olympics, you would still have had a new equestrian centre, not just fading memories.



Orangehorse said:



			There is a "legacy" organisation, a lady spoke at a BHS conference, something to do with "hoof"????????????????  I think she was disappointed that most of us said we hadn't heard about it, although I have seen one or two articles in various magazines.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, it is hilarious that after all this time and money Hoof has practically nil brand recognition.



Orangehorse said:



			We DO know about the Ebony Club though so their marketing is obviously more successful.
		
Click to expand...

There are party political reasons why Ebony is better known.


----------



## SpottedCat (17 August 2012)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			If the Olympics equestrian venue had been elsewhere, you could have built a brand-new, state-of-the-art equestrian centre for less than £42 million.  And at the end of the Olympics, you would still have had a new equestrian centre, not just fading memories.
		
Click to expand...

Given the number of equestrian centres on the market, and the fact that Stoneleigh was unviable (in terms of being a long term national centre), I presume that with all your anti-Greenwich  sentiment you put your talents to good use and provided LOCOG and the BEF with a fully costed business plan for such a legacy development, showing how it would be sustained in perpetuity, and which also convinced the IOC to allow equestrian sports to remain in the Olympics if they were held outside of London? You seem extremely convinced that this is all possible, so it would be lovely to see the evidence which I am sure you gathered and put to them for this type of equestrian centre


----------



## chestnut cob (17 August 2012)

Bearskin said:



			You miserable cow.  Why not take a look at the bigger picture.  If you can't see it then you may need glasses.
		
Click to expand...

*splutter*  ROFLMAO!!

FWIW I agree.  I was one of those critics, really wasn't convinced Greenwich was the place to hold the equestrian events.  I felt they should have created a permanent facility somewhere like Stoneleigh Park.  I have Para DR tickets so will get to see the Greenwich facilities first hand but from what I've seen on TV, I was blown away.  It looks superb and I am now 100% convinced.

Don't underestimate the feel good factor.  I wasn't convinced about London 2012 as a whole but I think it was a resounding success in the end.  Everything seemed to run smoothly, the facilities looked amazing and I hope it does inspire a new generation to get involved in sport.

As for the park, grass grows.  A few horses running XC across it for a couple of days doesn't preclude that.  It will grow back.  And I'm a bit environmentalist!


----------



## Mithras (17 August 2012)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Er, if you spend £140 million on a penthouse at One Hyde Park, you actually own a £140 million penthouse.  Not only the memory and pictures of a £140 million penthouse.

Wouldn't you like to take this up with the BEF?  To find out why they misled everyone?

I'll come back later with something on the history of Greenwich Park.  It was, and will be restored again as - God willing - the finest Baroque (a 17th dreamscape) landscape in England.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure that people are capable of finding out plenty about Greenwich Park's history themselves.  Perhaps you however should do a little research into the pre-17th Century history of the area, and the purposes for which it has been used?

The thing is OP, with your aggressive posting style, your constant belittling and patronising of anyone who has the temerity to hold an alternative view ("you're not paying attention" you constantly wail), and your history of lack of actual achievement, you depict a world so depressing that I and many others simply wouldn't wish to inhabit it.  Your post title is extremely disturbing, but nevertheless prescient, in that your attitude seems dictatorial.

I am always surprised that you never fail to recgonise the irony in your constant labelling of equestrian, rural sports as elitist, when you yourself own a property in an area of the country so expensive it is out of reach for many of those you criticise for being elitist.

I think your arguement would be improved if you actually set out, in clear terms, what it is you are trying to achieve, and how likely you are to do so.  At the moment, all you seem likely to achieve, in practical terms, is a waste of taxpayer's money in dealing with your  narcisstic obsessions.  Speaking of which, just how is your judicial review application going?  Have you actually started it yet?  Perhaps you could provide a link to an independent source of information as to its progress?  Rather than simply accusing a bunch of somewhat bewildered people of all sorts of unlikely things.


----------



## imr (17 August 2012)

I can accept that OP is of the view the park should not have been used. I disagree fwiw - I think a legacy facility would likely be a white elephant, and using greenwich resulted in a games where the horses were not marooned miles out of central london, and the grass will re-grow !!!! 
However, what I cannot deal with is the conspiracy theory type lunacy talking of "master races" etc. OP - If you want to make a serious point then go ahead, but you aren't doing yourself any favours by implying without any supporting evidence there is some sort of secret network of special people who are having a laugh at everyone else's expense and have derived some sort of personal special benefits from using greenwich as this reads like the unsubstantiated ramblings of a lunatic. 
Also, its a bit late now given the olympics have happened, so maybe time to move on and think about something else....


----------



## Trolt (17 August 2012)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			I am looking at the bigger picture - the one in which UK equestrianism threw away a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have its national facilities upgraded at no cost to the sport - and, as the UK's opponents in other countries are already using their upgraded facilities, UK equestrianism is likely to weaken over the coming decade.
		
Click to expand...

We managed to get two Team Golds, a team silver, individual gold and an individual bronze in the equestrian events (or where you refusing to watch ) I'd say that those results suggest that equestrianism has managed pretty well without national facilities being upgraded. In actual fact, our equestrian results (dressage and show jumping) are the first time in years we have taken medals. So we've improved significantly without the national facilities you keep wittering on it about it, whilst other countries with these national facilities have still not been able to achieve as much as we did. I think that makes the national facility a moot point. 




Rachel Mawhood said:



			: why weren't you there for us in Greenwich, while there was still time to move the equestrian venue to Windsor, before £120 million of public money was spent and evaporated with the morning dew?

Destroyed rare habitat, site of nature conservation of metropolitan importance obliterated, mature trees damaged beyond recovery, every relevant law broken, public park used as a public "convenience" by those attending a ticket-only event, and no legacy for your sport.  For some pretty tv pictures.
		
Click to expand...

Now I understand that Greenwich is listed, so I understand you are slightly more concerned about it for this reason. I also understand that the games makers had to be very careful about work done on the course to make sure the protected trees were not damaged, they couldn't build ditches etc due to the protection. So they would have had more freedom somewhere like Windsor. 

However, surely Windsor has many different habitats, mature trees, sites of conservation (birds and deer). Windsor is not a "public park" but a home. Yet, you seem perfectly happy to suggest someone's home is opened up and "obliterated...damaged beyond recovery". 

You describe Greenwich as a "public park" ... surely then, it is fitting that such a fantastic public event was held in a public park, aiding in the removal of the elitist and private stereotype equestrianism faces.


----------



## millimoo (17 August 2012)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Do you read anything but _Horse & Hound_?  The Olympics have been an absolute disaster for the local economy and business - takings down 50%-70% - and some will not survive because it happened during what is usually the height of the tourist season.  The Old Royal Observatory's loss of visitor revenue will be in the millions.  LOCOG used National Maritime Museum facilities without paying for them, while at the same preventing the NMM earning revenue with them.
		
Click to expand...


Err?? Yes actually... and trust me, I can make my own mind up, and not just what I read - unlike you, who can only align to anything that suits your vendetta.
Regards takings, well every hotel was full. Every B&B in Greenwich agreed across the board to charge £200 per night, minimum 7 night stay, homes were made available in Greenwich for rent at extortionate rates - so sorry, but some people have done very well out of the Olympics. This is all 100% factual.
As for the Old Royal Observatory & the National Martime Museum, then yes, in the run up to, and during the Olympics I agree they will have lost revenue.
However I truly believe this will reverse ten fold in the amount of increased visitor numbers post Olympics. 
Greenwich has firmly been put on the map, and I know loads of people who always perceived it was off the beaten track, but many want to go back and enjoy what Greenwich has to offer.
Every bar, and restuarant I passed were full, and shops were capitalising on the days there were competitions, either through increased foot fall, or selling GB memorabilia.



Rachel Mawhood said:



			That is completely untrue.
		
Click to expand...

Thats only your sentiment..... get over it, because there are far more who will disagree with you



Rachel Mawhood said:



			Repairing the acid grasslands will take a decade, not a year.  It will be fifty years before the tree landscape has been restored.
		
Click to expand...

Rubbish... Greenwich in it's very nature is a managed landscape. The Olympics forms one part of its artificial journey. Come back in 5 years and prove it to us..... also remember, the park has been closed off, so hsn't had the regular foot fall from ramblers etc, so this will offset the Cross Country use




Rachel Mawhood said:



			Your sport cannot build on that profile.  You don't have the money to do so.  Greenwich was chosen for the tv pictures.  The BEF said it would cost £6.2m to stage the Olympics there.  In the event, it cost £120m, and there is no money left.  There may have to be a Parliamentary enquiry into how £42m (budgeted) became £120m (actual spend) of public money.
		
Click to expand...

The Event was NOT chosen for TV pictures alone. It was also because it was in London.
As for the overspend, well the Government had an unexpected cost of £400m alone to pay for a specialist firm to manage the costs and ensure they didn't overspend, so £120m to host the equestrian Events is a mere snip in the grand scheme of things.
Regards the underforecast, the same could be said about the whole of the Olympics not just specifically Greenwich - I am a Senior Project Manager, and the devil is in the detail, and the initial bid 7 years ago was a High level estimate. As you start to design detailed solutions for any requirements to support the Olympic bid, then of course there are going to be unforeseen costs.
Rightly, additional (and no doubt very unforeseen) costs will have come about at the Greenwich site specifically to protect and preserve the landscape. Trust me, I work with many Marketeers, and Product Owners in my proffession who have a very rose tinted glow on what they want to acheive, with an unrealistic budget. You will always find that when said detail is investigated and understood, further costs and additional needs will usually fall out.
In the case of the Olympics, there is not really an option to de-scope specifics to save on costs, as a committment has been made to the IOC, plus hidden/unknown location specific costs will also have to be met.

I really do think you should go away for 5 years, find another cause to channel you efforts, and maybe revisit the Greenwich park debate when you can provide Factual evidence of your bigoted sweeping statements.

And as for the legacy, who do you expect to fund a brand new Equestrian Facility, in a time of recession, when large established venues are for sale, or have the Receivers in.


----------



## chestnut cob (17 August 2012)

I also wonder... what is actually the point of complaining about this now?  The Olympics is over (time to get excited about the Paralympics now!), what difference does it make?!?


----------



## SusannaF (17 August 2012)

As to the "Master Race" comment 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

I'm sitting a short distance from memorials to the Nazis' victims. The use of a park for a temporary equestrian spectacle does not compare...


----------



## Elsiecat (17 August 2012)

chestnut cob said:



			I also wonder... what is actually the point of complaining about this now?  The Olympics is over (time to get excited about the Paralympics now!), what difference does it make?!?
		
Click to expand...

^this.

Lighten up.


----------



## RutlandH2O (17 August 2012)

Trolt;1099316

You describe Greenwich as a "public park" ... surely then said:
			
		


			Point well taken and beautifully expressed!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## tasel (17 August 2012)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Er, if you spend £140 million on a penthouse at One Hyde Park, you actually own a £140 million penthouse.  Not only the memory and pictures of a £140 million penthouse.
		
Click to expand...

Er, no. No penthouse should be worth that much - you don't really own the ground you're on... just the air above it. A few people just get paid too much and don't know what to do with their money




Rachel Mawhood said:



			Wouldn't you like to take this up with the BEF?  To find out why they misled everyone?

I'll come back later with something on the history of Greenwich Park.  It was, and will be restored again as - God willing - the finest Baroque (a 17th dreamscape) landscape in England.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe because BEF has never staged an event of this magnitude before? They just massively underestimated that. I don't think most equestrian events staged in the UK had to deal with the amount of people/horses/riders. Most people coming to the regular events are really into the sport, while for the Olympics, there would have been people that probably never watched an equestrian event before. I also guess there was a discrepancy in what the BEF envisioned and the large-scale event LOCOG wanted.

In any case, I don't really care much about the "baroque features" of Greenwich Park. The last time I was there, it looked just like any other park with trees and the dry grass in the summer. I wished it always had the green grass it had during the Olympics. It's only the buildings that set it apart. I understand the value of preserving old things, but truth is times change, places change... and I think you have to live with that. If that wasn't the case, life would be boring.

I think you also mentioned that the hard ground or something was to blame for the Brits not winning gold. Eventing is not just cross country. It has dressage and show jumping, too. The "hard ground" isn't to blame for the Germans winning.


----------



## tasel (17 August 2012)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Er, if you spend £140 million on a penthouse at One Hyde Park, you actually own a £140 million penthouse.  Not only the memory and pictures of a £140 million penthouse.
		
Click to expand...

Er, no. No penthouse should be worth that much - you don't really own the ground you're on... just the air above it. A few people just get paid too much and don't know what to do with their money




Rachel Mawhood said:



			Wouldn't you like to take this up with the BEF?  To find out why they misled everyone?

I'll come back later with something on the history of Greenwich Park.  It was, and will be restored again as - God willing - the finest Baroque (a 17th dreamscape) landscape in England.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe because BEF has never staged an event of this magnitude before? They just massively underestimated that. I don't think most equestrian events staged in the UK had to deal with the amount of people/horses/riders. Most people coming to the regular events are really into the sport, while for the Olympics, there would have been people that probably never watched an equestrian event before. I also guess there was a discrepancy in what the BEF envisioned and the large-scale event LOCOG wanted.

In any case, I don't really care much about the "baroque features" of Greenwich Park. The last time I was there, it looked just like any other park with trees and the dry grass in the summer. I wished it always had the green grass it had during the Olympics. It's only the buildings that set it apart. I understand the value of preserving old things, but truth is times change, places change... and I think you have to live with that. If that wasn't the case, life would be boring.

I think you also mentioned that the hard ground or something was to blame for the Brits not winning gold. Eventing is not just cross country. It has dressage and show jumping, too. The "hard ground" isn't to blame for the Germans winning.


----------



## Fools Motto (17 August 2012)

I'd like to see some photos of the 'damage' the Olympics has done to Greenwich. For the life of me I can't quite get to grips with 'it will take fifty years to recover'. 

Anyway, I'll let you go off and stamp your feet in frustration that we don't agree with a word you are saying. We all enjoyed it, it was and will remain a brilliant place.


----------



## PolarSkye (17 August 2012)

Know what Rachel?  You keep saying that people aren't paying attention . . . and you're absolutely right, they're not - and that isn't because you don't have a small smidgen of a point (actually you do), it's because your method of putting that point across - haranguing, belittling, being more than a little ranty and shouty - negates any sense you may be making.

Try dropping downright offensive phrases like "master race" and dismissive language like "your lot" and you get people to listen and respond to WHAT you're saying rather than how you're saying it.

That said, I still struggle to understand the point of your original post.  It may, or may not, have been folly to hold the equestrian elements of the overall Olympic competition at Greenwich . . . funds, may or may not, have been mishandled and rules may, or may not, have been ridden over roughshod . . . but it's all a bit academic now isn't it?  Is there a call to action in your rather ranty post . . . or did you just need to vent?  If the latter, then choosing to do so on this forum might have been counterproductive.

P


----------



## teapot (17 August 2012)

Fools Motto said:



			I'd like to see some photos of the 'damage' the Olympics has done to Greenwich. For the life of me I can't quite get to grips with 'it will take fifty years to recover'.
		
Click to expand...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/save_greenwich_park/sets/72157629397205479/?page=8 it really isn't that bad and it is recoverable damage. 


I bet the park itself is enjoying not having dogs pee and poo all over it which does damage to grass too  As for the NMM, the only revenue they get is from their shop and over priced cafe, the museum itself is free...


----------



## Spudlet (17 August 2012)

Part of the park was turned into allotments during the Second World War, arguably doing much more damage than a bit of browned grass, yet it does seem to have recovered. That's before we even get onto the subject of bombs. Yet it does seem to have come back right again.


----------



## lazybee (17 August 2012)

Oh no the master race have come along with their slash and burn policy on the last bit of pristine virgin rain forest in Europe. What will happen to the poor orphaned Orangutan.........................Get it into context please  

This is just a public park.


----------



## tasel (17 August 2012)

Mithras said:



			I am always surprised that you never fail to recgonise the irony in your constant labelling of equestrian, rural sports as elitist, when you yourself own a property in an area of the country so expensive it is out of reach for many of those you criticise for being elitist.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I wouldn't be able to afford to live in wonderful Greenwich. If Rachel Mawhood ever sells her house, I have to remind her that she will have to sell it for £250,000 or less to make it affordable for people. Otherwise, she's being elitist. She complains because it's "on her doorstep"... which is a far more elitist attitude to have. She finds absolutely no problem if LOCOG had done it in Windsor Park - I think that park is probably more precious than Greenwich Park in terms of wildlife. Greenwich Park is landscaped - no doubt about it. For one, the grass is always short (I guess there's a lawnmower in use), which means it's not as natural as she makes it out to be. Short grass limits wildlife by quite a bit. It's not as though the park was a meadow with lavender and other herbs growing on the ground instead of grass.


----------



## Mithras (17 August 2012)

tasel said:



			Exactly.

I wouldn't be able to afford to live in wonderful Greenwich. If Rachel Mawhood ever sells her house, I have to remind her that she will have to sell it for £250,000 or less to make it affordable for people. Otherwise, she's being elitist. She complains because it's "on her doorstep"... which is a far more elitist attitude to have. She finds absolutely no problem if LOCOG had done it in Windsor Park - I think that park is probably more precious than Greenwich Park in terms of wildlife. Greenwich Park is landscaped - no doubt about it. For one, the grass is always short (I guess there's a lawnmower in use), which means it's not as natural as she makes it out to be. Short grass limits wildlife by quite a bit. It's not as though the park was a meadow with lavender and other herbs growing on the ground instead of grass.
		
Click to expand...

You can find out quite easily this information by googling the OP's name.  Its in the public domain.  The OP owns a valuable property, despite her derogatory comments about elitism in equestrianism.

I also note that the OP is perhaps a slightly older person, who I would surmise has little experience of life outwith the urban boundaries she has so far experienced.  Perhaps a little empathy towards the rights and needs of other persons and an understanding of the need to encompass change would lead also to greater understanding on her part.  Since she is so keen on convincing others to adopt her views.


----------



## Superhot (17 August 2012)

Can I just say that those responsible for the venue did their utmost to cause as little damage as possible to the park.  Special foundations were laid for the exercise gallops, warm up arenas and the actual main arena.  Having this event at Greenwich has truly put the wonderful place in the worldwide arena.  Visitors to this country will want to include Greenwich in their itinerary.  Wildlife has coped very well.  There were plenty of parakeets and squirrels around.  The local business community have also gained from the increased footfall, so I honestly don't think there is any real justification for trying to put a damper on such a wonderful occasion...


----------



## tasel (17 August 2012)

Mithras said:



			You can find out quite easily this information by googling the OP's name.  Its in the public domain.  The OP owns a valuable property, despite her derogatory comments about elitism in equestrianism.

I also note that the OP is perhaps a slightly older person, who I would surmise has little experience of life outwith the urban boundaries she has so far experienced.  Perhaps a little empathy towards the rights and needs of other persons and an understanding of the need to encompass change would lead also to greater understanding on her part.  Since she is so keen on convincing others to adopt her views.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, it's actually amazing what you can find out online these days. After reading your message, I tried and actually got an address!!!  Thank God, I'm not as visible!

She is an older person (nothing bad about that)... but I have had a problem before with people her age who were just settled in their way and were opposed to change their views (to the point where I wanted to shake and slap them - which I boviously didn't do).


----------



## Swirlymurphy (17 August 2012)

PolarSkye said:



			Know what Rachel?  You keep saying that people aren't paying attention . . . and you're absolutely right, they're not - and that isn't because you don't have a small smidgen of a point (actually you do), it's because your method of putting that point across - haranguing, belittling, being more than a little ranty and shouty - negates any sense you may be making.

Try dropping downright offensive phrases like "master race" and dismissive language like "your lot" and you get people to listen and respond to WHAT you're saying rather than how you're saying it.

That said, I still struggle to understand the point of your original post.  It may, or may not, have been folly to hold the equestrian elements of the overall Olympic competition at Greenwich . . . funds, may or may not, have been mishandled and rules may, or may not, have been ridden over roughshod . . . but it's all a bit academic now isn't it?  Is there a call to action in your rather ranty post . . . or did you just need to vent?  If the latter, then choosing to do so on this forum might have been counterproductive.

P
		
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^

This.  Couldn't have put it better myself.


----------



## Penny Less (17 August 2012)

sorry not au fait with original thread re this but whats with the "stealing water and electricity" bit ?


----------



## cptrayes (17 August 2012)

teapot said:



			Cptrayes - if you think that's too much for a venue, what about the cost of the Olympic Park? Is that not a success despite it costing far more than Greenwich? Moreover, for the most part is actually only temporary (the hockey pitches will be removed, the sides of the aquatic centre are going and the entire waterpolo venue is again only temporary). Also pretty sure the very top of the stadium will be taken down too...
		
Click to expand...

The Olympic Park is still there. The Equestrian facility will be removed. If it had been somewhere else it could have been left as a lasting legacy.

The Olympic Park hosted sports accessible to everyone. However they try to dress it up, the Equestrian sports are accessible only to an elite minority and it's no way to spend tax payers money, IMO

You can tell that by the fuss they made interviewing Charlotte's Mum to prove she just came from an ordinary background. They stressed it over and over. Ordinary? Who are they kidding, she showed ponies at HOYS and Olympia as a child.


----------



## cptrayes (17 August 2012)

Spudlet said:



			Part of the park was turned into allotments during the Second World War, arguably doing much more damage than a bit of browned grass, yet it does seem to have recovered. That's before we even get onto the subject of bombs. Yet it does seem to have come back right again.
		
Click to expand...

No wonder Rachael uses inflammatory language if she is seriously up against people who are comparing growing food in order not to starve to death 60 years ago with wanting to watch a few people prancing around on horses in 2012  

Why is everyone attacking her as if she has said the GB Equestrian team were rubbish riders who didn't deserve their medals?  Surely she has a perfectly valid point that if the Olympics had been held somewhere else there would now be an additional wonderful world class facility somewhere in the country.


----------



## Bestdogdash (17 August 2012)

Rachel, Rachel - get over it and move on! Think of all the sandals you have to knit before your delicious lentil supper, presumably cooked on a Tibetan oven fuelled by yak oil. It's a bit of grass in a park - it will grow back so you can presumably anchor your backside once again on its manicured lawns, without having to see any one having a good time for a change. Why not pester the Guardian readership about this instead of us ? At the very least you can all be narrow minded NIMBYS together ? 

(NB; have changed my position on the insults - as she clearly doesn't respect anyone's views but her own,  disappointing, but not unexpected)


----------



## cefyl (17 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			You can tell that by the fuss they made interviewing Charlotte's Mum to prove she just came from an ordinary background. They stressed it over and over. Ordinary? Who are they kidding, she showed ponies at HOYS and Olympia as a child.
		
Click to expand...

Yes ordinary.  

Since when did showing ponies at HOYS and Olympia come with a prerequisite of a wealthy, priviliged, or whatever background you imply with that remark?  

My first HOYS was as an ordinary child from an ordinary (and most definately not wealthy) background was on an Irish bred 13.00hh of unknown breeding who qualified numerous times for HOYS.  We took him down in a trailer, and old single pony wooden one at that.  And not that was not pre war, I am not that old!  We went onto qualify and compete at HOYS, Olympia, etc for over 2 decades as an ordinary family, from an ordinary background with ponies, hacks, and hunters.

You may wish to research the  background of many famous British equestrians, some riders, and some top judges (dressage / Olympic ) to see they too come from very ordinary  backgrounds.


----------



## mtj (17 August 2012)

Bestdogdash said:



			Rachel, Rachel - get over it and move on! Think of all the sandals you have to knit before your delicious lentil supper, presumably cooked on a Tibetan oven fuelled by yak oil. It's a bit of grass in a park - it will grow back so you can presumably anchor your backside once again on its manicured lawns, without having to see any one having a good time for a change. Why not pester the Guardian readership about this instead of us ? At the very least you can all be narrow minded NIMBYS together ? 

(NB; have changed my position on the insults - as she clearly doesn't respect anyone's views but her own,  disappointing, but not unexpected)
		
Click to expand...

Oi!
I'm a Guardian reader and think its those that read the Telegraph, Mail and Express that have  a problem....


----------



## cefyl (17 August 2012)

Mithras - as the legal beagle on HHO.  Is RM treading on thin ice here with racist implied comments on "master race", and libellous claims of theft (electricity and whatever)?


----------



## cptrayes (17 August 2012)

cefyl said:



			Yes ordinary.  

Since when did showing ponies at HOYS and Olympia come with a prerequisite of a wealthy, priviliged, or whatever background you imply with that remark?  

My first HOYS was as an ordinary child from an ordinary (and most definately not wealthy) background was on an Irish bred 13.00hh of unknown breeding who qualified numerous times for HOYS.  We took him down in a trailer, and old single pony wooden one at that.  And not that was not pre war, I am not that old!  We went onto qualify and compete at HOYS, Olympia, etc for over 2 decades as an ordinary family, from an ordinary background with ponies, hacks, and hunters.

You may wish to research the  background of many famous British equestrians, some riders, and some top judges (dressage / Olympic ) to see they too come from very ordinary  backgrounds.
		
Click to expand...



You think ordinary families can trailer a pony/hack/hunter and themselves to HOYS? You definition of ordinary is very different from mine. Just being able to own a pony at all marks you out as not "ordinary" in my book, never mind afford the fuel, entry fees and kit to show it to qualify for and then attend HOYS.

Ordinary families are busy working to feed and cloth the kids. Ordinary families have brothers and sisters who don't love horses so any spare money has to be shared fairly among them all, not dedicated to one passtime. I came from an ordinary family. My father could just about afford to let me have a riding lesson once every other week. Buying, feeding, keeping a pony? No chance.

None of the Olympians were ordinary people, whatever their roots; they were professionals riding horses worth millions of pounds a piece. It is my view that there was no justification for spending huge amounts of public money on the Equestrian events, and especially not sponsoring the teams to the tune of millions of £s over the last few years with lottery money, which is paid disproportionately by the people in society who can least afford it. 

Put that together with the tiny proportion of Nations which can participate in those events at all; the overwhelming domination of white races, and the whole thing hardly lives up to the Olympic ideal.


I still think our teams were brilliant, though, just that it shouldn't be included in the Olympics. But since it was, it was great to see how well they did.


----------



## stencilface (17 August 2012)

Superhot said:



			There were plenty of parakeets and squirrels around....
		
Click to expand...

Aha, those well documented native species    D


----------



## mtj (17 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			You think ordinary families can trailer a pony/hack/hunter and themselves to HOYS? You definition of ordinary is very different from mine. Just being able to own a pony at all marks you out as not "ordinary" in my book, never mind afford the fuel, entry fees and kit to show it to qualify for and then attend HOYS.

Ordinary families are busy working to feed and cloth the kids. Ordinary families have brothers and sisters who don't love horses so any spare money has to be shared fairly among them all, not dedicated to one passtime. I came from an ordinary family. My father could just about afford to let me have a riding lesson once every other week. Buying, feeding, keeping a pony? No chance.

None of the Olympians were ordinary people, whatever their roots; they were professionals riding horses worth millions of pounds a piece. It is my view that there was no justification for spending huge amounts of public money on the Equestrian events, and especially not sponsoring the teams to the tune of millions of £s over the last few years with lottery money, which is paid disproportionately by the people in society who can least afford it. 

Put that together with the tiny proportion of Nations which can participate in those events at all; the overwhelming domination of white races, and the whole thing hardly lives up to the Olympic ideal.


I still think our teams were brilliant, though, just that it shouldn't be included in the Olympics. But since it was, it was great to see how well they did.
		
Click to expand...

I'm with cefyl on this one.

I've known a number of children and adults successfully compete on very modest means.  

Carl Hester has to be the obvious example of someone who has managed to succeed without family financial backing.

Finance is only part of the equation.  Successful junior competitors have committed parents  , rather than exclusively wealthy.  For the record, I have parents who did provide me with   a pony on grass keep.  But they certainly did not want to spend every weekend traipsing around shows etc.


----------



## Mithras (17 August 2012)

cefyl said:



			Mithras - as the legal beagle on HHO.  Is RM treading on thin ice here with racist implied comments on "master race", and libellous claims of theft (electricity and whatever)?
		
Click to expand...

Oh I'm not "The" Legal Beagle - there are many of us on here!  But in answer to your question, I don't think she is, quite.  Certainly her use of language seems designed to be offensive and segregational, but she hasn't really linked it to any one particular race or ethnicity.  And libel is difficult and expensive to enforce in practise, so you couldn't say whether or not she has been libellous until a court action weighed up the evidence and came to a decision.  tbh I'm not too sure whether anyone would really take her seriously, because her offensive use of language is going to come up in any searches on her name and forever be linked to her.

What I have repeatedly asked the OP is whether she has initiated judicial review of the planning decision yet, as this is the appropriate democratic mechanism for challenging decisions of this nature deemed to be unfair.  I am as yet in the dark.

I am holding back in my replies because I think it is obvious from her writing that she is not to be taken too seriously and may have problems which mean she deserves sympathy, however offensive and rude her comments may be.

I'm sure she will be back on here however to point out how we should all agree with her superior wisdom and knowledge of the matter!


----------



## D66 (17 August 2012)

Another one who isn't sure of the phrase, "master race". It seems wildly OTT for this context.  Rachel may well have a point but it's difficult to tell if she is trying to persuade/convert us to the cause or if she is berating us for allowing it to happen. People "who live in the country" and "horse riders" are not a different race from Londoners. I don't remember being given a choice in where the games were held, I don't feel responsible for the decision and I don't understand what Rachel is hoping to achieve by giving HHOers grief.

FWIW I was born in Greenwich and my Granny lived round a couple of corners from RM, and I used to take the kids to play in the park when they were little.


----------



## tasel (17 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			No wonder Rachael uses inflammatory language if she is seriously up against people who are comparing growing food in order not to starve to death 60 years ago with wanting to watch a few people prancing around on horses in 2012  

Click to expand...

Ehm, sorry... But I agree with  she had a point, too, you know. 

Fact is, the OP is using the argument that because Greenwich Park is meant to be a place where the ground shouldn't be stirred because wildlife or artifacts will be disturbed. But wouldn't these things have been disturbed previously by what happened around WW2 and the amount of people who visit Greenwich Park even without the Olympics taking place? It's quite a busy park, you know...


----------



## PolarSkye (17 August 2012)

digger66 said:



			Another one who isn't sure of the phrase, "master race". It seems wildly OTT for this context.  Rachel may well have a point but it's difficult to tell if she is trying to persuade/convert us to the cause or if she is berating us for allowing it to happen. People "who live in the country" and "horse riders" are not a different race from Londoners. I don't remember being given a choice in where the games were held, I don't feel responsible for the decision and I don't understand what Rachel is hoping to achieve by giving HHOers grief.

FWIW I was born in Greenwich and my Granny lived round a couple of corners from RM, and I used to take the kids to play in the park when they were little.
		
Click to expand...

Well said.  Just because I ride/own a horse and watched/supported our Olympic equestrian athletes, doesn't mean I had anything to do with the decision to hold the event in Greenwich . . . ditto pretty much everyone else here on HHO.  I'm guessing the only reason Rachel is targeting us is because we are a "captive audience" and, in her eyes at least, are representative of the "your lot" she is so angry with.  She's wrong.

P


----------



## tasel (17 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			Put that together with the tiny proportion of Nations which can participate in those events at all; the overwhelming domination of white races, and the whole thing hardly lives up to the Olympic ideal.


I still think our teams were brilliant, though, just that it shouldn't be included in the Olympics. But since it was, it was great to see how well they did.
		
Click to expand...

This is a very UK-biased point of view. Riding lessons are much cheaper in Germany, and kids regularly go to week-long pony camps without their own ponies for less than GBP200. Blame the UK (ever-increasing houseprices & labour, the 50s/60s generation robbing the younger ones of their hard-earned money). Anyway, you can't transfer one country's elitist sport to another on a larger scale. If you think about it, Gauchos in Argentina or nomads in Mongolia are not generally wealthy, but they CAN ride. It's just that the horses needed to ride in the Olympics typically are bred from European lines, and without such a horse, you can't really do the Olympics.

If you think we can't have riding because it's elitist, and not every country participates, we also have to cancel sailing, and we may as well cancel the * Winter Olympics * altogether. Winter Sports are very unattainable to most people on this planet.


----------



## stencilface (17 August 2012)

tasel said:



			If you think we can't have riding because it's elitist, and not every country participates, we also have to cancel sailing, and we may as well cancel the * Winter Olympics [\b] altogether. Winter Sports are very unattainable to most people on this planet.*

Click to expand...

*

You mean you don't go down to your local bobsled track to practise? *


----------



## teapot (17 August 2012)

Stencilface said:



			You mean you don't go down to your local bobsled track to practise? 

Click to expand...

And ski to work 5 days a week


----------



## tasel (17 August 2012)

Stencilface said:



			You mean you don't go down to your local bobsled track to practise? 

Click to expand...

Lol. Wouldn't even know where to find one. Oh well, the UK made do with Eddie The Eagle, so may as well start training for the Winter Olympics now!!


----------



## stencilface (17 August 2012)

Yes, I think its important to remember that whilst we're pretty hot in general, and esp at the minute in the horse world, germany, sweden who are no slouches on horseback, and other northern european nations are PISTES ahead of us when it comes to the winter games


----------



## cptrayes (17 August 2012)

tasel said:



			Ehm, sorry... But I agree with  she had a point, too, you know. 

Fact is, the OP is using the argument that because Greenwich Park is meant to be a place where the ground shouldn't be stirred because wildlife or artifacts will be disturbed. But wouldn't these things have been disturbed previously by what happened around WW2 and the amount of people who visit Greenwich Park even without the Olympics taking place? It's quite a busy park, you know...
		
Click to expand...



You REALLY think what happened there 60 years ago when people were struggling to get enough to eat counts towards your argument? Just shows how weak your argument must be, IMO.


----------



## cptrayes (17 August 2012)

tasel said:



			If you think we can't have riding because it's elitist, and not every country participates, we also have to cancel sailing, and we may as well cancel the * Winter Olympics * altogether. Winter Sports are very unattainable to most people on this planet.
		
Click to expand...

no, we don't have to cancel sailing. A boat costs very little to buy and even less to maintain if you have a big enough garden to park a little dinghy in. Most kids in this country live close enough to the sea or a reservoir to sail if they want to. 

Winter sports? But that's a whole different Olympics, and I agree with you. Thank goodness we don't have anywhere with enough snow in it in this country to even think of hosting it.

The Olympics as a whole is nothing but a giant advertisement. The whole thing  lost its way when it stopped being for amateurs only. Now, it is simply an alternative World Championships for a bunch of extremely wealthy world class athletes, and a nice holiday for some worth hangers-on.


----------



## ReefingsDad (17 August 2012)

Dammit.

I still think Greenwich was the wrong location, and then I look around and see who I'm standing with.

Bugger.


----------



## Pebble101 (17 August 2012)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			open every day of tsihe year since 1820 until your lot took it over totalitarian-fashion for the Olympics




			I had some sympathy with your views but I am not going to read any more of your rantings with comments like this.

Common sense should tell you that 'us lot' had no more say in where it was than you, and you certainly shouted loud enough.

You are doing no good for your cause with snide and abusive remarks - I now don't trust anything you say, I just have you down as some hysterical woman with a chip on both shoulders.

And on a final note, I know someone who waitresses in a restaurant near there - she made more in tips in 4 hours than she would normally make in a week so presumably not all businesses were losing money.
		
Click to expand...



Click to expand...


----------



## Aperchristmastree (17 August 2012)

OP you are honestly ranting at the wrong people.  Nobody asked the equestrian world at large if they wanted it in Greenwich, and actually most people I talked to prior to the games were against having it there.  

The grass issue is a non issue.  I live very close to the glastonbury festival site, that gets more of a pounding than you can possibly imagine.  Within 3-4 months it is green and beautiful again.  The same can be said for my field after winter.  Grass recovers astonishingly quickly.  If there is an acidity problem (which is definitely worse at the festival site for reasons you can imagine) it is easily dealt with by anyone who knows the slightest thing about grass management.  Just because you don't know how to help ground recover doesn't mean the rest of us don't.  Trust us, we're professionals 

I definitely agree with you on the tree front though.  I have family in Greenwich and they are distraught about the amount of trees that were cut down.  This is a more long term issue and a regrettable one.

Could you please clarify your comments about "stealing" water and electricity?  Not entirely sure how that works.

Just to reiterate:  You are yelling at the wrong people.  We have no influence over these events, funnily enough, as most of us are just normal recreational riders.  I also find your comments about the "master race" extremely offensive and inappropriate.  This may be important to you but comparing us to the Nazi regime is OTT and hideously wrong.  I repeat, this was not our decision.


----------



## tasel (17 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			You REALLY think what happened there 60 years ago when people were struggling to get enough to eat counts towards your argument? Just shows how weak your argument must be, IMO.
		
Click to expand...

Ha! Then you obviously don't know about how to assess an argument. What happened there ages back set a precedence. You have to look at in a scientific way. It doesn't matter whether ground was dug up due to people starving or for the Olympics. But in both instances, the grounds of Greenwich Park were impacted. The OP threatens that the landscape may never recover. But it did back then, so why shouldn't it this time round? If you find an answer to that question, we can talk about the validity of my argument again.

How often have you frequented Greenwich Park in summers outside of the Olympics? As mentioned numerous times, this was already a landscaped garden, not some rambling countryside meadow that does need a while to settle. It's grass. The sort that grows in my back garden, and becomes a jungle without me having to do anything to it at all. I'm sure the one at Greenwich Park, a lawn mower regularly runs over the grass, and I often planted my bum on the OP's beloved grass frequently... which hardly ever looked green in the summer, but rather golden brown due to hundreds of people walking over it - Londoners and tourists going up the hill to the Meridian line.


----------



## Bryndu (17 August 2012)

DAMMN...has she gone?
I missed it all!
Now..Mrs I live in Greenwich....an antagonistic start eh? Eat some of your own corn...

The REAL reason that the horsey games were held in London and not in one of the excellent equine facilities around the country...was that the FEI were given an unlimatum from the OOC...deliver the games IN London....or you are out...period.
Me I should have liked them in Hyde Park.....excellent for the tube....and home to the Countryside March.....
You tell us about almost theft of water.....you tell us of outside toilet use....please direct us to the youtube footage.....websites which there must be to read/see these things for ourselves.....not calling what you say untrue...but you are shouting at us...so now back it up....
Oh...and this bleedin' the taxpayer.....I AM A TAXPAYER....they are not a seperate part of society....
And re the whole 'master race' slur...you really ought to be ashamed to put something like that in writing.....and just to show you how 'superior' I can be:
When I want your opionion.....I shall tell you what it is.....

And yes I did campaign against the Greenwich site......but sometimes you lose.....

Bryndu.


----------



## rachel_s (17 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			no, we don't have to cancel sailing. A boat costs very little to buy and even less to maintain if you have a big enough garden to park a little dinghy in. Most kids in this country live close enough to the sea or a reservoir to sail if they want to. 

Winter sports? But that's a whole different Olympics, and I agree with you. Thank goodness we don't have anywhere with enough snow in it in this country to even think of hosting it.

The Olympics as a whole is nothing but a giant advertisement. The whole thing  lost its way when it stopped being for amateurs only. Now, it is simply an alternative World Championships for a bunch of extremely wealthy world class athletes, and a nice holiday for some worth hangers-on.
		
Click to expand...

Just to note, I grew up in the middle of the country.  Sailing would have been extortionate for my parents ( nearest reservoir was about 15 miles away and the best one for sailing was a good hour).  I did have ponies - grass kept on local farmers property. Admittedly I didnt do HOYs or anything remotely impressive competition wise mainly because that wasn't my thing. BUT equestrian sports were easier and cheaper than sailing or even athletics simply because of where I lived ( and the fact my school was not into sports).  If I grew up in Devon, chances are I'd have gone surfing at some point, peak district - climbing.  Some sports are done by local facilities and how good they are.  I grew up in a very horsey area - had I grown up where I was actually born, horses would simply have remained on the tv and an unreal dream as my family is non horsey.


----------



## Karran (17 August 2012)

I skimmed this but just want to point out that as someone born and raised in Greenwich, who worked in the Maritime Museum for four years and a rider.

That A) There are NO riding schools in Greenwich, unless you count the RDA group, the nearest yard is either across the water in Mudchute, or in Lewisham.

B) When I was at school, we used to Compete London Schools competitions with Ebony Riding club, in fact we were the only two groups that came from organisations that were not attached to private schools and didn't complain about being made to use ponies other than what they were used too (perhaps one of the reasons we used to win, both of us were used to a variety of riding school ponies!) They are a wonderful organisation and deserve everything they get from this legacy, although I'd like to see more done rather than a rumour of this new site in Shooters Hill, which if true I am not convinced about logistically.

I was against the Park being used but having walked through the park on my way to work most days, I have been aware of the care that's being taken of the site. I have a friend who is a park gardener and he says and showed me, that some of the trees removed were sickly or infected. They were not allowed to trim any of the trees in any other form (as much as I wished they had while trying to watch the bank/skinny combo at the bottom of the hill).

The park recovered remarkably quickly after the test event and I am confident that it will do so again. 

My friends who still work at the Maritime Museum admit its been very quiet during the Olympics however. They haven't done too well out of this but as the Museum itself has for the last two or three years been undergoing major renovation work, including the demolishment and building of a new wing, and the subsequent upheaval and removal of certain "crowdpleaser" exhibits admit that this could be a related issue and hope now that the work is done, the site will return to being busy.


----------



## Honey08 (17 August 2012)

Karran that is very interesting.  I looked at the link to the damage of the park that someone put on, and it looks pretty amazing to me.  You would never know so many people walked around the place or horses galloped over it.  I actually think that it will show the "townie" people who are worrying about their park just how good nature is at recovering..

Re the loss of income to the area, I can see that it may have lost out this summer, but it will probably boost tourism to the area in the future.  Its not an area that I would have thought of visiting, wasn't even on my radar, but it is somewhere that is definately on my list now - both to see the site where the equestrianism was and to see the museums...




imr said:



			I can accept that OP is of the view the park should not have been used. I disagree fwiw - I think a legacy facility would likely be a white elephant, and using greenwich resulted in a games where the horses were not marooned miles out of central london, and the grass will re-grow !!!! 
However, what I cannot deal with is the conspiracy theory type lunacy talking of "master races" etc. OP - If you want to make a serious point then go ahead, but you aren't doing yourself any favours by implying without any supporting evidence there is some sort of secret network of special people who are having a laugh at everyone else's expense and have derived some sort of personal special benefits from using greenwich as this reads like the unsubstantiated ramblings of a lunatic. 
Also, its a bit late now given the olympics have happened, so maybe time to move on and think about something else....
		
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree with the above - I lost all patience when you refered to me as "you lot" and muttered about master races etc.  Clear concise points would have served you better..  You just come across as hysterical.



Apercrumbie said:



			I definitely agree with you on the tree front though.  I have family in Greenwich and they are distraught about the amount of trees that were cut down.  This is a more long term issue and a regrettable one.

*Interesting, but on looking at photos of the park and seeing it on the XC it still looks like a wonderfully leafy park.*

Could you please clarify your comments about "stealing" water and electricity?  Not entirely sure how that works.

.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I would be interested to know what that was about.


----------



## Joeyjojo (17 August 2012)

I kind of have to post again on this topic - OP you haven't yet provided the source for information. 

I have a lot of trouble beliving the figure you quote of a cost of £120m without any evidence of where you obtained this information. 

Firstly is this just the money that was spent to host the Olympics and Paralympics in Greenwich? Because you can surely see that if this is the case then it is a somewhat flawed argument to say that its cost the taxpayer £120m, as you fail to take into account any of the revenue stream generated e.g. from ticket sales and merchandise. 

Secondly, given that we are only half way through, with the Paralympics still to come, how can you possibly be quoting a cost of the event? Surely this won't be know until a few weeks/months after the event itself, when the last ticket has been sold, the last programme purchased and where appropriate, the facilities used actioned off.

Finally your posts do seemingly have a tendency to exaggerate (ref 'master race') and as far as I can tell you already have some slightly dubious 'facts':



Rachel Mawhood said:



			To obtain permission for planning permission to build something equestrian on Metropolitan Open Land at the Shooter's Hill, LOCOG and the Council lied, claiming that there were no other riding schools in Greenwich.  The *fact *is that there are already three riding schools in Greenwich.
		
Click to expand...

Being a resident in Greenwich I'd sure love to know where these are....but you haven't answered tasel's question on this. I know of only one RDA centre in Greenwich but that is not the same as a riding school. So this fact is simply not true.  

So you can see how without any evidence to substantiate any of your claims I am reserving judgement on really how much damage was done to the park and the actual cost of the games.


----------



## millimoo (17 August 2012)

The arguements about accessability are a load of tosh.
Regards sailing (parents and brother sailed at Local & National level) yes at entry level is cheapish to get into.
But the higher up or involved you go, the more expensive it becomes - this applies to any sport requiring equipment, daily/weekly/annual membership fees, competition entries etc. (applies to sailing & riding as an example)
Take cycling, yes anyone can buy a bike, but if you want an easier/more competitive peice of kit its going to cost... Carbon fibre is a must and costs a fortune.
My brother took up cycling as a hobby 4 years ago. He has 3 children and money it tight. He has gradually built up his kit, and has an off road bike, a bike for commuting and his pride and joy racing / weekend jaunt bike.
Each of his bikes are worth thousands a peice - he didn't start like this, but as he became more involved, and when he started racing he moved to carbon fibre.
He also offsets the high price of fuel by commuting over 50 miles a day on his bike, so he can be forgiven for wanting to have something that will be quicker and less effort.
Getting back to Olympic specifics, cycling in the velodrome was not cheap. They have spent £97m on this, and whilst there is a legacy in terms of a venue, there will still be an entry level cost for kit, it's upkeep etc. And how many are going to use it??? A pocket of people in the South East, not a massive geographic legacy. However in terms of Olympic success, they have inspired a nation, as have all the medal winning sports - they are all there for the taking, but everyone has to start somewhere.
At top level, you could say Cycling is elitist if you look at the costs - I.e the racing suits can only be worn once at £5000 a pop, and the helmets cannot be reused after a crash at £3000 each. The basic bike is £15k. The following link is a true eye opener...
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/olympics/4476286/Chris-Hoy-wonder-bike.html

Back to Equestrian activities at the Olympics... Well again, everyone has to start somewhere. And yes, some will start on a higher rung of the ladder, but thats life, and applies to every walk of life.
As a child my parents could never afford a pony for me, and could only afford a lesson once a fortnight. However I got off my backside, worked at the local riding school, and found 2 ponies in my teenage years, sitting in fields without riders. Even with little money it can be done, and if you are committed, and work hard, you make your own opportunities... Probably more so if it's not handed to you on a plate.

Back to the park, it's done now... Get over it, enjoy the success of Team GB. 
Your ramblings are mean spirited, and against the very nature of the London Olympics. The park is not yours, and will recover, and looking at the photos of said 'damage', well I've seen worse conditions from general use from day to day wear and tear of people.
Can't be bothered anymore... She can't admit she was wrong, and refuses to accept others opinions, tomthe point of being rude to the Equestrian community, who's contributions (that take many formats) help support our riders at Greenwich.


----------



## rhino (18 August 2012)

millimoo said:



			Get over it, enjoy the success of Team GB. 
Your ramblings are mean spirited, and against the very nature of the London Olympics.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this, but the attitude demonstrated on here is hardly surprising when she retweeted such 'gems' as this during the Olympics




			Love the way fat people in Mobility scooters are shouting "we've won 20 golds!!" WE?
		
Click to expand...

What a sad, bitter attitude. 

Huge well done to all the athletes, from every country, but especially us Brits  Tremendous achievements!

Also agree that no sport at top level is cheap, I ran and fenced competitively as a child, my father used to canoe, and my sister and her OH are both triathletes. Think my pony works out cheaper than any of that! My brother is into motor racing and I'm not even going to start with that


----------



## madmav (18 August 2012)

If Greenwich pubs and bars are feeling the loss of usual summer trade because of the Olympics, all of London is feeling that pain. It will pass.
And as for the park being used as an 'outside toilet' because of equestrian events (horses or humans?), think how much less wee that grass has had to endure thanks to not having to entertain late-night revellers from all those bars and pubs...And dog pee, too. None of that.
Tell that original poster, it will all be fine. London, its parks and people are built of sturdy stuff. They have coped with much, much worse.
It was a beautifully managed event, all of the London Olympics. Did us proud. Far too expensive, but, it's spent now. Let's just enjoy the glow.


----------



## EstherYoung (18 August 2012)

ps Rachel at the end of October I'm (hopefully) running my first half marathon. Over 18,500 people will be running through Greenwich Park, with accompanying spectators, as they have for the last few years for this event. I believe they are even going to have a live music event stage in the park. I note you haven't been kicking up a fuss about that. The park gets used. It's what it's there for.


----------



## Sleighfarer (18 August 2012)

Rachel doesn't care who she offends in her quest to be right. I believe Nogoe and she parted company after these unfortunate proclamations:

http://853blog.com/tag/rachel-mawhood/

(This is from a Greenwich blog).

I attended the events in the park over five days and I certainly did not see anybody using it as a toilet. Is she seriously suggesting people were not using the facilities? Perhaps I have misunderstood and she means it figuratively. Or perhaps she is referring to the temporary toilets that are there


----------



## Nollaig Shona (18 August 2012)

cefyl said:



			Mithras - as the legal beagle on HHO.  Is RM treading on thin ice here with racist implied comments on "master race", and libellous claims of theft (electricity and whatever)?
		
Click to expand...

There is a law on teh internetz where the first person to call someone a Nazi during an argument is the loser of said argument.  I assume the OP used the term "Master Race" in order to get around that law.

I don't know London at all, aside from what you see on telly, and having watched the Olympics on TV I was thinking it'd be nice to pop across and have a mooch around and see the place live and in person.  Not sure I want to bother now, if the OP is any reflection of the locals


----------



## Joeyjojo (18 August 2012)

Cappuccino said:



			There is a law on teh internetz where the first person to call someone a Nazi during an argument is the loser of said argument.  I assume the OP used the term "Master Race" in order to get around that law.

I don't know London at all, aside from what you see on telly, and having watched the Olympics on TV I was thinking it'd be nice to pop across and have a mooch around and see the place live and in person.  Not sure I want to bother now, if the OP is any reflection of the locals
		
Click to expand...

I can assure you she is not - I live in Greenwich and I highly recommend a visit. Its a beautiful place with lots of lovely things to see and eat with the market, Rhodes bakery, Black Vanilla (OMG amazing ice cream) and loads of lovely restaurants. 

To give a better example of Greenwich hospitality, during the Olympics my neighbor set up a stall outside her house to provide *free* drinks and biscuits to the thousands of visitors walking past going to Greenwich train station. I thought that was absolutely lovely of them. The church at the end of my road was doing the same thing - just to brighten up the life of those who'd either traveled a long way or were about to.


----------



## lilyoftheincas (18 August 2012)

I live very near to Greenwich and have been going the park from a very young age. As a Greenwich Park lover and an avid equestrian I've loved every single minute of the Olympics at Greenwich. It has not only raised the profile of equestrianism in London so much more but has also got lots of people, who were not necessarily fans before, involved and engaged in watching the equestrian action. 

And please, take a look at the bigger picture before you start stereotyping. Why not pop along to Ebony Horse Club in Brixton? 
There's nothing I hate more than inverted snobbery.



Rachel Mawhood said:



			To obtain permission for planning permission to build something equestrian on Metropolitan Open Land at the Shooter's Hill, LOCOG and the Council lied, claiming that there were no other riding schools in Greenwich.  The fact is that there are already three riding schools in Greenwich.
		
Click to expand...

Would love to see those! Nearest riding school to me is a half an hour drive away....


----------



## cptrayes (18 August 2012)

rachel_s said:



			Just to note, I grew up in the middle of the country.  Sailing would have been extortionate for my parents
		
Click to expand...

I said most, not all.


----------



## cptrayes (18 August 2012)

tasel said:



			Ha! Then you obviously don't know about how to assess an argument. What happened there ages back set a precedence. You have to look at in a scientific way. It doesn't matter whether ground was dug up due to people starving or for the Olympics.
		
Click to expand...


I don't know how to assess an argument? 

What happened 60 years ago set a precedent for digging up Greenwich park in order to feed starving people. I hardly think it sets a precedent for using it over half a century later for a sport that could have easily, and arguably better, been held elsewhere. If you do, then I don't really think that it's me having a problem with assessing an argument.


I am not the slightest bit interested in whether Greenwich can be happily restored. I am only interested in a phenomenal amount of taxpayer and lottery money to develop something which, because of the location chosen, will be completely eradicated.

It makes no sense.


But I do agree with everyone who says that the OP has been pretty hysterical in her posts


----------



## Sven (18 August 2012)

I think what is done is done whatever the rights and wrongs. The overspend perhaps can be attributed to the care given not to damage the park too much, it will recover. Which is more than can be said about the damage HS2 will do, now that is a cause to take up!


----------



## tasel (18 August 2012)

Seafarer said:



			Rachel doesn't care who she offends in her quest to be right. I believe Nogoe and she parted company after these unfortunate proclamations:

http://853blog.com/tag/rachel-mawhood/

Click to expand...

^^ THIS was SHOCKING. Just goes to show what nutcase the OP is, and not to be taken seriously. She's a troll, guys...


----------



## tasel (18 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			I am not the slightest bit interested in whether Greenwich can be happily restored. I am only interested in a phenomenal amount of taxpayer and lottery money to develop something which, because of the location chosen, will be completely eradicated.

It makes no sense.


But I do agree with everyone who says that the OP has been pretty hysterical in her posts 

Click to expand...

OK. I myself was referring mostly to OP's argument that Greenwich Park and its "diverse" wildlife would be impacted, etc.

You have a point with the costs. BUT even if the event was held in Windsor Park (which I guess would have been great, too, as the rowing was held nearby), you can't be sure how much this would have cost the tax payers. The Olympics is way bigger than the European Championships held there a few years ago.

* Anyone knowing anything about project management... hardly anything gets done at the estimated cost. * Someone has pointed out Grand Designs, and that you take the estimate, then triple it. My OH works in software - where, if you think about it superficially, costs shouldn't escalate as much as they do on a building site. But the truth is that even in software, only 33% of projects actually get completed at the estimated cost. The rest goes way, way above it.

That's life. As much as you try to predict and estimate, there will be things you didn't think of, etc. that can easily drive up the cost. You can estimate the cost of keeping a horse or a car... and if said horse has a stupid injury or the car has a mechanical problem unexpectedly, that cost can easily double.


----------



## Pebble101 (18 August 2012)

Sven said:



			I think what is done is done whatever the rights and wrongs. The overspend perhaps can be attributed to the care given not to damage the park too much, it will recover. Which is more than can be said about the damage HS2 will do, now that is a cause to take up!
		
Click to expand...

OP won't care about that - she is a classic NIMBY.


----------



## Joeyjojo (18 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			I am not the slightest bit interested in whether Greenwich can be happily restored. I am only interested in a phenomenal amount of taxpayer and lottery money to develop something which, because of the location chosen, will be completely eradicated.

It makes no sense.
		
Click to expand...

I think where I disagree is the fundamental assumption that, if the Olympics had been held elsewhere, we would have had a permanent facility. What would we have done with a stadium seating 23,000? Its unlikely that this facility would have been kept following the games (at most of the big eventing meets the arena is temporary) and hey we've got a portable stadium, that if we should need to, can be donated to another site. The same goes for the cross country course - its not like the same course would be used again. Plus the benefit of Greenwich was that the course couldn't be dug into the ground so can be moved to another venue and the value not lost. 

Also equestrian people sometimes forget that there are other benefits to holding the event in Greenwich rather than a rural location. Firstly the positive environmental impact of the majority of the visitors travelling by public transport rather than car. Secondly Greenwich is a very populated area, with lots of businesses, which has been bought to the public's attention following the Olympics. The impact of improved tourism in years to come will boost the economy and therefore generate far more revenue for the tax payer than if the event was held in the middle of the country side. 

Finally it achieved what LOCOG set out to do - which was prove that the equestrian Olympics could be held in the heart of the city and less than 5 miles from the main Olympic site, therefore helping to secure its place in the Olympics for years to come. This surely is the biggest positive for the sport and is the true legacy of holding equestrian Olympics in Greenwich.


----------



## cptrayes (18 August 2012)

How short of imagination people are. 

Why the need to remove a couple of hundred thousand pounds worth of arena space just because the seating isn't required?

Why can't the cross country be used again? Why couldn't Burleigh or Blenheim or Badminton have been used in the first place?

I honestly doubt that the area will benefit much in terms of increased tourist numbers from any aftermath of the games. We'll have to see.

Is the sailing going to be discontinued then, because it took place in Weymouth and nowhere near London?  

Sorry, none of your arguments hack it for me.


----------



## teapot (18 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			Why can't the cross country be used again? Why couldn't Burleigh or Blenheim or Badminton have been used in the first place?
		
Click to expand...

Because they're private estates for a start and don't have decent travel infrastructure either. (Same goes for Windsor). Everyone was concerned about getting to Greenwich and AFAIK no-one had a problem. I for one found it incredibly easy, too easy in fact when I went. It's also not just the event you need to think about - holding events away from the central Games hub means accommodation needs providing, food needs providing etc etc. The beauty of Greenwich was that every rider was staying in the Park. 




			I honestly doubt that the area will benefit much in terms of increased tourist numbers from any aftermath of the games. We'll have to see.
		
Click to expand...

From my experience of just chatting in general with people in the Olympic Park and when having answered the 'so been to any other events?' question, and answering with 'yes I went to Greenwich', most of the replies I seemed to get were along the lines of 'oh wow, it looked impressive, would love to go and see college and surroundings in person'. Not to mention the massive re-launch of the National Maritime Museum and their massive advertisement project around central London.

Greenwich is a lovely part of London and attracts a fair few amount of tourists anyway, the image of the old college being broadcast about the world will only encourage more people to go. 




			Is the sailing going to be discontinued then, because it took place in Weymouth and nowhere near London?
		
Click to expand...

The Olympic sailing events have very tight conditions over where they're run. The Thames Estuary doesn't offer what Weymouth does. They'd already cut one of the sea based events for London and for 2020 and beyond, some of the sports are up for renewal as such.


----------



## Thistle (18 August 2012)

The XC jumps haven't been wasted, a number are now to be found on the course at Burghley.


----------



## PolarSkye (18 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			How short of imagination people are. 

Why can't the cross country be used again? Why couldn't Burleigh or Blenheim or Badminton have been used in the first place?
		
Click to expand...

Because LOCOG was told the games had to be in LONDON . . . if memory serves Burghley is near Stamford in Lincolnshire, Blenheim is in Oxfordshire and Badminton is in Wiltshire (although I might have got that one wrong) . . . in any event, none of them are near enough to London to count as being IN London.  




			I honestly doubt that the area will benefit much in terms of increased tourist numbers from any aftermath of the games. We'll have to see.
		
Click to expand...

Watching it made me want to go to Greenwich.  I've been back in the UK for 12 years and it's always been one of those "yeah I'd like to go but it seems too far away" places but hearing how easy it was to get to and seeing the spectacular setting has put it at the top of my list of day trips with my family.  But, yes, we'll have to see.




			Is the sailing going to be discontinued then, because it took place in Weymouth and nowhere near London?
		
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that each sport is weighed on its own merits when it comes to deciding whether or not they remain an Olympic event.  So the IOC mandating that the equestrian events happen as near as possible to the Capital will have absolutely nothing to do with what they specify for the sailing.  In addition, there's the impetus to highlight various places in the host nation - I know I'd rather showcase Weymouth and Portland than the Thames Estuary as a destination. 

Lastly, even though I was initially against holding the equestrian events in Greenwich and, like you, wondered why LOCOG didn't use an existing venue like Burghley, Blenheim, Badminton or Windsor, I actually like that they brought the equestrian elements as close as they could to the heart of London - rather than miles away like they usually are.  Friends of mine who visited London during the Games ran into both Carl Hester and William Fox-Pitt in the city - they were part of the action and very much part of the vibe, which certainly wasn't true in Beijing or Sydney.

P


----------



## Thistle (18 August 2012)

PolarSkye said:



			Because LOCOG was told the games had to be in LONDON . . . if memory serves Burghley is near Stamford in Lincolnshire, Blenheim is in Oxfordshire and Badminton is in Wiltshire (although I might have got that one wrong) . . . in any event, none of them are near enough to London to count as being IN London.  



Watching it made me want to go to Greenwich.  I've been back in the UK for 12 years and it's always been one of those "yeah I'd like to go but it seems too far away" places but hearing how easy it was to get to and seeing the spectacular setting has put it at the top of my list of day trips with my family.  But, yes, we'll have to see.



I'm pretty sure that each sport is weighed on its own merits when it comes to deciding whether or not they remain an Olympic event.  So the IOC mandating that the equestrian events happen as near as possible to the Capital will have absolutely nothing to do with what they specify for the sailing.  In addition, there's the impetus to highlight various places in the host nation - I know I'd rather showcase Weymouth and Portland than the Thames Estuary as a destination. 

Lastly, even though I was initially against holding the equestrian events in Greenwich and, like you, wondered why LOCOG didn't use an existing venue like Burghley, Blenheim, Badminton or Windsor, I actually like that they brought the equestrian elements as close as they could to the heart of London - rather than miles away like they usually are.  Friends of mine who visited London during the Games ran into both Carl Hester and William Fox-Pitt in the city - they were part of the action and very much part of the vibe, which certainly wasn't true in Beijing or Sydney.

P
		
Click to expand...



Agree with all these points


----------



## armchair_rider (18 August 2012)

I think it's worth pointing out that a lot of sports won't have a bricks and mortar legacy from the Olympics. Facilities at Eton Dorney and Weymouth might have been improved to the long term benefit of those sports and of course there are a few new permenant facilites - the swimming pool, BMX track, velodrome, white water course and the main stadium (although how much athletics use that will get is anyone's guess).

But the basketball and waterpolo arenas are temporary, the hockey stadium won't survive as it is, the copper box won't be used exclusively for handball, and the mountain bike track might be removed. And then there's all the sports held at Excel and the O2


----------



## SusannaF (20 August 2012)

Seafarer said:



			Rachel doesn't care who she offends in her quest to be right. I believe Nogoe and she parted company after these unfortunate proclamations:

http://853blog.com/tag/rachel-mawhood/

(This is from a Greenwich blog).

I attended the events in the park over five days and I certainly did not see anybody using it as a toilet. Is she seriously suggesting people were not using the facilities? Perhaps I have misunderstood and she means it figuratively. Or perhaps she is referring to the temporary toilets that are there 

Click to expand...

Ah! Here's the nub of it! All those Irish horses rampaging across English Greenwich!

http://www.horsesportireland.ie/bre...t-horses-finish-in-eventing-top-10.12726.html




			(03 Aug 2012)

The Irish Sport Horse Studbook was very prevalent in Eventing at the London Olympic Games 2012 with thirteen Irish Sport Horses representing seven different nations beginning the first phase. Following Cross Country on day two the Irish Sport Horses began to climb the ranks with Imperial Cavalier and High Kingdom moving into top ten positions. A nail-biting individual final in the Showjumping phase resulted in a total of four Irish Sport Horses claiming top ten positions overall; 5th Imperial Cavalier (Mary King (GBR)), 7th Master Crusoe (Aoife Clark (IRL), 8th High Kingdom (Zara Phillips (GBR)) and Mr Medicott (Karen OConnor (USA)). This is twice the number of Irish Sport Horses who finished in the top ten in Eventing at the Beijing Olympic Games in 2008.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## SusannaF (20 August 2012)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ol...ympic-fix-fears-spark-gambling-clampdown.html




			Spokeswoman Sue McNeil tells me: 'Those tweets make us look like a bunch of nutcases  and we're not. The person who posted them has been severely reprimanded.

'She has been told in no uncertain terms that posting personal and offensive views like that is totally unacceptable.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ol...s-spark-gambling-clampdown.html#ixzz245GyXxwD

Click to expand...


----------



## glamourpuss (21 August 2012)

I had a little look back through some of Rachel Mawhood's post. I'm finding it pretty hilarious that for ages the main crux of her arguement was that Greenwich park could physically or safely hold the amount of people that attended the equestrian events. If she's around I would love her to come back and answer those claims....especially seeing as it would appear she was very much WRONG with them. 
So that's where anymore of her claims fall down for me, if she could be so drastically wrong before.....why can't she be so wrong again?  
I also have a few questions such as:
How much money has been made back from ticket sales, merchandise, sponsorships & selling off furniture etc?


----------



## glamourpuss (21 August 2012)

Obviously I meant her argument was that Greenwich park *couldn't* hold the spectators.


----------



## Joeyjojo (21 August 2012)

Hi Glamourpuss - I asked the same questions. She disappeared though as soon as people started pointing out the gaping holes her arguments!!


----------



## Hedwards (21 August 2012)

I'm intrigued to know about the 'stealing' electricity and water, I would have thought EDF - the principal energy partner for the Olympics would have been faily aware of exactly where they would be supplying energy to, and would have been ahead of the game in getting connections arranged... what an odd thing to say OP...


----------



## Faithkat (21 August 2012)

I was one of those who originally objected to Greenwich Park as the equestrian venue for the Olympics but purely on the grounds that I thought it was very unfortunate that the opportunity wasn't being taken to create a permanent world-class venue that could host events such as the WEG but having recently returned from Greenwich after being a Games Maker there for three weeks, I heartily endorse the general consensus that the venue was a triumph.  On the last morning of the Games (Sunday 12th) my shift didn't start until 11am so I went in early so I could walk around and take some last photos.  The XC course had been dismantled and it was interesting to see that it was pretty much impossible to see where it had been - so much for the supposedly catastrophic damage to the ground, and that was just less than a fortnight since the actual event!  The "working surfaces" of the venue were all on raised platforms to avoid damaging the grass of the Park and I suspect that when they are all dismantled, although the grass will have suffered from lack of light, as we all know, grass is astonishingly resistant and will "bounce back" in a very short time.  The existing tarmaced roads and paths were used for traffic so the actual Park was not damaged at all.

I am also at a loss to understand Rachel M's gripe about the supposed loss of revenue to local businesses.  The proprietor of the Greenwich Tavern/Gold & Saddle can probably retire on his takings from the previous few weeks (not least because he freely admitted hiking up the prices) and a couple of other pubs were taken over by the Canadian and the Australian teams too!  However, supposed loss of revenue could also be due to racketeering - local hotels whose normal prices were around £100 a night were charging £300 a night for the duration of the Games so I am pleased if they were found with vacancies but a stroll around Greenwich would have found full pubs and restaurants, queues for the Thames Clippers, plenty of people in the Maritime Museum (me included on one day when my shift ended early enough for me to go) and just generally plenty of people around spending money.  I did hear that central London was quieter than normal but I suspect that a lot of people who work there decided to take their holidays while the Olympics were on which would seem to me to be sensible idea but round the Tower Bridge area it was anything but quiet when I went to take photos of the Bridge with the rings.  It was manic and we had to walk back to London Bridge before we could find a pub that had a fighting chance of getting near the bar!!


----------



## glamourpuss (21 August 2012)

The more I've read of Rachel M's previous post's the more I just want to laugh at her & say 'There, There dear, a touch of sour grapes because your little NIMBY campaign didn't work. Don't worry that everyone is laughing at you because your spurious claims & cries of 'it'll be a disaster' proved to be unfounded. 
You know what dear 'YOU LOST' The equestrian games taking place in Greenwich were a total success  

There may not be a physical legacy yet but l believe this will change. Equestrian sports are on the up, hopefully more lucrative sponsors will want a piece of the action (I already know of one successful business man looking at doing this)

Rachel, the equestrian Olympics happened at Greenwich. Just as no-one believed you when you cried wolf about it being a disaster no-one believes you now


----------



## sarahann1 (21 August 2012)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			This is stating the obvious but ... you and the others who dismiss what I say have just illustrated why the master race within the UK equestrian world get away with squandering your money and resources.

Next time the master race want to appropriate a piece of land for their personal glory, it might be moorland or park or protected species habitat that you love and want to conserve.
		
Click to expand...

I've not read all of this thread, but can you please explain who this 'master race' is? I'm confused - which admittadly is pretty easy.

Its gone over budget - many, many things go over budget in this day and age, while I agree its not great, its happened. So lets suck it up and move on.

It didn't leave a legacy - ok so its a pity a big swanky venue hasn't come out of it, but as others have pointed out (and its something I hadn't really thought about) some of our bigger venues are going bust, they aren't sustainable anymore


----------



## rhino (21 August 2012)

Hedwards said:



			I'm intrigued to know about the 'stealing' electricity and water, I would have thought EDF - the principal energy partner for the Olympics would have been faily aware of exactly where they would be supplying energy to, and would have been ahead of the game in getting connections arranged... what an odd thing to say OP...
		
Click to expand...

There are a fair number of whingey posts on her twitter about it; 




			poss theft of mains water in SE7 by demolition co.
		
Click to expand...

 and something to do with bypassing a meter  

She appears to be somewhat of a 'serial' complainer though, plenty of moaning about the salt levels changing in her Sainsbury's portugese sardines, about the hosepipe ban making it impossible for her to clean out her free range hens' run, and today she can't even find what she's looking for on the Liberty of London website  Must be tough facing such challenges in life...


----------



## TarrSteps (21 August 2012)

rhino said:



			She appears to be somewhat of a 'serial' complainer though, plenty of moaning about the salt levels changing in her Sainsbury's portugese sardines, about the hosepipe ban making it impossible for her to clean out her free range hens' run, and today she can't even find what she's looking for on the Liberty of London website  Must be tough facing such challenges in life...
		
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see what she has to say about the Paralympics.  I would love to set her up for a chat with Lee Pearson.


----------



## rhino (21 August 2012)

TarrSteps said:



			It will be interesting to see what she has to say about the Paralympics.  I would love to set her up for a chat with Lee Pearson. 

Click to expand...

I would pay for tickets to see that  Am ublelieveably excited at how our paralympians are going to get on!

She also seems concerned that the fencing at Greenwich is somehow dangerous for blind people - she was hassling the RNIB about it


----------



## SusannaF (22 August 2012)

Faithkat said:



			I was one of those who originally objected to Greenwich Park as the equestrian venue for the Olympics but purely on the grounds that I thought it was very unfortunate that the opportunity wasn't being taken to create a permanent world-class venue that could host events such as the WEG but having recently returned from Greenwich after being a Games Maker there for three weeks, I heartily endorse the general consensus that the venue was a triumph.  On the last morning of the Games (Sunday 12th) my shift didn't start until 11am so I went in early so I could walk around and take some last photos.  The XC course had been dismantled and it was interesting to see that it was pretty much impossible to see where it had been - so much for the supposedly catastrophic damage to the ground, and that was just less than a fortnight since the actual event!  The "working surfaces" of the venue were all on raised platforms to avoid damaging the grass of the Park and I suspect that when they are all dismantled, although the grass will have suffered from lack of light, as we all know, grass is astonishingly resistant and will "bounce back" in a very short time.  The existing tarmaced roads and paths were used for traffic so the actual Park was not damaged at all.
		
Click to expand...

I had sympathy initially too, but then she lets slip very revealing statements (esp earlier this year) about Ebony Horse Club and so on and it was transparently obvious that she didn't care about equestrianism at all. She'd just grasp every straw to make her point.

The fact that NOGOE disowned her as a nutjob after she made anti-Irish remarks speaks volumes. Shooting out of every buttonhole.


----------

