Their survey has two major shortcomings: the unrepresentative sample and the hypothetical key question asked.

If, out of a sample of 1000 borough residents, only 14% of the sample lived near the Park, then the sample should have been weighted to represent more of the people who would be directly affected by these events.

The key question asked was hypothetical and convoluted – mentioning two ‘what if’ situations and one (the benefits) assumed – means the response has to be qualified. Moreover their planning application now acknowledges that some heritage features could be lost; so one of the ‘what ifs’ is not true. If the basic premise of the question is invalid, then the answer is equally invalid.

Taking account of Gareth Bacon’s survey of residents of the town (68% opposed)and over 13,500 signatories to NOGOE’s petition, the Nielsen result is not credible. Nielsen is a third tier sponsor of the Games and, as its Vice President, Susan Whiting said, when the sponsorship was announced in June 2009: “Nielsen is pleased to partner with LOCOG in support of London 2012”. LOCOG, however, claim that the research was “independently” conducted, although they have refused a request for the release of the questionnaire that Nielsen used. Its release would have enabled other experts to assess whether the way in which Nielsen led up to the answer, on which its partner LOCOG now relies, resulted in most of those questioned giving he “right” answer. Nick Raynsford rubbished Gareth Bacon’s survey as being politically motivated. What is LOCOG’s survey if not politically motivated?

Unless and until the questionnaire has been analysed, Nielsen’s conclusion, which is entirely against the weight of local protest, will no doubt be treated with scepticism by many, including hopefully the Planning Board.

For example, finding bat ROOSTS within the Park could be a show-stopper; so the bat surveyors (a) started all their surveys far too late to see/hear any but the “straggler” bats returning to/leaving their roosts; (b) did not survey the northern part of the Park; and (c) did not conduct any survey at all during August, although the Bat Conservation Trust Survey Guidelines state (page 42) that “August is an especially good month to observe maternity roost re-entry, as young flyers can be inexperienced and are often highly visible when returning to the roost”. Yet LOCOG’s bat survey claims to have been done in accordance with BCT Survey Guidelines. It was not.

Another example has to do with the stag beetle population in the Park. In the LOCOG planning application, I have yet to find acknowledgement that the stag beetle is (a) rare, (b) globally threatened, and (c) protected by laws with very fierce penalties for breaching those laws.

Everyone needs to read LOCOG’s planning application. Start with an area about which you already have some knowledge and therefore can easily spot the omissions and sleights of hand. The proposed wholesale destruction of habitat, insect life (with the application of insecticide) and the visible character of the Park is shocking. All for two weeks of an elite sport, no legacy, at a cost of £42 million, and when there is at least one other suitable alternative venue.

“The trunks or stems of any trees identified as having potential to support roosting bats would be sectioned and lowered to the ground, rather than clear felled, and left on site for at least 48 hours.”

If you “section” the TRUNK or STEM of a tree, you are cutting it down.

The scale of the proposed destruction of habitat in the Park is horrifying – what use is “preserved by record” habitat to the insects, bats and small animals?

Where, in the World Heritage Site criteria

http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria

does “preserved by record” appear – it does NOT!

It is evident that LOCOG has laid lie upon lie upon lie on everyone from equestrians to local residents to MPs and civil servants.