Re: Do you agree that the Olympics are an obscenity?

by **Ivan** on Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:39 pm

Estimates of the full cost of the 2012 Olympics vary considerably, between £9.3 and £24 billion, depending on whether you include items such as the upgrading of transport infrastructure:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092077/London-2012-Olympics-cost-spiral-24bn--10-TIMES-higher-2005-estimate.html

Even accepting the lowest figure of a £9.3 billion claim on the public purse, that amounts to nearly £148 for every man, woman and child in the UK. That’s money which could be used to reduce the number of British people sleeping in doorways and pensioners dying of hunger and cold - and look, I’ve only had to say it once to get my point across!

by Ivanhoe on Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:48 pm

Ivan wrote:Estimates of the full cost of the 2012 Olympics vary considerably, between £9.3 and £24 billion, depending on whether you include items such as the upgrading of transport infrastructure:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092077/London-2012-Olympics-cost-spiral-24bn--10-TIMES-higher-2005-estimate.html

Even accepting the lowest figure of a £9.3 billion claim on the public purse, that amounts to nearly £148 for every man, woman and child in the UK. That’s money which could be used to reduce the number of British people sleeping in doorways and pensioners dying of hunger and cold - and look, I’ve only had to say it once to get my point across!

Ivan, point taken, I just made a few cock ups, nothing to write home about, and now my point is made.

by **RockOnBrother** on Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:57 pm

Ivanhoe,

OW has posted a valid question. He has not indicated in any way that he (1) ignores the existence of the poor in London, or (2) advocates that the poor in London be ignored. He's asking a valid social science question, seeking evidence for either (1) a correlational relationship between the London Summer Olympic Games and the existence of poor people in London, and/or (2) a causative relationship between the London Summer Olympic Games and the existence of poor people in London.

The 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympic Games, under the direction of Peter Ueberroth, turned a profit and pumped a massive dose of cold hard cash into community betterment programs in and around Los Angeles. Have you considered the possibility that the same thing might happen in London?

by Ivanhoe on Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:52 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Ivanhoe,

OW has posted a valid question. He has not indicated in any way that he (1) ignores the existence of the poor in London, or (2) advocates that the poor in London be ignored. He's asking a valid social science question, seeking evidence for either (1) a correlational relationship between the London Summer Olympic Games and the existence of poor people in London, and/or (2) a causative relationship between the London Summer Olympic Games and the existence of poor people in London.

The 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympic Games, under the direction of Peter Ueberroth, turned a profit and pumped a massive dose of cold hard cash into community betterment programs in and around Los Angeles. Have you considered the possibility that the same thing might happen in London?

I am not interested in wealth creation locally. I am concerned about a fair distribution of wealth nationally. This we havent had since the 80's.

by oftenwrong on Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:27 pm

A fair distribution of wealth nationally.

That could be the Mission Statement of a completely new Political Party.

Has anyone thought of asking the wealthy to participate?

by **RockOnBrother** on Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:28 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Ivanhoe,

OW has posted a valid question. He has not indicated in any way that he (1) ignores the existence of the poor in London, or (2) advocates that the poor in London be ignored. He's asking a valid social science question, seeking evidence for either (1) a correlational relationship between the London Summer Olympic Games and the existence of poor people in London, and/or (2) a causative relationship between the London Summer Olympic Games and the existence of poor people in London.

The 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympic Games, under the direction of Peter Ueberroth, turned a profit and pumped a massive dose of cold hard cash into community betterment programs in and around Los Angeles. Have you considered the possibility that the same thing might happen in London?

Ivanhoe wrote:
I am not interested in wealth creation locally.

Neither was Peter Ueberroth in Los Angeles, 1984. Mr. Ueberroth was interested in transforming the Summer Games into a cash flow rather than a cash drain scenario for the local economy of the host city and surrounding support cities.

Montreal was the catalyst. In 1976, Montreal went in the hole big time as a result of the Montreal Summer Games. Conversely, Los Angeles and support cities had a cash overflow, which according to law (I believe), since the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee was a not for profit entity, could not be used in a for profit fashion. Because of this, the massive cash cache had to be distributed to other not for profit entities, and it was so distributed. Check out the recipients of this cash outflow on Google to see the positive impact. Poor people definitely benefitted.

Ivanhoe wrote:
I am concerned about a fair distribution of wealth nationally. This we havent had since the 80's.

The London Games, if they generate cash that ultimately benefits London poor people, will benefit the UK.

by **astradt1** on Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:36 pm

I very much doubt the London Olympics will even cover the cost of the venue.

The only people who will benefit from these games will be those who will be able to afford all the nice new appartments that will come on the market, at sky high prices, once teh sportsmen and women have move out.....

I wouldn't be surprised if a few of our MP's moved in using their second home housing benefits........sorry I mean ALLOWANCE...

by **RockOnBrother** on Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:28 am

astradt1 wrote:
I very much doubt the London Olympics will even cover the cost of the venue.

Why? Serious question. Folks said that about LA 1984, and Ueberroth proved them wrong. It's just a matter of securing sponsors who pay through their noss for the privilege of being sponsors.

by **astradt1** on Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:54 am

It's just a matter of securing sponsors who pay through their noss for the privilege of being sponsors.

Would these be the same companies which are laying off workers and cutting pay to cut costs?.........

Would this sponsorship be able to be used as a tax wright off, along with the £11 Billion they have managed to already avoid paying.....

Selling the games to companies like Mc D and Coke, those well know fonts of healthy eating along with companies which have been responsible for enviornmental damage seems like the ethical thing to do.........NOT

by oftenwrong on Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:29 am

MotorCar Manufacturers with a leasing facility know that the monthly rental is only part of the calculation. Their profit (or loss) depends mainly on the "Residual" value of the vehicie when it is returned and sold as secondhand.

The "Cost" or hopefully "Value" of the 2012 Olympic Games will be the residual value of the site. Competitors' accommodation blocks have been designed to adapt easily to flats that we are told will include affordable offerings. Two London football clubs are arguing about which one will occupy the Stadium afterwards, and there is a notional value attaching to the River Lea's transition from stinking polluter to a sports park. The entire area should be a nicer place to live and work, with improved access to the rest of London.

None of the blessings or curses can be measured for at least another five years from now.

We may even have a better government by then.

by **astradt1** on Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:27 am

Competitors' accommodation blocks have been designed to adapt easily to flats that we are told will include affordable offerings.

Affordable, what an interesting word?

Affordable for what?....To Rent or To Buy but more importantly affordable by whom?

What a Millionaire can afford is not teh same as what his clearner can afford..

As I said before I can see a good number of our MP's picking up one of these flats as their 'Second Home' at least part funded by their Housing 'Benefit' Allowance........

by oftenwrong on Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:54 pm

I can see a good number of our MP's picking up one of these flats

In STRATFORD?

Wear the fox hat ?

by **RockOnBrother** on Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:51 pm

astradt1 wrote:
It's just a matter of securing sponsors who pay through their noss for the privilege of being sponsors.

Would these be the same companies which are laying off workers and cutting pay to cut costs?.........

I don’t know which companies these might be, other than companies which pay through their noses for the privilege of sponsoring a sporting event that, unlike the Super Bowl, which has limited viewership outside of the US and possibly Canada, and the World Cup, which has limited viewership in the US, has worldwide viewership, or, words understood by those whose business it is to turn a profit, “market penetration.”

astradt1 wrote:
Would this sponsorship be able to be used as a tax wright off, along with the £11 Billion they have managed to already avoid paying.....

I don’t know the details. Why not inquire directly of the expert, the man who managed to engineer a huge cash inflow into the community betterment programs in 1984 and the years following?

Perhaps Peter Ueberroth (Ueberroth Family Foundation, click here) can answer these questions with an authority of authorship (Ueberroth authored the plan) which I do not possess.

astradt1 wrote:
Selling the games to companies like Mc D and Coke, those well know fonts of healthy eating along with companies which have been responsible for enviornmental damage seems like the ethical thing to do.........NOT

Selling the Games to companies like Mackie D’s, as Peter Ueberroth did in1984, has been shown to be the difference between the Summer Olympic Games either (1) draining the coffers or (2) filling the coffers of the host city and surrounding support cities.

by **Ivan** on Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:20 pm

Sick and vulnerable NHS patients will be left stranded in ambulances in traffic jams while dignitaries and sponsors race past in a fleet of expensive cars on specially designated lanes during the Olympics, healthcare providers fear.

Games organisers have been accused of risking people's health by banning the routine use by ambulances of the "Games lanes" introduced to ensure that VIPs can travel quickly to events.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/feb/18/olympic-seize-roads-patients-suffer

by oftenwrong on Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:23 pm

If the government is powerless to expel a single muslim cleric troublemaker, what makes anybody think it can suppress Terrorist threats during the Olympics?

by trevorw2539 on Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 am

oftenwrong wrote:If the government is powerless to expel a single muslim cleric troublemaker, what makes anybody think it can suppress Terrorist threats during the Olympics?

It isn't powerless. It just hasn't the guts to stand up to the European Court with two fingers raised - ooops shouldn't have said that. Two fingers raised Churchillian style, of course Embarassed

by oftenwrong on Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:56 pm

It's the familiar problem when you accept the principle of Law. It won't work unless you obey all of it.

by **astradt1** on Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:42 pm

The London 2012 Olympics will see more than two thousand military personnel called out to work as part of the security force for the Games, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has announced.

Reservists, who are members of the military but have normal jobs during peace time (members of a military reserve), will be part of the 13,500-strong military force present at the 2012 Olympic Games.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/20/london-2012-olympics-military-security-reservists_n_1288559.html?ref=uk

So the Olympics are more important than fighting a war in Afghanistan......

We had better hope that Argentina don't try to put Camoron's tought words to the test in late July/ early August

The Order being used is Section 56(1A) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996

The current power under section 56(1) of the 1996 Act is in different terms from the power under regulation 6 of the 1939 Regulations. The intention is to provide so that the power to call out reservists under section 56 covers the circumstances in which use of the armed forces may be authorised under regulation 6. Accordingly section 28 adds new subsection (1A) to section 56 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, which extends the Secretary of State’s power to call out reservists to where the Defence Council have authorised use of members of the armed forces for urgent work of national importance.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/18/section/28/enacted

http://origin-www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/18/notes/division/5/28

Do you think that the Olympics are 'urgent work of national importance'?

by Ivanhoe on Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:44 pm

astradt1 wrote:
The London 2012 Olympics will see more than two thousand military personnel called out to work as part of the security force for the Games, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has announced.

Reservists, who are members of the military but have normal jobs during peace time (members of a military reserve), will be part of the 13,500-strong military force present at the 2012 Olympic Games.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/20/london-2012-olympics-military-security-reservists_n_1288559.html?ref=uk

So the Olympics are more important than fighting a war in Afghanistan......

We had better hope that Argentina don't try to put Camoron's tought words to the test in late July/ early August

The Order being used is Section 56(1A) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996

The current power under section 56(1) of the 1996 Act is in different terms from the power under regulation 6 of the 1939 Regulations. The intention is to provide so that the power to call out reservists under section 56 covers the circumstances in which use of the armed forces may be authorised under regulation 6. Accordingly section 28 adds new subsection (1A) to section 56 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, which extends the Secretary of State’s power to call out reservists to where the Defence Council have authorised use of members of the armed forces for urgent work of national importance.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/18/section/28/enacted

http://origin-www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/18/notes/division/5/28

Do you think that the Olympics are 'urgent work of national importance'?

No.

by trevorw2539 on Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:21 pm

Just to put things into perspective. Did we all realise what things would be like now when GB started to campaign for the Games around 2003, and when the Olympic Games were awarded in 2005. Given hindsight we might well have been advised not to have bid.
Would we have been advised not to hold it? Will it make money? Will it benefit the country? Who really knows.
How well it is run and how inviting people are will influence those who come from abroad to return or not.
We have it now, like it or not. Let's make the best of it we can. Make it memorable. It will bring temporary employment for the unemployed, and a welcome respite from their tedium. THIS IS NO ANSWER to replace the real problem of unemployment and associated problems.

As Omar Khayyam once wrote 'The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on. Nor all thy piety or wit can lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it'. What is done, is done.
We need to get this over and get a new perspective on things, which is unlikely with this Government Sad

By the way the Olympic bid was encouraged/welcomed by - er - now who was in No. 10 at the time? oooops I shouldn't have said that. Still as Omar said.......................

by Ivanhoe on Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:27 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:Just to put things into perspective. Did we all realise what things would be like now when GB started to campaign for the Games around 2003, and when the Olympic Games were awarded in 2005. Given hindsight we might well have been advised not to have bid.
Would we have been advised not to hold it? Will it make money? Will it benefit the country? Who really knows.
How well it is run and how inviting people are will influence those who come from abroad to return or not.
We have it now, like it or not. Let's make the best of it we can. Make it memorable. It will bring temporary employment for the unemployed, and a welcome respite from their tedium. THIS IS NO ANSWER to replace the real problem of unemployment and associated problems.

As Omar Khayyam once wrote 'The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on. Nor all thy piety or wit can lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it'. What is done, is done.
We need to get this over and get a new perspective on things, which is unlikely with this Government
By the way the Olympic bid was encouraged/welcomed by - er - now who was in No. 10 at the time? oooops I shouldn't have said that. Still as Omar said.......................

In my view the Olympics are an obscenity when we have so many millions of elderly people particularly, going without food and heating in this country today, not forgetting those who are homeless. How can we even think this. I believe the whole thing is obscene.

by trevorw2539 on Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:23 pm

Ivanhoe wrote:
trevorw2539 wrote:Just to put things into perspective. Did we all realise what things would be like now when GB started to campaign for the Games around 2003, and when the Olympic Games were awarded in 2005. Given hindsight we might well have been advised not to have bid.
Would we have been advised not to hold it? Will it make money? Will it benefit the country? Who really knows.
How well it is run and how inviting people are will influence those who come from abroad to return or not.
We have it now, like it or not. Let's make the best of it we can. Make it memorable. It will bring temporary employment for the unemployed, and a welcome respite from their tedium. THIS IS NO ANSWER to replace the real problem of unemployment and associated problems.

As Omar Khayyam once wrote 'The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on. Nor all thy piety or wit can lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it'. What is done, is done.
We need to get this over and get a new perspective on things, which is unlikely with this Government
By the way the Olympic bid was encouraged/welcomed by - er - now who was in No. 10 at the time? oooops I shouldn't have said that. Still as Omar said.......................

In my view the Olympics are an obscenity when we have so many millions of elderly people particularly, going without food and heating in this country today, not forgetting those who are homeless. How can we even think this. I believe the whole thing is obscene.

I am not disagreeing with you. What I am trying to explain that there are times when the point of no return is passed. Either cancel and lose all the money spent in the last 7 years or try to make a success and recover some of the money. Then we need to make sure the infrastructure in place is used for the needy - accommodation etc. The cancelling of the Games would have a detrimental effect on our credibility as a country, and I would suggest, have no benefit at this late stage.

As an OAP I know how hard it is at the moment from personal experience.

by Ivanhoe on Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:10 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
Ivanhoe wrote:
trevorw2539 wrote:Just to put things into perspective. Did we all realise what things would be like now when GB started to campaign for the Games around 2003, and when the Olympic Games were awarded in 2005. Given hindsight we might well have been advised not to have bid.
Would we have been advised not to hold it? Will it make money? Will it benefit the country? Who really knows.
How well it is run and how inviting people are will influence those who come from abroad to return or not.
We have it now, like it or not. Let's make the best of it we can. Make it memorable. It will bring temporary employment for the unemployed, and a welcome respite from their tedium. THIS IS NO ANSWER to replace the real problem of unemployment and associated problems.

As Omar Khayyam once wrote 'The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on. Nor all thy piety or wit can lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it'. What is done, is done.
We need to get this over and get a new perspective on things, which is unlikely with this Government
By the way the Olympic bid was encouraged/welcomed by - er - now who was in No. 10 at the time? oooops I shouldn't have said that. Still as Omar said.......................

In my view the Olympics are an obscenity when we have so many millions of elderly people particularly, going without food and heating in this country today, not forgetting those who are homeless. How can we even think this. I believe the whole thing is obscene.

I am not disagreeing with you. What I am trying to explain that there are times when the point of no return is passed. Either cancel and lose all the money spent in the last 7 years or try to make a success and recover some of the money. Then we need to make sure the infrastructure in place is used for the needy - accommodation etc. The cancelling of the Games would have a detrimental effect on our credibility as a country, and I would suggest, have no benefit at this late stage.

As an OAP I know how hard it is at the moment from personal experience.

Im not talkinbg about cancelling it. I am refering to the original idea of having it when so many millions of UK pensioners are living in acute hardship.

I find this fact quite obscene. I have been in the pensioners corner for over 20 years, so if you are suffering "only at the moment", to quote yourself, then you are very lucky.

by trevorw2539 on Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:19 pm

find this fact quite obscene. I have been in the pensioners corner for over 20 years, so if you are suffering "only at the moment", to quote yourself, then you are very lucky..
Ivanhoe

Posts: 280
Join date: 2011-12-11

'Only at the moment' figure of speech.

by Ivanhoe on Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:06 pm

trevorw2539 wrote: find this fact quite obscene. I have been in the pensioners corner for over 20 years, so if you are suffering "only at the moment", to quote yourself, then you are very lucky..
Ivanhoe

Posts: 280
Join date: 2011-12-11

'Only at the moment' figure of speech.

It did'nt come across like that.

by oftenwrong on Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:04 pm

Ivanhoe wrote:

In my view the Olympics are an obscenity when we have so many millions of elderly people particularly, going without food and heating in this country today, not forgetting those who are homeless. How can we even think this. I believe the whole thing is obscene.

It's bein' so cheerful as keeps us goin' innit?

by Ivanhoe on Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:10 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Ivanhoe wrote:

In my view the Olympics are an obscenity when we have so many millions of elderly people particularly, going without food and heating in this country today, not forgetting those who are homeless. How can we even think this. I believe the whole thing is obscene.

It's bein' so cheerful as keeps us goin' innit?

Keep carrying your board mate. There's more truth on that, than anything else.

by trevorw2539 on Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:14 pm

Re: Do you agree that the Olympics are an obscenity?
by Ivanhoe Today at 3:06 pm

.trevorw2539 wrote:
find this fact quite obscene. I have been in the pensioners corner for over 20 years, so if you are suffering "only at the moment", to quote yourself, then you are very lucky..
Ivanhoe

Posts: 280
Join date: 2011-12-11

'Only at the moment' figure of speech.

It did'nt come across like that.

Apologies. I've been a pensioner for about 8 years, live on my Gov. pension + small extra. I find it difficult as I have to buy gluten free food which is a LOT dearer. Fortunately meat, veg and fruit are gluten free. Virtually everything else has wheat in it. Sad

I also live in a village and have to get all my food from the nearest town.
Can someone please invent teleportation. save transport costs Sad

Quote. Oftenwrong. It's bein' so cheerful as keeps us goin' innit?

Of course it is. No good being sad Sad

by **Ivan** on Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:45 am

What's the real price of the London Olympics? One more step down the road towards Tory corporate fascism, as these extracts from an article by Jules Boykoff reveal:-

The Olympic Charter prohibits political activism, stating "no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas"…..On cue, London police recently vowed to scour social media to sniff out any organised protests or disruptions.

The Olympics will militarise London, with surface-to-air missiles at the ready, a Royal Navy battleship moored offshore, and soldiers on patrol. After initially estimating 10,000 security guards would suffice, the London organising committee determined more than double that number would be required. The Ministry of Defence is filling the gap with about 13,500 military personnel.....Not placated, the US declared it will send its own security to London, including 500 FBI agents.

The Olympics afford an opportunity to test-drive high-tech equipment in an urban setting. Lightweight aerial drones will hover above while 'combined firearms response teams' – elite police units replete with snipers – roam below. Thus London 2012 will tender a repression-ready security state. The military-grade technologies secured during the Olympics-induced state of exception become normalised for workaday policing in the wake of the Games.

For the full article:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/04/price-of-london-olympics

by oftenwrong on Thu Apr 05, 2012 11:03 am

Not sure where this will fit in among the commercial sponsorship and Red Alert Security, but here it is for what it may be worth ....

The Olympic Oath

"In the name of all competitors, I promise that we shall take part in these
Olympic Games, respecting and abiding by the rules that govern them, in the true spirit of sportsmanship, for the glory of sport and the honour of our teams."

Written by Baron de Coubertin, the oath is taken by an athlete from the host nation while holding a corner of the Olympic flag. The athletes' oath was first taken by Belgian fencer Victor Boin at the 1920 Antwerp Games.