Last week, we published an open letter from NOGOE’s John Hines to local MP, Nick Raynsford. We now publish Mr Raynsford’s response.
Dear John
Thank you for your open letter of the 3rd December. I have always believed that debates on any issue should be held in a respectful and civilised manner. I have been grateful that you and I have been able to discuss the issue in a non-confrontational way.
This, however, has not always been the case with other members of NOGOE who have repeatedly distorted the evidence and predicated their arguments on a mixture of fear and rhetoric in opposition to the planned Olympic and Paralympic events in Greenwich Park.
You stated in your letter that opposition amongst local residents to the use of the park for the equestrian events stands at some 66 per cent from those who responded to Gareth Bacon’s survey. The reason why I do not accept the veracity of that survey is because it was an unscientific survey prompted by political motives. By contrast, the polling carried out by an independent market research company, Nielsen, shows that just shy of 85 per cent of the residents of Greenwich support the use of the park for the Olympic and Paralympic events. This reflects the balance of opinion among constituents who have discussed the issue with me.
Whilst I will always be open to fresh evidence which indicates a change of opinion, I will not accept the credibility of a survey designed to promote a political point when it is so evidently debunked by independent polling. As the local MP, I have to listen to the views of all constituents, not only those who are the most vocal.
NOGOE has used some very effective campaigning methods. Indeed, I have a poster in front of me now which has a picture of the park with an accompanying caption which reads “This will be a NO GO area in 2012 for several months”. This, with respect, is scaremongering, and a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
LOCOG have been very clear that the park as a whole will not be closed for several months. Indeed, the flower garden and the children’s play area will remain open to the public throughout the run-up to the games with a complete closure of the park only on the one day of the events themselves. This, understandably, is for reasons of security.
NOGOE was continuing to perpetuate the myth that the park would be closed in a BBC report in October of this year in which a spokeswoman said that it would be “socially and morally wrong” for the park to be closed, despite knowing that this would not be the case. LOCOG have also stated, quite clearly and repeatedly, that there are no plans for any trees to be cut down and claims that the park and its flora and archaeological heritage will suffer serious damage are unfounded.
I am extremely disheartened that certain elements within NOGOE are misrepresenting the facts in this way and are continuing a campaign of misinformation to oppose the application without considering the facts of the case. I hope and trust that this is not something of which you would approve.
I have received numerous representations from both sides in this matter and will always listen to evidence put before me. I am not an uncritical cheerleader for LOCOG – I support the LOCOG plan because I believe that it will bring substantial benefits to the local area and I am reassured by the plans that they have put forward.
I attended a public meeting on 23rd September at Blackheath Halls where local residents were able to directly question members from the LOCOG team about the plans. It was my impression from the meeting that many people, who had arrived as sceptics, were won over by the calm and fact-based approach of the LOCOG team, who answered the concerns of people who had been led to believe by the NOGOE campaign that the park would be seriously damaged by the Olympic events and closed for long periods of time.
With regards to the forthcoming planning decision, LOCOG will be required to make all aspects of their plan publicly available, as is the case for all planning applications. The application will have been made, mindful of planning regulations and following public consultation. The council will consider the application based on those regulations and I hope that the debate, which will no doubt take place before the planning committee, will be well informed, based on evidence and will provide all interested parties the opportunity to have their say on an equal basis. Sadly, this has not been the form of the debate over the past eighteen months and I can only hope that matters improve in the near future.
Kind regards
Nick Raynsford MP
Nick has some valid points about the attitudes of many in NOGOE. But he also proves there’s bull on both sides of the debate.
I think it’s a little unfair to brand Gareth Bacon’s survey as “political” – when he presented its findings to Lord Coe and the London Assembly, he used it not as proof of wide opposition to the equestrian events, but as proof of LOCOG’s cack-handed attempts at consultation. It was other people who used it as proof of wide opposition.
“just shy of 85 per cent of the residents of Greenwich support the use of the park for the Olympic and Paralympic events” – that’s 85% of residents of the *borough* of Greenwich. Easier for people in Eltham to support when they don’t have to deal with road closures, etc.
“I attended a public meeting on 23rd September at Blackheath Halls where local residents were able to directly question members from the LOCOG team about the plans.” – No, it wasn’t a public meeting. It was only open to members of amenity societies, and journalists were barred.
LOCOG had a spin-based approach, not a fact-based approach at the September meeting. They only divulged selective, positive information. When one questioner asked about the irrigation system and the risk of it damaging the archaeology and acid grasses, the competion manager’s reply was, “We’re still working on it”. This has been a stock response to any negative impact information that LOCOG wanted to conceal until they had to reveal it. It insults the intelligence to ask us to believe that the whole ground preparation and irrigation system was planned between September and December .
Now, from the planning application, we learn that they want to start preparation of the grass, including irrigation, from spring 2010, which means that the cross country track would be out of bounds for at least 30 months.
Had LOCOG been more open about their plans at that meeting – plans that now appear in the Environmental Statement – there might have been a different response from the audience. People like Nick Raynsford were taken in and believed what they wanted to believe.
Anyone who looks at the questions asked by Nielsen will see at once that they were “loaded” in order to give the client (LOCOG) the result they wanted. All market researchers know how to do this.
Give up the ad hominem attacks, Nick, they are the weapon of a man who has already lost and knows it. (Like your colleague, the “flat earthers” Prime Minister.)
Nick
I’ve seen the planning application and the poster you refer to as scaremogering is woefully understated.
Suggest you get a copy of this half arsed, Blair led, sneakily sold proposal, study it as if your next door neighbours were having the builders in and be concerned, be very concerned indeed about the future of the most precious few acres of your constituency.
The time has come to stand up or ship out.
Greenwich is one of the wonders of London……………even of the world.
The Olympics are international. Greenwich also is, but some residents are really locals whose vision seems limited.
As someone who lives within 5 minutes walk of Greenwich Park I am delighted that others who do not yet know Greenwich will get to know it, thanks to the Olympics.
Kent is full of quiet, tranquil, sleepy and adorable little places. If that is what people want, why live in Greenwich ?
My complaint about the Olympics is that the Andrew Gilligans of this world did not use their Evening Standard platforms to successfully oppose the actual Olympic bid. Our incompetence as a Nation on how to stage them – financially, I mean – has been embarrassingly proved over and over again since we won the bid. Forgetting to budget for VAT ? Never mind the escalating costs.
But we now have them and, as a resident, I am delighted to welcome the world to my patch, even doorstep……..and to use the Park is enlightened.
Let`s share it.
I found myself agreeing with Seb Coe when he was interviewed on BBC News last night. He said that there was no justification whatsoever in spending millions of pounds of taxpayer money on temporary structures for the Olympics which would have to be removed after the games. Couldn’t agree more, Seb…
Nick, you campaigned to secure the bid for Greenwich and have been consistent in hectoring any opposition to two really bad schemes – the shooting at Woolwich and The desecrating of Greenwich Park. I have not heard a soul say that you actually listened to them if they disagreed with you – there was your disgraceful outburst at the Friends of Greenwich Park meeting where you were verbally abusive of concerned constituents who voiced their objections.
We were recipients of both Gareth Bacon’s and LOCOG’s surveys and the former was much more open- ended than the latter which I am fearful that even those opposed could have been marked as supporters because of the phrasing…….and where on earth did they find 70,000 or so people to make 85% more supporters than the 13,000+ NOGOE protest signatures?? The plans are out now and we can all see what a terrible mess they intend to make of Greenwich Park for the next 5 years and beyond. Thanks Nick – am ashamed we ever voted for you.
I think that Dermot Agnew should fess up that he is “channelling” his employer – Tony Hall – who sits on the board of LOCOG.
“former head of BBC News, who joined the ROH in 2001 and has become widely respected throughout the sector for his work there, is the first figure from the arts world to gain a seat on the board of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) and will also chair his own new Cultural Olympiad board as part of a new structure to oversee the programme.
He is expected to appoint national figures from the arts to that board, including Sir Nicholas Serota of the Tate and Vikki Heywood of the Royal Shakespeare Company.
He said that there was “enough time, not plenty of time” to organise a fitting celebration of the UK’s cultural vitality for the summer of 2012. ”
Times 16 July 2009
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/article6715274.ece
Google “dermot agnew” and “royal opera” (although I didn’t have to because I already knew this).
Come off it, Agnew, nobody is talking about adorable sleepy blah di blah. Surely you know that Greenwich is already one of the top tourist attractions in London and heaving with people, especially at weekends. Those visitors will be put off coming to Greenwich while large areas of the Park become a construction site for much of 2012 and some of 2011, and local businesses will lose out on all the money they normally spend, while for a few days the Olympics spectators will be doomed to consume the refreshments offered by the sponsors – Macdonalds, Coca Cola and Cadburys.
I am not impressed by those who have so little belief in their views that they have to hide behind nicknames.
Yes, Tony Hall heads the Royal Opera where I work. But I have my own opinions which I admit to, unlike MSFCE and Indigo.
My dictionary tells me Indigo is a form of violet.
Reveal yourself. Or are you a shrinking violet ?
Says it all.
It goes without saying that people who have “an interest” should declare that interest, so that the rest of us can make an informed judgement about whether or not your view, Agnew (in this instance), is “influenced”. At committee meetings – eg in the university, charitable, local authority sectors – “declaration of interest” is usually the second or third item on any meeting agenda, after apologies for absence.
I have been using the handle “Indigo” on the web for years (and long before the 02 adopted it, incidentally). The people who know me know who Indigo is.
Tony Hall has “form”, by the way, in complacently ignoring the majority will of the people. Back in November 1992, when he was Director and Editor of BBC News and Current Affairs, he told an audience of Radio 4 listeners that: no matter how few people wanted a ‘continuous news’ service, the BBC would not reconsider their intention to introduce it by April 1994 on the 198kHz (Long Wave) frequency. This was before the Internet, and at a time when hardly anyone had access to radio and tv on satellite or cable, and FM reception was extremely patchy.
Well, Tony Hall lost that one. Deservedly. Let’s hope LOCOG’s plans for Greenwich Park go the same way.
Dear Nick
I am sorry that you have taken such a fierce line against those who are less than enamoured by the intention of LOCOG to stage the Equestrian events of the 2012 Olympics in Greenwich Park.
Like you I am a patriot for Greenwich, having been born here 72 years ago. But I have become involved with the NOGOE campaign because I firmly believe that holding the Equestrian Olympics in Greenwich Park was a stupid little thought-through decision made in ignorance by people who did not know Greenwich at all well. It is too small, fragile ecologically, historically and environmentally, and seriously locked in by major inadequate traffic arteries on all sides.
When these elements were made clear to LOCOG a year ago it had the chance to move the event to Windsor, or wherever, without loss of face and at considerable savings. It didn’t do so mainly because it said that the “athletes” had to be near the Olympic Village and because the view from the top of Greenwich Hill would look nice on international television.
The people involved in NOGOE and supporting its campaign come from all areas and interests, across the party-political divide, indeed some card-carrying member of the Greenwich Labour Party are NOGOE supporters. These people have views which, in a democratic society, should be respected and not laughed to scorn. The NOGOE approach has been one of careful research and analysis – and at no time has it claimed that avenues of trees were to be felled to create a cross country course. This lie is constantly repeated by anti-NOGOE people and it really should stop.
You claim there is great support for the event in Greenwich. I have not detected it: having spent some hours helping gather signatures for the NOGOE petition (13,000 in all) during the day for a few weekends in the summer. This revealed an astonishing level of opposition from all people and of all ages.
Now that LOCOG has published its planning documents all my worst fears have been realised. By a skilful and no doubt expensive public relations campaign LOCOG has previously soft-pedalled its approach to the undoubted problems which are now hideously revealed in its scheme.
Two points from me – other people will nail many more – cost and location.
When the bid went in for Greenwich Park it was for £12 million pounds. LOCOG refused to give a revised budget figure at the Concert Hall meeting last month because it was “commercially confidential”. Now it has revealed a cost estimated at £42 million! This during a time of major world depression and increased tax burdens on the bulk of the UK population
Early this year I was assured categorically by a LOCOG official that it had no intention of taking even a square millimetre of Blackheath. Now it intends to enclose the Circus Field on the Heath. – about 24 acres give or take a bit. Thus proving that Greenwich Park was too small in the first place. Not only that but LOCOG’s intention for Blackheath is illegal and statute barred, and Greenwich Council cannot give consent because it also statute barred from doing so.
Finally, I was distressed to learn recently that an attempt to book the Greenwich Theatre for a NOGOE public meeting was refused. The Theatre’s management claimed that Greenwich Council, which helps to fund the theatre was in favour of the Olympics and therefore closed the door on opposition groups. A similar response came from St Alfege church for a request to use the church hall, because “half the congregation were in favour of Olympics in Greenwich Park” claimed a spokesman.
I trust I can look to you as my MP to raise the matter with the Council leader and put a stop to this totalitarian nonsense.
Neil Rhind
I don’t see how St Alfege can claim that half of the congregation is in favour of the Olympics in Greenwich Park. The congregation has not been polled on this subject.
Half truths here again, I think., Neil.
My understanding is that St Alfege turned down the request to use their Church Hall in case the Church and Parish was seen to be partisan in the argument over the Olympics, one way or the other. Entirely responsible for the Parish Church to stay above this fray.
If quoting an unnamed “spokesman”, check the facts beforehand and name “him”, otherwise it`s just half truths which distort the debate.
But, unlike you Indigo, I have declared my interest.
I am a Greenwich resident in favour of the Olympics in Greenwich Park and work at the Royal Opera where Olympics-supporting Tony Hall also works. I also grew up in the horse world and happen to think Greenwich Park is an ideal venue for three-phase eventing.
It is now your turn to declare your interest, so that (to quote yourself) “the rest of us can make an informed judgement” on YOUR position. Information please.
Do you live in Greenwich ?
What are you scared of that you cannot reveal yourself to those outside your friends ?
What are you hiding ?
Why resort to addressing me by my surname (intended to be offensive, I imagine) ?
I will not return offense (even if I knew your name) because a valid argument will stand on its own merits and does not need to rely on offense to bolster it.