# Message sent to HRH Princess Haya, FEI President



## Rachel Mawhood (10 December 2011)

Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 18:56
To: info@hrhoffice.ae
Subject: FAO HRH Princess Haya Bint Al Hussein, President FEI : 2012 Olympics


Office of HRH Princess Haya Bint Al Hussein
PO Box 111888
World Trade Center Complex
Convention Center Building, 5th Floor
Dubai
United Arab Emirates 


Your Royal Highness

I am aware of how much unalloyed pleasure it gives you that at the 2012 Olympics equestrian sports will be, as you say, "at the heart of the Olympic Games" in Greenwich.

I feel bound to draw to your attention, however, the concerns of well-intentioned people about the safe capacity of Greenwich Park.

*15,000*
*this is 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.  This information has been readily available to event organisers for years past, in the Royal Parks own 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, the maximum safe capacity is

*20,000*
eg for showing films

*21,000*
eg for the "red start" of the London Marathon.

http://www.uli-sauer.de/laufen/london/instructions_e.htm#11%20WHERE%20AND%20WHEN%20TO%20START

There is a widespread misunderstanding that all 35,000 runners in the London Marathon assemble in Greenwich Park at the start.  They don't.  The rest of the runners assemble outside the Park, on Blackheath.

Your Royal Highness, *there have never been more than 21,000 people allowed in Greenwich Park at any one time, even when it was empty*.  In 2012 the Park will not be empty, I have seen the plans: it will contain the enormous temporary stadium, stabling for hundreds of horses, broadcast compounds, hospitality marquees, fuel tanks, waste tanks, toilet facilities for thousands ... How will even 1,000 people be fitted in around all that?

*50,000*
Yet LOCOG claim that they have already sold 50,000 tickets to the cross-country day in 2012.  This is despite the fact that  Greenwich Park will be a prime terrorist target, full of temporary structures as well as the cross-country course, and the exits will have been reduced essentially to about three (instead of 9-10) in a 4m-5m high security fence (possibly electrified at the top) that is to be erected all around the Park perimeter.  Your Royal Highness, there will be a great many valuable horses and important people participating one way or another, as well as ordinary people who have been lucky enough to obtain tickets, and yet *LOCOG's arrangements appear designed specifically to create a death trap in Greenwich Park. *







Although the one fact that an event organiser should know is the safe capacity of the proposed venue, LOCOG appear to have sold about four times too many tickets.  And yet their "planning target" is 68,000.  *(On 19 October 2011, at a meeting in Greenwich of the local authority licensing committee, when asked three times a direct question about the safe capacity of Greenwich Park, the venue manager Jeremy Edwards remained silent, and LOCOG's solicitor Mr Phipps evaded the question.)*

You may wish to note that the relevant fire inspection authorities in London have distanced themselves from LOCOG's plans.  This is highly significant, Your Royal Highness.

I am sure that, as you yourself are the mother of young children, you will have a lively awareness of the importance of keeping people safe so that they all return to their families at the end of the day.  I know that you would feel terrible if your uncompromising insistence on Greenwich Park as the venue for the 2012 Olympic Games resulted unnecessarily in injuries and fatalities.  I believe that the reputation of the FEI would never recover.

Yours sincerely
Mrs Rachel Mawhood
Resident of Greenwich since 1979


----------



## perfect11s (10 December 2011)

Sorry but its a bit late !! fait accompli and all that , its going to happen... maybe it is'nt the ideal venue and or a perminant purpose built facilty  could have been built out of town  with the money but  lets be postive shall we and  hope its a success !!!!


----------



## Mithras (10 December 2011)

Any chance you could give a brief summary of that as its not honestly that clear what you are saying in the long version?  Do you really think they are going to stop one of the Olympic Events because you and a few others object to it?  Or that they have not already conducted multiple HSAWA74 etc risk assessments and impact surveys?  My apologies if your letter means something else entirely, but it was really hard to read.


----------



## millimoo (10 December 2011)

Yawn ... Zzzzzz


----------



## amage (11 December 2011)

The Olympics are not an FEI event. Yes the FEI will be involved but it is not an FEI championship so you are writing to the wrong person and to be honest that letter is a barely passable first draft. You don't make your argument, yes you do point out fire safety issues but are you really that naive as to think these issues have not been considered? You haven't allowed for the vast numbers of emergency personel inside the park which would deploy in the event of an incident. The fire safety capacities as advertised for other events would not take into account fire/police/ambulance being onsite and all roads around the park being closed bar to emergency vehicles. By all means write to Haya....it ain't gonna do anything though!


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 December 2011)

perfect11s said:



			Sorry but its a bit late !! fait accompli and all that , its going to happen...  hope its a success !!!!
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but which part of the word "death-trap" do you not understand?


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 December 2011)

amage said:



			The Olympics are not an FEI event. Yes the FEI will be involved but it is not an FEI championship so you are writing to the wrong person
		
Click to expand...


We are repeatedly told that Greenwich Park is the 2012 equestrian venue because the UK had promised a "compact Games".  But Princess Haya is on record saying several times that it had to be Greenwich Park and nowhere else.  Arabian princesses are accustomed to being obeyed.



amage said:



			and to be honest that letter is a barely passable first draft. You don't make your argument, yes you do point out fire safety issues but are you really that naive as to think these issues have not been considered?
		
Click to expand...

I am certain that LOCOG have fouled up here.



amage said:



			You haven't allowed for the vast numbers of emergency personel inside the park which would deploy in the event of an incident.
		
Click to expand...

I have.  You don't know Greenwich Park as I do; and you have not been as closely engaged with LOCOG's preparations as I have been for the last three years.



amage said:



			The fire safety capacities as advertised for other events would not take into account fire/police/ambulance being onsite and all roads around the park being closed bar to emergency vehicles.
		
Click to expand...

You evidently don't know south London.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 December 2011)

millimoo said:



			Yawn ... Zzzzzz
		
Click to expand...

Said the boiled frog.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			Any chance you could give a brief summary of that as its not honestly that clear what you are saying in the long version?  Do you really think they are going to stop one of the Olympic Events because you and a few others object to it?  Or that they have not already conducted multiple HSAWA74 etc risk assessments and impact surveys?  My apologies if your letter means something else entirely, but it was really hard to read.
		
Click to expand...

The fire safety/inspection authorities have distanced themselves from LOCOG's project in Greenwich Park.  Says it all.


----------



## MeganLindsx (11 December 2011)

I think i could try to begin where you are coming from (sort of) if the riders were novices and the horses were not used to big crowds but its the olympic games!!! Im sure all riders could control the horses better and the horses should be familuar to big crowds!

Also it just makes you look like a bit of a kill-joy!


----------



## rockysmum (11 December 2011)

I can understand that, as a resident of Greenwich, this whole event will cause you disruption on a major scale.  I guess it will be a construction site for some time and take some considerable time to restore.

However the people of London wanted these games and I assume had the opporunity to put their feelings forward right at the start.  I personally would hate it, all of the people and disruption, but then I wouldn't choose to live in London where these events are the norm.

As for the risk assessments, our local pub is assessed for 200 for weddings and such.  However put up a couple of temporary marquees, extra toilets, the field next door for parking (with stewards) or buses and the assessment changes.  I am sure that those in charge have followed the rules and reduced the risks as much as possible.  As for terrorism, I cant see why this location would be any worse than any of the other Olympic venues.

Horses competing at this level are used to temporary stabling in unsuitable places, look at HOYS.

Good luck in surviving the next year but I also dont think your letter will do any good.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 December 2011)

MeganLindsx said:



			I think i could try to begin where you are coming from (sort of) if the riders were novices and the horses were not used to big crowds but its the olympic games!!! Im sure all riders could control the horses better and the horses should be familuar to big crowds!
		
Click to expand...

It's not the horses and riders I am worried about.  If you have read the national press recently - eg remarks by the MoD and the National Audit Office - you will know that LOCOG is now a bye-word for shambles, incompetence and irresponsibility.



MeganLindsx said:



			Also it just makes you look like a bit of a kill-joy!
		
Click to expand...

If LOCOG continue on this path, we will see who the kill-joy is, and it isn't me.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 December 2011)

rockysmum said:



			However the people of London wanted these games and I assume had the opporunity to put their feelings forward right at the start.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know where you get the idea that the people of London were even asked.   They were not asked.



rockysmum said:



			I am sure that those in charge have followed the rules and reduced the risks as much as possible.
		
Click to expand...

I promise you, they have not followed the rules.



rockysmum said:



			As for terrorism, I cant see why this location would be any worse than any of the other Olympic venues.
		
Click to expand...

The other Olympic venues have counter-terrorism defence built-in.  Greenwich Park does not.



rockysmum said:



			Good luck in surviving the next year but I also dont think your letter will do any good.
		
Click to expand...

If my letter does not do "any good", it is not I who will pay the price.


----------



## quirky (11 December 2011)

RM - Having done a quick Google search, you have been banging on about this since 2008 from what I can see.

If they didn't listen to you then, then I fear you're flogging the old proverbial.

It's going to happen, get over it and think this time next year, it will all be a distant memory


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 December 2011)

quirky said:



			If they didn't listen to you then, then I fear you're flogging the old proverbial.
		
Click to expand...

The discovery, that LOCOG has sold 50,000 tickets to a venue that can safely hold - for a couple of hours on one day, in an otherwise empty Park - only 21,000, is a recent development.



quirky said:



			It's going to happen, get over it and think this time next year, it will all be a distant memory 

Click to expand...

There's none so blind as will not see.


----------



## Mithras (11 December 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Sorry but which part of the word "death-trap" do you not understand?
		
Click to expand...

Your propoganda part?


----------



## rockysmum (11 December 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			I don't know where you get the idea that the people of London were even asked.   They were not asked.
.
		
Click to expand...

Well I think that is something to take up with whoever wrote the bid.  I cant remember, was it done by London, or by the government.  Because I for one consider that they have been sold as "The London Olympics" in other words nothing to do with the rest of us.


----------



## quirky (11 December 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			There's none so blind as will not see.
		
Click to expand...

A nice Biblical quote at this festive time of year but I fail to see the relevance in this case.

The Olympics _will_ go ahead, regardless of you banging on and on and on, so I am blind to nothing.

Quite frankly, I am astounded that you have registered with a site that you think is populated by people who partake in an "elitist sport" to quote yourself.

You only have to look around this site to see that is not the case, there are people from many walks of life on here. Some can afford the very best of everything for their horses, others scrimp and save to give them the best they can. Without doubt, we all love our horses and spend a great deal of time enjoying them.

If having the Equestrian element of the Olympics in Greenwich Park inspires anybody to take up horse riding, then that is a successful outcome.

If you are so bothered about having it on your doorstep, maybe consider taking a long holiday for the duration of the Games .


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			Your propoganda part?
		
Click to expand...

You can look at the facts, which are all in the public domain, and judge for yourself.  Or you can remain in denial.  I don't mind which you do.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 December 2011)

quirky said:



			A nice Biblical quote at this festive time of year but I fail to see the relevance in this case.

The Olympics _will_ go ahead, regardless of you banging on and on and on, so I am blind to nothing.
		
Click to expand...

This whole comment is a non-sequitur.  

Who said anything about the Olympics not going ahead? 



quirky said:



			Quite frankly, I am astounded that you have registered with a site that you think is populated by people who partake in an "elitist sport" to quote yourself.

You only have to look around this site to see that is not the case, there are people from many walks of life on here. Some can afford the very best of everything for their horses, others scrimp and save to give them the best they can. Without doubt, we all love our horses and spend a great deal of time enjoying them.
		
Click to expand...

International competition equestrianism is an elite sport, nothing to do with people loving their horses.



quirky said:



			If having the Equestrian element of the Olympics in Greenwich Park inspires anybody to take up horse riding, then that is a successful outcome.
		
Click to expand...

One person takes up riding, and everything says: phew, £60 million well spent, then.  A Royal Park has been trashed.  Vital earnings from tourist revenue for the whole of 2012 lost (the tourism industry says that bookings to London are already 90 per cent down), the massive disruption to people's lives and livelihoods (with some people being laid off).  But, hey, one person took up horse riding.



quirky said:



			If you are so bothered about having it on your doorstep, maybe consider taking a long holiday for the duration of the Games .
		
Click to expand...

This is not about me.


----------



## cefyl (11 December 2011)

amage said:



			The Olympics are not an FEI event. Yes the FEI will be involved but it is not an FEI championship so you are writing to the wrong person!
		
Click to expand...

Olympics and the FEI are interlinked to the extent that Princess H has enough influence to dominate decisions regarding the equestrian events.  Look back to Hong Kong and her record of rule over everything including last minute course changes even overriding people far more qualified than she to make judgements on safety.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 December 2011)

rockysmum said:



			Well I think that is something to take up with whoever wrote the bid.
		
Click to expand...

Cherie Blair, if Tony Blair's autobiography is to be believed.



rockysmum said:



			I cant remember, was it done by London, or by the government.  Because I for one consider that they have been sold as "The London Olympics" in other words nothing to do with the rest of us.
		
Click to expand...

It is the "London Olympics" because the host city is London.  It would have been the Paris Olympics, if France had won.  Which they should have done.

Did you know that all the bidding cities had to sign the hosting contract BEFORE they heard the outcome of the bid?  I'd love to know if any of them refused.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 December 2011)

cefyl said:



			Olympics and the FEI are interlinked to the extent that Princess H has enough influence to dominate decisions regarding the equestrian events.  Look back to Hong Kong and her record of rule over everything including last minute course changes even overriding people far more qualified than she to make judgements on safety.
		
Click to expand...

That's true.


----------



## amage (11 December 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			We are repeatedly told that Greenwich Park is the 2012 equestrian venue because the UK had promised a "compact Games".  But Princess Haya is on record saying several times that it had to be Greenwich Park and nowhere else.  Arabian princesses are accustomed to being obeyed.



I am certain that LOCOG have fouled up here.



I have.  You don't know Greenwich Park as I do; and you have not been as closely engaged with LOCOG's preparations as I have been for the last three years.



You evidently don't know south London.
		
Click to expand...

And you evidently know sfa about what you are talking....the olympics ARE NOT and FEI event! You're ridiculous statement about Arabian princesses accustomed to being obeyed is testament to how little you know.She is not president of the FEI because she is a princess. You claim that I evidently don't know south London....maybe not but I have been involved in major equestrian events for years and know the way they shut down streets etc. The Olympics are not a new thing...surprising as you might find this they have been held in major cities for centuries and it's not a new crew who run it everytime. People have full time jobs running the Olympics.


----------



## rockysmum (11 December 2011)

It is becoming increasingly obvious from your posts that this is not about Health & Safety.  You obviously have a lot more issues with the Olympics.

I think you should take your argument somewhere else.

I feel its a case of nothing else has worked, so you will get us all concerned about the safety of ourselves and our kids.


----------



## Roody2 (11 December 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			International competition equestrianism is an elite sport, nothing to do with people loving their horses.

This is not about me.
		
Click to expand...

Woah!!! That's a bit strong, yes it's a sport but most of the top riders are very passionate about their horses!!!



Rachel Mawhood said:



			Vital earnings from tourist revenue for the whole of 2012 lost (the tourism industry says that bookings to London are already 90 per cent down), the massive disruption to people's lives and livelihoods (with some people being laid off).
		
Click to expand...

Can you provide the evidence for the *90%* drop in bookings?? I find that very hard to believe!!!
And why/how have some people been laid off due to the olympics?


----------



## millitiger (11 December 2011)

So the enviromental angle got no support and nobody took any notice of you, therefore you come back with the safety angle?

You aren't at all bothered about the safety of the spectators, you are just clutching at straws and trying desperately to find something which will stop Greenwich Park being used for equestrian disciplines in 2012.

Don't try to dress up your selfish views and aims with false worry about the safety of people who support these 'elitist' sports.


----------



## perfect11s (11 December 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Sorry but which part of the word "death-trap" do you not understand?
		
Click to expand...

 Not sure what you're agenda is?? sadly it   comes across  like  like a batty old bint with a nimby attitude , im sure your a nice genuine person thats genuinely upset by whats going on  but this is one  battle you wont win it will just make you ill,  best to let it drop , keep an eye on what's happening and hold people to account if things go wrong... its too late in the day, best to be humble in defeat, we tryed hard to stop a football complex being build in open farmland  it was passed now we have a load of yelling chavs playing under flood lights most nights 100ish yards from our boundary!!! at least you have a civalised  sport on a temp arangement with plenty of money to reinstate the park afterwards,  like others have said have a few weeks away  tuscany is very nice!!!!


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 December 2011)

millitiger said:



			So the enviromental angle got no support and nobody took any notice of you, therefore you come back with the safety angle?
		
Click to expand...




perfect11s said:



			Not sure what you're agenda is??
		
Click to expand...

Helloooooooo - both of you - selling 35,000++ more tickets than your venue can actually safely hold is 


*illegal* and
*fraudulent*, and puts LOCOG
*in breach of its insurance policy conditions*.

If you have tickets to the cross-country day, I suggest you take advice on where you stand.


----------



## millitiger (11 December 2011)

If it is illegal why don't you mount a legal challenge though the courts rather than on forums and sending letters to people who have no say in whether the venue could be changed?

I would rather people were just honest about their intentions- I totally understand people living in Greenwich not wanting the equestrian sports there for purely selfish reasons as it will be a pain in the ar$e if you aren't actually interested in the sport or gaining any benefit from renting rooms etc.

I object to people with the above views dressing up their concerns with false worries about grass species and now about the safety of people they don't want there in the first place.

And I don't have tickets for the Olympics- I will be watching from home as couldn't stand the thought of having to fight my way through London to get to the venue and sod's law it will be raining that day and I would rather watch from the comfort of my sofa


----------



## Mithras (11 December 2011)

millitiger said:



			If it is illegal why don't you mount a legal challenge though the courts rather than on forums and sending letters to people who have no say in whether the venue could be changed?
		
Click to expand...

Theres been more than enough time for them to request a judicial review of the decision, which is in this case the correct type of legal avenue for challenge.  Its simply that the objectors haven't done so i.e. they have not used the correct democratic judicial process  for such objections.  Although I cannot imagine a challenge based on "its right because we say it is and it just is" being particularly successful.  I'm sure some resident of Greenwich who is aggrieved AND eligible for legal aid could be found.

Perhaps Ms Mawhood has some judicial precedents (similar cases) with citations, which she could quote where the decision could be used to back up the points she is attempting to make?

Can I just point out that cities such as Edinburgh have month long festivals every year, which inconvenience and frustrate large parts of the population.  Its part of living in a city.  I think its great to see one of the royal parks being used for a semi-rural, leisure pursuit involving animals once more.

As for the complaint about eventing being elitist - all Olympic sports involve elite level competitors.


----------



## sywell (12 December 2011)

I remember sitting there at the Equine Forum and hearing Babara Cassini announce the venue and was immediately against the venue as in spite of the good intentions of a legacy for riding in London in the urban area it was clearly there would be no national improved venue. A tarted up Hickstead for a quarter of the money with a new access road with the Eurostar station nearby with great access for the major equestrian nations in Europe would have been a great venue and the hotels on the south coast would have provided great accomadation.  BE wanted other venues so who used their influence. We wanted the Olympic Committee to see that the Equestrian Sport could be put on at a sensible cost not the massive expenditure at Greenwich. Its all water under the bridge but those who made the decision that lost us a great new venue should hold their heads in shame.


----------



## cefyl (12 December 2011)

amage said:



			And you evidently know sfa about what you are talking....the olympics ARE NOT and FEI event! .
		
Click to expand...

You obviously missed HK where Princess Haya had the power to override decisions made by the course builders, organisers, and veterinary team on several points.


----------



## cefyl (12 December 2011)

amage said:



			And you evidently know sfa about what you are talking....the olympics ARE NOT and FEI event! .
		
Click to expand...

Go to page 7 CHAPTER 1 GENERAL Article 600 Introduction 1st 3 paragraphs.

http://www.fei.org/sites/default/fi...ns For Equestrian OG 2012 FINAL25July2011.pdf

It CLEARLY states " The FEI assumes the responsibility for the technical control and direction of Equestrian Sport at the Olympic Games.  All the technical elements of the Competition, including the schedule, field of play, and all equipment must comply with FEI rules".  

So you still are convinced the FEI have NOTHING to do with rules of, or any influence on the Olympic equestrian events???  Wow.


----------



## SpottedCat (12 December 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Helloooooooo - both of you - selling 35,000++ more tickets than your venue can actually safely hold is 


*illegal* and
*fraudulent*, and puts LOCOG
*in breach of its insurance policy conditions*.

If you have tickets to the cross-country day, I suggest you take advice on where you stand.
		
Click to expand...

But, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the limit in the organiser's handbook a) states that in certain circumstances it can be extended and b) applies to large-scale events when the park remains open to the general public. The park will *not* remain open to the general public during the equestrian events, hence the ability to increase the numbers. Or do you seriously expect us to believe that whenever there is a large scale event in the park not a single person who isn't a ticket holder uses the park?! You haven't answered this point before so I don't expect you to this time...but your logic is totally flawed and based on a concept very different from the Olympics.


----------



## Orwell (13 December 2011)

SpottedCat said:



			But, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the limit in the organiser's handbook a) states that in certain circumstances it can be extended and b) applies to large-scale events when the park remains open to the general public.
		
Click to expand...

I replied to this point on another thread (http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=499368&page=2, post number 16).

It is true that the Park won't be open to the general public, but this is easily offset by the amount of space required to stage the event (the stadium, the press and athletes' area, the stables, the course itself, etc.). Then there is the question of appropriateness. An event involving 68,000 (possibly 70,000 if you include the "Olympic family" and the media) people is too big for the Park and the surrounding area. 

(a) The Guidelines state that for Greenwich Park they can cater for sporting events up to a capacity of 15,000. They do add the qualification "possibly more for certain events". But this suggests a few thousand more, not an event involving over four times as many people. 

(b) It is evident from Locog's plans for the event that it is too big for the Park and the surrounding area. The event will occupy almost all of the Park, the National Maritime Museum, and Circus Field on Blackheath (http://onlineplanning.greenwich.gov.uk/acolnet/documents/45710_2.pdf). And in order to deal with the crowds the Old Royal Naval College and Blackheath itself will also be pressed into service. Some 40,000 spectators are supposed to arrive at Greenwich Station and make their way through the town centre during the morning rush hour, and to retrace their steps during the evening rush hour (http://onlineplanning.greenwich.gov.uk/acolnet/documents/45711_5.pdf). 

(c) It should be remembered that the Olympic event will mean that users of the Park will be inconvenienced for about a year (over 2011 and 2012). This is not in keeping with the aims and objectives stated Royal Parks Agency Framework Document 1993:



			2.1  The Agency's aims are to manage the Royal Parks so that they: a. offer peaceful enjoyment, recreation, entertainment 	and delight to those who use them ... 

2.2  The Agency's specific objectives are: a. to increase the enjoyment of visitors, giving priority to pedestrians ... c. to protect the Parks from every kind of encroachment contrary to their purpose ... d.	to maintain free access to the Parks for the public

Document available at: http://www.royalparks.org.uk/about/management_governance.cfm

Click to expand...

Remember that Greenwich Park has been open to the public all year round since 1820 (just 5 years after the Battle of Waterloo!). There is no need to hold the Olympic equestrian events in the Park, and so there is no justification for doing so.


----------



## Mithras (13 December 2011)

Orwell said:



			There is no need to hold the Olympic equestrian events in the Park, and so there is no justification for doing so.
		
Click to expand...

Ideologically, that statement doesn't make sense.  Certainly, as a summary or conclusion, its awful.

You might as well have written "I don't want it there, so it shouldn't be there".

I would honestly encourage the writer to redraft the letter written in the initial post, as its virtually unreadable, biased and overlong.  I'm afraid that its in danger of being laughed at, its so badly written.  But it seems to be a common theme with the proponents of this school of thought.  Are you all cutting and pasting from the same source or something?


----------



## perfect11s (13 December 2011)

I hear they are looking for somewhere to hold the world Banger racing  championships in 2013 maybe they could do it in the park as it's going to be ruined  by the olympics in 2012 according to our NIMBY trolls


----------



## badattitude (14 December 2011)

Cefyl is as usual extremely well informed, so as it happens is Orwell. Sywell has also made good points. I think that Rachel Marwood is perhaps fighting a losing battle on this forum where a great many members only visit London for Christmas shopping and are not familiar with London and in particularly Greenwich. The Park is not big enough, that is why the Circus Field, not in the original plans has been incorporated. I believe on cross country day, there will be few people allowed on course, because i think some of the tickets will be to sit in the arena where one or two fences will be jumped and a screen showing the others will be available. Anyone who has been to the test event cannot serious believe that with a course twice the length, more stables a bigger arena with 15000 more seats and all the other infrastructure, there will still be room for 50000 spectators. If they try to fit them in some will be killed in a hilsborough type crush. I do want London equestrian to be a success and I am sure the dressage and showjumping will be if they get an expert in to fix the surface instead of relying on a firm who have never supplied an international championship footing before, but the cross country? There will be ugly pictures on a switchback course of yanking and pulling, and the last thing that will be needed are a few fainitng in the crush spectators.


----------



## rockysmum (14 December 2011)

perfect11s said:



			I hear they are looking for somewhere to hold the world Banger racing  championships in 2013 maybe they could do it in the park as it's going to be ruined  by the olympics in 2012 according to our NIMBY trolls

Click to expand...

ROTFL, great idea, let me know when the tickets go on sale


----------



## Mithras (14 December 2011)

badattitude said:



			I think that Rachel Marwood is perhaps fighting a losing battle on this forum where a great many members only visit London for Christmas shopping and are not familiar with London and in particularly Greenwich. The Park is not big enough, that is why the Circus Field, not in the original plans has been incorporated.
		
Click to expand...

How condescending.  Do you think its still the 1950's, where country bumpkins barely travel a few metres from their place of birth in their lifetime?  I live in Scotland, but I've spent loads of time in London.  I first visited Greenwich as a child with my parents, and I've spent long visits with friends in London.  But I can probably genuinely claim to having traversed more inches of Greenwich Park than you - because I'm a runner, I've done a 10k there and trained there and roundabout there.  I've studied OS maps to find the best ways there and the best routes in it, and researched historical features to learn why the terrain is the way it is.  London is the capital city - not some secret, provincial town not open to all.  I do think its awful when green spaces become so sanitised and urbanised that people like you claim they are no longer suitable for anything other than the most urban of activites.  It was great when it hosted the final stage of the Tour of Britain!



badattitude said:



			but the cross country? There will be ugly pictures on a switchback course of yanking and pulling, and the last thing that will be needed are a few fainitng in the crush spectators.
		
Click to expand...

Pretty much the way cross country is going though.  Its a frequent criticism of the way cross country in eventing is going - Mark Phillips criticised in Horse and Hound last year after one of the big UK events, as have many others.  Although I'm struggling to see the correlation between such courses and people fainting.

I do wonder if at this late stage, your arguements are now verging on the obsessive, and whether the cohorts of this should be judged more of a challenge to eventing being held at Greenwich than any of the cut and pasted problems you keep harping on about?

I think the spectacle of keeping it all in London, rather than spread out all over the place and losing the atmosphere, as some Olympics do, is worth a short term inconvenience.  Again I ask you, which none of you have ever answered, how do you think the people of Edinburgh cope with a month long Festival taking over their city every August?


----------



## Orwell (14 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			Ideologically, that statement doesn't make sense.  Certainly, as a summary or conclusion, its awful.

You might as well have written "I don't want it there, so it shouldn't be there".
		
Click to expand...

I presume that you mean that the premise ("There is no need to hold the Olympic equestrian events in the Park") does not entail the conclusion ("so there is no justification for doing so"). If so, then you have a point. I am "guilty" of not spelling out an argument that I made at length on an earlier H&H forum ("Re: Olympic test event- reactions to the XC"). Here is a slightly expanded version of the argument with an additional example:

Greenwich Park is an urban public park. It is also a Royal Park, a national treasure and a World Heritage Site. It should not be abused in the way that it is being abused. There is no necessity to do so,* and none of the considerations which are put forward (compactness of the Games, etc.) come close to a justification.** Consequently there is no justification. 

*During World War 2 people had allotments on the Main Lawns and, I believe, dug makeshift air-raid shelters into the lawns. Anti-aircraft batteries were also sited in the Park and the tops of many trees were cut off to provide clear lines of fire.  But that was at a time of national emergency and it was necessary to act in that way. There is no similar need to hold the Olympic equestrian events in the Park. 

** You might argue that it is too late to change the venue now. But if it had to be done, it would be done. Hence it could be done.


----------



## badattitude (14 December 2011)

Mithras, I doubt very much that you have spent more time in Greenwich and South London than I, I was born and bred in the area despite foreign parents and spending long periods abroad. I still live there now, less that a five minute drive from Greenwich High Steet. So does my brother. We take the children there most weekends during term time and several times a week during holidays. It is our closest place. However, I was not particularly arguing, just pointing out that the objectors to greenwich on this thread had made some very valid points which they have and that many of the people rather viciously responding to those had little real knowledge of the area or the issues involved. 
   I have been to the Edinburgh Festival and to the city on other occasions, including quite recently for a wedding which was rather a large grand affair to say the least. But Edinburgh cannot compare in size to London, nor in volume of traffic or bodies on the ground or tourists or anything else even during the festival. The festival does not require motorway and A road closures like those which will affect the M25 and the Blackwell Tunnel. There is just no comparrison to be made which is why I suspect no one has bothered answering your point. As a runner in the Park and other places, I would assume you are aware that for major races the start is staggered, the London Marathon definately is, because the capacity of the park (which is obviously is without the Olympic infrastructure and therefore more open) is only thought to be safely 21-25000 on a one off very short term basis. A point which none of you defending the cause has answered if it is an argument you want. 
  Nor do I think that saying "that is the way cross country riding is going" is an adequate excuse for squeezing the cross country into a space will exacerbate this and play right into the hands of the wellfare groups who have enough to say about competitive horse sport as it is. Please see the recent video of the WHW conference where the Panel discussed the impact the media coverage would have on welfare because they are very concerned about it. 
 Personally  I was delighted when I heard the Games were in London but none of my family has been lucky enough to get tickets for equestrian at all. We did not get invited to the test event initially, neither did my neice and nephews school, a friend on the council could not attend and gave me a ticket. The locals have not been consulted much at all and having been to a few major sporting championships in my time including WEG, I feel that much is NOT being said so there will be no argument/protest. Many of my neighbours think the test event was much how it is going to be next year. They do not seem to grasp that was a fraction of the size etc.  I do not think the venue will be changed now despite Ms Marwoods efforts but that does not make it a good choice. Little has been realisitcally done to improve facilities for Londons current horse people, if  people are inspired to ride there will be no extra capacity for that to happen. my neice rides at Mudchute Farm (on the other side of the river directly between the Park and the 'iconic view' and they are already busy everytime we visit. 
   I thought that after the initial bid was accepted LOCOG would move the venue to Richmond or Great Leighs actually. I thought either of those would be amazing, especially as Great Leighs is more or less on the same dual carriage was as the rest of the Olympic Park and the riders would have been able to stay in the village etc without the need for closing the Blackwell tunnel and all the other considerations.  But never mind, the TV will get some great shots of the London skyline and thats all that matters isn't it?


----------



## Equibrit (14 December 2011)

Just get over it, you silly woman. If you really feel the need to whine, do it to the organizing committee.


----------



## badattitude (14 December 2011)

Equibrit said:



			Just get over it, you silly woman. If you really feel the need to whine, do it to the organizing committee.
		
Click to expand...

To whom are you refering in your rude and uncouth way? Do you think that being rude is a 'clever' retort?  There is no whining here as far as I can see from either side of the debate  and as it happens the opening poster has made her views very clear to LOCOG as have I and a great many other people.


----------



## Booboos (14 December 2011)

While I agree that Greenwitch Park is a very odd choice for the Olympic equestrian events, especially given all the other options that had been available, it's a bit late for a re-think. Greenwitch residents are better off renting their homes for the duration of the games for a super inflated amount and going on a nice relaxing holiday somewhere far, far away.


----------



## Luci07 (14 December 2011)

Orwell said:



			I replied to this point on another thread (http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=499368&page=2, post number 16).

It is true that the Park won't be open to the general public, but this is easily offset by the amount of space required to stage the event (the stadium, the press and athletes' area, the stables, the course itself, etc.). Then there is the question of appropriateness. An event involving 68,000 (possibly 70,000 if you include the "Olympic family" and the media) people is too big for the Park and the surrounding area. 

(a) The Guidelines state that for Greenwich Park they can cater for sporting events up to a capacity of 15,000. They do add the qualification "possibly more for certain events". But this suggests a few thousand more, not an event involving over four times as many people. 

(b) It is evident from Locog's plans for the event that it is too big for the Park and the surrounding area. The event will occupy almost all of the Park, the National Maritime Museum, and Circus Field on Blackheath (http://onlineplanning.greenwich.gov.uk/acolnet/documents/45710_2.pdf). And in order to deal with the crowds the Old Royal Naval College and Blackheath itself will also be pressed into service. Some 40,000 spectators are supposed to arrive at Greenwich Station and make their way through the town centre during the morning rush hour, and to retrace their steps during the evening rush hour (http://onlineplanning.greenwich.gov.uk/acolnet/documents/45711_5.pdf). 

While I personally would have liked to have seen an existing site upgraded for future use, that is now water under the bridge - however with reference to travelling in risk hour - friends who work in London tell me that their companies are already working out who an wfh etc during peak times....
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Mithras (14 December 2011)

badattitude said:



			I have been to the Edinburgh Festival and to the city on other occasions, including quite recently for a wedding which was rather a large grand affair to say the least. But Edinburgh cannot compare in size to London, nor in volume of traffic or bodies on the ground or tourists or anything else even during the festival. The festival does not require motorway and A road closures like those which will affect the M25 and the Blackwell Tunnel. There is just no comparrison to be made which is why I suspect no one has bothered answering your point.
		
Click to expand...

I actually find it much easier to drive in London (even Central London) than Edinburgh.  Edinburgh is much smaller and its traffic is concentrated in a small area.  During the month of the festival, the very pavements are so crowded it is actually necessary to walk on the road.  And it lasts a month - the whole of August.  Many locals hate it, but endure it because presumably emphasising with other's needs is something you do in a city.  Those who can't move out, either temporarily or permanently.  I do think that if I couldn't bear the public aspect use of a city, I would make a point of living in as remote an area of countryside as I could!



badattitude said:



			As a runner in the Park and other places, I would assume you are aware that for major races the start is staggered, the London Marathon definately is, because the capacity of the park (which is obviously is without the Olympic infrastructure and therefore more open) is only thought to be safely 21-25000 on a one off very short term basis. A point which none of you defending the cause has answered if it is an argument you want.
		
Click to expand...

No, the 10k in Greenwich Park does not have a staggered start.  Neither does the Park Run in Avebury Park every Saturday morning.  They run without any problems.  Neither is the London Marathon, which funnels its competitors along a narrow roadway and is staggered by the estimated finishing times of the competitors to primarily enable fast times to be run, not to avoid inconveniencing the locals.



badattitude said:



			I do not think the venue will be changed now despite Ms Marwoods efforts but that does not make it a good choice.
		
Click to expand...

The protestors are seeking to change a decision which has already been made.  Therefore it is up to them to prove their case, not the other side to prove theirs.  They would be required to do this in law, otherwise any changes (which I really doubt will ever happen) would be subject to allegations of personal interference and unjustice.

I really wonder why so much effort is being put into this by certain people.  Its almost certain to go ahead, the majority of the population appear not to mind, and the only way they can succeed is by convincing the majority that the extreme localisation of the issue trumps all other concerns.  Even then, with the timescale given, it is simply not going to happen.  So why continue?

Rachel Mawhood is an interesting character.  She has quite a history of involvement in "niche" issues, such as this over the years, ranging from appearance in a property tribunal case (unsuccessful, but this is where I recognised the name from - she is no lawyer as it was obvious that her case would not succeed) to unsuccessful attempts to be elected as a local councillor.  This is all in the public domain.  Its certainly quite profile-raising.  And why was the decision not challenged by the legal mechanism provided by law - judicial review, rather than individualising it?


----------



## badattitude (15 December 2011)

I should imagine your answer to the judicial review question is the obvious one; that is money. Who would foot the cost of such an action initially? 
As for your comments about the 10k run and weekend park runs, neither of them has anywhere near the amount of people expected  for the olympic  games and on Marathon day from my own observation, the start takes ages, the whole 30000 or whatever it is dont all start en masse but never the less it is only a few hours although obviously signs of the imminent approach of the marathon are evident for a while before hand. 
   I totally understand what you are saying about driving in edinburgh, it is why I generally don't when the festival is on. But it still is not a good comparisson. Anyone who has to drive across the river in the South East of London will tell you what happens when there is an accident in the Blackwall Tunnel. Total gridlock, for hours. LOCOG  are proposing to close half of it for a month in addition to the closures on the A12, M25 and other major arteries. The DLR has not been significantly improved this far although work is apprently ongoing. At the last meeting of Greenwich traders and LOCOG they mentioned that it was their intention to get many of the visitors off the train at North Greenwich ( thats the station for the o2) and then either shuttle them or encourage them to walk ( i would reckon it is a good twenty minute walk at least probably half an hour). There is no equivalent to this scenario in Edinburgh and yes the residents put up with it because the tourist  benefits are immediately apparent. The entire Games  (already over budget) will not help the local economies enough to compensate them for the loss of business etc when staff and goods cannot travel freely. This has been acknowledged I believe but thus far there are no plans for compensation packages that i am aware of. Everyone need to see the bigger picture here, this is not just about equestrian and getting a nice view, it is about making the Games work for everyone. There is an excellent study on the cost of past Olympics which shows the cost of a Games is not fully felt for six to eight years. I think it is fair to say most people now are aware where Greece is seven years after their expenditure.  Consequntly I personally believe it is very important for all objections to be publicly noted  regardless of whether they will affect outcome or not because afterwards people will need to be held accountable and there will be no saying certain matters were not brought to their attention this way.


----------



## Equibrit (15 December 2011)

badattitude said:



			To whom are you refering in your rude and uncouth way? Do you think that being rude is a 'clever' retort?  There is no whining here as far as I can see from either side of the debate  and as it happens the opening poster has made her views very clear to LOCOG as have I and a great many other people.
		
Click to expand...

The Indianapolis Motor Speedway accommodates 250,000 spectators on 220 acres. Greenwich Park is 180 acres. What is the problem ?


----------



## cefyl (15 December 2011)

Equibrit said:



			The Indianapolis Motor Speedway accommodates 250,000 spectators on 220 acres. Greenwich Park is 180 acres. What is the problem ?
		
Click to expand...

This must be the most hilarious analogy (or most Naive) I have ever heard!


----------



## Mithras (15 December 2011)

badattitude said:



			I should imagine your answer to the judicial review question is the obvious one; that is money. Who would foot the cost of such an action initially?
		
Click to expand...

One would have thought that, if the cause were so important to those concerned, they would have found some way of doing so.  Ms Mawhood has represented herself in legal proceedings before, albeit unsuccessfully.



badattitude said:



			Everyone need to see the bigger picture here, this is not just about equestrian and getting a nice view, it is about making the Games work for everyone. There is an excellent study on the cost of past Olympics which shows the cost of a Games is not fully felt for six to eight years. I think it is fair to say most people now are aware where Greece is seven years after their expenditure.  Consequntly I personally believe it is very important for all objections to be publicly noted  regardless of whether they will affect outcome or not because afterwards people will need to be held accountable and there will be no saying certain matters were not brought to their attention this way.
		
Click to expand...

Again, this is exactly why judicial review of the decision is the appropriate way forward.  It is the best way of making people accountable (and I am sure that Ms Mawhood, as a seasoned "complainant" on numerous community related matters, is aware of this).  You should also be aware that if you do go down any legal route, commenting on it on various forums on the internet may prejudice your case.

But what on earth do you hope to acheive now?  A last minute change of venue?  I doubt that would happen.  But if it did, who would fund it?  The taxpayer?

I also have to say that again, that it is up to you and your fellow complainants to prove your case.  In other words, you need to convince other people that you are right.  The other "side" do not need to convince you that they are not wrong.  I was honestly quite shocked by the poorly written letter in the OP, and by some of the poor grammar and sentence construction in later supporting replies.  It would not convince me that the writer has particularly good judgement, and that I should believe what she says.  

Despite this, the writer (and some of her supporters) are rather condescending in their later replies (I got the feeling they think anyone who disagrees with them is rather stupid/unworldly/inexperienced, when personally I rather suspect that the opposite is true).  Again, this does little to convince me of the efficacy of their arguement, and I doubt I am not the only one.


----------



## badattitude (15 December 2011)

If it is points of grammar you wish to score, please be clear to whom you are addressing your statements. I have supported Rachel Marwood on this forum because there are a great many people who have been extremely rude to her  when their replies appear to have been based little on fact or actual experience but mostly on hearsay and propaganda.  
  But I do believe the Olympic venue is a done deal and will not be moved and therefore certainly do not  need to 'prove a case' to anyone. I would also have to say that both sides are as convinced they are entirely right and the others are either ignorant or just whinging/making difficulties/loooking through rose tinted glasses.  As for being condescending, that also applies to both sides, including yourself. I do believe as an experienced horse person that Greenwich is the wrong place  and persisting in this for the sake of a good view and a compact games will be the kiss of death for Olympic equestrian. But that is my opinion and this this is merely a forum for a debate on a subject I did not bring up.  
  And it is a low shot passing comment on other people's grammar and spelling in a forum when you do not know their circumstances. Dyslexia, astigmatism, partial sight, learning difficulties, old/faulty equipment etc etc etc any of these can be a factor on a forum where people are likely to be typing freehand without using a WP programme or from their phone where it is easy to make mistakes. These are not legal documents, just opinions.  However,  it is my personal opinion, that in any debate, when people resort to cheap shots it is because their real argument lacks substance. Nobody, on this forum or anywhere else for that matter,  has given a good reason for locating the equestrian where it is apart from the nice view. Great Leighs for example (which I realise has subsequently been under a cloud but was not when the bid went in) is almost exactly the same distance east of the Olympic Village as Greenwich is south, the company owned at least 200 acres of the surrounding countryside and it has excellent access for people and horses as well as being much closer to good equine veterinary facilities. But aside from  being on the bid list, it was never realistically considered. That fact alone says much about the attitude of LOCOG to these games. People in offices with little practical experience deciding that they knew best. Because surely no experienced horse person could support a venue that will only have basic veterinary care and for all major injuries the horse will have to be driven through south London to Bell Equine? One hopes a police escort will be provided on that occasion.


----------



## Equibrit (15 December 2011)

cefyl said:



			This must be the most hilarious analogy (or most Naive) I have ever heard!
		
Click to expand...

Why ?



badattitude said:



			Because surely no experienced horse person could support a venue that will only have basic veterinary care and for all major injuries the horse will have to be driven through south London to Bell Equine? One hopes a police escort will be provided on that occasion.
		
Click to expand...

It appears that you are ignorant of the facilities provided at Olympic events.


----------



## Orwell (15 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			Ms Mawhood has represented herself in legal proceedings before, albeit unsuccessfully ... I am sure that Ms Mawhood, as a seasoned "complainant" on numerous community related matters
		
Click to expand...

It seems to me that your comments on Rachel Mawhood in your last two posts are a, somewhat shabby, attempt to discredit her. I don't agree with everything that she says or does, but I respect her for standing up so valiantly and doggedly for what she believes is right. It seems curious to me that you have researched her background. May I ask: do you have a professional interest in this matter? 

Returning to the discussion, here is the official justification for holding the Olympic equestrian events Greenwich Park (http://www.london2012.com/greenwich-park/why-greenwich-park.html):



			The Park was chosen for a number of key reasons:

* The Parks closeness to the Olympic Village ensures the Equestrian events are placed at the heart of the Games. Travel time for athletes will be kept to a minimum, enabling them to feel part of the action.

* Its cost effective. Modern Pentathlon takes place over one day in which the athletes need to access the fencing and swimming facilities in the Olympic Park and riding, shooting and running facilities close by. Holding Equestrian and Modern Pentathlon events in the same location in Greenwich Park removes the need to build duplicate facilities. This reduces costs and makes it easier for the athletes competing.

* Using a popular London location allows spectators to travel to the venue by public transport and ensures they enjoy the buzz of the city during the Games.

* New urban audiences have a chance to see elite-level Equestrian events at first hand.

* This iconic location showcases Greenwich and London to audiences worldwide.
		
Click to expand...

Does anyone find this case remotely convincing? Does it justify spending 60 million pounds (so far) on an unsuitable venue (for cross-country horses and riders, and for spectators), leaving no positive legacy, seriously inconveniencing tens of thousands of regular Park users and millions of visitors to the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site (for nearly a year), and causing great damage to the Park?


----------



## badattitude (15 December 2011)

Equibrit said:



			Why ?



It appears that you are ignorant of the facilities provided at Olympic events.
		
Click to expand...

Equibrit it is you who is showing ignorance, Bell equine has been named by the organisers as the treatment centre  for any major incident. Both Sha Tin and Markopolous (sp) are permanent centres with veterinary hospitals either already in place or specifically built and remain there to this day still in use. THERE IS NO ROOM at Greenwich for such a facility, there will be the  medical treatment one would expect at any decent three day event but unlike the last few Games, anything more extravagant will require moving the horses. Originally  the plan was to transport the horses to Potters Bar or Newmarket but even the organisers realised the latter was too far and the former the opposite side of London.  This is all well documented in various documents.


----------



## badattitude (15 December 2011)

Orwell, once again well said. I would also like to point out that the point stated as a reason  regarding the modern pentathalon is completely moot. There have been many occasions when the equestrian phase of this event has taken place in a different one to the other horse events, Bejing for example. That is because there is no requirement to stable the horses, there are shipped in, the riders draw for who rides which, and then the horses go home again. Any of the riding schools close to the Olympic Park with an arena could have sufficed (Trent Park, Mudchute Farm, Aldersbrook, etc etc etc) particualrly if some of the money  was used to improve their facilities, which would also have been some sort of legacy.......

Oh yes and the urban audiences appear to have little chance of seeing the sport close up, we don't know anyone, neither do our children, that is going to the equestrian section. Not for want of trying either.


----------



## Mithras (15 December 2011)

Orwell said:



			It seems to me that your comments on Rachel Mawhood in your last two posts are a, somewhat shabby, attempt to discredit her. I don't agree with everything that she says or does, but I respect her for standing up so valiantly and doggedly for what she believes is right. It seems curious to me that you have researched her background. May I ask: do you have a professional interest in this matter?
		
Click to expand...

No, I became curious as to why this individual repeatedly uses this online equestrian forum to publicise her own special interests.  She does not contribute to debates, (albeit in the past she has insulted regular posters for failing to agree with her).  Upon googling her name, which is done very quickly and easily, I discovered that she has been involved in a number of similar projects, without a great deal of success.  Particularly I was somewhat surprised by the case she brought herself (without the usual assistance of a solicitor or surveyor) to the property tribunal.  It was so obvious it would not succeed from the word go.  I am suspicious of what we term "barrack room lawyers" (non legally qualified people who think they can bypass legal training to state the law).  

If on the other hand, she had a more impressive record and perhaps a less selfish interest in it, and presented her written work in a more orthodox and convincing fashion (surely she can ask someone to check it for her?), I would be more inclined to treat her views as having some merit.  Although that does not negate their lack of substantive merit.

I am afraid that if she wishes to use a forum in this manner (i.e. using her own name quite deliberately so that it is connected with it), it is in the public domain and any other relevant information also in the public domain may be found by other users.

Furthermore, if you are attempting to present a case to persuade others to your way of thinking, do not then complain if others pick it apart or find fault in it!  It is your job to present a more well researched, more convincing case, not the fault of the critic surely?


----------



## Mithras (15 December 2011)

badattitude said:



			Orwell, once again well said. I would also like to point out that the point stated as a reason  regarding the modern pentathalon is completely moot. There have been many occasions when the equestrian phase of this event has taken place in a different one to the other horse events, Bejing for example. That is because there is no requirement to stable the horses, there are shipped in, the riders draw for who rides which, and then the horses go home again. Any of the riding schools close to the Olympic Park with an arena could have sufficed (Trent Park, Mudchute Farm, Aldersbrook, etc etc etc) particualrly if some of the money  was used to improve their facilities, which would also have been some sort of legacy.......

Oh yes and the urban audiences appear to have little chance of seeing the sport close up, we don't know anyone, neither do our children, that is going to the equestrian section. Not for want of trying either.
		
Click to expand...

I'm loving the idea of an Olympic event being held at a local riding school!  Perhaps they could even use the riding school ponies, and double up...

I have to say, I think the fact that the London Olympics are not going to be spread out in isolated locations all over, and the subsequent loss of atmosphere that occurs from this, great.


----------



## badattitude (15 December 2011)

Mithras, that is precisely what did happen in Beijing! The horses for modern pentathalon are always borrowed and usually not of a very high standard. And I was  not suggesting using the riding school ponies, please read properly before commenting, just the arenas. And for your information Mudchute Farm is closer to the main Stadium than Greenwich, you will find it on the north side of the river directly between Greenwich Park and most of the 'iconic view"...... Lee Bridge also has an arena as close as Greenwich. And as I said there has been money available to waste on the Greenwich site, it is a pity one of these existing equestrian sites  couldn't have been improved enough for 70 rounds at a meter high. And I am wondering why you feel the need to rubbish everything any objector says when you also have not bothered to get all the facts. As I keep repeating, I personally am not expecting the venue to change now, but heaven forbid I should just decide to smile and say I love the idea just because government propaganda says I must. There was an excellent article by a former member of this forum which listed several other broken promises made to Londoners  by LOCOG, there are a great many people who have been disillusioned about these Games. Just because they are not all horsey and posting on here, it does not mean they are not there.


----------



## Equibrit (16 December 2011)

badattitude said:



			.. there will be the  medical treatment one would expect at any decent three day event but unlike the last few Games, anything more extravagant will require moving the horses.
		
Click to expand...

That is incorrect, based on my experience working at the games. The facilities are pretty impressive, albeit temporary.


----------



## cefyl (16 December 2011)

Equibrit said:



			Why ?
QUOTE]

It should not need to be explained the difference in layout requirements between The Brickyard / NASCAR tracks and the full range of Olympic equine events to include xc course!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Orwell (16 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			No, I became curious as to why this individual repeatedly uses this online equestrian forum to publicise her own special interests.  She does not contribute to debates, (albeit in the past she has insulted regular posters for failing to agree with her).  Upon googling her name, which is done very quickly and easily, I discovered that she has been involved in a number of similar projects, without a great deal of success.  Particularly I was somewhat surprised by the case she brought herself (without the usual assistance of a solicitor or surveyor) to the property tribunal.  It was so obvious it would not succeed from the word go.  I am suspicious of what we term "barrack room lawyers" (non legally qualified people who think they can bypass legal training to state the law).
		
Click to expand...

Again, I find that personalising the debate in this way is distasteful. It looks like mudslinging. It also detracts from the force of any _arguments_ that you may make. Play the ball, not the man (or in this case the woman). 




			If ... she ... presented her written work in a more orthodox and convincing fashion (surely she can ask someone to check it for her?), I would be more inclined to treat her views as having some merit.  Although that does not negate their lack of substantive merit.
		
Click to expand...

This seems to be a re-assertion of the "Miss Jean Brodie" argument, followed by a retraction of it. Do you believe that arguments can be dismissed because you dislike the way that they are expressed? Or do you believe that they should be judged on their "substantive merit"?




			I am afraid that if she wishes to use a forum in this manner (i.e. using her own name quite deliberately so that it is connected with it), it is in the public domain and any other relevant information also in the public domain may be found by other users.
		
Click to expand...

I gather that she uses her own name so as to be able to express her views forcefully without hiding behind the cover of anonymity. You are right to point out that there is a downside to this. 




			Furthermore, if you are attempting to present a case to persuade others to your way of thinking, do not then complain if others pick it apart or find fault in it!  It is your job to present a more well researched, more convincing case, not the fault of the critic surely?
		
Click to expand...

As explained above, I'm urging you to raise your game. Don't attack Rachel Mawhood personally, attack the substantive points that she makes.


----------



## badattitude (16 December 2011)

Equibrit, once again you  are displaying ignorance. I am sure if you search the web you will find the announcement regarding Bell Equine, it is no secret. They are an excellent practise but some way south of the venue. Despite your previous Games experience (mine includes Athens, Atlanta and Barcelona and I have visited Sha Tin for other reasons) the London Games is not the same. The permanent venue at Barcelona is probably the nearest thing and it's facilities are extremely impressive but Greenwich does not have the room. That is why the Circus Field is now being used. It was not on any of the original plans. Perhaps before rubbishing  things said by myself or Rachel Marwood or anyone else that does not happen to fall within your unsubstantiated 'opinion' on what these Games will be like, perhaps you could look into it through sources that are not BEF/LOCOG puppets and you might have a moment of epiphany as I did. I assume you know for example,  that at this Games, unlike any other, the fence judges on xc day will nearly all be provided with green screens and there will be a five minute delay on the transmission. Why do you suppose that is?


----------



## perfect11s (16 December 2011)

My view it's going to happen  all this is too late , the other thing  protest groups are  largely a waste of time!!! if you want any infuence over local matters like planing you need to get people onto the local council ,


----------



## Orwell (16 December 2011)

badattitude said:



			I would also like to point out that the point stated as a reason  regarding the modern pentathalon is completely moot.
		
Click to expand...

The requirements for the Modern Pentathlon are very modest: 



			The riding discipline involves show jumping over a 350450 m course with 12 to 15 obstacles. Competitors are paired with horses in a draw 20 minutes before the start of the event.  [Wikipedia]
		
Click to expand...

To allow these to determine where the Olympic equestrian events are sited seems to me to be allowing the tail to wag the dog.

Moreover, I suspect that the claim that using Greenwich Park is cost effective is now not moot but false. Tens of millions of pounds have had to be spent on holding the events in Greenwich Park _because it is Greenwich Park_. For example they can't dig down because much of the Park is protected or because there are underground sewers, etc. As the lawns in front of the Queen's house slope by 3 metres, they have had to build an area platform, and to develop an artificial surface, etc. They will also (if they are to honour Lord Coe's promises and the FEI Code of Conduct towards the Environment) have to spend a fortune restoring the Park after the Olympics. And there is no positive legacy to justify this cost.

The other key reasons for choosing the Park are even less convincing. The last one is, if taken literally, nonsense:



			* This iconic location showcases Greenwich and London to audiences worldwide.
		
Click to expand...

Presumably they mean that holding the events in the Park will promote Greenwich and London. But Greenwich and London don't need promoting in this way. Maritime Greenwich is a World Heritage Site, some 4-6 million people visit it each year. In 2012, most of the WHS will be closed for almost a month and the Park in particular will be a building site for about half of the year.


----------



## Alec Swan (16 December 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			.......
This is not about me.
		
Click to expand...

I'd take some convincing of that.

Alec.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			Rachel Mawhood is an interesting character.  She has quite a history of involvement in "niche" issues, such as this over the years, ranging from appearance in a property tribunal case (unsuccessful, but this is where I recognised the name from - she is no lawyer as it was obvious that her case would not succeed) to unsuccessful attempts to be elected as a local councillor.  This is all in the public domain.  Its certainly quite profile-raising.  And why was the decision not challenged by the legal mechanism provided by law - judicial review, rather than individualising it?
		
Click to expand...

You are not telling the truth.  

I won at the Lands Tribunal.  I WON.

http://www3.eurolii.org/ew/cases/EWLands/2008/LRX_59_2007.html

Find me one other person who has represented him/herself at the Lands Tribunal and won, against one of the most corrupt property companies in the country?

I have never stood for election as a local councillor.  Why are you making this up?  Where do you think I made any attempts to be elected as a local councillor?  I should HATE to be a local councillor - I am far too much of a geek - and I have never been a member of any political party.

I don't know where you get all your misinformation, particularly as - when I last looked - I seemed to be the only person in the world called Rachel Mawhood.

Please withdraw your wholly inaccurate remarks.


----------



## DragonSlayer (16 December 2011)

Things are getting interesting.....


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (16 December 2011)

DragonSleigh-Bells said:









Things are getting interesting.....
		
Click to expand...

Hehe, Friday night, a few drinks, yeeharrrrrr!


----------



## Mithras (16 December 2011)

Orwell said:



			Again, I find that personalising the debate in this way is distasteful. It looks like mudslinging. It also detracts from the force of any _arguments_ that you may make. Play the ball, not the man (or in this case the woman).
		
Click to expand...

Not possible in the law.  If someone is renowned as building up the potential for becoming a vexatious litigant, then it is entirely delitus personnae.  



Orwell said:



			This seems to be a re-assertion of the "Miss Jean Brodie" argument, followed by a retraction of it. Do you believe that arguments can be dismissed because you dislike the way that they are expressed? Or do you believe that they should be judged on their "substantive merit"?
		
Click to expand...

I am afraid that a certain basic standard of written expression is necessary to enable comprehension.  Her letter is almost impossible to interpret and the point is actually not made, or if it is, it is very unclear.  The substance itself is rambling, overly individualised, biased and given unequal importance.  In view of the numerous assistance easily available to produce letters to an acceptable standard, this is unacceptable.  



Orwell said:



			I gather that she uses her own name so as to be able to express her views forcefully without hiding behind the cover of anonymity. You are right to point out that there is a downside to this. 

As explained above, I'm urging you to raise your game. Don't attack Rachel Mawhood personally, attack the substantive points that she makes.
		
Click to expand...

I believe the person involved is a bit of a vexatious litigant but one who uses free procedures when necessary - someone who specialises in bringing nuisance cases, with little chance of success, often at expense to the taxpayer.  

I am perfectly confident in my ability and experience to spot flaws such as this.


----------



## Mithras (16 December 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			You are not telling the truth.  

I won at the Lands Tribunal.  I WON.

http://www3.eurolii.org/ew/cases/EWLands/2008/LRX_59_2007.html

Find me one other person who has represented him/herself at the Lands Tribunal and won, against one of the most corrupt property companies in the country?

I have never stood for election as a local councillor.  Why are you making this up?  Where do you think I made any attempts to be elected as a local councillor?  I should HATE to be a local councillor - I am far too much of a geek - and I have never been a member of any political party.

I don't know where you get all your misinformation, particularly as - when I last looked - I seemed to be the only person in the world called Rachel Mawhood.

Please withdraw your wholly inaccurate remarks.
		
Click to expand...

No.


----------



## Mithras (16 December 2011)

badattitude said:



			Equibrit, once again you  are displaying ignorance. I am sure if you search the web you will find the announcement regarding Bell Equine, it is no secret. They are an excellent practise but some way south of the venue. Despite your previous Games experience (mine includes Athens, Atlanta and Barcelona and I have visited Sha Tin for other reasons) the London Games is not the same. The permanent venue at Barcelona is probably the nearest thing and it's facilities are extremely impressive but Greenwich does not have the room. That is why the Circus Field is now being used. It was not on any of the original plans. Perhaps before rubbishing  things said by myself or Rachel Marwood or anyone else that does not happen to fall within your unsubstantiated 'opinion' on what these Games will be like, perhaps you could look into it through sources that are not BEF/LOCOG puppets and you might have a moment of epiphany as I did. I assume you know for example,  that at this Games, unlike any other, the fence judges on xc day will nearly all be provided with green screens and there will be a five minute delay on the transmission. Why do you suppose that is?
		
Click to expand...

Oh come on.  If you are going to expound such beligirent views on a public forum, and try and tell people more clever than yourselves what they should think, don't make a fuss simply because someone stands up and challenges you!

Oh, and if I don't instantly reply to your cybernaut-esque thinly disguised biggotry, its because I'm actually away competing this week and into the beginning of next.  Some of us prefer to use our time productively achieving things, rather than obsessivly trying to control and micro-manage our own local environment.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 December 2011)

An irresistable mental picture of Mithras is forming, of someone aged about 101 harking back to the good old days of being in the law when serfs knew their place.  All this scattering around of Latin phrases.

Everyone, please Google "delitus personnae".  It doesn't mean what Mithras half-remembers it meaning.

You are trolling, Mithras.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (16 December 2011)

Go Mithras !

 Its a little annoying that Ms RM and her sidekick Orwell have decided to use a horse forum to continue their obsession. Every single post is concerned with their own private battle. 

Some of us are looking forward to the event. Quite a lot of us actually.


----------



## much-jittering (16 December 2011)

Sorry, I was just reading this for interests sake but had to post - I can understand all the arguements against Greenwich for the horse events, but IMHO it's now a done deal, it won't change, so you may as well calm down and sit back and say 'I told you so' if it does all go wrong.

However, the reason I posted was to ask, if Greenwich is too small for all the reasons that have been listed (safety, too tight for the course, emergency access etc), how on earth can somebody suggest existing London yards as an alternative?! Just because they've already got an arena and some stabling? Come on, do the maths, you've all come accross as having fairly screwed on heads (apart from still flogging this dead horse) - how does it all fit into Trent Park or similar without completely flattening 200 acres and starting again?


----------



## Capriole (16 December 2011)

horserider said:



			Go Mithras !

 Its a little annoying that Ms RM and her sidekick Orwell have decided to use a horse forum to continue their obsession. Every single post is concerned with their own private battle. 

Some of us are looking forward to the event. Quite a lot of us actually.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with that. Im looking forward to it too


----------



## Mrs B (16 December 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			An irresistable mental picture of Mithras is forming, of someone aged about 101 harking back to the good old days of being in the law when serfs knew their place.  All this scattering around of Latin phrases.

Everyone, please Google "delitus personnae".  It doesn't mean what Mithras half-remembers it meaning.

You are trolling, Mithras.
		
Click to expand...

And you, Madam, come across as one stop past East Ham...
It's done and dusted - give it up and move on.


----------



## badattitude (16 December 2011)

Horserider, I do not think that Mithras should be encouraged for being so personal in her posts. And i do not disagree with you, many people are looking forward to the Games, including myself but that does not mean we cannot be concerned about aspects of it. Most of the other venues are gorgeous and will have a life afterwards and hopefully boost the economy in some very poor areas but it is a fact that many of the people most directly affected by the Games will get nothing from them except an increased council tax bill and much aggravation. Hardly anyone in our area and no one at the children's school has got tickets for example. 


Mithras, How convenent that you are not her to apologise for lowering an albeit heated debate into a personal attack.  There is no thinly disguised anything about my passion for this subject. If you wish to call that bigotry (only one 'g' in that word by the way if you are going to continue to harp on about grammar because your own argument lacks substance), then carry on. I probably an 'excessively zealous' about this as I want to keep equestrianism both in London and in the Olympics and I am terrified that  the current plans and waste of public money with sound the death knell for both. 
And you seem to be styling yourself as some sort of legal expert with regard to your comments on Rachel. In which case, you clearly did not pay attention to one of the first lessons which was assume nothing. Remember assume is the thing that makes an ass out if u and me? Once again, you have resorted to personal attack to divert from your weak argument. You know nothing about my life or what i have achieved or what I do in my spare time. You might be surprised to find out. 
Further you have called me belligerent but I do not think this is a war, I merely joined in after several pages because I thought Rachel Marwood was getting a very unfair time. There are many people on this forum cleverer than I but I have not called any of them stupid as a personal attack. I told Equibrit she was displaying ignorance of the facts, which she is, but that is not the same thing which you should understand if you are such a master of the English language. No one yet has actually provided a  single fact to challenge anything said by Rachel Marwood, Orwell, Cefyl or myself on this thread, quite the contrary, including yourself. And the worst thing about you Mithras is that  you have made assumptions and said said things like the quoted test above that are rude, arrogant and as belligerent as any post of mine but not even had the grace to if not apologise, but keep quiet when someone has pointed out you are in the wrong.
  People like you, who cannot have a debate without making it personal are the lowest of the low, particularly when they are hiding behind their internet identity. If you see a lady with long dark hair, two blonde children (one girl one boy) and a brown and white spaniel when you are running in Greenwich, that will be me. Feel free to run up and introduce yourself.


----------



## perfect11s (16 December 2011)

badattitude said:



			Horserider, I do not think that Mithras should be encouraged for being so personal in her posts. And i do not disagree with you, many people are looking forward to the Games, including myself but that does not mean we cannot be concerned about aspects of it. Most of the other venues are gorgeous and will have a life afterwards and hopefully boost the economy in some very poor areas but it is a fact that many of the people most directly affected by the Games will get nothing from them except an increased council tax bill and much aggravation. Hardly anyone in our area and no one at the children's school has got tickets for example. 


Mithras, How convenent that you are not her to apologise for lowering an albeit heated debate into a personal attack.  There is no thinly disguised anything about my passion for this subject. If you wish to call that bigotry (only one 'g' in that word by the way if you are going to continue to harp on about grammar because your own argument lacks substance), then carry on. I probably an 'excessively zealous' about this as I want to keep equestrianism both in London and in the Olympics and I am terrified that  the current plans and waste of public money with sound the death knell for both. 
And you seem to be styling yourself as some sort of legal expert with regard to your comments on Rachel. In which case, you clearly did not pay attention to one of the first lessons which was assume nothing. Remember assume is the thing that makes an ass out if u and me? Once again, you have resorted to personal attack to divert from your weak argument. You know nothing about my life or what i have achieved or what I do in my spare time. You might be surprised to find out. 
Further you have called me belligerent but I do not think this is a war, I merely joined in after several pages because I thought Rachel Marwood was getting a very unfair time. There are many people on this forum cleverer than I but I have not called any of them stupid as a personal attack. I told Equibrit she was displaying ignorance of the facts, which she is, but that is not the same thing which you should understand if you are such a master of the English language. No one yet has actually provided a  single fact to challenge anything said by Rachel Marwood, Orwell, Cefyl or myself on this thread, quite the contrary, including yourself. And the worst thing about you Mithras is that  you have made assumptions and said said things like the quoted test above that are rude, arrogant and as belligerent as any post of mine but not even had the grace to if not apologise, but keep quiet when someone has pointed out you are in the wrong.
  People like you, who cannot have a debate without making it personal are the lowest of the low, particularly when they are hiding behind their internet identity. If you see a lady with long dark hair, two blonde children (one girl one boy) and a brown and white spaniel when you are running in Greenwich, that will be me. Feel free to run up and introduce yourself.
		
Click to expand...

Cave quid dicis,quando et cui


----------



## MerrySherryRider (16 December 2011)

perfect11s said:



			Cave quid dicis,quando et cui  

Click to expand...

LOL !


----------



## badattitude (16 December 2011)

much-jittering said:



			Sorry, I was just reading this for interests sake but had to post - I can understand all the arguements against Greenwich for the horse events, but IMHO it's now a done deal, it won't change, so you may as well calm down and sit back and say 'I told you so' if it does all go wrong.

However, the reason I posted was to ask, if Greenwich is too small for all the reasons that have been listed (safety, too tight for the course, emergency access etc), how on earth can somebody suggest existing London yards as an alternative?! Just because they've already got an arena and some stabling? Come on, do the maths, you've all come accross as having fairly screwed on heads (apart from still flogging this dead horse) - how does it all fit into Trent Park or similar without completely flattening 200 acres and starting again?
		
Click to expand...

You have mis-read that post. One argument put forward by LOCOG was that the Modern Pentathlon riding had to be in the main equestrian arena so all their phases could be completed on time. At other Games, the main equestrian arena has not always been used for this, e.g. in Bejing. There is no IOC requirement for it to be in a big arena, consequently I merely pointed out that some of the money could have been used to improve an already existing  facility for the modern pentathlon riding, where the horses are only required to jump a track about a meter high with 12-15 jumping efforts.  The horses for this generally are common or garden borrowed horses (the riders cannot ride their own) and so must (by FEI rules under which Olympic equestrian is run) be kept separate  from the horses actually competing because of the fear of possible infections or contamination of facilities which might lead to a positive dope test for example. The London Games are making a massive effort to source former/current jumping horses to make things a little better than what was seen in Bejing but they will still be shipped in on the day and shipped straight home. The competitors still have to run after riding so there is plenty of opportunity to see them even if a tiny venue was used in the riding phase.


----------



## badattitude (16 December 2011)

perfect11s said:



			Cave quid dicis,quando et cui  

Click to expand...

Precisely!    I couldn't have put it better myself perfect11s! Perhaps I am guilty of cacoethes scribende, looking at my posts, so I apologise for their excessive length!


----------



## Dab (16 December 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			International competition equestrianism is an elite sport, nothing to do with people loving their horses.
		
Click to expand...

Hi Rachel could you please explain what you mean in the captioned quote. Are you saying that just International equestrian competition is an elite sport? If so how do you see this as elite, i.e. only the best of the best compete internationally = elite; or a lot of money is required to compete in the international arena therefore = elite; or something completely different?
Are there any other sports contained within the Olympic suite that you would also consider as an elite sport?


----------



## badattitude (16 December 2011)

For those who didn't believe what I said about the Olympic veterinary care here is a quote from one of the partners at Bell Equine on his linkedin page. 


"Julian Samuelson's Summary

As managing partner of the Bell Equine Veterinary Clinic, a 100% equine first opinion and referral practice based in the heart of Kent, I am responsible for the day-to-day management of the practice as well as developing and implementing our strategic objectives. 
In addition, as a member of the LOCOG Veterinary Services Team, I am currently overseeing the preparations for Bell Equine's role as a trauma centre for the Equestrian Games at the London 2012 Olympics." 

Here is the link http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/julian-samuelson/31/244/a54


----------



## quirky (17 December 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			An irresistable mental picture of Mithras is forming, of someone aged about 101 harking back to the good old days of being in the law when serfs knew their place.  All this scattering around of Latin phrases.

Everyone, please Google "delitus personnae".  It doesn't mean what Mithras half-remembers it meaning.

You are trolling, Mithras.
		
Click to expand...

And my mental image of you Ms Mawhood is of an unemployed dippy hippy in hemp sandals who has too much time on your hands to be able to waste tax payers money on a variety of personal crusades (GIYF) .

Mithras is absolutely not a troll. I suggest you look up the dictionary definition of it, as from where I'm sitting, that cap is sitting firmly on your head.

Say what you like about her but she is tenacious, has the ability to laugh at herself (and others ) and will actually hold her hands up and admit to being wrong.

Maybe you could learn something from her ?


----------



## Orwell (17 December 2011)

horserider said:



			Some of us are looking forward to the event. Quite a lot of us actually.
		
Click to expand...

No doubt the 50,000 ticket holders for the cross-country are looking forward to it. But Badminton regularly caters for 100,000. So at least 50,000 will miss out because of the decision to use Greenwich Park.  Imagine that these are young people who are very keen on the sport, i.e. its future. If the Olympics are not for them, then who are they for? 

Back in June, Stephen Glover wrote of the 2012 Olympics in general:



			What was supposed to be an open and democratic event has the feel of misplaced exclusivity and elitism.
That may be tolerable for Wimbledon, but not for the 2012 London Games mostly paid for out of public funds.
This is corporate, fat-cat Britain in which the political class and senior public servants along with rich businessmen have a ball largely at our expense.
This cannot be what Baron Pierre de Coubertin and his friends had in mind when they resurrected the modern Olympic Games.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...eebies-fat-cats-public-treated-like-mugs.html

Click to expand...

In the case of Greenwich Park, you can probably still buy tickets if you can afford a few thou. Drawings of the Prestige Hospitality tent have been submitted as part of the latest planning application. For example, it is on the right hand side of this drawing of the stadium: 



http://onlineplanning.greenwich.gov.uk/acolnet/documents/45707_4.pdf.
		
Click to expand...

It will clearly be a significant structure (two storeys high, longer than the South Stand). Note also that the cross-country course will actually pass through the tent, so that those inside can watch the event in comfort. The National Maritime Museum is also hiring out part of the Museum and part of the Old Royal Observatory during the Games:



http://www.nmm.ac.uk/business-and-hire/venue-hire/hospitality-in-2012/

(Warning: This link wasn't working at the time of writing.)
		
Click to expand...


----------



## badattitude (17 December 2011)

quirky said:



			And my mental image of you Ms Mawhood is of an unemployed dippy hippy in hemp sandals who has too much time on your hands to be able to waste tax payers money on a variety of personal crusades (GIYF) .

Mithras is absolutely not a troll. I suggest you look up the dictionary definition of it, as from where I'm sitting, that cap is sitting firmly on your head.

Say what you like about her but she is tenacious, has the ability to laugh at herself (and others ) and will actually hold her hands up and admit to being wrong.

Maybe you could learn something from her ?
		
Click to expand...

Well I don't think Mithras is a troll but she isn't a paragon of virtue either. She has made several assumptions about me, been rather rude while making them and not admitted she was wrong on any of them. This is a public forum and if Rachel Marwood wants to post her opinion on an equestrian matter she can, and this should open debate not personal slanging matches. People who do not agree and don't want to enter a debate should just not read her posts or not comment. Strangely I have not met Ms Marwood, although I am often away, but I admire her for standing up for what she believes in. Oh and having bothered to look (after one of Mithras' outbursts) I have found that she did indeed win her case as she stated. 
 Trolls, by the way, hide under an assumed cyber identity like you, me or Mithras, they do not post under their own name.


----------



## badattitude (17 December 2011)

Orwell said:



			No doubt the 50,000 ticket holders for the cross-country are looking forward to it. But Badminton regularly caters for 100,000. So at least 50,000 will miss out because of the decision to use Greenwich Park.  Imagine that these are young people who are very keen on the sport, i.e. its future. If the Olympics are not for them, then who are they for? 

Back in June, Stephen Glover wrote of the 2012 Olympics in general:


In the case of Greenwich Park, you can probably still buy tickets if you can afford a few thou. Drawings of the Prestige Hospitality tent have been submitted as part of the latest planning application. For example, it is on the right hand side of this drawing of the stadium: 

It will clearly be a significant structure (two storeys high, longer than the South Stand). Note also that the cross-country course will actually pass through the tent, so that those inside can watch the event in comfort. The National Maritime Museum is also hiring out part of the Museum and part of the Old Royal Observatory during the Games:
		
Click to expand...

Sorry Orwell, I missed your post earlier. Just to mention that actually the cross country course will go through the middle of the arena. They enter by the judges tower on your drawing and then the track goes right round the arena pretty much incorporating a jump or two and then the competitors leave by the corner top right of your arena plan. This is so the 25000 seats in the arena can be allocated as part of the alleged 50000 cross country tickets.  And as yet there is still no evidence to support that any other tickets have been sold at all for cross country day, aside from LOCOG saying so. I had already heard that there will be no walking along the course as one does at other events, people will be put into pens and expected to stay there. Also there was a suggestion that to increase the capacity, the cross country would have a break at lunchtime (as they do at Rolex in Kentucky) so they could sell the tickets for two sessions....... 
   Rachel Marwood did post a copy of the small print for tickets which was entirely accurate, if anyone bothered to check,  under those conditions LOCOG can do as they please and no one who has a cross country ticket is going to find out other wise, probably until they have the actual ticket in their hands or perhaps not even until they arrive.
Ps. the sun is now shining so am off to take the dog to the Park in question!


----------



## quirky (17 December 2011)

badattitude said:



			I have not met Ms Marwood.
		
Click to expand...

Or might that be Ms Mawhood ?
The devil is in the detail .

As a matter of fact, one does not have to be an alias that acts as a troll. I'm sure if you took some time to look up the true definition, you'd agree .


----------



## Orwell (17 December 2011)

badattitude said:



			actually the cross country course will go through the middle of the arena. They enter by the judges tower on your drawing and then the track goes right round the arena pretty much incorporating a jump or two and then the competitors leave by the corner top right of your arena plan.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry to be a pedant, but in the diagram I referred to in my past post the course is shown as entering the arena through the Prestige Hospitality Tent. It enters on the rhs of the tent (as indicated by the yellow arrowhead) passes through it and continues to the arena (as indicated by the hatching on the lhs of the tent). This can also be clearly seen on the drawing for Phase 7:



http://onlineplanning.greenwich.gov.uk/acolnet/documents/45710_2.pdf

Click to expand...

I think that they then just ride around the arena (no fences) and exit at the south-east corner heading for the boating pond. So I think that the Prestige guests will see horses jumping one fence (on the parterre), but those in the stadium will not.


----------



## Mithras (17 December 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			An irresistable mental picture of Mithras is forming, of someone aged about 101 harking back to the good old days of being in the law when serfs knew their place.  All this scattering around of Latin phrases.

Everyone, please Google "delitus personnae".  It doesn't mean what Mithras half-remembers it meaning.

You are trolling, Mithras.
		
Click to expand...

Does anyone have any idea about what this person is talking about?  Or why they are attempting to use our equine discussion forum for promoting their own minority views?  They certainly aren't interested in any form of discussion, and are quick to resort to insult when their very strong, and rather eccentric viewpoints are challenged.

Calm down dear!


----------



## Mithras (17 December 2011)

quirky said:



			And my mental image of you Ms Mawhood is of an unemployed dippy hippy in hemp sandals who has too much time on your hands to be able to waste tax payers money on a variety of personal crusades (GIYF) .
		
Click to expand...

Most likely the reality is even more mundane.  No doubt someone who has never excelled at anything in her life, and as a result who has instead concentrated her efforts on attempting to disrupt the activies of those who do excel, on the pretext of "mild inconvenience" because a local park near where she lives will be out of use for a short time for a lifetime event. 

Virtually everything she says is innacurate, but she obviously believes it to be true.  

I don't even mind being advised on better ways to do things by people who are brilliant, talented, have fabulous past records, and so on.  This isn't the case here.

Its hardly worth wasting any more time on nutters.  Fun though it is occasionally.


----------



## Mithras (17 December 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			You are not telling the truth.  

I won at the Lands Tribunal.  I WON.

http://www3.eurolii.org/ew/cases/EWLands/2008/LRX_59_2007.html

Click to expand...

Since when did "the truth" become so economical?  You were trying to buy the freehold of your property for a cheaper price than the freeholder agreed with.  You still had to pay more for it than you tried to get away with.  You had the this slightly reduced on appeal by having the wording of the lease amended, since both of parties agreed the leashold agreement contained an error.  You were not awarded expenses.  You did not get the freehold for a cut-price amount, neither did you succeed in getting tens of thousands of pounds off its price because the leaseholder did not maintain the freehold to the standard you unsuccessfully tried to claim was necessary.

I cringe for you every time I read your mixed up attempts at being supercillious when discussing the law.  If you want to be a lawyer, get good enough grades to get into the LLB, study for 4 years, get a 2:1 or higher, get into the LPC, get a two year traineeship and then you just might actually understand some of the wording which you are trying to be so condesceding about (and failing).

Being a little more thoughtful of other people's right to share the world with you wouldn't go amiss.  Not everyone who disagrees with you is evil or bad.  A little modesty would also stand you in good stead, particularly in your case when it is so warranted.  I really am not meaning to be patronising when I say this, but have you ever considered that cognitive behavioural therapy might be something worth exploring?


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (17 December 2011)

Dab said:



			Hi Rachel could you please explain what you mean in the captioned quote. [et seq]
		
Click to expand...

I have already answered this question.

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=9821859&postcount=71


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (17 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			If you want to be a lawyer, get good enough grades to get into the LLB, study for 4 years, get a 2:1 or higher, get into the LPC, get a two year traineeship and then you just might actually understand some of the wording which you are trying to be so condesceding about (and failing).
		
Click to expand...

I am aged 61 and semi-retired from a long and interesting and useful professional life.  Not interested in being a lawyer.  Want to spend the rest of my life keeping hens and bees and dogs, taking up woodwork, travelling a little, and "being there" for my friends and family.



Mithras said:



			I really am not meaning to be patronising when I say this, but have you ever considered that cognitive behavioural therapy might be something worth exploring?
		
Click to expand...

Have you much experience of cyber-bullying?


----------



## Mithras (17 December 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			I am aged 61 and semi-retired from a long and interesting and useful professional life.  Not interested in being a lawyer.  Want to spend the rest of my life keeping hens and bees and dogs, taking up woodwork, travelling a little, and "being there" for my friends and family.
		
Click to expand...

Then might I humbly suggest you try to find it within yourself to enjoy the talent, dedication and competitiveness of those competing at the Olympics, in all sports, which you are lucky enough to live right in the middle of.  Alternatively, if you really find it unbearable, simply go on holiday as some people during the Edinburgh Festival try to do for its month long duration.

ps you are welcome to come up here and try and find my street if you can.  You'll be a long time looking!


----------



## perfect11s (17 December 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Have you much experience of cyber-bullying?
		
Click to expand...

 Look not being
nasty but you should have finished with this its a waste of yours and everyone elses time  banging on about the use of the park  maybe a year ago , for better or worse its going to go ahead
get over it you will feel better and we wont be bored witless by your tedious and vexatious
rambling .. Have a nice day ...... somewhere else


----------



## badattitude (17 December 2011)

Orwell said:



			Sorry to be a pedant, but in the diagram I referred to in my past post the course is shown as entering the arena through the Prestige Hospitality Tent. It enters on the rhs of the tent (as indicated by the yellow arrowhead) passes through it and continues to the arena (as indicated by the hatching on the lhs of the tent). This can also be clearly seen on the drawing for Phase 7:

I think that they then just ride around the arena (no fences) and exit at the south-east corner heading for the boating pond. So I think that the Prestige guests will see horses jumping one fence (on the parterre), but those in the stadium will not.
		
Click to expand...

Now I am being pedantic . The cross country course does not required planning permission per se (as we are doing some latin on here these days)  and consequently has had several changes of route. I am fairly certain there will be a jump in the arena (it is a fairly standard procedure at three day events these days) because of the latest course plans I have seen and also because of the way it was tested at the test event. But it doesn't really matter, most eventing fans are used to walking from jump to jump as they like. The point is that at this event a great many. if not all will be staying in one place to watch, which is very sad and I think that LOCOG should be honest about this as most people will be spending a great deal of money to attend.


----------



## Orwell (18 December 2011)

badattitude said:



			I am fairly certain there will be a jump in the arena (it is a fairly standard procedure at three day events these days) because of the latest course plans I have seen and also because of the way it was tested at the test event.
		
Click to expand...

I remember seeing a drawing somewhere (I don't think that it is part of the current planning application) which suggested that the horses would gallop up a ramp onto the arena platform, across the northern edge of it, and down a ramp to the exit. I'm sure that they could put a jump in if they wanted to. It might be a good idea for legal reasons. No matter what the small print on the ticket says, it would seem to be a paradigm case of mis-selling to sell someone a ticket to a cross country event where they couldn't see a single horse jump; a bit like staging a Buffalo-Bill-Wild-West show without Buffalo Bill or cowboys or indians.




			But it doesn't really matter, most eventing fans are used to walking from jump to jump as they like. The point is that at this event a great many. if not all will be staying in one place to watch, which is very sad and I think that LOCOG should be honest about this as most people will be spending a great deal of money to attend.
		
Click to expand...

From the latest drawings it looks like there will be a few (I spotted 4) small (168-seater) temporary stands around the course. Those lucky enough to get a seat at the top of one of these might see more than the people around them and signs of a occasional passing horse.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (18 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			ps you are welcome to come up here and try and find my street if you can.  You'll be a long time looking!
		
Click to expand...

Thanks but no thanks.


----------



## badattitude (18 December 2011)

Orwell said:



			I remember seeing a drawing somewhere (I don't think that it is part of the current planning application) which suggested that the horses would gallop up a ramp onto the arena platform, across the northern edge of it, and down a ramp to the exit. I'm sure that they could put a jump in if they wanted to. It might be a good idea for legal reasons. No matter what the small print on the ticket says, it would seem to be a paradigm case of mis-selling to sell someone a ticket to a cross country event where they couldn't see a single horse jump; a bit like staging a Buffalo-Bill-Wild-West show without Buffalo Bill or cowboys or indians.


From the latest drawings it looks like there will be a few (I spotted 4) small (168-seater) temporary stands around the course. Those lucky enough to get a seat at the top of one of these might see more than the people around them and signs of a occasional passing horse.
		
Click to expand...

You see, this is us having a DISCUSSION as part of a DEBATE.  I like this much better.


----------



## 1stclassalan (25 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			.......... ever considered that cognitive behavioural therapy .........?
		
Click to expand...

My dad brought me up on this - everytime I said something he disagreed with - he'd hit me.


----------



## keepmeinmind (25 December 2011)

I don't know much about these Olympics but maybe the OP knows something we don't.  She sounds like she is an 'insider' and up on the event details.  Maybe there is good reason to fear an Act of Terrorism.  I so very much hope not for everyone's sake.  But who could ever forsee 911 would happen or the Household Calvary and their horses would be blown up, the Birmingham Pub Bombings would happen or anything else that's happened over the years.  Maybe we shouldn't all scorn this lady, but we should listen to her and what she has to say.  Like I say, maybe she knows more than us and she is not trying to scare monger.  Maybe she is right.  Though for the love of God I pray she is not right.  We are in Surrey, all I can say is I'm glad we are 25 miles away if it does kick off.


----------



## keepmeinmind (29 December 2011)

I should say we actually live in Shropshire on the Wales/Shropshire border, but we will be visiting family in Surrey when the Olympics are on which are 25 miles away, just realised what I'd put, confusing people like that.  We moved in August to Shropshire (bit quiet for me as not a lot of hair salons in the area as I am a hair dresser) and I still  keep giving our old address to people without thinking, as we have lived there most of our lives! I hope the Olympics is all peaceful and we do our country proud.  A lot of people in our village had applied for tickets but only one that we know of in Wem managed to get a ticket.  Typical! Sorry to ramble.


----------

