I have just stumbled across this document published by the LSE Cities Programme

In "2009-10 the focus was on the areas surrounding East London's massive Olympic Park development: Hackney Wick, Fish Island, Sugarhouse Lane, Carpenter's Estate, Stratford Town Centre and Leyton. How will they benefit from the regeneration projects promised for this largely deprived part of London? Students suggested some interventions, emphasising the role small, local projects could play in the growth and change of the Olympic fringe sites.

A short news item on the mystery of the Leyton Marshes invasion

London 2012 Olympic Land Grab: Leyton Marshes from Mike Wells on Vimeo.

London 2012 has always claimed it has ‘an agenda of inclusion’ and wants to hear what members of the community have to say. Back in January I was invited by an organisation called Net Impact London Professionals to speak at a debate which will be held on 14th March 2012 entitled ‘After the 2012 Olympics: Legacy and Regeneration’. I had never heard of them before and was told ‘Net Impact is a global volunteer-led organisation which seeks to explore and promote business to create a sustainable world.’

In its invitation Net Impact had said: ‘you may be willing to highlight some important aspects of the sustainability London 2012 legacy.' I didn’t understand what they meant by this and was confused as they had already said I had been recommended by someone who they knew was a critic of London 2012.

So I had responded saying:

‘I am slightly puzzled by your invitation 'you may be willing to highlight some important aspects of the sustainability London 2012 legacy'. I am not sure I would be able to do this. I am not a great believer in the sustainability of the London 2012 legacy.’

Press Release 23rd February – For Immediate Release

Today hundreds of BP signs across London were targeted by activists protesting against the company’s role as ‘Sustainability Partner’ of the London 2012 Olympic Games. Around the capital, protesters hit petrol stations, advertising hoardings, and BP-sponsored cultural institutions[1], disfiguring hundreds of the famous BP ‘sunflower’ logo. Advertisements with the company’s Olympic strapline ‘fuelling the future’ were altered with the addition of three asterisks to make ‘f***ing the future’.

Dear International Olympic Committee, London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, and Commission for a Sustainable London 2012,

Given the recent controversy about the Dow contract, and following the resignation of Meredith Alexander from the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012, we are pleased to see that the CSL’s Chair has acknowledged that this has ‘raised wider questions about corporate behaviour, past and present, and how ethical issues are effectively factored into decision making,’ and that the Commission is going to address the challenge of considering ‘new approaches that incorporate a broader range of ethical issues into decision making’ in its forthcoming Annual Review, to be published in May.

This article is reproduced with permission from UK Tar Sands Network.

BP’s brand is all over the Olympics. It is ‘Sustainability Partner’. It is bankrolling educational and cultural initiatives. It is providing fuel for the Games, and sponsoring many athletes – including some in Team GB and Team USA.

But BP is one of the most unsustainable companies on the planet. Its true values – putting profit before people’s lives and a stable climate – are in direct contradiction with those espoused by the Olympics. That’s why it is spending so much money on sponsorship this year: the Olympics are the perfect vehicle for BP to rebuild its shattered reputation and try to convince the public that it is a good corporate citizen, playing an important social and environmental role.

Of course, it isn’t. It is entirely focused on extracting every last fossil fuel it can get its hands on – including tar sands, fracking, deepwater drilling and the Arctic. Oh, and it recently closed down its solar division, giving up on this essential renewable technology, because it just wasn’t profitable enough.

By allowing BP to associate itself so closely with such a potent feelgood factor, the Olympics are encouraging some of the most outrageous greenwash we’ve ever seen. BP should not be allowed to sponsor the Olympics, nor the cultural events that surround it.

For more details, read on.

If you want to stay informed, join our tongue-in-cheek https://www.facebook.com/BPLondon2012Greenwash.

BP as Sustainability Partner

By Mike Wells, posted 16th February 2012, edited 17th Feb 2012

For security reasons there will be no commercial flights within 18 miles of the Olympic stadium for the duration of the Games. This will mean that VIPs and heads of state will not be able to use their preferred mode of transport - the helicopter - they will have to slum it with the rest of us on the roads.

Unsurprisingly Locog's planning application for its activities in Greenwich Park was passed by Greenwich's Planning Committee. Three of the nine members of the Committee, including the Leader of the Council, failed to turn up. It is questionable whether it and other Olympic Borough Planning Committees still deserve that name so corrupted has the local planning system been by the progress of the juggernaut.