Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Talking to a park attendant friend. he told me that they are shooting the squirrels, the reason being, they dont want them to interfere with the horses running, in the Olympics. Why this event could not be held at more appropriate places,like Windsor. is a shame. All down to money. rip up a great old park, wreck a grade two market place. Turning an historic borough into a mess.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/13339-greenwich-olympics/
Share on other sites

There are two themes here.


I support fully the shooting of grey squirrels - anywhere.


I abhor the damage being done to Greenwich Park and the are in the name of Olympics. Perfectly good alternative exist for horsey events which would also spread the Olympic effect across the country.

What puzzles me, is how the Cutty Sark fire started. They said it was a spark| Back in the day when we had hearths. it was hard work to even get a fire going. So how comes hundred year old timber went up in a flash.I suppose though it would not have fitted in with their elaborate plans to rise it up on stilts. How fortunate it was for it to burn down. The ancient market is next. a stupid towering hotel on top. dwarfing St Alfeges church . Capitalism at its worst. Then the chair lifts across the Thames. Next they2ll be employing people to walk about in giant suits dressed as Henry the eigth and his six wives.All for the elite few to run around in the Olympics. and of course all the dodgy contractors etc that have made money out of it all. We.ve paid big time for this "privalige"

If this is going to remain in the Drawing Room, I'd prefer it became a sensible debate about the Olympics. Squirrel conservation seems a little narrow.


If the OP would like to alter the title of the thread or else it may be moved to the Lounge for further "larks" and discussion of fluffy rodents.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But it's the London Games!


That doesn't mean it has to be within 5 miles of Charing Cross - it's costing London tax payers a bundle of dosh. Boris has tried to inject some sense by mandating the use of Wembley stadium rather than building temporary stadiums, but further money could be saved by holding the shooting at Bisley, the horse events at Gatcombe Park and so on.

The International Olympic Committee have pretty strict stipulations as to how far from the host city you can hold events. These were part and parcel of what London bid for in the first place. We can?t just rewrite the rule book for our own purposes.


Not that I disagree that using other venues would be more economical but I don?t think we could get away with hosting events in the midlands.

  • 2 weeks later...

I think part of what shaped the decisions on where things are held is the ease with which they can be travelled to. I remember a similar debate about the canoeing events and the worry being that spectators wouldn't travel that far (as though only Londoners are expected to go to the games - or rather Londoners are the only ones expected to be able to afford the tickets to the games).


I am for having the games but like many people am baffled that Greenwich has been chosen for the horse events. In fact it's not the event itself that will cause the most damage/ disruption, but everything that goes with it...spectators/ media/ refreshemnts/ facilities and so on.


I am also waiting to see what tickets will cost and am sure a whole new debate will emerge when londoners, whose taxes have in part paid for these games (along with the general taxes of the rest of the country) will find it expensive and difficult to get tickets for anything they really want to see.


I wonder how many tickets will be corporate allocations and VIP for example?

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > But it's the London Games!

>

> That doesn't mean it has to be within 5 miles of

> Charing Cross - it's costing London tax payers a

> bundle of dosh. Boris has tried to inject some

> sense by mandating the use of Wembley stadium

> rather than building temporary stadiums, but

> further money could be saved by holding the

> shooting at Bisley, the horse events at Gatcombe

> Park and so on.



Putting a monetary value on the wastage, the cost of building at Bisley was estimated at ?28m-?30m whereas the cost for Woolwich is ?42m. On top of this, the temporary stadiums are to be pulled down after the event leaving no legacy (legacy being one of the main arguments Lord Coe and Tessa Jowell used for holding the olympics in London) for the various sports. Quite literally throwing our money down the drain!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Date: 24th of July 2025, 7pm Location: East Dulwich Picturehouse | 116A Lordship Lane | London SE22 8HD    Safer Neighbourhoods Team (SNT) will be holding a ward panel meeting at East Dulwich Picturehouse on Thursday 24th July 2025 from 7pm. Please come along to talk about the priorities for the community and how local police can help.  
    • Eh? That wasn't "my quote"! If you look at your post above,it is clearly a quote by Rockets! None of us have any  idea what a Corbyn led government during Covid would have been like. But do you seriously think it would have been worse than Johnson's self-serving performance? What you say about the swing of seats away from Labour in 2019 is true. But you have missed my point completely. The fact that Labour under Corbyn got more than ten million votes does not mean that Corbyn was "unelectable", does it? The present electoral system is bonkers, which is why a change is apparently on the cards. Anyway, it is pointless discussing this, because we are going round in circles. As for McCluskey, whatever the truth of that report, I can't see what it has to do with Corbyn?
    • Exactly what I said, that Corbyn's group of univeristy politics far-left back benchers would have been a disaster during Covid if they had won the election. Here you go:  BBC News - Ex-union boss McCluskey took private jet flights arranged by building firm, report finds https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3kgg55410o The 2019 result was considered one of the worst in living memory for Labour, not only for big swing of seats away from them but because they lost a large number of the Red-wall seats- generational Labour seats. Why? Because as Alan Johnson put it so succinctly: "Corbyn couldn't lead the working class out of a paper bag"! https://youtu.be/JikhuJjM1VM?si=oHhP6rTq4hqvYyBC
    • Agreed and in the meantime its "joe public" who has to pay through higher prices. We're talking all over the shop from food to insurance and everything in between.  And to add insult to injury they "hurt " their own voters/supporters through the actions they have taken. Sadly it gets to a stage where you start thinking about leaving London and even exiting the UK for good, but where to go????? Sad times now and ahead for at least the next 4yrs, hence why Govt and Local Authorities need to cut spending on all but essential services.  An immediate saving, all managerial and executive salaries cannot exceed and frozen at £50K Do away with the Mayor of London, the GLA and all the hanging on organisations, plus do away with borough mayors and the teams that serve them. All added beauracracy that can be dispensed with and will save £££££'s  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...