853

news, views and issues around Greenwich, Charlton, Blackheath and Woolwich, south-east London – what you won't read in Greenwich Time

An Olympic legacy lie: Greenwich Time’s peninsula pratfall

with 3 comments

Greenwich Time, 29 July 2013

For no real reason, council propaganda weekly Greenwich Time has run a double-page spread lauding the redevelopment of the Greenwich Peninsula. Well, other than that the sole reason the paper, funded from the council tax, exists is to present the leadership of Greenwich Council in the best possible light – especially with an election coming up next May.

Greenwich Time, 29 July 2013

In which case, GT referring to “luxury apratments” isn’t amusing whatsoever, oh no. The cock-up was corrected in the paper’s online edition, and you can see the double-page spread as a PDF here.

The weak peg was ground being broken on the hotel being built by AEG, the O2′s owners. Last week’s Greenwich Time splashed with with photographs of council leader Chris Roberts and MP Nick Raynsford in hard hats celebrating work getting under way. Roberts and Raynsford have their differences, but they’re always happy to pose for the council’s propaganda rag in hard hats.

Greenwich Time, 22 July 2013

Unsurprisingly, the “Olympic legacy” is a bare-faced lie – a hotel formed part of AEG’s successful bid to purchase the Millennium Dome in the early 2000s. Indeed, here’s a BBC News Online story from April 2003 about Greenwich studying the proposals, along with a House of Commons report on the issue from June 2005. Unfortunately, one of London’s most enduring Olympic legacies has been an outbreak of selective amnesia among both Conservative and Labour politicians – and Roberts has been one of the most forgetful.

Under-construction Intercontinental Hotel Greenwich

The 23-storey tower which dominates the view houses the “luxury apratments” – serviced apartments for people to stay in, not live in. It’s a much watered-down scheme from the original proposals to provide a “signature building” for the peninsula. It was was nodded through in 2010, the council’s supposedly politically-neutral planning board split on party lines, with five Labour councillors (including Roberts) backing it, and the two Tories against.

Greenwich Time, 29 July 2013

The the bottom three paragraphs above could have been written at any time in the past five years, give or take the odd figure. 853 readers will know all about the new development adjacent to the hotel development, where Greenwich Council has bent its own rules to allow the developer to provide no social or affordable housing whatsoever, providing instead a private school and “high-end residential” buildings. Instead, the council has allowed the developer to concentrate social housing further down the peninsula, including the student halls which are now under construction.

Of course, you won’t find anything about this pre-emptive form of social cleansing in Greenwich Time.

Nor will you read about how the proportion of social housing was cut by Greenwich Council.

Then again, you won’t have found much about it in the area’s commercial newspapers either – but that’s no excuse for the council to fill the gap with weekly propaganda. (Strangely, though, this stuff’s all fine with the National Union of Journalists, which has decided to defend council-run newspapers. After more than a decade, I’m taking my union subscriptions elsewhere.)

Laws are now passing through Parliament to ban the likes of Greenwich Time. It’s a terrible shame for other councils who publish less frequent, less overtly-biased publications, but Greenwich is screwing it up for the rest of them. In the meantime, get set for more of this rubbish between now and next May’s council election.

Written by Darryl

31 July, 2013 at 7:30 am

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Good stuff 853.
    More fun rubbishing these two low grade Coe toadies the better!

    parkkeeper

    31 July, 2013 at 9:54 am

  2. The pictures in this first class example of objective journalism have really been top class recently – though I would like to see a “with and without hardhat” double page pic spread on all the Labour councillors in the next edition. Additionally we need more yellow and red colours across the whole paper with lots more roses. As for the letters column… It has had far too many critical letters of late, the sycophancy guage needs to be much higher.

    And why, oh why, are there no articles about banning local elections as an utter waste of time. It is clear from our local paper that there are no dissenters to the councils view, no councillors or candidates of any other party so why on earth don’t we go for the easy win on cost savings and just forget the whole thing and just nominate our favourite Labour councillor on the basis of whether he/she looks good in a hardhat?

    Some idiot called Chris Smith is asking this impertinent question at the Council meeting tonight:

    ” When is Greenwich Time planning to accord by the code on local council newspapers preventing overtly party political campaigning within its pages?”

    Chris Smith

    31 July, 2013 at 11:17 am

  3. No surprises from the NUJ there, more rags = more journalists in work = more members for the NUJ.

    Unions stopped being anything other than insurance businesses a very long time ago.

    Darren

    31 July, 2013 at 5:19 pm


Hello! Please join the discussion below.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 411 other followers