Professor Stephen Crow, chairman of the Casino Advisory Panel, suggested that the joint bid by Dome owner Philip Anschutz and Greenwich Council was in the lead because building work had already started on the Las Vegas-style casino. This admission triggered cries of foul play from opposition MPs, who said it was worse than cricket's ball-tampering scandal. Professor Crow's panel will start public hearings into the seven bids this week before recommending one site before the end of the year. But it emerged last week that Mr Anschutz's firm AEG has jumped the gun by constructing the shell of an 'entertainment complex' on the Dome site at Greenwich.
So what have I got to reveal that's new? Well, readers of the excellent GreenwichWatch blog will already know that AEG has been caught falsifying documents which are due to presented to the DCMS Casino Panel this Wednesday. Click HERE to see a document from AEG listed on the DCMS website (I bet this will have been removed by tomorrow) . To cut a long story short, AEG has now been forced to apologise to the Greenwich Chaplaincy for misrepresenting their views. Click HERE and HERE for the full details.
The full exchange of emails between AEG and the Greenwich Chaplaincy has been leaked to me and can be seen HERE in full.
It starts off with an email from Revd Malcolm Torry to AEG representatives...
I'm sorry I've had to send a rather intemperate email to the Department of Culture with copies to people who might be rather concerned about what look like views emanating from the Greenwich Peninsula Chaplaincy. You really ought to have asked.
Following a slightly apologetic reply from AEG, Revd Torry replies more starkly...
I'd be perfectly happy for genuine correspondence to be published - but there hasn't been any, and the paper on the Culture Dept. website looks like a letter from me and it isn't one. I can see that some of the phrases in it are taken from the paper which we published on a possible casino, but much of the document has been simply made up and it has a tone which is positive towards the casino plan whereas the paper which our trustees put out is negative (in varying degrees, because different faith communities contain a spectrum of views). Yes, our paper also contains a promise: that if there is a casino on the peninsula then we shall offer to be chaplains to it so that we can serve the needs of workforce and visitors; but most of the content is what different sacred texts say about gambling: and they're not complimentary.
By now, it;s clear that AEG realises it has a crisis on its hands and the cudgels are taken up by AEG Chief executive David Campbell, who writes this full blown apology...
I cannot excuse the fact that this summary should have been cleared with you. I don't know how this happened but it is a mistake and as CEO I am ultimately responsible and so apologise unreservedly to you and your colleagues. I sincerely hope this genuine mistake does not stop us all moving forward with the many excellent areas of your work on the Peninsula.
It's quite clear that yet again, AEG is playing fast and loose with the truth in order to get their own way. I'm not sure what the remit of the DCMS Casino Panel is, but I hope they do their duty on Wednesday and give AEG the hardest grilling they have ever had.
Hattip to Greenwich Watch for background research and original story