I HAVE never understood what people see in Richard Branson. His trains are serial offenders against civilised transport, his airline is nothing special and, contrary to his image as the great tycoon, most of his other businesses are distinctly bonsai affairs.
Now, having wreaked so much damage elsewhere in our public realm, the deadliest beard since Lenin is swivelling in our direction. From next year, Virgin replaces Flora as the sponsor of the London Marathon – which, of course, starts in Greenwich Park, passes through Greenwich town centre and spends more than seven of its 26 miles in the borough.
But in my paper, the Standard, yesterday, Sir Richard is quoted as saying he wants to “come up with a better route” because the current one is not “glamorous” enough. It passes, he says, too many dull places in east and south-east London and not enough tourist attractions.
It is stunning how much of what we’ve come to think of as the essence of Greenwich is, all of a sudden, under threat. The Marathon now joins the Market, the Village Market, the park, the Cutty Sark and the foot tunnel on the danger list.
For as our 40-watt council presses blindly on with its plans for a one-off sporting event actively wanted by almost no-one, the Olympic horseriding in the Park, councillors appear to have been completely oblivious to this very real threat to a much more important and genuinely loved Greenwich sports occasion.
The contrast between the stage-managed North Korean spend-fest that is the Olympics and the Marathon could not be greater. The Marathon is democratic: it is the people dressed as bananas we care about, not the manufactured elite athletes at the front. On the morning of the race, you can go into the park and mix freely with the competitors – best of luck if you want to try that in 2012. The Marathon is free for everyone to watch. The Olympics won’t be accessible to most Greenwich people even if they are rich enough to pay.
The Olympics are a giant edifice of lies. The Marathon makes no promises it cannot keep. The Olympics are costing £9.3 billion and could rip up our precious park. The Marathon manages to be one of the greatest sporting spectacles in the world without doing any damage to anything and without costing any taxpayer a single penny.
Now it is perfectly true that south-east London is not glamorous. That’s why I like it, actually. We are protected from fashionability by that impenetrable mountain range of council estates along the Old Kent Road. Madonna and Guy will never be spotted shopping in Somerfield, thank God.
But South Londoners, black and white, embody the real essence of our great city, rather than the rootless cosmopolitanism of the north. We are contrary. We will never be told what to think by Vogue or The Guardian. North London had New Labour; South London had the peasants’ revolt. Turn up the volume on Heart 106.2!
That is precisely why the Marathon, the ultimate people’s sport, should keep on running through the people’s streets. The idea that the route is dull is a slander, too. As anyone except Branson must know, Greenwich is one of the prettiest places in London, the East End is just about the most happening part of town right now, and the Isle of Dogs has been transformed over the exact lifespan of the Marathon itself from vacant wasteland to Europe’s premier financial powerhouse.
The Park, the Observatory, Charlton House, the Naval College, the Cutty Sark (restoration permitting), Tower Bridge, the Tower of London and Canary Wharf must count as tourist attractions, surely? Anyway, if East London is too dull to host a sports event, what does that say for the Olympics?
Beardie is threatening to run the Marathon himself next year, when it will still be more or less on its current course. May I suggest that the people of south-east London line the route and give him, as he passes, the benefit of their unglamorous views?
rob says
See also Darryl’s post at 853:
http://853blog.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/hands-off-our-marathon-branson/
martymc says
It’s a pity you can’t talk about the marathon without pushing your tiresome anti-Olympics agenda.
darryl853 says
To be fair to Greenwich Council, I reckon the first they’ll have heard about the scheme was yesterday in the Standard. The marathon’s never had a huge amount of local authority involvement, other than in the clean-up – the pre-Ken Tory GLC would only back it if it didn’t ask for money.
It doesn’t say much about the Standard that it backed Branson with such gusto, though.
Andrew Gilligan says
Please get over your obsession with the Standard. It didn’t “back Branson with such gusto” – it ran a very short factual news piece reporting what he said.
darryl853 says
Andrew – I only made an observation. I didn’t insult you, so please don’t insult me.
Shall we take the Standard feature line-by-line?
Branson “acknowledged that the current 26-mile, 385-yard route does not showcase London at its best” – that’s the Standard’s opinion. That’s not a fact.
“for 24 miles runners are forced to pound the streets of east London where crowds are often thin and “sights” few and far between” – that’s opinion, not fact.
Your soon-to-be former employer should know better than to dismiss a great chunk of London so airly.
Jim says
Picking up on Daryl’s point – will you be pushing the Standard to run a campaign against Branson’s plans? Will you be championing it in your column?
Andrew Gilligan says
That’s not “backing Branson with gusto,” is it?
darryl853 says
Well, since it supports him in its editorial copy, I’d suggest it is.
Maybe the headline – “Standard readers invited to redesign Marathon route” – suggests where the paper’s sympathies lie.
Andrew Gilligan says
No chief – it isuggests that Branson invited Standard readers to redesign the marathon route. Which he did! This does not betray, in the words of your blog, our “hatred of SE London” but your own hatred of the Standard.
darryl853 says
So why did the Standard claim that the current route “does not showcase London at its best”? That’s in its own editorial voice, and not a quote from Branson.
Andrew Gilligan says
Don’t change the subject – how does the story and the headline support your claim that the ES “hates SE London?”
darryl853 says
Please Andrew, I’m not a child. Let’s discuss this civilly, okay?
Because the Standard claims, in its own editorial voice, that the current route “does not showcase London at its best”.
And also, in its own voice, that “for 24 miles runners are forced to pound the streets of east London [sic] where crowds are often thin and ‘sights’ few and far between”.
So, it’s being sarcastic in its own voice as well as dismissive of a great chunk of London.
And the headline does seem to suggest the Standard backs him.
That’s not a factual news piece, that’s a PR puff for Branson which the Standard fell for without even considering the fact that it dismisses a chunk of the capital which it claims to serve. Fine, both Wadley and Grieg have decided to aim the paper at the kind of people who appear in its features pages – but that’s why the circulation is sinking, and that’s why it’s getting harder to persuade anyone else to shell out 50p for the thing. If you alienate and insult people, and they get pissed off with you. And that’s what they did with that lazy story.
tom says
I’d pay to listen to a discussion between Andrew and a proper hard-nosed sub, so thanks Daryl for giving us a taster. But I’m not sure if you’re right Daryl, I think the Standard’s standards are just quite low – there is no strategy other than accepting sloppy standards, loose editorialising and celeb orientation.
Occasionally we hear something about London but it’s often through populist right-wing eyes, which doesn’t resonate very loudly across much of the town. In the battle for paid-for newspapers, it seems to fall between too many stools. National but not national enough. Local but not local. Factual but not factual …
Andrew Gilligan says
I think what you both mean is that you do not agree with the Standard. That, of course, is your right – but it would be wrong, as you both clearly do, to believe that you somehow represent London. The circulation of, for instance, the Guardian declined by much more than the Standard’s last year (the Standard’s circulation actually rose fractionally.)
By the way, I’m still waiting for any evidence to support the claim that my newspaper “hates South East London.” That statement strikes me as just the kind of shrill, partisan and groundless generalisation you are always accusing the Standard of making.
tom says
thanks for inaccurately paraphrasing andrew!
darryl853 says
Erm, yes Andrew. It is possible to disagree without being rude, and making sweeping statements like “you both clearly believe you somehow represent London” you know? Maybe even answer the point without some whataboutery? Try it some day. Hey, you’re the one PAID to come on here and be rude to people! We’re doing it for free, often without the rudeness. You might find you have more in common with people here than you think. Otherwise, replying here’s like calling an 0891 Mr Angry wind-up line, only leaving you scratching your head and not laughing.
Tom – yeah, you’ve got a point. I don’t think there’s a well-worn dartboard in the editor’s office with Lewisham as the bullseye, but it’s the whole error by omission thing, isn’t it? South-east London is rarely covered, and when has been recently it’s been dismissed – the Olympics piece above, Jenkins’ old crap about Crossrail, and and its dismissal of transport improvements around here as “vanity projects”. Someone should have spotted that Olympics piece and gone “hang on…” – but didn’t; as you say, it’s sloppy. However, that sloppiness doesn’t seem to apply when doing another feature on Notting Hill or Hampstead. They couldn’t give a damn about south-east London – although I guess the feeling’s reciprocated…
Andrew Gilligan says
We dismiss the Greenwich Waterfront Transit as a vanity project because it is one – see my columns on this very website (hope you’re not claiming that I or this site hate South-East London on that basis…) Still waiting for any evidence to back up either of your claims – that the Standard “backed Branson with gusto” and that its “hatred of south-east London continues.” Send us a postcard when you get some!
darryl853 says
Yesterday, 1.39pm. I went through the story line by line.
Today, 10.42am, I referred to your dislike of public transport improvements for Thamesmead – on which we’ll have to agree to disagree, painful as it may be – as well as Simon Jenkins on Crossrail and the above Branson story.
Care to respond, or are you just going to resort to sarcasm and abuse again?
Andrew Gilligan says
I’m sorry, these just don’t substantiate your claim that the Standard hates South East London or is a PR agent of Richard Branson. Even you now seem to have moved off accusing us of hatred and started talking about our alleged “errors by omission” instead. That’s a big difference, isn’t it? It’s probably about as much of an apology as we’ll ever get from you.
darryl853 says
Why should I apologise for disagreeing with you?
Citizen says
Greenwich council and the Olympic numpties seems to hate South London.
Andrew Gilligan says
Disagreements are fine – I have them all the time. Lies aren’t. The claim that the Standard hates SE London is a falsehood which you have repeatedly been unable to substantiate.
darryl853 says
Steady on – it’s an opinion, and I’ve outlined some of the reasons why I’ve come to that opinion. I’m not accusing anyone of having their hand in the till, or of plotting to kill all the first-borns in New Cross, or of secretly planning to lay waste to Woolwich. I’m simply expressing an opinion, and one which is borne out by the Standard’s positive reporting of Branson’s disregard for the marathon route.
Eventually the Standard will rise or fall because of people’s perceptions of it. My perception is that it is a newspaper which does not cover this part of London with the rigour and respect that other parts of London would receive. The Standard is not alone in this, and community sites like this one help fill the gap. But its heavy coverage of socialites, its recent political bias, and stories like the Branson one convey the impression that we’re an off-Tube irrelevance that doesn’t matter. It’s got to fix that sooner or later to survive, unless it wants to be a niche publication.
darryl853 says
Actually, that should read: “But its heavy coverage of socialites and its recent political bias would make it appear that it’s aiming itself at an elite, and stories like the Branson one convey the impression that we’re an off-Tube irrevelance.”
tom says
I think Andrew just enjoys arguing for the sake of it. All heat and no light.
And that’s really the issue for many paid-for newspapers today, in particular. Now that it has been revealed that the majority of tabloid newspapers’ output can be done by a couple of graduates, the internet and some nice software, they need to do something more.
Unfortunately, that “more” appears to be less reliable copy and more sensationalist ‘lies’ (note the single quote marks, which in tabloid land allow me to say anything I like).
Moreover, the internet reveals many newspapers’ formulas as largely self-serving or outdated. Look at how frequently wire, trade press or internet copy is lifted unattributed into newspapers. (One of my stories, including quotes, made its way — uncredited –into the Telegraph today!) Or how many press releases are rewritten into “exclusives”.
And that’s just it. Some newspapers — and some of their journalists — still try to talk down to the rest of the world as if they know more than anyone else, even when it’s blindingly obvious they are just as incompetent as the rest of us, and are actually doing the same job as many that are not getting paid for it.
So, why not be collegiate, and engaging, and pick up and engage with local tips and opinion, and use the privileged position constructively rather than arrogantly declaring anyone who has a different view to yours is ‘lying’.
Darren says
Got to say I was surprised at the number of comments in such a short space of time.
Gosh I though, good to see so many people are passionate about the marathon.
Oh well maybe not then.
I don’t agree with the Standard on almost anything, I don’t agree with Andrew on too much either. I know its Wimbledon but could we stop the tennis and get back to the threat to the marathon?
tom says
It’s Time Out as well that seems to ignore SE London as Brockley Nick as noted previously. In a recent (silly) North vs South London article, the writer criticising south London appeared barely to know where south London was, let alone recognised that there was more to it than Clapham.
darryl853 says
Oh yes, the one where he went into an odd rant about villages in Kent and Surrey:
http://www.timeout.com/london/features/7631/North_London_v_South_London/2.html
tom says
that’s the one! it puts stamford bridge and twickenham stadium south of the river. at that point I knew we were dealing with an idiot.
Andrew Gilligan says
I speak as someone who is leaving the Standard and no longer has an axe to grind about it – but the idea that its circulation is declining because of its political bias is demonstrably wrong. Firstly, in an age when supposed left-wingers find themselves in league with warmongerers, torturers, shoot-to-kill police chiefs and the worst of pre-crunch City greed, I rather doubt whether the labels “left” and “right” mean much any more.
Secondly, even if you do believe they mean something, circulation decline is a fact of life at all titles, whatever their political bias, and has indeed been steeper at left-wing titles (the Mirror, Indy, Guardian, etc). In the old label terms the Standard, a centre-right newspaper, is actually very closely in line with Londoners’ politics, as shown by the last four sets of election results. That is clearly hard for some of the metropolitan left to accept, but it’s the reality.
tom says
as pretty much the most partisan hacks in London I think you have plenty of axes to grind.
my personal annoyance is the arrogance of national newspaper journalists and people that cycle fast through the greenwich foot tunnel when there are pedestrians walking through. please respect the law next time.
Westcombe Wil says
One day of roaad closures for a profession ally organised marathon I can deal wiih, but now Greenwich Council are making the disaster of last years amateur cock u of a half marathon an annual event. Do they ever ask us what we want?
Fat Cat says
“Some newspapers — and some of their journalists — still try to talk down to the rest of the world as if they know more than anyone else, even when it’s blindingly obvious they are just as incompetent as the rest of us…” I didnt realise Andrew wrote for the Guardian?
“cycle fast through the greenwich foot tunnel when there are pedestrians walking through. please respect the law next time.” zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
tom says
No, Andrew’s about to write for the newspaper that stole on of my stories on Friday … virtually word for word. My organisation has given up complaining and now just relate to them via our legal team (like many other news outlets). Hardly surprising that newspaper sales are going downhill given the way they lie and cheat their readers.
On a brighter note, Greenwich festival over the weekend was fantastic.
Indigo says
“our 40-watt council” LOL LOL LOL
Back off, Branson.