Comments on: Greenwich Society: Change or Die

By: Kate Powling

Kate Powling — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:44:06 +0000

Six years ago I organised (along with stall holders and shop keepers) a large petition to protest about then plans to change Greenwich Market. We got thousands of signatures, lots of press coverage, and it was presented to the Council and got acknowledgement from all the appropriate Council bigwigs.
I was then pretty annoyed a couple of years later not to be contacted by the developers as someone with a clear interest in the future of the market: this was undoubtedly partly vanity, but it also seemed appropriate as someone who had demonstrated a clear interest and commitment to the market.
I have never felt inclined to join the Greenwich Society, despite being an active local resident. I’m loath to criticise when I haven’t joined, but we do need to keep an eye on bodies which developers and the Council use to represent public opinion. And the Societies themselves need to be very careful not to make claims that they are more representative than they are.
For your watchful eye, Andrew Gilligan, I personally thank-you.

By: Curtis duP

Curtis duP — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:53:37 +0000

I concur with Andrew’s assessment on the complete irrelevance of the Greenwich Society and demonstrated false representation of public sentiment for both important issues of the market development and the Olympics’ use of our park. As most intelligent people in Greenwich are concerned, anyway, their membership consists of “has beens” and “wanna be’s” who crave attention and influence never had or long long long ago lost. Cocktails anyone?

By: Greenwich Society Responds To Gilligan Criticisms | Greenwich.co.uk

Greenwich Society Responds To Gilligan Criticisms | Greenwich.co.uk — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:49:15 +0000

[...] plans, Andrew Gilligan called on the Greenwich Society – supporters of the project – to “change or die“. Today we publish the response of Greenwich Society chairman, Tim [...]

By: Graham

Graham — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:51:57 +0000

Well done Andrew. Perhaps those members of the Greenwich Society who opposed the town centre redevlopment proposal will not renew their membership when it becomes due ? A reduction in their revenue for next year may just make the executive re-consider their position in the future.

By: Societies’ secrecy hides Olympics good news « 853

Societies’ secrecy hides Olympics good news « 853 — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 01:49:49 +0000

[...] Andrew Gilligan issued one of his regular beatings to the Greenwich Society on greenwich.co.uk earlier this week – I’m no expert on that particular argument, but I think the row masks the wider danger of using these societies as a substitute for actually talking to local people, who are worried about what day to day life will be like in the summer of 2012, and want to know if they’ll get their park back safe and sound. Wednesday’s meeting at Blackheath Halls shows LOCOG seems to have fallen right into that trap. [...]

By: darryl853

darryl853 — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:28:39 +0000

It’s easier to pretend you’re in charge in a democracy when you “consult” with societies who represent a minority, instead of consulting with the population at large.

By: Rod

Rod — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:16:06 +0000

“I concur with Andrew’s thrust, which is to question the credibility of the Greenwich Society. ”
Me too – I’m not sure whether the answer is a mass infiltration of the Greenwich Society to effect change from within, or the setting up of a new, more radical, society, but it feels to me like Greenwich desperately needs a body ( a properly organised, visible body – not a website like this or the Greenwich Phantom, however valuable these may be) to protect our town.
The Market plans may have been rejected, but the Hospital could still appeal.
The Olympics are looming.
Frank Dowling continues to be allowed to do pretty well whatever he likes, ruining a large proportion of the town centre pubs and restaurants, and actually destroying the Cricketers, which I understand will no londger be run as a pub or bar.
Now the Cutty Sark is the subject of rumours( which are common currency in town centre and Royal Hill pubs and have now surfaced on the Greenwich Phantom) to the effect that the money has been squandered, skilled restoration staff and shipwrights laid off, and the project stalled.
The onslaught seems relentless and Greenwich needs an effective body to stand up for our town and World Heritage site.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:48:19 +0000

I concur with Andrew’s thrust, which is to question the credibility of the Greenwich Society. I have similar questions and concerns with regard to The Blackheath Society. They also appear to be supporting some questionable (contemporary) builds. Blisset points out that these are members’ bodies and it’s reasonable to ask how the views of members are represented. I wonder whether a stance is arrived at as a result of a formal democratic process (ie consulting all members and agreeing a concensus) or whether an executive team have (assumed) the authority to make decisions for the wider membership. I’d certainly feel more confident if I could be assured that such decisions were not just in the hands of a few architects. Only one way to find out and that’s to join up and go along to the meetings! That would strike me as a more sensible solution than setting up an alternate group.

By: Blissett

Blissett — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:19:31 +0000

Sorry Andrew, I hadn’t meant to imply that that was a direct quote and it wasn’t intended as a trick, cheap or otherwise. It was an attempt to characterise your argument for the purposes of brevity. A quick look on Wikipedia would suggest this is OK through the use of “scare quotes” but apologies if I’ve misused. Having failed to excel at even GCSE English, that would not be hard to believe.

I do understand your argument that, to those who opposed the Market development, the Greenwich Society would appear to have clearly failed to meet it’s key objectives. The problem is that it is possible that the Society’s members, or at least a significant number of them, believe that their position is entirely consistent with those goals. If ten people were to set up alternatives to the Greenwich Society tomorrow one would end up with ten very similar lists of objectives and ten differing opinions on how to go about achieving them.

I think what this does highlight more than anything is the pointlessness of airy-fairy mission statements. It’s all very well stating WHAT you want to achieve but it’s the HOW makes the difference. We all want “to make Greenwich a better place for all who live, work and study there” (as the Greenwich Society mission statement puts it). How that is best achieve is clearly open to debate. It is unfair to imply that minority opinions are objectively wrong and those that hold them will have to “Change or Die”.

By: Andrew Gilligan

Andrew Gilligan — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:20:08 +0000

Blissett,

My point wasn’t that the GS had failed to represent the views of its members – although they weren’t consulted about its stance, and I rather doubt their views would be much different from the rest of the public’s on this subject. My point was about the GS’s failure to live up to its own declared objectives, as quoted from its constitution above.

My attack on Tim Barnes’ presumptuousness was based on the fact that he described opposition to the market as “unrepresentative” and his own views, therefore, as representative. How did he know?

Unlike the Greenwich Society, I did quite a lot of asking around to find out what people thought. Even so, I never claimed to speak for the area, or for anyone other than myself – although my views were, as it turned out, shared by an awful lot of people.

And no misquotation, please – it’s a cheap trick. I didn’t in fact make ANY references (let alone an “awful lot of references”) to “widespread public opposition” in my pre-petition columns.

Andrew