Get It Quietly

Football, bollocks and a bit of poker if you're lucky.

Location: Enfield, London, United Kingdom

Thursday, February 17, 2005

No to London 2012

As soon as I read the first two paragraphs of this, I was saying "Yeah ! Testify !"

I don't particularly want London to host the Olympics in 2012. It's not something I feel very strongly about, but nonetheless I am down with the "Noes" on this one. I have always associated the event with hypocrisy over amateurism, hypocrisy over the issue of drug cheating and lame jingoistic Billy Britain "Hooray, someone from Redditch won a bronze in the mixed synchronized skeet sculls / only the British judge gave Torvill and Dean 6.0 because the others are all cheating foreigners" schtick.

But what I object to now, like the people behind this NoLondon2012 organistion, is basically being told to shut up because I disagree with the official BBC/government/tabloid line. For example (from the Independent) "Tessa Jowell has told campaigners opposed to London's bid to stage the Olympic Games that any attempt to sabotage the project would "ruin the dreams" of the vast majority of Britons." What a load of bollocks. Either that's a lie or she is totally and utterly out of touch. And does saying "Actually, we don't want it" really qualify as sabotage ? This is still a democracy, just about, and if I don't want them I'll say so. I know that one of the criteria for selection is the level of public support, but just a moment here. Should the games go to the city with the highest level of public support, or the highest level of pretence of public support ?

No doubt any dissenters will be (illegally) kept well clear of the visiting nobs, as the road works are cleared away in front of them and the lights all fixed so they zoom straight through *, hey look dignitaries, no traffic problems here ! It's like one of those "official tours" of Soviet Russia they used to do.

The government want it, for a million "look at the shiny Olympics" distraction reasons. The media want it so they can talk crap about it for 7 years. Corporations want it in case they win the contract to pave over half of East London. But I don't want it, and nor do a lot of people. I expect they will appeal to our wallets, as if that's all we care about. Let me ask you this. Do you think the British taxpayer would end up in profit when the dust settled ? I know Atlanta made a profit but if there is one thing the Americans are good at, it's making a few $$$. Anyone who thinks we would do the same is advised to consider the Millennium Dome and the new Scottish Parliament building.

I have no confidence that we can make a profit on the whole deal. No confidence whatsoever. Mark my words. And if this is bulldozed through, I'm renting my flat out for the month and flying out to Vegas till it's over.

* is absolutely true, that's what they did.


Blogger David Young said...

Agree 100 per cent Andy

1:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The other factor that Atlanta didn't have is having to foot a massively increased bill for post-9/11 security. I agree; huge deficit for London if it hosts the Olympics.

2:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your best entry yet!

9:14 AM  
Blogger David Young said...

As a London ratepayer, I resent seeing my own money being spent on billboard advertising (and on the tube, the buses etc), telling me to 'back the bid'. Why should I? I'm smart enough to see that the infrastructure can't cope with the population it's got, let alone a few hundred thousand more tourists.

We are not a sporty nation. We are not a keep fit nation. We aren't even interested in tennis apart from the two weeks of Wimbledon. Let's drop the pretence.


3:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

100% disagree.

The infrastructure may not be able to cope curently aand it may not be able to cope during the 1 month's olympic period; however, you can guarantee the transport structure will be better post 2012 if we get the bid than it will be of we don;t. Also from what I've read of Athens there is a strong cultural legacy asa result of the OLympics. Athens is, by all accounts, a lot cleaner and more attractive after the games.

I don't know what the opinions polls suggest, but I'd be surprised if the majority didn't want it; but that's not always a reasonable argument - how much do those who don't want it, really object to it?

The Olympics isn't all about drug cheats, but it has lost it's appeal compared to 20 years (when the drug problem was probably worse!), but there are still many people who believe in the Olympic ideals and dreams: just because so many people abuse it, doesn't mean to say we should give up on it.

Of course everyone angles shoots here. As you say, the governemt, the media, business etc. But so what! Why should I guive a rats arse? The fact that I may not like 'the players' or their motives is irrelevant. If the Olympics were to be held in London, it would add value to the experience for me (I might go) and millions of others. And of course there is the cultural growth and the potential for profit (I don't share your 'profit' of doom attitude towards our ability to mnake money).

Objecting to the games because of, or partly because of, the angle shooters is akin to mimicking the fools who objected to then war in Iraq because they didn't like Bush. They may have been right, but their logic is flawed - classic cognitive dissonance.

1:11 AM  
Blogger Andy_Ward said...


We're basically disagreeing about the level of public support, which is hard to measure, and what might happen in the future, which is obviously a matter of opinion.

Which is all fine, I know people have different views on this. It's just that if I acted in the same spirit as the government, I wouldn't discuss the matter, I'd simply delete your post and/or attack your motives. My position may well be the minority position - but I still have a voice.


9:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok fair enough, it was a bit late. But needless to say I disagree with your reasons. It is unfortunate how humans abuse such pure things for their own selfish ends (classically religion). The olympics is a fine example of this, but if the flame should die then the bad boys really have won.

Let's set an example. Say YES! Go on.

12:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The bid is being funded by the Dept for Culture Media and Sport from Exchequer funds - not from rates.

So the advertising urging you to "Back the bid" is not being paid for by your council tax, but rather your income tax.

Hang on, you don't pay any, do you?

Ok maybe you chip in with a bit of VAT here and there, but its the mugs with jobs that are really paying for the bid campaign.

2:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Titmus here,

Surely, if the thing does materialise, we will have put so much in the pot already, we will have to put in the last 50 quid or so to watch the bloody thing live. Pot odds!

7:21 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home