# Freedom of Information request to Olympic Delivery Authority



## Rachel Mawhood (14 December 2011)

This FOI request has now been acknowledged with a reference number; the ODA has to respond within 20 working days (or explain why it won't).

------------------------------------



			Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:51:49 +0000
To: information.officer@london2012.com
From: Rachel Mawhood
Subject: Freedom of Information request to FOI Officer, Olympic Delivery Authority

Freedom of Information Officer
Olympic Delivery Authority
One Churchill Place
Canary Wharf
London
E14 5LN 

Dear Sir/Madam

*FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000*


The Olympic Delivery Authority is a public authority for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It was added to Schedule One of the Act, by paragraph 23 of Schedule One of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006.


Paragraph 9.9 of LOCOG's Terms and Conditions of Ticket Purchase states  "LOCOG reserves the right to move a ticketed seat or space to a comparable location (as determined by LOCOG in its sole discretion) for any Venue or Session."  (Paragraph 1.26 defines a "Venue" as "those locations where a Session is to be held, access to which requires a Ticket, and any adjacent areas that are under the control of LOCOG.") http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html


The independently assessed maximum safe capacity of Greenwich Park in normal times, with 9-10 Park gates open through which people could be evacuated in an emergency, is 15,000.  This information has been readily available to event organisers for years past, in the Royal Parks Guidelines for Event Organisers.


Occasionally, for an event taking place on only one day and lasting only a couple of hours in an otherwise empty Park - with no alcohol, no dancing, no horses - the maximum safe capacity is 20,000 (eg film show) to 21,000 ("red start" runners ONLY of the London Marathon).


There have never been more than 21,000 people allowed in Greenwich Park at any one time.  With 9-10 gates open.


As the ODA/LOCOG has already sold 50,000 tickets to the equestrian cross-country day in Greenwich Park - which is 35,000 more than the maximum safe capacity of Greenwich Park with 9/10 gates open (yet LOCOG's plans are to erect a 4m-5m security fence, possibly electrified at the top, with the exits reduced essentially to just three) - and, furthermore, has told Greenwich Council that it wants to sell a further 18,000 (making a total of 68,000), the ODA and LOCOG must be already be planning to move the equestrian events to another venue, a "comparable location" that could safely accommodate 68,000 ticket-holders, staff, etc.  See below, excerpt from LOCOG's transport plan in their current application 11/2604/SD to Greenwich Council.


Setting aside for the moment the possibility that LOCOG has mis-sold at least 35,000 of the 50,000 tickets, I should be grateful to know, therefore,  

7.1  What is the "comparable location" that the ODA/LOCOG is thinking of, which can hold 50,000-68,000 ticket-holders for the equestrian cross-country event?

7.2  Why is the ODA/LOCOG even thinking of selling a further 18,000 tickets to this event, when it has already sold 35,000 more than the venue (Greenwich Park) can safely hold?

7.3  When will LOCOG cease its development of Greenwich Park as 2012 equestrian venue?  LOCOG has now sold four times as many tickets for this venue than the venue can safely hold.


It is difficult not to come to the conclusion that either LOCOG cannot be still thinking of staging the 2012 equestrian events in Greenwich Park or LOCOG have recklessly and incompetently mis-sold tens of thousands of tickets - and have yet publicly to acknowledge this mistake, although they have been aware of it for at least two months, or do anything to remedy the situation.  The directors of LOCOG have a corporate responsibility not to do anything fraudulent or to void their own project-wide insurance cover.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully

Mrs Rachel Mawhood

copied to the FEI
		
Click to expand...


----------



## badattitude (14 December 2011)

While I may not agree with everything you say, I do find your posts fascinating. Well reseached and well expressed. Perhaps NOGOG should have employed you five years ago as I think that now it is sadly all too late.


----------



## badattitude (14 December 2011)

However, I think you should realise that LOCOG are only claiming to have sold 50000 tickets for cross country. As I have said before 25000 will apparently be fitted into the arena, so we can be fairly certain that the capacity of the stadium has been sold, but the rest? We only have LOGOG's word for it. There will an outcry as it is if people discover their cross country tickets only entitle them to a stadium seat to watch the screen and the arena fence, can you imagine the protests and outrage if they actually admitted there are actually only say 10000 for the course proper. The small print on your first paragraph by the way also means that LOCOG can sell a ticket as 'cross country' and then make you sit in the stadium or any other compound they care for.


----------



## Mithras (14 December 2011)

More profile-raising, Ms Mawhood?  Why on earth did you not start a judicial review of the process when you first started this, which is the method laid down in law for challenging such decisions, and which would have had a small chance of success?


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			Why on earth did you not start a judicial review of the process when you first started this, which is the method laid down in law for challenging such decisions, and which would have had a small chance of success?
		
Click to expand...

If we - NOGOE - had tried a judicial review before now, it would have had no chance of success because Tony Blair's government introduced this idea of "proportionality": eg you can trash a World Heritage Site if it is for the Olympics because of "national interest".

However, we now have a possibly more powerful lever to use, and an application for judicial review is likely in early 2012.  Which would put LOCOG's project in the ditch so late in the day that you may end up with no equestrian events at all in 2012.  And that's not my/our fault.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (16 December 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			This FOI request has now been acknowledged with a reference number; the ODA has to respond within 20 working days (or explain why it won't).
		
Click to expand...

That's nice then.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 December 2011)

badattitude said:



			However, I think you should realise that LOCOG are only claiming to have sold 50000 tickets for cross country. As I have said before 25000 will apparently be fitted into the arena
		
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the further 18,000 tickets - over and above 50,000 - that LOCOG wants to sell would be for seats in the stadium.



badattitude said:



			but the rest? We only have LOGOG's word for it.
		
Click to expand...

I suspect that quite a lot were allocated/sold to corporates.  I sometimes wonder if LOCOG remembered to tell its ticketing computer not to sell the tickets already reserved for corporates, or whether those tickets got sold twice.  Anything's possible.  From 6 January, people can sell their unwanted tickets back to LOCOG - I wonder how many tickets will be confiscated from corporates and recorded as "sold back" by individuals.



badattitude said:



			The small print on your first paragraph by the way also means that LOCOG can sell a ticket as 'cross country' and then make you sit in the stadium or any other compound they care for.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I thought it probably did but it could be used to exempt LOCOG from any liability if they decreed that it meant they could make you sit in another part of the UK entirely.


----------



## Allover (16 December 2011)

Rachel - what would be the ideal outcome be?


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 December 2011)

Allover said:



			Rachel - what would be the ideal outcome be?
		
Click to expand...


Bury Farm Estates - new "equestrian village" - 

http://www.buryfarmestates.co.uk/

seems to have  everything that the ODA/LOCOG/BEF/FEI could possibly want in an Olympics equestrian venue.  Actually, it looks to me like the state-of-the-art equestrian centre that LOCOG _should_ have built, ie that would leave a legacy for UK equestrians, instead of nothing.

This is from the _Horse & Hound_ 24 September 2011




			An "equestrian village" in Buckinghamshire is celebrating the official opening of its international size indoor arena by hosting a new gala showjumping event with a £25,000 prize fund.

Described as 'the UK's first equestrian village', Bury Farm Equestrian Centre comprises a British Horse Society-approved riding school and livery yard, an equestrian shop, restaurant and bar, an equine vet, indoor and outdoor arenas, cross-country course, saddler and equine laundry all on the 290-acre site.

Businessman Alan Dugard bought the former Buffalo farm near Slapton in 2005 and has invested around £5million in developing the centre.

He said: "What I wanted to create is a 'one-stop shop' with all the facilities a rider and owner could need under one roof. I want this centre to be known for its special atmosphere and for running big events in all disciplines." ... 

Local rider Joy Dawes, who came 26th at Burghley Horse Trials this year, said: "The concept is really strong. I would recommend people to take a look around * what they are doing there is good for the sport as a whole."
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Mithras (16 December 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			If we - NOGOE - had tried a judicial review before now, it would have had no chance of success because Tony Blair's government introduced this idea of "proportionality": eg you can trash a World Heritage Site if it is for the Olympics because of "national interest".

However, we now have a possibly more powerful lever to use, and an application for judicial review is likely in early 2012.  Which would put LOCOG's project in the ditch so late in the day that you may end up with no equestrian events at all in 2012.  And that's not my/our fault.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, but why on earth are you pedalling this utter claptrap and misinformation?

The concept of proportionality has always existed in judicial review, and is one of its central tenents.  Of course the previous Government did not "introduce" it!  It is one of the most central tenets of public law in this country and in the EU!

You appear to be suggesting, in a confused sort of way, that a submission for judicial review by you at some vague date before the Olympics will result in the equestrian events at the Olympics being halted.  This is reminiscint of the wild and unrealistic claim you tried to make in this case: 

http://www.residential-property.judiciary.gov.uk/Files/2008/May/90001FX0.pdf, 

which was so wrong in law and had so little chance of succeeding that you must have either ignored legal advice or not taken any.

I note also that your claim that you are going to try judicial review contains no detail.  You have not been short on giving (excessive) detail until now, but when it comes to actually proving your case, nothing.

If you had mentioned that you were going to attempt to justify an injunction on the use of Greenwich Park for the Olympic equestrian events, again it is obvious that it would not be granted because you could not produce a strong enough case.

Furthermore, if you are seriously considering an application for judicial review (and you have to be granted permission to apply before taking such action), you have undoubtedly seriously prejudiced your claim by showing bias in the public domain.

Why are you pedalling this misinformation?  How arrogant do you have to be to attempt to pedal such blatant nonsense?

In other words, you are talking nonsense.  Not complete nonsense, as a few of your claims make common sense, but much of it is sheer fantasy.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			This is reminiscint of the wild and unrealistic claim you tried to make in this case: 

http://www.residential-property.judiciary.gov.uk/Files/2008/May/90001FX0.pdf, 

which was so wrong in law and had so little chance of succeeding that you must have either ignored legal advice or not taken any.
		
Click to expand...

What has the determination of the price of a freehold got to do with anything?  As it happens, we were being legally advised at that time, by a Legal 500 firm, costing an arm and a leg.  And the freehold price was duly determined, so we as applicants succeeded.



Mithras said:



			I note also that your claim that you are going to try judicial review contains no detail.
		
Click to expand...

And that's the way it is going to stay, sunshine.  I am not going to give LOCOG any help.



Mithras said:



			you have undoubtedly seriously prejudiced your claim by showing bias in the public domain.
		
Click to expand...

This is gibberish.  Of course I am allowed to show that I believe in the justice of my case.  I am not a local councillor so that's just fine.



Mithras said:



			In other words, you are talking nonsense.  Not complete nonsense, as a few of your claims make common sense, but much of it is sheer fantasy.
		
Click to expand...

Well, if you were not hiding behind a "handle", we might all be able to get a better idea of where you are "coming from".  Such as your street address etc etc.


----------



## rhino (16 December 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Well, if you were not hiding behind a "handle", we might all be able to get a better idea of where you are "coming from".  Such as your street address etc etc.
		
Click to expand...

Hardly 'hiding' as this is standard forum practice... after recent events I quite understand why.

Just because you choose to use your name and are easily identified online doesn't mean anyone else has to   Not sure how seeking personal information on HHO users will aid your cause


----------



## millimoo (17 December 2011)

Good god, is she at it again... Yawn, yawn, yawn - you're a bit late Mawhood. You're also very rude to those who dare to provide sensible and factual responses to your diatribe.


----------



## olop (17 December 2011)

Are'nt the olympic venues a done deal now??  Surely they wouldnt consider moving the equestrian events so close to the actual games??!!

Everyone is entitled to there opinion & all but I honestly think you are wasting your time with all this - sorry!


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (17 December 2011)

olop said:



			Are'nt the olympic venues a done deal now??  Surely they wouldnt consider moving the equestrian events so close to the actual games??!!

Everyone is entitled to there opinion & all but I honestly think you are wasting your time with all this - sorry!
		
Click to expand...

Did you miss the bit in the FOI request about how LOCOG has sold at least 35,000 more tickets than the venue can safely hold?  That is a definition of mis-selling.


----------



## Mithras (17 December 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			What has the determination of the price of a freehold got to do with anything?  As it happens, we were being legally advised at that time, by a Legal 500 firm, costing an arm and a leg.  And the freehold price was duly determined, so we as applicants succeeded.
		
Click to expand...

But not nearly as cheap as you wanted to get it for.  

You were trying to get the price of a freehold for a London property you owned the leasehold on reduced to a desultory amount.  In this you didn't succeed.  Of course the freehold price was determined, there is legislation that lays down a forumla for doing so!

In view of your condescending remarks on previous threads about horseriders being elitist, am I alone in seeing the irony in your boasting about using a legal 500 firm to try and get a valuable London property on the cheap?

And yes, it is relevant, because it shows that you have a record of trying to play the underdog, when being anything but.  There are a lot of people on here, whom you presumably classify as elitist, who can but dream of owning a London property.


----------



## quirky (17 December 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Did you miss the bit in the FOI request about how LOCOG has sold at least 35,000 more tickets than the venue can safely hold?  That is a definition of mis-selling.
		
Click to expand...

If you were my mother, I'd be seriously worried about you putting yourself in an early grave  with the unnecessary stress you must be piling on yourself.

Are you going to be at Greenwich? I suspect not, so why worry about strangers safety. Where does it stop? Do you worry about buses that have more than the recommended passengers? Tube trains? The list could go on ...

Yes, I think we have a duty to others not to put them in danger ie. don't drink and drive, behave recklessly etc _but_ nobody can worry about everybody all the time. It just can't be done!

Move on, find something else to do in your dotage.
Maybe take up riding


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (18 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			In view of your condescending remarks on previous threads about horseriders being elitist, am I alone in seeing the irony in your boasting about using a legal 500 firm to try and get a valuable London property on the cheap?
		
Click to expand...

Leasehold enfranchisment is still highly specialised and, when the first (local) solicitor whom we engaged let us down, I let the leaseholder of the other flat choose another solicitor.  She chose the firm from the Legal 500.  I told you that because you were asserting that we didn't use any legal advice at all.  Not that it is any of your business.



Mithras said:



			There are a lot of people on here, whom you presumably classify as elitist, who can but dream of owning a London property.
		
Click to expand...

I think that your interest in where I live and how is a bit obsessive, if you don't mind my saying.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (18 December 2011)

quirky said:



			If you were my mother, I'd be seriously worried about you putting yourself in an early grave  with the unnecessary stress you must be piling on yourself.
		
Click to expand...

Please don't trouble yourself.  I am fine.



quirky said:



			Are you going to be at Greenwich? I suspect not, so why worry about strangers safety.
		
Click to expand...

I live in Greenwich.



quirky said:



			Where does it stop? Do you worry about buses that have more than the recommended passengers? Tube trains? The list could go on ...

Yes, I think we have a duty to others not to put them in danger ie. don't drink and drive, behave recklessly etc _but_ nobody can worry about everybody all the time. It just can't be done!
		
Click to expand...

Everyone has a duty to watch out for others and help to keep them safe.  LOCOG's plan - packing 50,000-68,000 people and horses into an area that can safely hold 15,000-21,000 and then surrounding everything with a high electrified fence - is a death-trap.


----------



## quirky (18 December 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			I live in Greenwich.
		
Click to expand...

Surely not in the park ?
So why are you worried?As I said before, you can't worry about all the people all the time. Worry about yourself first 

Let it go, find another crusade to fill your time.

Come back next year and let us know how it went .


----------



## 1stclassalan (19 December 2011)

olop said:



			Are'nt the olympic venues a done deal now??  Surely they wouldnt consider moving the equestrian events so close to the actual games??!!

Everyone is entitled to there opinion & all but I honestly think you are wasting your time with all this - sorry!
		
Click to expand...

Oh ho ho! So right you are! 

I can remember Operation Market Garden in which thousands of Allied parachute and glider borne soldiers were sent in to occupied Holland - right on top of 2 Panzercorp divisions - anyone who spoke up against these plans was ignored or removed from areas of influence. The folk responsible for that debacle got away with it because it was war and the first casuality of one is always truth.

I can remember being half scared out of my wits when 5,000 people decided to suddenly move from one fence to another at Badminton - I saw well bred Home Countiesfolk knocking toddlers over - so if there's more tickets sold than the usual number of people allowed in the park - it's a problem - but one that will never get an airing unless there's another disaster ( like the football one I've forgotten!)

These things are like a rollercoaster - very difficult to stop once it's flying downhill and even worse when somefolk stand to make loads of cash - that goes for the HS2 aswell.


----------



## Equibrit (23 December 2011)

Ms Mahwood, you are a sad old woman, with too much time on your hands. Do us all a favour and stop wasting other people's time and money.


----------



## Inthemud (28 December 2011)

This lady makes NIMBYism almost worthy of becoming an Olympic sport.

It's not my favourite choice of venue either, but the decision is made and the grass will grow back. Move on.


----------



## Mike007 (29 December 2011)

The grass will certainly grow back.It has recovered from far worse. Every tree in the park over 70 years old is riddled with schrapnell from the bombs that missed the docks.Grenwich park would not be my ideal choice but I dont for onemoment believe that there will be crowd problems or any lasting damage.


----------



## mtj (29 December 2011)

Quite a few of us will be visiting Greenwich in August.

I don't suppose we could ask Ms Mawhood for a local business guide ie nice little shops, cafe and restaurants.

Thanks


----------



## Carefreegirl (31 December 2011)

Cant quote as on phone re Bury Farm. OP, Lovely as it is and as a regular competitor there myself there is no way it could cope with the Olympics. Im pleased for you if that all you to worry about is a few months of upheaval, not at all meant in a sarcastic way either. P.S I have no intention of going or applying for tickets, I have 2 weeks off work and will watch it from the comfort of my own home.


----------



## FairyLights (1 January 2012)

Surely they will have done a health and safety review,so it must be ok. maybe they are going to put more gates in or take away existing fences so that people can be evacuated. Why does this issue bother you so much?


----------



## amyneave (2 January 2012)

quirky said:



			Are you going to be at Greenwich? I suspect not, so why worry about strangers safety.
		
Click to expand...




Rachel Mawhood said:



			I live in Greenwich.
		
Click to expand...




quirky said:



			Surely not in the park ?
		
Click to expand...

Haha. Excellent reply


----------



## teapot (4 January 2012)

Whilst we've all gone against Ms Mawhood with regards to ticket numbers/people not being an issue, the BBC have just announced that the organisers have sold far too many synchronised swimming tickets. 

Now, whilst we all know it can't be THAT popular a sport compared to eventing, maybe, just maybe they may have made a mistake...


----------



## cefyl (5 January 2012)

teapot said:



			Whilst we've all gone against Ms Mawhood with regards to ticket numbers/people not being an issue, the BBC have just announced that the organisers have sold far too many synchronised swimming tickets. 

Now, whilst we all know it can't be THAT popular a sport compared to eventing, maybe, just maybe they may have made a mistake...
		
Click to expand...

For those of you who missed out on the lottery of allocation of equestrian tickets you can still buy them through Thomas Cook and a couple of other travel type agency online sites for an inflated amount.  Of course it is a package to include hotel accommodation also at premium rates.  My question is how did these companies secure significant ticket numbers to resell openly above their face value when this is against the supposed rules of originalmticket sales?  And it is not just equine events but all sports across the board of the games.

For example you can have dressage team day 1 lumped in with tennis 1st round, badminton qf, and Handball preliminary for (only!) £9,758 for two people !!!


----------



## cefyl (5 January 2012)

Just tried again changing my room criteria and I can get dressage GP final for £5,000 for 2! Or SJ individual final.


----------



## cefyl (5 January 2012)

Apparently THomas Cook as official sponsor got a large allocation which they can resell!


----------



## teapot (5 January 2012)

cefyl said:



			For those of you who missed out on the lottery of allocation of equestrian tickets you can still buy them through Thomas Cook and a couple of other travel type agency online sites for an inflated amount.  Of course it is a package to include hotel accommodation also at premium rates.  My question is how did these companies secure significant ticket numbers to resell openly above their face value when this is against the supposed rules of originalmticket sales?  And it is not just equine events but all sports across the board of the games.

For example you can have dressage team day 1 lumped in with tennis 1st round, badminton qf, and Handball preliminary for (only!) £9,758 for two people !!!
		
Click to expand...

Jesus christ. Re-sell starts tomorrow too.


----------



## foxy1 (7 January 2012)

Why are people being so hostile? What if she has a point? 50,000 people is a lot!!


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (7 January 2012)

carefreegirl said:



			Cant quote as on phone re Bury Farm. OP, Lovely as it is and as a regular competitor there myself there is no way it could cope with the Olympics.
		
Click to expand...

Bury Farm is 300 acres.  Greenwich Park is 183 acres in total: the space available to use for the 2012 equestrian events is much, much less.  Probably less than 150 acres.

If, as you assert, "there is no way [Bury Farm] could cope with the Olympics", why on earth do you - or anyone - think that Greenwich Park, half the size of Bury Farm, could cope?

It is this sort of disconnect from reality that has got LOCOG into so much trouble.


----------



## mtj (7 January 2012)

Tickets: my understanding is that the agencies such as Thomas Cook will have paid more for their tickets than those available in the lottery.  Thus they are contributing more to the cost of running the games and subsiding the publicly available tickets.

Bury Farm: Lovely venue as mentioned before, but totally lacking in public transport.  The lack of public transport would cause total mayhem for the M1, local roads etc.  Not in London, incase anyone hasn't noticed. Yes, I have been there.


----------



## cefyl (7 January 2012)

mtj said:



			Tickets: my understanding is that the agencies such as Thomas Cook will have paid more for their tickets than those available in the lottery.  Thus they are contributing more to the cost of running the games and subsiding the publicly available tickets.
QUOTE]

My mother in law was VP of a large company that was an Olympic sponsor over several games in the past 30 + yrs.  Yes these companies as "sponsors" do contribute somewhat to the running of the games but not to the extent that they also subsidise the publicly available tickets and in the past they were not allowed to profit on the resale of their own allocation of tickets.  TC are not the only ones to have substantial tickets available, there are others advertising and they certainly are not Olympic sponsors.  Some seem to have aquired tickets that are designated as allocations to other competing nations as stated on their websites.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (7 January 2012)

carefreegirl said:



			if that all you to worry about is a few months of upheaval
		
Click to expand...

You. Have. No. Idea.

Greenwich is nothing but small businesses.  Now those living near the Park have been told that during the Olympics they cannot take deliveries during daylight hours but either hold a lot of stock (they can't, they have tiny premises) or receive deliveries during the night like the supermarkets.  It is going to cost them a lot, whatever they decide to do: keep going and pay increased delivery charges or close down for the Olympics.

Residents living near the Park have seen a 75 per cent increase in their buildings insurance because, although the ABI hitherto has said that residential property does not require terrorism insurance, now that Greenwich Park is to be a prime terrorist target (Olympic venue), that impacts on local residents insurance.

How would YOU like to have a 75 per cent increase in your buildings insurance, just because a horsey competition is taking place for two months near where you live?


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (7 January 2012)

mtj said:



			Bury Farm: Lovely venue as mentioned before, but totally lacking in public transport.  The lack of public transport would cause total mayhem for the M1, local roads etc.  Not in London, incase anyone hasn't noticed. Yes, I have been there.
		
Click to expand...

You haven't read the Transport for London reports on the impact on London's transport system?  You haven't heard how LOCOG wants working people in London to work from home (how does a doctor work from home?)  You haven't seen the crowd-modelling results.  You haven't heard anything about the expectations of over-crowding at London terminals, or that it could take between two and 8 hours to get out of Greenwich after the day's competitions?

London during the Olympics is going to be nothing like London in normal times.  And that includes the transport.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (7 January 2012)

cefyl said:



			Yes these companies as "sponsors" do contribute somewhat to the running of the games but not to the extent that they also subsidise the publicly available tickets and in the past they were not allowed to profit on the resale of their own allocation of tickets.  TC are not the only ones to have substantial tickets available, there are others advertising and they certainly are not Olympic sponsors.
		
Click to expand...

Thomas Cook is only a Tier Two sponsor, which starts at £20 million.

Lloyds TSB sponsorship is £80 million which, coincidentally, is the same as the amount by which the taxpayer bailed them out.  So I think the Lloyds TSB sponsorship is really being paid for by us.


----------



## cefyl (7 January 2012)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			You haven't read the Transport for London reports on the impact on London's transport system?  You haven't heard how LOCOG wants working people in London to work from home (how does a doctor work from home?)  You haven't seen the crowd-modelling results.  You haven't heard anything about the expectations of over-crowding at London terminals, or that it could take between two and 8 hours to get out of Greenwich after the day's competitions?

London during the Olympics is going to be nothing like London in normal times.  And that includes the transport.
		
Click to expand...

Unless people have actually experienced first hand being in a city where the Olympics have been held they cannot possibly imagine what it is really like.  The closest to the scenario that will hit London is probably Atlanta in 1996 whch was utter chaos.  So bad some competitors missed their various events.  The London transport plan is at best vague, to add to it the security measures which are growing by the day it has implications of a repeat of '96.

Atlanta actually had the equestrian events well outside of the city, 30 miles east at Conyers.  In fact many events were held well outside the city, some at Stone Mountain 20 miles away, and even prelim rounds for other sports like soccer held in different cities altogether.  Now Atlanta back then (as now) had a far lower normal population than London, and a far better road infrastructure and look what happend.

The biggest mistake Lord Coe et al have made so far is being hell bent on ALL the events (bar sailing) as far as I can see within the London city limits.  He seemed to forget there is a UK population outside of the city who would love to have had the chance to attend OUR Olympics but the ticket fiasco, and associated costs of getting to and staying in London to see live events has put it out of the reach of too many.


----------



## Fragglerock (7 January 2012)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			You. Have. No. Idea.

 just because a horsey competition
		
Click to expand...

Does it matter what the competition is?  I agree with a lot of what you say, particularly about the transport, but your derogatory tone about the equine community in some of your posts doesn't do you any favours.


----------



## Sagittarius (10 January 2012)

ALL the events (bar sailing) as far as I can see within the London city limits.
		
Click to expand...

   Nope - go and look at the venues for football - all over the country, as a deliberate "inclusive" policy so that the millions of UK football fans get a chance to see a local event. Funny that - especially as London as plenty of stadia and could easily host the lot. 

Though picking Bury Farm as an alternate is silly - far better to go for Windsor - which has space and proven ability via the European Champs there a couple of years back - especially as there are events next door at Eton Dorney. Though the traffic would be equally chaotic for the locals, so doubtless another NIMBY group would instantly appear.


----------



## Mithras (10 January 2012)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			You. Have. No. Idea.

How would YOU like to have a 75 per cent increase in your buildings insurance, just because a horsey competition is taking place for two months near where you live?
		
Click to expand...

Ms Mawhood, you have an exceptionally condescending writing style which you would be advised to lose if you wish to persuade people to your case.  Although as I have said before, I do have a problem with people less intelligent than me telling me what to think.  I say that simply as a professional and academically recognised individual who has reached the stage in life that enables me to make confident judgements on others based on the evidence of their character they present.

(I also recall the "Hellooooooo" "word" being used by you to attempt to call a critic to heel.  By the way, the correct description is "equine" competition, not "horsey").

You present arguements so heavily biased in favour of your own NIMBY viewpoint that you also come across as being the type of person to not be entirely open or fair in what you say.  In other words, you attempt to manipulate.  The impression I have of you, from what you have written on this and your two related threads, is that you dislike equine competition and see it as elitist and unnecessary, and you think your own needs and interests outweigh those of anyone else.  At no point do you demonstrate any kind of normal human understanding of those on the other side of the arguement from yours.  Neither do you demonstrate any awareness at all that yours is the minority viewpoint, nor do you demonstrate anything beyond a very superficial understanding of sport.

However, rather than rehash the points I have already answered in relation to yours (as you are not interested in the thoughts of anyone but yourself), I would remind you that I find it objectionable to use free forums such as this, which are designed for people who are interested in equines, to publicise your minority viewpoint.  If, for instance, you had actually put some of your own resources into it, I might actually respect you more.  As it is, I simply think you have a very minor type of psychological disorder/s going on which prevents you from acting in anything but a selfish, self-interest way, and empathising with your fellow members of the human race.  You may well be unaware of this.

ps hows the application for judicial review going?


----------



## Mithras (10 January 2012)

cefyl said:



			Unless people have actually experienced first hand being in a city where the Olympics have been held they cannot possibly imagine what it is really like.  The closest to the scenario that will hit London is probably Atlanta in 1996 whch was utter chaos.  So bad some competitors missed their various events.  The London transport plan is at best vague, to add to it the security measures which are growing by the day it has implications of a repeat of '96.
		
Click to expand...

Dearie me!  Headline!  Some Things May Not Be Entirely Perfect, But We Are Not Sure Yet.

Not much of an arguement, is it?



cefyl said:



			and a far better road infrastructure and look what happend.
		
Click to expand...

Evidence of this?  

How does it compare to other recent Olympic cities?

What about public transport?

What did happen?  

This paragraph, along with the above, is actually pretty meaningless, and not backed up by evidence.  Its just your own personal interpretation of things.



cefyl said:



			The biggest mistake Lord Coe et al have made so far is being hell bent on ALL the events (bar sailing) as far as I can see within the London city limits.  He seemed to forget there is a UK population outside of the city who would love to have had the chance to attend OUR Olympics but the ticket fiasco, and associated costs of getting to and staying in London to see live events has put it out of the reach of too many.
		
Click to expand...

Just Lord Coe?  This is a valid enough arguement, but it was made around page 1 of this thread.  The trouble is, you can't please everyone.  There are arguements for and against London.  Its very much being sold as the London Olympics, not the British Olympics, and thats not exactly new.  I personally think having the different events spread all over a nation detracts from it, and I welcome the cohesive approach to this Olympics as a step forwards. 

Oh sorry, I forgot, we aren't going to have half the Olympics after all, because some NIMBIES in Greenwich might be inconvenienced.  Or alternatively, they are going to be moved to some riding school in Middlesex.

Well, thats sorted then!

(would trying to move on and make the best of things be too ridiculous a suggestion?  Adapt to changing circumstances?  I have already suggested to Ms Mawhood that she either accept the Olympics or go on holiday for their duration (possibly renting out her house for a ridiculous sum and thus profiting enough to distill the alleged inconvenience).  But that wouldn't allow her to make a little bit of a name for herself by spearheading this doomed "campaign".


----------



## millimoo (10 January 2012)

Here here Mithras... If I could applaud you I would.
And following the recent spate of horse attacks in the UK I hope we don't hear anymore from Ms Mawhood on this forum. Her personal mission has been done to death, and I'd rather she just poodle off and let us horse lovers discuss the real issues as mentioned earlier in my post.


----------



## cefyl (10 January 2012)

Mithras said:



			Evidence of this?  

How does it compare to other recent Olympic cities?

What about public transport?

What did happen?  

This paragraph, along with the above, is actually pretty meaningless, and not backed up by evidence.  Its just your own personal interpretation of things.


Just Lord Coe?  
".
		
Click to expand...

As in your own words a "professional and highly respected individual", may I suggest you read other posts thoroughly before flaming them?  I clearly stated a comparison to another recent Olympic city and named the city / clearly stated the transport issues / what happend.

No, it is NOT just my own personal interpretation of things, though I was there in 1996.  The possibility of London transport infrastructure descending into chaos is a publicised concern of LOCOG and they have stated in several documents (all publicly available) a direct comparison to the Atlanta games of 1996 which I mentioned in my prior post which you clearly did not pick up on.  And LOCOG appear to have studied the Atlanta 1996 problems thoroughly to try and avoid the same thing occuring this summer in London.

Also you may like to peruse the Oxford English Dictionary for the meaning of the abbreviation ET AL as in "Lord Coe et al" and it will hopefully make clear I did not mean "just" Lord Coe.

I have no connection to Miss RM, nor am I a save Greenwich fanatic.  I merely posted a comparison between a previous games and London and an official concern (as per LOCOG) of repeat transportation chaos for 2012.  So before you denigrate others as having condescending writing styles please look at your own in the first instance.

Thank you to Sagittarius for pointing out football is another event with venue allocation outside of London.  I had not looked that thoroughly into it, was only aware of the sailing venue.


----------



## Mithras (11 January 2012)

cefyl said:



			As in your own words a "professional and highly respected individual", may I suggest you read other posts thoroughly before flaming them?  I clearly stated a comparison to another recent Olympic city and named the city / clearly stated the transport issues / what happend.

No, it is NOT just my own personal interpretation of things, though I was there in 1996.  The possibility of London transport infrastructure descending into chaos is a publicised concern of LOCOG and they have stated in several documents (all publicly available) a direct comparison to the Atlanta games of 1996 which I mentioned in my prior post which you clearly did not pick up on.  And LOCOG appear to have studied the Atlanta 1996 problems thoroughly to try and avoid the same thing occuring this summer in London.

Also you may like to peruse the Oxford English Dictionary for the meaning of the abbreviation ET AL as in "Lord Coe et al" and it will hopefully make clear I did not mean "just" Lord Coe.

I have no connection to Miss RM, nor am I a save Greenwich fanatic.  I merely posted a comparison between a previous games and London and an official concern (as per LOCOG) of repeat transportation chaos for 2012.  So before you denigrate others as having condescending writing styles please look at your own in the first instance.

Thank you to Sagittarius for pointing out football is another event with venue allocation outside of London.  I had not looked that thoroughly into it, was only aware of the sailing venue.
		
Click to expand...


I don't need to look into any dictionary explaining the misuse of Latin terms in order to make your arguement appear more authoritative.  Why pick on one government minister?  Simply because he is high profile?  If so, it backfires, because Lord Coe, unlike any of the London Olympic detractors, is the one person who knows what it is like to be an extremely successful Olympic athlete.

Furthermore, why pick on individuals, and not the process?  After all, it is only by challenging the process that your circular arguement is likely to bear any fruit.  I have lost count of how many times I have pointed out to you that the only legal method by which to challenge this decision is by judicial review.  Therefore why don't you tell us how that is coming along?  Or is your challenge limited to sniping on an internet site?

For example, why don't you go into the requirements for a successful judicial review application?  Or the substantive content you will be putting into it?

Otherwise, I fail to see any purpose from your continual attacks on the process.  And if you feel that strongly about it, then surely you are very remiss in not actually doing something concrete about it.  Otherwise, your arguements would appear to be entirely without any purpose.

Just saying...


----------



## Mithras (11 January 2012)

cefyl said:



			I clearly stated a comparison to another recent Olympic city and named the city / clearly stated the transport issues / what happend.
		
Click to expand...

And no, you didn't.  You simply gave your opinion, your own personal interpretation of events, and failed to back it up with any evidence.  You did not clearly state a comparison at all or "state"[d] the transport issues.  To me, it sounds like you are just making it up, to suit your own arguement.

There is so much utter claptrap on the internet.  But I do think that most people are now so aware of the unwritten rules of internet discussion, or who have some semblance of education, that they can at least make some semblance of providing some form of link to back up what they say.  Preferably not Wikipeadia, which is unchecked.  

Then you can get progress into the battle of numerous lengthy internet links, some of dubious empirical propriety, which usually involves into a war of numbers of links posted.

OTOH you can actually do something productive in the real world.  Such as challenging a decision effectively which you believe to be unfair, since actually having the dedication, talent and committment to become an Olympic competitor yourself, never mind facilitate an international world class contest, is presumably beyond you.  Or even simply stopping moaning so much and doing whatever works best for you to deal with the Olympics being held in London.


----------



## badattitude (11 January 2012)

Mithras, having good command (or otherwise) of the English language is not a measure of intelligence, merely learning, or I would imagine that Oxford, Cambridge, Mensa and various other august institutions would use it as a method for deciding elegibility. My written English improves everyday although I find the grammar most difficult! I am, by the way, a member of MENSA and scored 169  but I would not be so arrogant to claim to be more intelligent than anyone, just because they made a few grammatical errors. I believe I have made similar observations about your assumptions  on this thread before.
  Cefyl is quite correct that Atlanta has been used as a comparrison for London in many aspects. I would also imagine that she used "Lord Coe et al" as her quoted member of authority because, whatever his official title in regard to the Games, he is certainly the public front of the London bid at the very least. The fact that you do not recognise this perhaps leads one to believe that you are not quite as clever as you think you are. He did in fact use Atlanta as a reason for the extremely extensive Olympic Road Network, which will cripple transport for everyone else in central London, when speaking on a BBC debate in the last two or three months. 
  The evidence of an improved public transport systemin London are little in evidence so far, which you must know if you are really a London resident. I have not noticed any significant work on thesouthern end of the  DLR, in particular more access for stations such as Greenwich Maritime. The surrounding British Rail stations look much as they ever did, although at least one of them will be closed (Maze Hill) during the Games and the buses will not be able to run along Romsey Road as normal because of it's proximity to the Park, even if the Olympic Road Network's closure of the Blackwall Tunnel was  not going to cause enough problems as it is. 
  I do not mind the Equestrian being in the Park per see, if it were bigger I would be happy in many respects. But what I really object to is the increases in my rates, insurance and all the other things that only Londoners are paying, some that only residents are paying as it happens, when so few of us have got anychance of going in person. I doubt very much that 50'000 cross counrty tickets have been sold, I expect the number is far less, for two reasons. Firstly, I do not believe LOCOG would ignore the safety regulations pertaining to the Park, particularly when they are closing so many of the gates. Second, we only have LOCOG's word that is the number, until the day no--one will know for sure, but I would put money on at least 25'000 being stadium tickets. There is an arena fence so you will still 'see' cross country but not as many of those attending might expect. 
  The Games will go ahead as planned but we will have to wait a good few years to really judge the cost of them and a few people having a lovely day on the day in Greenwich will not change the all the negatives that doubtless will be percieved in time.


----------



## cefyl (11 January 2012)

Mithras said:



			I have lost count of how many times I have pointed out to you 
...
		
Click to expand...

You replied ONCE to ONE post I made regarding Atlanta 1996 and you have lost count already?  Oh dear, MENSA must be slipping in their requisite to join the society.

LOCOG just one of several referals to Atlanta and the proposals to avoid a repeat occurance of the transport chaos.  http://www.london2012.com/olympic-route-network/orn-expanatory-memorandum.pdf

As I said before try  throughly reading posts made by other contributors before jumping in.

Diligentia maximum etiam mediocris ingeni subsidium.


----------



## Mithras (11 January 2012)

cefyl said:



			You replied ONCE to ONE post I made regarding Atlanta 1996 and you have lost count already?  Oh dear, MENSA must be slipping in their requisite to join the society.

LOCOG just one of several referals to Atlanta and the proposals to avoid a repeat occurance of the transport chaos.  http://www.london2012.com/olympic-route-network/orn-expanatory-memorandum.pdf

As I said before try  throughly reading posts made by other contributors before jumping in.
		
Click to expand...

No idea what you are talking about.  Can you put it in correct English usage so it is clear what it is you are trying to say?

I am a practitioner in my field, and also teach at postgraduate level within it, and mark exams.  Your "arguements" simply don't stand up to any kind of basic scrutiny as they are not attributed but simply your own rather poorly thought out personal opinions.  

If you want to try to persuade others of your viewpoint (which is presumably your aim), try dropping the sarcasm and including well presented evidence (from a variety of neutral sources), arguing against any counter-indications for your point.

btw what is it you ARE trying to achieve here?  You have spent an awful lot of time and words on it so far, but I am none the wiser as to your actual aim (if any)?


----------



## Mithras (11 January 2012)

badattitude said:



			The Games will go ahead as planned but we will have to wait a good few years to really judge the cost of them and a few people having a lovely day on the day in Greenwich will not change the all the negatives that doubtless will be percieved in time.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed.  However one would hope that the ethos of sacrifice for the greater good could operate for the duration of the Games and the relevant aftermath.  It is hardly that much to ask.  

Personally I think excluding all but dog walkers and NUMBYs from public parks is an utter waste and morally objectionable.  

As it is, the only "sporting contest" some of the posters on here would have any chance at is moaning and whinging - marathon length, at that!  Its a shame when people try to project their own self doubt and negativity onto others who are higher achievers, particularly in the sporting field.

Would it be too much to actually appreciate the talent and dedication of the specatators and organisers, or does the desire to nitpick, whinge and moan outweigh all?


----------



## D66 (11 January 2012)

It doesn't happen often but, I agree with Mithras.


----------



## cefyl (11 January 2012)

Mithras said:



			No idea what you are talking about.  Can you put it in correct English usage so it is clear what it is you are trying to say?
 (if any)?
		
Click to expand...

I have realised that you do not understand plain English.  And that you cannot read posters names.  I am NOT RM posting endlessly about Greenwich.

I made ONE post commenting on transport issues highlighted by LOCOG in line with the 1996 games.  Period.  Simples.  It was not an argument for or against Greenwich, not a petition, not a legal argument, simply a statement of comparison backed up by a link to the documentation of LOCOG.

YOU replied with "you have lost count of the number of MY posts YOU have replied to".  PLAIN ENGLISH (sorry for the caps folks but Mithras seems to have trouble reading) - I have made ONE - 1 - Uno - Un - Unus, how many more times do I have say YOU replied to ONE post of mine!!!  AND YOU SAY YOU LOST COUNT???  Good grief G-d help your students.

Stupid is as stupid does.


----------



## badattitude (11 January 2012)

Mithras said:



			Indeed.  However one would hope that the ethos of sacrifice for the greater good could operate for the duration of the Games and the relevant aftermath.  It is hardly that much to ask.  

Personally I think excluding all but dog walkers and NUMBYs from public parks is an utter waste and morally objectionable.  

As it is, the only "sporting contest" some of the posters on here would have any chance at is moaning and whinging - marathon length, at that!  Its a shame when people try to project their own self doubt and negativity onto others who are higher achievers, particularly in the sporting field.

Would it be too much to actually appreciate the talent and dedication of the specatators and organisers, or does the desire to nitpick, whinge and moan outweigh all?
		
Click to expand...

I do not believe that anyone has cast any doubt over the skill and dedication of the athletes involved. Please stop making your sweeping assumptions. Nor is everyone excluded from either Greenwich or any of the other venues a dog walker or a NIMBY, whatever that may be. On the other hand, those of us paying extra to fund the Games, without receiving anything in return, are surely entitled to moan a bit. I expect those of you who pay large amounts to ride at BE Intro level (whatever it's current title is) would do just as much moaning, if BE increased the fees and then decreased the chances of actually competing. 
  As for who could or could not compete in a sporting event, once again you absolute arrogance is astounding. i believe several well known riders in various disciplines post on here and I expect there are many more who do not. I have represented my country on one sporting field and would have loved to compete at an Olympics but that highest of honours eluded me. However, I would not denegrate the readers of this forum just to make myself sound clever. Many of them propbably have no desire to ride at a Games and merely just love and enjoy their horses. It sounds like you believe their opinion is therefore not valuable and just 'whinging'.


----------



## Mithras (11 January 2012)

cefyl said:



			I have realised that you do not understand plain English.  And that you cannot read posters names.  I am NOT RM posting endlessly about Greenwich.

I made ONE post commenting on transport issues highlighted by LOCOG in line with the 1996 games.  Period.  Simples.  It was not an argument for or against Greenwich, not a petition, not a legal argument, simply a statement of comparison backed up by a link to the documentation of LOCOG.

YOU replied with "you have lost count of the number of MY posts YOU have replied to".  PLAIN ENGLISH (sorry for the caps folks but Mithras seems to have trouble reading) - I have made ONE - 1 - Uno - Un - Unus, how many more times do I have say YOU replied to ONE post of mine!!!  AND YOU SAY YOU LOST COUNT???  Good grief G-d help your students.

Stupid is as stupid does.
		
Click to expand...

One presumes you are capable of reading the whole thread?  As in the discussion you are attempting to participate in?

ps sarcasm generally only works when you don't try to overdo it.


----------



## Mithras (11 January 2012)

badattitude said:



			I do not believe that anyone has cast any doubt over the skill and dedication of the athletes involved. Please stop making your sweeping assumptions. Nor is everyone excluded from either Greenwich or any of the other venues a dog walker or a NIMBY, whatever that may be. On the other hand, those of us paying extra to fund the Games, without receiving anything in return, are surely entitled to moan a bit. I expect those of you who pay large amounts to ride at BE Intro level (whatever it's current title is) would do just as much moaning, if BE increased the fees and then decreased the chances of actually competing. 
  As for who could or could not compete in a sporting event, once again you absolute arrogance is astounding. i believe several well known riders in various disciplines post on here and I expect there are many more who do not. I have represented my country on one sporting field and would have loved to compete at an Olympics but that highest of honours eluded me. However, I would not denegrate the readers of this forum just to make myself sound clever. Many of them propbably have no desire to ride at a Games and merely just love and enjoy their horses. It sounds like you believe their opinion is therefore not valuable and just 'whinging'.
		
Click to expand...

Or maybe some people's contribution to society is greater than partipation on an internet forum?


----------



## cefyl (12 January 2012)

Mithras said:



			One presumes you are capable of reading the whole thread? .
		
Click to expand...

Yes which is why I realise you have not retained any information at all from any of the posts on this thread.  Although now we can see why you use this alias, how arrogant.


----------



## cefyl (12 January 2012)

Mithras said:



			Or maybe some people's contribution to society is greater than partipation on an internet forum?
		
Click to expand...

Mithras contribution:
Society = 0
Internet forum H&HO = 5,299 posts and rising


----------



## badattitude (12 January 2012)

Mithras said:



			Or maybe some people's contribution to society is greater than partipation on an internet forum?
		
Click to expand...

Again, another arrogant assumption. What on earth could you possibly know about anyone's contribution to society (or anything else) from reading a largely anonymous forum? Clearly, you really do believe your self to be something a bit special and far more advanced than ther rest of the mere peons on this site.


----------



## Equibrit (13 January 2012)

cefyl said:



			Now Atlanta back then (as now) had a far lower normal population than London, and a far better road infrastructure and look what happend.
		
Click to expand...

I live in Atlanta and worked at the Games in 1996. What happened ?


----------



## cefyl (18 January 2012)

Equibrit said:



			I live in Atlanta and worked at the Games in 1996. What happened ?
		
Click to expand...

Need your memory jogging?

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-07-22/news/ss-26827_1_atlanta-games

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/23/sports/atlanta-day-4-traffic-athletes-challenge-getting-there.html

http://clatl.com/freshloaf/archives...ympics-were-an-unmitigated-transport-disaster


----------



## Equibrit (18 January 2012)

http://www.etcproceedings.org/paper...the-atlanta-olympic-games-how-did-we-get-ther

Disaster sells more papers.


----------



## cefyl (18 January 2012)

Equibrit said:



http://www.etcproceedings.org/paper...the-atlanta-olympic-games-how-did-we-get-ther

Disaster sells more papers.
		
Click to expand...

And the point of your link is?


----------



## Equibrit (19 January 2012)

The link is to an in depth paper on the transportation systems that were put in place for the 1996 Olympics, which does not support your point of view garnered from "news" outlets.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (19 January 2012)

badattitude said:



			Again, another arrogant assumption. What on earth could you possibly know about anyone's contribution to society (or anything else) from reading a largely anonymous forum? Clearly, you really do believe your self to be something a bit special and far more advanced than ther rest of the mere peons on this site.
		
Click to expand...

Hey,less of the personal attacks. I may not always agree with Mithras, but she does give a good measured argument that is worth reading.

Reducing this debate to a slanging match is rather tedious which is a shame because its been quite interesting and informative.


----------



## badattitude (19 January 2012)

horserider said:



			Hey,less of the personal attacks. I may not always agree with Mithras, but she does give a good measured argument that is worth reading.

Reducing this debate to a slanging match is rather tedious which is a shame because its been quite interesting and informative.
		
Click to expand...

Horserider, you are directing your comment at the wrong person. I am entitled (as is anyone) to defend themselves against unfounded accusation and sweeping generalisation. Regardless of her arguments, Mithras clearly thinks she is a step above most members of this forum which is probably why she chose her psuedonym (sp). And Equibrit, Lord Coe himself used the Atlanta Games as an example of how not to do it on a public BBC debate. I hardly think it is in his interests to scaremonger. Which bit of those Games did you help at? Because I travelled to the city for non-equestrian events with my partner of the time (who was part of the corporate sponsorship) and I have to say the City was at a standstill. Even with our VIP passes, getting about took hours. The equestrian seemed to work well in comparisson but was a fair way outside the city limits.


----------



## badattitude (19 January 2012)

Equibrit said:



			The link is to an in depth paper on the transportation systems that were put in place for the 1996 Olympics, which does not support your point of view garnered from "news" outlets.
		
Click to expand...

In fact Equibrit, reading the paper, as will be seen from the abstract in your link, this paper does seem to support the fact that there were transport issues, overcome subsequently. It is also written by an American whose opinion would hardly be unbiased, and does not give a timeframe  for when many of the solutions mentioned were put into effect. It seems much of what was done was in response to problems encountered once the Games had begun, and not in anticipation before their commencement. But perhaps my English is not yet  good enough to understand the documant correctly.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (19 January 2012)

badattitude said:



			Horserider, you are directing your comment at the wrong person. I am entitled (as is anyone) to defend themselves against unfounded accusation and sweeping generalisation.* Regardless of her arguments, Mithras clearly thinks she is a step above most members of this forum which is probably why she chose her psuedonym (sp).* And Equibrit, Lord Coe himself used the Atlanta Games as an example of how not to do it on a public BBC debate. I hardly think it is in his interests to scaremonger.* Which bit of those Games did you help at? Because I travelled to the city for non-equestrian events with my partner of the time (who was part of the corporate sponsorship) and I have to say the City was at a standstill. Even with our VIP passes, getting about took hours.* The equestrian seemed to work well in comparisson but was a fair way outside the city limits.
		
Click to expand...

You still seem to be determined to throw in personal attacks, but FWIW, I thought Mithras was neat connection to her job.

No, I didn't help at the Atlanta games, so maybe I should have no opinion on any aspect of this years event. However, apart from having VIP passes and still being inconvenienced, you don't mention your contribution to the smooth running of the Games but I may well have missed where you stated how you were involved ?


----------



## MerrySherryRider (19 January 2012)

BazzaEXTREME said:



			^ You realise the faith of Mithras is male only, right?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, (thanks to google ), but guessing Mithras isn't expecting divine worship from us, maybe just a link to the type of work she does.
 Anyway, its a bit more imaginative than mine. Yours is too.


----------



## badattitude (19 January 2012)

horserider said:



			You still seem to be determined to throw in personal attacks, but FWIW, I thought Mithras was neat connection to her job.

No, I didn't help at the Atlanta games, so maybe I should have no opinion on any aspect of this years event. However, apart from having VIP passes and still being inconvenienced, you don't mention your contribution to the smooth running of the Games but I may well have missed where you stated how you were involved ?
		
Click to expand...

Horserider perhaps you should read the entire thread before highlighting a comment or two that taken out of context might support your argument. You clearly missed the comment that prompted my response, I suggest you look more carefully. And if you read other threads on this subject you will see that this is not the first time Mithras has made an unfounded accusation/assumtion and made a derisory comment about myself and forum users in general. You are obviously having some trouble reading posts because I am hardly still being inconvenienced by the Atlanta Games. And it a little more than inconvenience for the thousands of people who spent hours in the heat and humidity squashed on the overcrowed and insufficient transport system.  And yes, you have missed my involvement in Altlanta, clearly stated above. My husband at the time was a chief exec for one of the sponsoring companies and consequently he got passes for many events. I have not claimed any part of the smooth running or otherwise of any Games so please get your facts right. But I was there and can therefore completely back up Cefyl's contention that the transport system was a shambles as I was there. Further, if you actually read the paper in equibrits link, it says the same itself. The paper seems to be more assessing how the system was after the Games rather than during.


----------



## Serenity087 (19 January 2012)

I always thought Mithras was the metal used to make Frodo's chainmail... but thats Mithril isn't it  

I'm wondering why Ms Nimby-Pants doesn't just go buy an island somewhere.  She obviously isn't a fan of local businesses, nor any other park users... She believes all terrorists ever are going to blow up the park despite much higher profile venues being in existance (and seems to have ignored the fact that horses get blown up in london olympics or no...) and more so she seems to think bossing everyone around will eventually get her her own way...

This sort of squabbling is why I have no interest in the olympics at all.


----------



## Mithras (20 January 2012)

My comment: "Or maybe some people's contribution to society is greater than partipation on an internet forum?"



badattitude said:



			Again, another arrogant assumption. What on earth could you possibly know about anyone's contribution to society (or anything else) from reading a largely anonymous forum? Clearly, you really do believe your self to be something a bit special and far more advanced than ther rest of the mere peons on this site.
		
Click to expand...

Ironically, my comment was about how people such as Ms Mawhood and others have no appreciation for the effort Olympic athletes, volunteers, etc put in, or their exquisite talents and expertise.  They only think about themselves and their own immediate needs.  There is no concept of (metaphorical) sacrifice for the greater good.  The irony is that the poster above has assumed that I was talking about _myself_ rather than the _Olympic competitors_, which illustrates for me the inability of the supporters of this "cause" to see any greater interest than the selfish self-interest.

Incidentally, the cult of Mithras is male, but I named myself after it after a visit to Hadrian's Wall and finding that my preferred choice (and former university societet), Minerva, was taken.

I do find posters rather feeble attempts at being abusive online terribly boring, and tend to switch off.  However I can assure you that they would most certainly not get away with such in real life!


----------



## Mithras (20 January 2012)

I wonder if the fact that this thread is still going on is because of the deep irritation that comes out of powerlessness that is felt by those against the choice of Greenwich?  In which case, again it comes down to doing something effective about it if you are that irritated, or getting over it and moving on.  Writing to princesses and posting on internet forums isn't likely to change an Olympic Games venue at the 11th hour, and the only correct procedure is judicial review of the decision making process, of which we have heard on here remarakably little (other than a vague assurance in response to my asking the OP repeatedly if she had considered it) that it was apparantly going ahead.

You would therefore expect at this stage a concentrated effort rather than piecemeal sniping on an internet forum.  Unless, as I suspect, it is easy to be a cybernaut and attack online but do little in real life.

I do also wonder about how well such people fit into society.  Life in a democracy in a crowded country is full of the need to accept decisions relating to our environment that we would not choose ourselves.  I don't like the fact that a hotel and housing estate have been built next door to me but I am able to get over it, and if it bothers me that much, I will simply sell up and move elsewhere.  Likewise, as I have often said, the people of Edinburgh live with the disruption of the Edinburgh festival for a month every single year.  Presumably they, and I, recognise that neither Edinburgh, nor the countryside surrounding my home belong to us.  Greenwich is a public park, for goodness sake.  We are not talking about compulsary purchase or even long term loss of amenity.


----------

