Boo-hoo boutique

An operator for the boutique hotel that is intended to form part of Greenwich Market's renovation is being actively sought on behalf of Greenwich Hospital. On Christie & Co's website (http://www.christiecorporate.com/ccc/markets/hotels2/instructions/)they say:

Greenwich Hospital has instructed Christie + Co to secure a professional hotel operator for a boutique hotel opportunity in the heart of its exciting planned regeneration of Greenwich Market.

The proposed project will see the transformation of Greenwich Market into an upscale leisure destination, whilst retaining the essential character and historical context of the market.

The completed scheme will see the creation of a new, modern market, additional office space as well the boutique hotel.

Greenwich Hospital is seeking an operator to partner the planning application for the hotel, which will be submitted by the middle of this year, and also to operate the completed property.

Since February, Christie & Co have had a document available giving an outline of the proposal (http://www.christiecorporate.com/ccc/pdf/Greenwich.pdf). It contains some information that may make a potential investor run away when they know the transportation truth that afflicts Greenwich. The document states:

Ideally located in the heart of Greenwich, the completed hotel will benefit from easy access to a number of high-profile corporate and leisure business generators, including the O2 Arena and Canary Wharf.

and:

Greenwich is located approximately five miles south east of the City of London. Benefitting from excellent public transport links, via the Docklands Light Railway from Cutty Sark station, Greenwich has easy access to Canary Wharf and London’s underground system.

Easy access to Canary Wharf? Via the Docklands Light Railway? You can tell they don't spend a lot of time trying to get from one side of the river to the other on these "excellent public transport links", can't you? To my knowledge the DLR service has been appalling for years - and I see no sign of it improving this side of eternity.

No Ben

Another post prompted by a commenter:

Is Ben yesterday's news now?

Certainly not. I have good news and bad news. First the good news:

• Alex is back! HOORAAAAAAY!!

And the bad news:

• Ben isn't.

Please carry on commenting on the original post at "Ben" about his shafting.

A spark of inspiration

In a comment on "If you can't stand the heat...", Anonymous said:

Whistler could we possibly have a section regarding the electrics on the Market. If I remember rightly it was a trader who wired us all up in exchange for free rent, unfortunately this trader was not qualified in electrics in any way. I thought that all major electrical work in business premises had to be carried out by a registered Part B electrician?

This is going to be a bit dull, but bear with me.

Upon the abolition of the power bars (which had become grossly hazardous themselves) it became a requirement that individual extension leads must be used to carry power from the new boxes by the roof columns to each stall. Extension leads were kindly made available for purchase from the market office for a very reasonable cost and many traders bought them.

Unfortunately they were all wired incorrectly, were electrically unsafe and downright dangerous. As my commenter says, they were assembled by a trader who received a generous rent concession in return. That the trader was of a more artistic than practical bent was regrettable.

I think most of us know the most basic principle of wiring a plug (and also an extension socket) - get the right wire in the right place. The arty sparks can't be faulted on that one. There is more to it than that though. Three more essentials for correct wiring when making up an extension are:-

1. No bare wires should be visible in the plug/extension socket - the bare wires should be hidden by the retaining screws. the retaining screws should be screwed down firmly.
2. The cable should be securely held in place by the cable-clamp - the clamp should hold the outer cable and the inner wires should not be visible outside the plug/extension socket.
3. The earth wire should be longest of the three so that it is the last to be disconnected if the cable is pulled from the plug/extension socket.

The first point was mostly covered. The second was sometimes fine, sometimes not with the clamp not always bearing on the outer sheath. The big failing, especially bearing in mind the patchy application of the second point, was the third. In all cases examined, the shortest wire in the extension sockets was the earth. This was due to a failure to understand wire routing in an extension socket, an apparent inability to look at the simple picture in the socket showing you what to put where and a total incomprehension of the function of the earth in electrical safety.

So, for the sake of saving a few quid on an electrician or other suitably qualified person, traders have been using unsafe equipment sold to them by GSM.

If you're a trader and still have one of these leads, please get it checked by someone who knows their live from their neutral.

A warm welcome

Following my posts about USM's insistence that their tent can't be heated, I decided to seek the advice of those in the know. I emailed some professional companies in the field of temporary structures:

Subject: Heating temporary structures

I am investigating proposals for a temporary structure to accommodate a market for up to three years.

Only one proposal has been submitted for consideration so far and I am concerned that some of the information that has been given may be incorrect. It has been stated that the structure cannot be heated as it would be problematic and illegal. Specifically, we have been told:-

"a temporary structure would be difficult to heat and in addition it was illegal to heat temporary structures"

"it was not practical to heat an un-insulated structure aside from the fact that it is against building regulations to heat a temporary structure"

"heating the tented structure would breach building regulations, would be environmentally unfriendly and would be costly"

Can I please ask you to comment on these assertions as I believe them to be incorrect and I am concerned that the wrong supplier may be selected.

Thank you in anticipation

Without identifying the companies, I thought you'd like to see the two responses I've received thus far. The first is pretty definite about USM's position and would be keen to help (my asterisks to preserve confidentiality):

Thank you for your ****** and ********* enquiry and for showing interest in ****** Limited. Please be reassured that it is not illegal to heat a temporary building be it insulated or non-insulated - although obviously not practical to heat a non-insulated building!

We have attached a copy of our brochure that illustrates how our multipurpose buildings can be used to create instant space for a variety of applications. Thanks to the robust modular design, our temporary buildings have the versatility of extending/reducing in size or being totally re-locatable in keeping with our client’s requirements and needs.

This is further enhanced with the flexibility to hire or buy a building; there is no minimum or maximum hire period and there is a sell back option available. Our temporary and permanent structures are available for hire or sale in both the UK and overseas. Our buildings are available in 5m modules for both width and length, with eave heights of 4.2m, 5.2m and 6.2m.

We would like the opportunity to work with your company, if you think you have a requirement for a temporary building and would like to discuss the options available to you please do contact us.

The second company is just as positive about heating, and also gives some helpful planning advice:

The situation is that it is definitely not illegal to heat temporary structures - we do it all the time. However if you are talking about getting planning permission for a temporary structure to be up for anything over 2 years, it needs to conform to building regulations. This is where it falls down. Most temporary structures cannot keep the heat retention that is required to satisfy these regulations. However if you were to apply for 2 years, then there is no problem. If you are using a planning consultant perhaps he can advise the best route to go - perhaps apply for 2 years and then extend for 1 year.

I would be pleased to speak to you about this and also to give you a cost to supply you with a proposal if that was possible.

So there you have it. Let's see what excuse USM can come up with next time the subject is raised.

Accountability update

A very brief update to my "Accountability" post.

I've just been going over GSM's financial statements for the year ending 31st December 2006, the latest filed as yet. Note 11 (Commitments under operating leases) states:

The company is committed to the payment of rent to Greenwich Hospital at £200,000 per annum plus a turnover based supplement dependent on certain performance criteria. The rent commitment ceases in March 2012.

Just thought you'd find it interesting.

Compensation

I've been thinking. My conclusions are probably wrong as I haven't heard anyone else voice them, but I hope you'll indulge me.

The one fact I have, which started my addled thinking, is this: the shop owners within the market whose leases have extended beyond the start of the redevelopment have either been bought out or otherwise compensated for their trouble. Similar arrangements must also be in place for leaseholders of other properties on the island site.

This thought led me to two propositions, the first unconnected with the market's future, the second more interesting to market folk.

First, could this explain why Frank the Yank has acquired as much property as possible on the island site? He already had the Admiral Hardy and the INC bar before the redevelopment news first emerged. Since then he has added the Coach and Horses, the W Lounge (ex Powder Monkey) and George II to his portfolio. Say what you like about Frank, he's a very shrewd businessman.

Second, who is probably one of Greenwich Hospital's more significant leaseholders? Step forward GSM/USM, who hold the market's lease. The disruption caused to the market by the redevelopment will be huge. The current lease runs from 1997, when I would guess a clause about redevelopment would be unlikely, to 2012. I find it inconceivable that the leaseholders won't be in line for generous compensation for their trouble. In fact, I imagine they would be due an even greater wedge if the market had to be shut down altogether.

Given their behaviour of late I find it most unlikely that GSM/USM will have their lease renewed in 2012, so perhaps it may be to their advantage were the market to fail to be relocated and have to be closed down. Eric Reynolds is also a very shrewd businessman.

All change

Just when you thought things were gathering pace on the relocation, one of the major players delivers a slap in the face. I'm referring, of course, to Greenwich Council's announcement that they probably won't allow the market to move temporarily to Cutty Sark Gardens (CSG).

Right from the start, CSG has been the preferred relocation site. It's big enough, not far from the original site, on the tourist route and adjacent to the existing retail area. A bit exposed, yes, but with a professionally designed structure in place of GSM's tent it should be viable.

This decision is a complete surprise and a significant kick in the teeth for everyone from Greenwich Hospital down. So what's going on? The council have been involved in the redevelopment decision-making process from the start, so why throw a spanner in the works now?

I reckon some bean-counter in the council has just figured out that they can make more money from other uses, so to hell with the market. Many of their decisions over the years have undermined the market's viability (relocating coach parking to the top of Greenwich park was a real killer), so they're clearly not fans.

In recent years their contempt for the market has become obvious - there now seems to be a market on at CSG every weekend. Presumably there's more money in those rents than the Hospital has offered so far.

Accountability

First a tiny apology - I forgot about this follow-up. I mentioned in an earlier post, "A candidate for promotion", GSM's promotions budget of £30,000 for 2007. I thought you might be interested to see the 2007 budget giving the totals for all categories of income and expenditure. All the figures are net of VAT.

PROJECT INCOME
TOTAL RENT AND FEES	752197
PROJECT COSTS
Service Charge	30000
Building Insurance	1500
Business Rates	31800
Water/Sewerage Rates	1620
Public Liability Insurance	5400
Electricity	5400
Equipment hire	18396
Office phones	2400
Legal	0
Securicor	1800
Office PPS/Sundries	5400
Bank Charges	2400
Maintenance	6000
Market Supervisor	79002
Staff Labour	68347
Other Labour	24413
Stall Cleaners	9807
Holiday Cover	1584
Promotions	30000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS	325269
PROFIT/(LOSS)	426928

Some of these numbers have me scratching my head somewhat, and wondering what may be possible. I'm sure I can count on my readers for some illumination.

If you can't stand the heat...

I'm sorry the promised toilet pictures aren't ready yet - it's surprisingly hard to operate a computer while retching constantly. It'll be done soon and I'll post an update then.

In the meantime I feel the need to resurrect "A heated debate". When I made that post I was unaware that there had been a second CLG meeting, which took place on the 1st July. Eric Reynolds and John Burton missed the meeting, so the hapless Chris Smith was left to restate the dodgy company line. Here's an extract from the minutes:

It was stated that a heating solution for the temporary market was essential. It was commented that heating the tented structure would breach building regulations, would be environmentally unfriendly and would be costly. The current market was not heated and it was thought that the retail units proposed to surround the market tent would provide a barrier to the elements.

Again I ask (and I'm afraid I'll have to shout this time): What building regulations would heating the tent breach?

I know tent heating isn't the most critical issue facing the market, but USM's response to enquiries on the matter gives an indication of why many are deeply uneasy about them having any involvement in the market's future.

Hi Jean

I apologise for seeming to do nothing much this weekend, but I'm actually very busy.

I was asked in "Smoke gets in your eyes..." if I have any pictures of the toilets. Well yes, actually, I do. However, they are truly gross and I'm not too happy to have them at the top of this page.

I'm trying to set up a whole new section of this blog for such delights and I hope you'll bear with me while I struggle to get it working.

Tumbleweed

I do worry about this market. I'm sure everyone, from traders to local visitors, will have observed how much quieter it is now. Is there a recession? No, but there may be one on the way. Traders need to encourage customers to patronise them however they can. GSM needs to promote the market and encourage their customers - traders - to take stalls and pay rents.

It I were GSM I'd be worried indeed. Last Sunday there were twelve spreads (a trader taking an extra table that would otherwise be empty), the Sunday before thirteen, the Sunday before that ten (including one over three tables). This is at the peak of the tourist season.

I make that a loss to GSM of £1,800 over three days. Some spreads may have been permanent traders taking a day off, mitigating the loss somewhat with their half rent, but still...

On top of Old Smokey

This is a follow-up to "Smoke gets in your eyes..." which rather than relegating to a comment I think deserves its own space. I have been given the minutes of the first Market Trader Representative Meeting held on the 20th April 2008. GSM/USM were represented by Barny, Patrycja, Ben and John Burton.

Item 3 concerns the new Wednesday market.

The traders asked: Can we cook on site?

GSM/USM replied: This will depend on the individual e.g crepes or bain marie or microwave ok. No smelly or smoky activity allowed, nor a common seating area. Individual seats at stalls allowed.

I repeat; No smelly or smoky activity allowed.

So why the change? And if they didn't find it acceptable for Wednesdays, why is it now allowed on every trading day?

There's a new old joke doing the rounds in the market: How can you tell if the market managers are lying? Their lips move.

A heated debate

As many of you know, USM's proposal for the temporary relocation of the market and shops revolves around a tent on Cutty Sark Gardens. This is, I believe, the same tent USM Supremo Eric Reynolds offered to Greenwich Gateway for the millennium. Presumably it will have survived its nine years in storage well and will have the desired "wow factor" when unveiled next year. I'll have more to say on this later; for now I want to confine my comments to the issue of heating.

From the beginning, when the traders found out they were expected to do business in a tent by the river, it has been their contention that the tent must be heated in winter. Given the exposure of the location, this was always a requirement for traders and the comfort of customers.

Throughout the various meetings that the traders had with Greenwich Hospital and others it was always a given that the tent would be heated. Kate Jaconello, Nick Raynsford M.P., and Councillor Maureen O'Mara have all made the heating a sticking point. In meetings, Eric Dolby and Martin Sands of Greenwich Hospital have expressed their agreement with traders over the matter.

In the minutes of the KSCG meeting of the 19th November 2007, at which Eric Reynolds represented USM, it was noted that:

The market would be housed in a tented structure that would be suitable to meet the requirements of the stallholders, e.g. heating, access, lavatories.

For some reason Eric Reynolds has been heard to hum and haw subsequently about the heating issue. The minutes of the KSCG meeting of the 28th April this year make Eric's objections clear:

There were some concerns about the operational aspects of the tented structure. This included concerns about servicing, security, heating, sanitation, water supply and health & safety. In addition it was pointed out that having both ends of the tent open to the elements could create a wind tunnel effect through the structure.

It was commented that a temporary structure would be difficult to heat and in addition it was illegal to heat temporary structures. It was suggested that the entrances could be arranged such that a wind tunnel was not created.

Eric gave further voice to his objection to heating at the first meeting of the Community Liaison Group (CLG) on the 10th June, where he revealed the glorious tent to a wider audience. According to the minutes:

It was questioned whether the tented structure would be heated or not. It was commented that it was not practical to heat an un-insulated structure aside from the fact that it is against building regulations to heat a temporary structure.

Illegal, indeed? Against building regulations? Who says? Have you been a naughty boy again, Eric? As the recipient of one of their honours, surely you could have asked one of your RIBA contacts for clarification before trotting out this line again. You might even have asked one of the architects who are always present at KSCG meetings. Failing to check your assertion that it's "illegal to heat temporary structures" and "against building regulations", when both are false, makes it look like you're lying to the committees. As anyone who's ever been to an outdoor event in the inclement months knows, temporary structures are heated all the time.

Five minutes on Google with the search term "marquee heating" turns up loads of sites offering such a service and lots of advice. Further research unearths some genuine experts in the field of temporary structures. I recommend:

• GL events Owen Brown
  
• Temporary Structures UK
  
• A Structures
  

All would be delighted to provide a proper temporary structure; heated, cooled, lit, ventilated, insulated, secure, etc.

Note to Greenwich Hospital: Ditch Eric and his tent - surely this is important enough to get it done by professionals.

The Monkey's Paw

I recently mentioned, in "Be careful what you wish for...", a new blogger who has been picking my brain on the world of blogging. Apart from a terrible feeling of the blind leading the blind, it's been rather enjoyable. Not knowing who the blogger is has made it even more intriguing - now I know how everyone else has been feeling about me.

Well, now the second part of that quotation, "...you may receive it" has come to pass. I've had a comment from Marketeer (for that is their name) informing us of a new blog at "gmtraders.blogspot.com" called "I Love Greenwich Market Traders" (cheeky devil).

This could be unpleasant for some.

Smoke gets in your eyes...

...and your hair and your clothes.

I entered the market from the eastern end of Turnpin Lane at the weekend and as I turned the corner by Mr Humbug my eyes started to water. I was also struck my the overwhelming smell of burning fat.

This has become a feature of the market of late, ever since the glorious Wednesday food market opened. This week, however, the wind was coming from a direction that forced all the smoke and stench into the market hall. The actual cooking was taking place at the northern end of the market, the smokier stuff (pig and sausage cooking) located under the entrance portico, but the whole market stank.

I can well imagine how off-putting this was to visitors. For those intending to enter the market from College Approach there must have been little incentive to actually come in. One look at the Wednesday banner and the pall of smoke filling the portico would turn the most inquisitive tourist away, let alone anyone looking for an arts and crafts market.

For the traders, it must have been exceptionally miserable. I remember the occasional waft of bacon from the Meeting Place - even some vegetarians of my acquaintance found that appealing - but this is a wholly different thing. The smoke and stink was bad enough for everyone; I can only imagine how the vegetarian, Muslim and Jewish traders felt. I bet the management didn't waste a second trying to imagine that.

Roasting pork and frying sausages on an industrial scale inside Greenwich Market is such a risibly bad idea that I can't understand why the management hasn't changed its mind yet. Let me make it clear that I am not opposed to cooked food at the market - I support these traders - it's the location that's wrong.

There have been attempts at bringing cooked food to the market before (remember Anson's excellent barbecues?). They have, wisely, always been situated in the car park or nearby in Durnford Street. I think this must be because the more astute managers have realised that such enterprises must be open to the sky. Cooking generates fumes and smells and these have to be allowed to escape.

Let's have a hot food offering at the market - I think it could be good for everyone - but please locate it where common sense dictates.

No sign of improvement

I've been asked by a commenter to bring the "A sign of the times?" post back to the top. I'm delighted to oblige, but I'd rather do a new a new post on the topic, so here goes...

Oh dear. Despite a promise given by a member of GSM's management to erect signs giving proper information about market opening, they have not done so. What has appeared is a replacement for one of the signs. On the side not visible to people entering the market is information on the weekend market. On the other, more noticed, side is this:

Same trumpeting of the food market again. I notice the time has been changed - so at least the traders will be a little less harassed when packing up at 5:30. Unless the customers read the other two signs which are still in place, in which case they'll still expect the traders to stay in place until 7. And not open before 11 in the morning. That's bad enough for weekend traders, but do spare a thought for the antiques folk who kick off a good four hours before that. Still, that's probably academic as the new sign doesn't mention Thursday and Friday at all.

Now look GSM, this is not rocket science. What your customers (market traders - remember them?) require is signage that informs the public what is on offer and when. It couldn't be simpler. If you need a hint on how it's done, take a look at any shop. Or you could even pick up a clue from your own sign that you took down, just insert Wednesday:

And while you're at it, how about putting up a sign by the office giving the same information?

Rather more entrancing

Re "Entranced", I just unearthed pictures of the market's entrances taken just last year and I thought you might like to see them for comparison.

Here's the east end of Turnpin Lane:

Blighted by Frank the Yank's doors (not a problem when it was the Cricketers - see below) of course, but still a whole lot more inviting. Note the Greenwich Market sign above Frank's doors.

The Nelson Road entrance has Warwick Leadlay in place and the signs from hell missing:

Shame about the Teddy Bear shop - another victim of rising rents? Even in its closed state it still looks better than the Biscuit mess.

The College Approach entrance looks rather approachable:

Again, note the Greenwich Market sign between the two leftmost columns. A duplicate of the one above the Cricketers/Powder Monkey it helped people at the end of the street to spot the market. No misleading banner and no pall of greasy smoke either.

As promised, here's a picture of the Cricketers, with inward opening doors, before Frank the Yank got his hands on it:

Makes for a better entrance to the market, doesn't it?

By the way, how the hell did Frank the Yank get away with fitting outward opening doors?

Entranced

In one of yesterday's posts I remarked upon the difficulty visitors have finding Greenwich market. Having found it, however, they may still be put off bothering to enter.

Three of the five entrances to the market are off-putting in the extreme. Worst of the bunch visually is the east end of Turnpin Lane:

To the right, there is the horrid scaffolding narrowing the already confined entrance by almost one-half. To the left, Frank the Yank has had his bar fitted with outward opening doors which are locked open, narrowing the entrance still further. GSM complete the hostile picture by having no signage whatever. Would it occur to you to look for one of London's great markets here?

On the south side of the market is the slightly grand Nelson Road entrance. This looks to me like an original Joseph Kay feature, only slightly marred by the pipes and cables routed through it:

The let down here is the emptiness of the shops on both sides. Warwick Leadlay's fascinating shop should be on the left, but I understand they were unable to justify the price hike by Greenwich Hospital when their lease came up. By the by, you'd think Greenwich Hospital, given their naval connections, would have nurtured Warwick Leadlay. Not only was the shop stuffed with maritime prints, model ships, Nelsonia and the wonderful Warwick himself, but Anthony Cross, his business partner, is on the council of the 1805 Club, a charity for the preservation of Georgian naval monuments.

The all but empty Biscuit store on the right is going for the "under offer" longevity award. The shop has been cluttered with Biscuit's promotional material for ages, but there's still no sign of life. Completing the unhappy picture, visible through the arch in the centre, is GSM's "we're only open on Wednesday and we only sell food, so bog off" sign. No surprise there.

And finally, Kay's splendid but restrained north entrance:

Greenwich Hospital isn't doing the portico any favours at the moment by framing it with scaffolding. But that just makes it hard for people to find the market, it doesn't stop them going in. That honour falls to the dead hand of GSM.

I know you'll be getting a terrible feeling of déjà vu, but here it is again - that accursed sign. At the risk of repeating myself; this is not a food market and it isn't only open on Wednesday. This sign puts people off. For **** sake GSM - stop being so intransigent and get rid of these blasted signs.

A candidate for promotion

I've had a little email from a trader. There are some good points and I'm happy to reproduce it verbatim:-

Further to your email from a FoW
Shouldn't the management/GSM be keeping an eye on where the market is mentioned & where it is not.What is said & what is not.
This especially applies to their own web sites & signage.
To make sure the truth is out there; no misleading falsehoods, deceptions & sloppy thinking.
Surely it's in their brief :- to advertise & promote the market for the benefit of all: Visitors ,Traders & Management alike?
Does GSM / USM have a publicist to handle this ? One who'll also monitor Government & Council sites,plus other publications, so that we get a fair crack of the whip ?
And before someone comes up with, " But no market management does that & I've worked on 25 markets around the country blah -blah -blah," none of that stops it from being a good idea.
Come on GSM/USM, you must be keeping an eye on this, talk to us & let us know what you will do, to right the things that are wrong on your websites & signs etc..
A Trader.

I'll be posting some thoughts of my own on this topic soon. As a taster, would it surprise you to know that GSM had a budget of £30,000 for promotion last year?

A transport of delight

Re my previous post, I suppose in a way the signs in the market don't matter too much - after all, there's no-one there to read them...

I've been perturbed lately by the difficulty I've been having getting from Greenwich to Canary Wharf (I know it's pathetic but I can't survive without Waitrose). The Docklands Light Railway seems to be always out of action, but until now I've not really understood why. Well folks, it's planned maintenance. As opposed to unplanned maintenance?

I took a look at TfL's website and unearthed a "Planned Works on DLR" page. To save the more busy taking a look, here's the gist (my italics for emphasis):-

To allow DLR to meet passenger growth, construction work is taking place on the railway until early 2010. At times you may experience disruptions to services, but these will be kept to a minimum whenever possible.

The majority of this work is being carried out during weekends and at night... In addition, passengers who use DLR during weekdays will also experience some disruptions with service changes through West India Quay, reduced services between Crossharbour and Lewisham during the summer of 2008 and temporary closure of Tower Gateway station for 9 months from summer 2008.

I'm sure you'll be delighted to know that they plan to provide no service to Cutty Sark station on the weekends of the 12th to 13th July, 26th to 27th July, 24th to 25th August, and 6th to 7th September. That's in addition to unplanned planned closures like there were last Friday.

It's so hard for visitors to get to Greenwich now. Thank goodness they haven't ripped up the pier to put off river travellers - oh hang on...

Market? What market?

I had to give directions to a couple of tourists the other day (an increasingly common task for locals). They were looking for Greenwich market. They were standing outside the Spanish Galleon. I wonder if their bafflement may have had something to do with the tarting up that's currently under way. And under wraps.

Here are some examples of what a visitor to Joseph Kay's splendid erection finds these days:




I'd like to pose a couple of questions to Greenwich Hospital. Given that you plan to start redevelopment in a year or so, couldn't this wait? If it had to be done, who thought the peak of the tourist season was good timing?

Ben

I have decided not to comment here on individuals any more, but there is one person who has attracted more positive comments than any other. As his plight has attracted so much attention, I believe it would be wrong of me to ignore the comments mentioning Ben in various places on this blog.

I am making no fresh comment of my own, just bringing together your many comments in one place.

Anonymous said...
...It was so bad this Sunday that even Ben was portering.
09 JUNE 2008 19:29

Greenwich Whistler said...
...Thursday and Friday markets, run perfectly well up to now by Ben alone. Not surprisingly Ben was less than pleased at having his market days screwed up and made as miserable as the weekends.
...I've been told how much better things were done by Ben.
10 JUNE 2008 18:52

Anonymous said...
Talking of things disappearing, where's our Assistant Manager Ben gone. The market misses him.
15 JUNE 2008 07:14

Anonymous said...
The Cry was heard through out the market.
Bring back Ben,we want Ben. Bring back Ben,we want Ben. Bring back Ben,we want Ben. Bring back Ben,we want Ben. Bring back Ben,we want Ben.
16 JUNE 2008 05:55

Anonymous said...
BRING BACK BEN AND ALEX!!!!!!!!
Ben is such a lovely, great guy who will allways help someone in need. The market without Ben is like Cake with no egg. You can try using a "substitute" but its just not as good! He will be missed dearly if he nay returns and market life wont be the same without him.
I sense a real struggle through the next month or so for the market 'Staff' as alot of the workload that would normally be covered by either Alex or Ben ( Like Beining in the market ALL the day. (now some are too quick too leave or hide away in the office with the door locked.) Things WILL be forgotten, problems WILL occur! The somewhat 'jolly' atmosphere of the market is flipside and general moral is down! Its having effect!!!
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THIS LOVELY PLACE!!!
21 JUNE 2008 11:28

Anonymous said...
We wholeheartedly agree with the above comment regarding Ben, he is a very lovely, helpful,compassionate guy who would help anyone if he could. We don't know the reason why we have not seen him for a few weeks but whatever it is I hope he realises that he has a lot of support in the Market due to his integrity over the years.
22 JUNE 2008 20:34

desperate stallholder said...
I didn't know where to leave this comment but just wanted to say.... this weekend has been horrible. Alex has been suspended. Ben is nowhere to be seen. A trader has been asked to leave the market by the management. I feel totally worn out and tired. The atmosphere is awful. I feel like we are working under a dictatorship in a different country. Yet nobody seems to be listening to us. WHAT MORE DO WE HAVE TO DO GREENWICH HOSPITAL BEFORE YOU HEAR US!!!!!!!!!!!!!It's quite unbelievable.
22 JUNE 2008 21:32

Anonymous said...
So does anyone know what's happened to Ben?
23 JUNE 2008 13:50

peacemaker said...
Options to explain Ben's disappearance.
Abducted by aliens
Joined a travelling circus
Gone on to bigger and better things
Let's hope it's option three, he deserves it.
Miss you Ben.
23 JUNE 2008 14:04

Anonymous said...
I'm sure if Ben and Alex had been running the market on Sunday, the car park would've been open before traders formed a queue out onto Church Street, the porters would've been able to get to the storage, the traders wouldn't have sat around waiting to stall out quite so long and John wouldn't have been sh*t on.
23 JUNE 2008 14:54

heyoka hannah said...
I quite agree with some of my fellow traders. Let us not give each other a hard time. One trader at the weekend noticed how a porter and stallholder lost their livelihoods and that the fantastic Ben is nowhere to be seen...
23 JUNE 2008 15:16

Anonymous said...
I still really want to know what has happened to Ben. If GSM have got rid of him then they really have gone mental. He is their most professional and hardworking member of staff. He should be the Manager. Have you noticed the chaos since he has been gone? No offence to the others - Ben is just better at the job than they are.
06 JULY 2008 07:05

Anonymous said...
I think his failing was people really liked him. He mucked in on all level's he was easy to approach and you got a straight answer in a couple of minutes . Not the most creative of people which I'm sure he would admit but a fantastic people person. Great for a market team I would of thought!I think there has been a major error of judgement if he has been sacked but what do I know I.m just a stall holder!!!
06 JULY 2008 07:24

Perhaps I can invite GSM to explain Ben's sudden departure?

Be careful what you wish for...

Again I do apologise for going walkabout for a couple of weeks. I've had a lot on my mind.

Uppermost was the need to decide the future of this blog. For a while, I considered dropping the whole thing. As you must have noticed, my little effort has attracted some of the most disgusting personalities you could come across. In spite of this, I have decided, for now, to keep going and not to restrict comments here. I still have a belief in free speech and the inherent decency of one's fellow human beings. I know, I know - what a naïve fool - but I never claimed to be perfect.

I've also been busy advising a new blogger on how to go about it. Now this will be interesting. My focus has been on trying to secure a future for Greenwich Market, but I have been side-tracked into personal disputes. From now on I will be realigning my efforts on their original path and not commenting much on the interesting methods of the current management. The new blogger is a different creature entirely and is planning to pick up the threads to try to make the traders' lot a better one. They've promised to let me know when they start up - I'll pass that on to you here.

Breaking silence

I do apologise for my extended silence - I shall break it on Sunday.