GREENWICH Council’s desperation to have the Olympics in Greenwich Park is well known. But has it been playing dirty tricks to fake the appearance of public support for the event? And did it try to rig the recent public consultation meeting on the plans?
The meeting took place at the O2 ten days ago. It was billed as allowing local residents to question Olympic chiefs and Lord Coe, chairman of Locog.
But dozens of residents near the park, many of them opposed to the 2012 plans, were banned from attending on the grounds that they live in the neighbouring borough of Lewisham – even though the borough boundary runs within feet of the park.
Other residents asking to come were told that the meeting was “full,” even as the council continued to urge its own employees to attend.
Dozens of organisations funded by Greenwich Council were given tickets to the meeting and encouraged to make “positive contributions.” Among the speakers at the meeting who apparently spontaneously praised the Games were representatives from the Greenwich Young People’s Council, which is the youth arm of Greenwich Council, and the Greenwich Starting Blocks Trust, a charity owned by the council.
We can reveal that the council has also hired an American PR firm, Vocus, one of whose specialities is creating the appearance of grassroots support for controversial policies. Its chief executive, Rick Rudman, told the Washington Post that “we help large companies and associations build grassroots advocacy groups and do calls to action.”
Vocus’s website says it creates “email campaigns” and “grassroots advocacy programmes… to influence public policy decisions that will affect the sponsoring organisation.” The on-line registration process for attending the Greenwich consultation meeting was routed via Vocus’s web servers.
One of those refused admission, Gillian Stewart, from Blackheath, wrote in a comment on the local 853 blog: “I was told I would not be given a ticket because residents get priority. I live within one mile of the park and I’m not considered a resident? I am not happy.”
Another resident, who asked to remain anonymous, told me: “I can actually see the park from my window. I use it every day and I am very concerned about the Olympic plans, but I am apparently not local enough to have a say at this meeting.”
A Greenwich Liberal Democrat councillor, Paul Webbewood, who attended the meeting, said: “I am not sure why residents were told the meeting was full. Several rows at the side were empty and the council’s internal website was still asking staff to come on the morning of the meeting.”
A spokeswoman for Greenwich Council confirmed that 44 people with addresses outside the borough were refused permission to attend. She said: “This meeting was about the benefits of the Olympics for Greenwich, not about Greenwich Park. I don’t see why my council tax money should be used to pay for people from Lewisham to come to our meetings.”
The spokeswoman said that as many tickets had been issued as there were seats, but admitted that no allowance had been made for ticketholders not turning up. She added that a wide variety of organisations, including some opposed to the council, had been invited to attend and described suggestions that Vocus was mounting a “grassroots advocacy” campaign as “pathetic” and “laughable.”
Michael Goldman, of Nogoe, which campaigns against the equestrian events in the park – and was allowed to attend the meeting – said he was “amazed” that Blackheath residents with a “clear interest” in the Park were kept out. “We don’t need an undercover organisation to get grassroots support,” he said. “We’ve got grassroots support.”
The struggle continues…
Brian says
Oh come on Andrew – this is really getting beyond a joke now.
Yes you live in Greenwich and are passionate about it. So do I and I can assure you I care just as much about Greenwich as you do. That’s why I want the Games to come to our Borough so we can maximise the legacy it will leave behind.
But this is really becoming silly now.
If you care so much about the park – why were you not at the meeting?
I was there. The press were in a clearly marked area and I did not see. Can you please confirm whether you did attend – and if not, why not?
You write about the park passionately and on a regular basis. Surely therefore this would have been top of your must do list.
Secondly we both know Vocus are not a PR firm as you insinuate.
I work for a private company that uses Vocus’ software – as that is what they provide…software. I have even sent you press releases on it. It is not used for targetting residents – it is merely a database of journalists that make it easy to maximise the reach of press releases.
It highlights electronic press cuttings.
And it helps evaluate how much coverage you receive on the back ofyour press releases.
Perhaps that is why you received your PRESS INVITE through Vocus.
But I can assure you that us normally residents were not invited through Vocus – as it is a MEDIA DATABASE.
I’m sure one call to Vocus would have cleared this up. Did you pick up the phone to Vocus to check this?
James Speen says
Andrew I dont get the point you are making.
Greenwich Council put on an event with LOCOG to tell local people about how the Olympic Games will impact upon Greenwich and they give priority to Greenwich residents.
Shock horror.
Had the meeting been packed out with Lewisham residents and Greenwich residents were the ones being turned away I’m sure you would have been even more outraged.
These opportunistic poorly thought out blogs do neither you – nor your views – any favours.
Tom says
Brian – what is the legacy that you allude to? What is this actually going to do for the people of Greenwich? Inspire a generation of youngsters to take up a sport which is the preserve of well off, predominately white countries which probably doesn’t even as a long term future as an Olympic sport?
adriaane says
Well done, Andrew. It is an outrage that Greenwich Council, who are simply temporary custodians of Greenwich Park, are prepared to see it ruined simply for the sake of some idiot event in these insanely over-expensive Olympics that will leave no legacy except debt. No Olympic event should take place in Greenwich, whose streets can barely accommodate the current traffic, let alone the calvalcades of trucks that would be involved in turning the park from a beautiful, serene stretch of London into a concrete arena.
Brian says
Tom
Doubters like you – oh it so easy to be negative – said the Dome wouldn’t provide a legacy either…
It only regenerated toxic wasteland into 1000s of homes, provided a new health centre, a new school, new transport links etc etc
Instead of talking down this opportunity – why dont you feed into LOCOGs plans and get behind local attempts to achieve as much from the Games as was achieved from the Dome.
The plans have already been changed to take on board local opinions and Im sure will continue to be changed as more and more people have their say.
But this ivory tower position spouted by predominately white well off people who only care to say NIMBY is really quite boring now.
The equestrian events WILL be happening in Greenwich – no matter how much some people choose to snipe from the sidelines.
Incidentally Andrew – you still havent answered my questions…
Andrew Gilligan says
Thanks for your views Brian. If Vocus are not in the business of influencing grassroots opinion, how do you explain the statement I quoted from their own chief executive?
And one of the constants of the whole Park saga is the complete inability of Olympic apologists to explain how two weeks of horse sport will provide any specific benefit or legacy whatever for the people of Greenwich. There certainly won’t be any jobs, schools, regeneration of toxic wasteland or new homes.
As I have said before, the Olympics are far likelier to harm than help Greenwich – because the park, the centrepiece of our most important industry, tourism, will be partly closed for most of the summer of 2012, and may be permanently damaged thereafter.
And James, this was billed as a consultation meeting about the park – so, yes, I do think that residents living around the park, even if in Lewisham and Blackheath, should have preference over residents living in, say, Thamesmead.
Tom says
Brian – I just asked you to expand on the legacy you think there will be, and you didn’t answer but you think we should work towards achieving as much from it as there was from the dome.
If you think the equestrian events in Greenwich Park are going to bring anything approaching “1000s of homes, provided a new health centre, a new school, new transport links etc etc”, I fear you may be dangerously deluded.
Sacha says
Andrew, where you at the meeting? Simple yes/no answer would do, or where you knocked off your bike by someone hoping off a Routemaster and can’t remember?
Brian says
I’m afraid Andrew you totally (deliberately??) ignored my questions…
1) Did you attend the event? I can only assume from the fact that you did not answer this question that you didn’t as I suspected. For someone who will have had a guaranteed seat (as a journalist) and as someone who claims to be so passionate about the park – why did you not attend this meeting?
2) Did you call Vocus to check their role? As a former journalist of the year I would be interested to know if you check your sources and can back up your claim that the Council “hired an American PR firm, Vocus”
As we both know – they just use a piece of software, they did not hire Vocus as a PR firm – as they are not a PR firm, the sell a software package.
3) And can you cite one single resident who booked their ticket via the Vocus system as you claim . I was one of them and I can tell you now it was not a Vocus at all.
I would be grateful for your response to these three questions.
Adam B says
“I would be grateful for your response to these three questions.”
Don’t hold your breath.
Brian says
Oh I agree.
I fear Andrew’s silence exposed some serious flaws in his story/his judgement…
Andrew Gilligan says
Brian – the least I ask is that you read the piece you are commenting on before you comment. If you had done so, you would have noticed that it is not a report of the meeting (a Standard colleague did that at the time), but of the questionable way in which many local residents were excluded from it. You might also have spotted the quote from Vocus’s chief executive, describing the kind of work they do. And you might also have picked up the line saying that the council’s online registration process for attending the meeting was routed via Vocus PR’s servers. I clicked on the link – for the public, not the press – from the council website, and I saw it myself. Vocus most certainly is a PR firm and describes itself as such. Finally, you should also have spotted that the council was asked to comment on whether they were using Vocus to mount a grassroots advocacy campaign; their response is included in the piece, but falls into the category of what journalists call a “non-denial denial.”
Adam Bienkov says
As far as I can tell Brian did read the article and has some questions about it. I’m not so sure Andrew read those questions though, judging by his own ‘non-denial denials.’ In the absence of any proper answers to his questions may I try to translate the ones Brian got?
1. Andrew didn’t attend the meeting.
2.He didn’t call Vocus, but he did cut and paste a quotation taken by another journalist.
3. He did find a resident who used Vocus to book a ticket. Himself.
Were Vocus used to create the ‘the appearance of grassroots support for controversial policies’ or did they just supply a piece of software? Did Andrew take the basic step of phoning them up to ask them this? It doesn’t appear that he did, but he did get a response from the council saying that this suggestion was ‘laughable’. This according to Andrew is a ‘non-denial denial.’ Why? Are we going to have to phone them ourselves to find out or will Andrew be a little more forthcoming?
Brian says
Andrew
I fear you do protest too much.
As Adam says – we both know you didn’t attend the meeting! Why not just admit to that! I didnt state that the piece was on the meeting – but as someone who takes such a keen interest in these affairs I am absolutely gobsmacked that you didnt attend it – either as a resident or a journalist – yet you write about the effects of the games on the park nearly every week…
We both know the council did not “hire(d) an American PR firm, Vocus” – they like 1000s of other organisations use their media database – why not admit it!
And I’m afraid I totally disagree with you on the link being hosted by Vocus. As a non journalist who did not get their invite from the press office I can categorically state that the link was not through Vocus. Perhaps you just clicked on the link to the council website from the media invite you received…
Eithe way I agree with the council – this piece is pathetic and laughable…
Tom says
What is pathetic and laughable is the way in which the central question – what is this legacy that Brian is so keen on – is complete pie in the sky and vague aspirations. So there’s the obvious attempts to side track in this into other avenues.
So, why don’t you answer the question Brian? What legacy do you think this is going to bring Greenwich? In case you haven’t noticed, Greenwich Park isn’t a toxic wasteland and the events will be over in a couple of days.
To be honest, I’ve never met anyone as gung ho about this as you seem to be who doesn’t work for Greenwich Council or LOCOG, so why don’t you disclose your relationship with this because you don’t sound like just an interested resident.
Jane Palmer says
I have to agree this story is full of holes.
I have another question to ask Andrew. Andrew you state with an air of authority that Greeniwch Council “hired” an American PR firm.
I’m sure you checked this out before you printed it – so can you tell me what they were hired to do?
To me – when you hire a PR firm – they act as an organisation’s spokesperson. They produce press releases and press statements. They creat good news to push out.
Can you confirm whether VOCUS carried out any of these activities – as you are standing by your statement that they hired an American PR firm.
Or would you care to admit that it is just a database full of names of journalists as people who use it have stated?
Andif so – when will you be deleting this story?
Albert says
Is this article written by the same Andrew Gilligan who works on Press TV?
Isn’t that the Iranian Government sponsored TV station. As in the Iranian Government “one of whose specialities is creating the appearance of grassroots support for controversial policies” it could be argued….
rob says
Ok, I’m afraid it’s time to get out a yellow card.
Brian/James Speen/Jane Palmer/Albert – You all seem to have posted from the same internet connection. When there was two of you, I was prepared to give the benefit of the doubt but four different posters from the same location is stretching your credibility a little.
I’m happy to publish a pro-2012 opinion and we do pay for contributions so if you’d like to expand on why the Olympics would be great for Greenwich in an article of your own, please get in touch by emailing me rob@greenwich.co.uk, but can I ask you to behave yourself in replies to this post.
Andrew Gilligan says
The way in which Iran has been dragged into a discussion on Greenwich Park says more than I ever could about Olympic supporters’ burning need to change the subject.
Just to remind you all, once again: the subject of this piece is the council’s manipulative behaviour over the supposed consultation meeting on the park. I do seem to have touched a nerve among supporters of the Games; but the various red herrings you have sent swimming through the comments do not obscure the fact that nobody has denied anything I reported.
rob says
I’m calling it a day for comments on this post. I’ve switched to hand moderating comments also – apologies to the commenters who I haven’t approved here but I want to keep discussions strictly on-topic and that’s not the way it was going. If Greenwich Council or Vocus want right of reply, please feel free to get in touch.
rob says
Hopefully the heat has dissipated a little now, and also I have instigated more rigorous to ensure fairplay and that comments stay on topic, so I think I can safely re-open comments here.
rob says
Comment submitted by email and posted on behalf of PLJAIKJ
The whole 02 Event was an exercise in manipulation. Coming from an advertising background, I can tell you that every trick in the PR manual was played: heavyweight presenters including a Lord from LOCOG, a brown-nosing Council leader, a tame local MP, loud ‘feel good’ corporate videos, a patronising Sir to chair proceedings; there was even a sprinkling of emotional blackmail when young kids were brought on stage (they almost got away with this until the lad let slip that he was groomed by LOCOG). In short it was a triumph of style over substance and a lot of people were taken in. For example the only substantiation for stating that no damage would be done to the Park was : no damage was done to the golf course in Hong Kong. Both Chris Roberts and Nick Raynsford put hand on heart and stated that they would not have supported this venue if they felt any damage would be done to the Park. How do they know? In terms of benefits to the borough we were told that Tudor Blinds were the first to be awarded a contract, there would be employment benefits and young people would be encouraged to take up riding. The indoctrination was continued in the following week’s Greenwich Time, showing young people learning about horses and riding at a local school (which, unless I’m mistaken, is actually in Lewisham Borough). If this is meant to be part of the legacy, how is this sustainable? Why can’t the Council be honest and say they are doing it for the money? And why can’t LOCOG be honest and spell out the negative impacts of this event. They confirmed that work on the temporary arena would commence in March 2012 but failed to refer to the knock-on effects of this on Park users – like 7 months closure of the bottom third of the Park. They didn’t spell out the implications of 23000 people walking from Greenwich Station to the Park in terms of terror threats and road closures. Value for money questions were answered by disclosures that no public money was being used; without completing the sentence that any losses are underwritten by Government. Any negative information is suppressed, something no doubt learnt from Beijing.
Dermot Glynn says
At the LOCOG O2 event Sebastian Coe speaking as Chair of LOCOG said he is willing for LOCOG to take account of others’ views; and that he is mainly motivated by what he thinks would be best for sport.
Holding the equestrian events in Greenwich Park rather than in a more suitable alternative such as Hicksted, Badminton or Windsor Great Park, all of which are already set up to host equestrian events, would be damaging to sport in the following ways:
1) The site is unsuitable so the facilities would be inferior, for competitors, staff, and horses.
2) It would cost more, so unless the taxpayer is made to pay (and the taxpayer is going to be in deep trouble for other reasons) the money would either have to be squeezed by LOCOG from the budgets for other events or taken from any money eventually available to be distributed to UK and other sporting bodies. (In fact of course money to restore the Park may well also not be forthcoming).
3) If Greenwich Park were not unavailable because it was being being used for the equestrian events it would be a wonderful place for visitors to the Olympics to visit, enhancing their overall enjoyment of the Games.
4) Holding the events in Greenwich Park would deny the possibility of a permanent positive legacy to equestrian sport, from enhanced facilities at whichever of the alternatives is chosen.
The rowing is to be at Eton; the sailing is to be in Weymouth, so why cannot the equstrians be given a suitable location, sparing the people who live in Greenwich, Lewisham and elsewhere from exclusion from and damage to their park?
Which site is Lord Coe’s preferred alternative to Greenwich for the equestrian events?