Do you agree that the Olympics are an obscenity?

by witchfinder Sun Nov 27, 2011 12:55 am

First topic message reminder :

Bophal, India, 1984, one of the worst industrial accidents in history, conservative estimate put the death toll at around 11,000 people which includes the 4000 deaths immediately after the disaster and 7000 since that time.
The company responsible was Union Carbide which has since been bought out by Dow Chemicals, another American company which obviously believes profit comes before morals.

The new owners "Dow Chemicals" purchased Union Carbide in the full knowledge that it took on full responsibility of all Union Carbides legal responsibilities.

It is estimated that anywhere between 100 and 200 thousand people have permanent injuries from the disaster, these range from breathing problems, neurological illnesses, heart conditions and reproductive faults.

The government of India claimed compensation on behalf of the victims of in excess of 3 billion US dollars - Union Carbide offered 350 million US dollars and ended up paying 470 million dollars.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has emerged today that Sebastian Coe, the head of the 2012 olympic committee has signed a sponsorship deal with Dow Chemicals for the London olympics, this has enraged the Indian olympic committee and has led to a threatened boycott of the olympics.

There is an on-going controversy in India at the lack of a clean-up of the contaminated site which most doctors and scientists claim is continuing to result in both deaths and serious illness at the site.

This is not a government led protest, it is led by a sporting organisation, in my opinion this is people power and represents a non-governmental organisation taking up a just cause on behalf of ordinary people, the only outcome must be the dropping of Dow Chemicals as a sponsor of the 2012 olympics - people power and justice must win.

by oftenwrong 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** 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 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 ROB 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** 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 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 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 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** 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

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/18/notes/division/5/28" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">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 Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:44 pm

by trevorw2539 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 Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:27 pm

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 Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:23 pm

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 Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:10 pm

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 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 Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:06 pm

It did'nt come across like that.

by oftenwrong 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 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 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** 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 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.

by oftenwrong Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:12 pm

Apparently the Army is to safeguard the Olympic village from air attack by placing SAM missiles on top of a block of nearby flats.

That's so far the closest Londoners have got to being able to identify with the citizens of Syria.

by tlttf Wed May 30, 2012 9:24 am

Personally I think the London Olympic Games should be renamed the "Corporate Games", there is no sensibly priced tickets available and probably like watching Manchester United after the half time break most of the seats will be paid for but empty.

On the positive side, I've been to the Olympic village and stadium and it looks great, the whole area (formerly known technically as a sh*thole) has been revitalised and some semblance of law and order has returned to the area, naturally the locals benefit.

Did you know that the Olympic Park is the proud owner of the largest Mc D's in Europe, useless info but factual regardless.

by oftenwrong Wed May 30, 2012 11:12 am

Did you know it's not easy to buy a Pepsi-Cola in the Olympic Park?

by oftenwrong Wed Jul 18, 2012 10:05 am

It's not clear whether the Publicity Machine for the Olympics can be pleased with the amount of media coverage currently being "enjoyed".

Certainly there can't be many people in the World who don't know when and where that it's happening. For those of us who are paying for it (and the British Taxpayer is the largest SPONSOR of all the sponsors of The Games) we might as well derive some pleasure from our investment.

by tlttf Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:25 am

I'd recommend a trip on the cable car across the Thames, brilliant views and well worth the money.

by astra Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:11 pm

Thanks Land.

I'm 5'5 and quite content at this height Shocked

by oftenwrong Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:41 pm

The Independent's commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, is not universally revered by Cutting-edge contributors, but she asks reasonably enough why The London Olympics aren't firing up really big excitement across Britain.

Our island seems to heve been subcontracted to the US for the duration of the Olympics, without our consent. They are the Coca-Cola and MacDonalds Olympics. [not omitting Mastercard - my interjection]

It's hard to resist the notion that these are the Boris Games, the Lord Coe Games, the Capitalist Games and only coming up breathlessly near the end as British Games.

But we may as well enjoy what we're paying for.

by Sponsored content