Olympics will bring little benefit to Britain

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Blogg, Dec 2, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Good God above. What a surprise. Never would have worked that out.

    "Ministers ploughed ahead with the 2012 Olympic bid despite their own experts warning it would bring little economic or social benefit, it emerged last night.
    A strategy document signed off in December 2002 by Tony Blair found the main improvement to hosting The Games would be cheering the nation up.

    None of the much-vaunted economic returns or increases in people playing sport would come about, the document by leading economists and civil servants found."

    "The findings, which were quietly buried by the government, will fuel the debate about whether the Olympics will produce a fitter nation or just suck money away from community sport and charitable causes funded by the lottery.

    The cost to the taxpayer has more than tripled from £2.4 billion during the bid to £9.3 billion today.

    MPs have already called for an 'Austerity Games' similar to when London last staged the event in 1948 - with no new stadiums, no athletes' village and barely enough food for competitors.

    The 'Game Plan' study was commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Prime Minister's strategy unit to look at the five main types of benefits commonly cited for staging big events.

    They were: urban regeneration; sporting legacy; tourism; celebration and culture; and wider economic uplift.

    The study concluded: 'The quantifiable evidence to support each of the perceived benefits for mega-events is weak. . . be clear that they appear to be more about celebration than economic return.'

    John Clark, the report's chief author, said: 'We concluded that countries should host the Olympics only for reasons of national celebration because the economic rationale is weak.'
    Despite this, the government's publicity machine went into overdrive to sell London as the 2012 venue, bringing in top Olympians such as Lord Coe to head up the bid.

    Crucially, ministers claimed it would regenerate East London and increase participation in sport.

    In the meantime 'Game Plan' was dismissed and buried as an 'inconvenient truth'..

  2. Shock.

    We should have let the French run it, then all popped across on the Chunnel.

    It would have made more sense to use HALF the cost of the games to ensure all schools had access to leisure and sport facilities.

    And to kick start an all inclusive School Sports drive, with PE mandatory until leaving school (including Uni).

    Better lessons on fitness and such matters as health and hygine and nutrion.

    Free access to leisure centres by kids.

    Schools to provide healthy, nutrious lunch (breakfast and Dinner if needed), for either free (money recouped through taxes) or for a nominal fee. Trash foods cost more than the (dare I say it) "core menu".

    Helped also by "Fat Tax" an extra couple of pence on the "Red Light" foods like crisps that are expensive, to off set healthier foods such as fruit.

    Or we could just have another go at "biggest waste of public cash ever" award; building on hte successes of the "London Eye" and the "millenium dome/02 arena".

    Then there are the extra hospitals and staff that could have been funded.

    And an aircraft carrier or two.
  3. Also in the news, bears prefer a wooded area in which to shit.
  4. ...and of course there is the ridiculous business about the shooting - in short don't develop the National Shooting Centre at Bisley - build a new one at Woolwich - then knock it down.... :x
  6. I have no fancy degrees in politics nor economics and I smack bits of weapons with a hammer for a living and even I could have told them from the start there will be no economic benefits to the Olympics, it's like the idiots who put £50 in a fruit machine to win the £20 jackpot.