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?

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.

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.

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.

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….

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?

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.