As for iconic backdrop, the 23,000-seat temporary stadium will ensure that the iconic backdrop is invisible. The media continue to use an early artist’s impression which put the arena in the Queens House tiltyard, looking all folksy and Tudory LOCOG won’t let them use the official illustration of what the stadium will really look like: it blots out all light from the south to the Queens House.

Really, I ask you to make yourself a bit better informed. Read NOGOE’s submission on the planning applications – the ecology, archaelogy, socioeconomic aspects: http://www.nogoe2012.com/planning-app.html

To any other equestrians looking in: if you love and value your horses, please start asking awkward questions – eg about the water supply. Thames Water has said that the existing water infrastructure will not be able to cope; horses need 25 gallons water per day when active, just to drink, not to mention the gallons of water and ice required to cool them down, and the water needed by vets and grooms and riders. Never mind anyone else on site.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/london_2012/7275046.stm

So John Window would not want the 2012 equestrian events moved to Windsor.

I am getting a bit tired of people who have only ever read LOCOG and Council announcements, and who not having bothered to read the planning applications nevertheless think that, from this position of almost total ignorance, they can credibly opine on LOCOG’s proposals. I met someone last week who had only ever read LOCOG propaganda and so STILL believed that the only opposition was from dog-walkers who, she added, could jolly well walk their dogs on the Heath for two weeks.

Anyway, the water and sewage infrastructure won’t be able to cope, and that should be an end to it.

My concern would be the main access point across the road in front of the Queen`s House, I had assumed a temporary pedestrian bridge but apparently not, just temporary traffic lights! could be fun.

On cross-country day there will be access from Blackheath which makes more sense.

Amazing, really. That’s what you get, though, when you employ placemen instead of people who know what they are doing.

The councillors who voted in favour looked uninterested; they didn’t ask any challenging questions; they had clearly made up their minds beforehand. It was insulting to those who worked so hard to analyse the case. Neither LOCOG nor the councillors listened to intelligent reasoning. LOCOG and BEF made inane speeches about compact Games and inspiring young people. One councillor, Sajid Jawaid, didn’t ask a single question and, when asked for his decision, agreed with other supporters and stressed that the events were for the benefit of young people. What’s that got to do with planning law? The whole Olympics is inspirational; having Greenwich as a host borough is inspirational; but it is not dependent on this one event taking place in the Park. The thought that local kids are going to be inspired to take up riding as a sport in response to a £200,000 riding project is unrealistic.

There was other misleading information about benefits to the local economy. For example there were figures about how much money the spectators and press would spend in the local economy. Yet according to transport plans in the London 2012 website, the modelling has been done on people arriving by train between 8.30 and 9.30, then leaving between 5.30 and 6pm. The visitors will be a captive audience inside the venue for the McDonalds of this world, so when will they spend money in the local restaurants and museums? Another myth about the Olympics.

There has been so much manipulation of information, it is staggering that the organisers have managed to pull the wool over the eyes of so many in authority. As for scrutiny by Royal Parks and English Heritage, as government agencies their hands are tied.

This has been a state-sponsored stitch-up from day 1, and now it is a council-backed one.