Should London hold the 2012 Olympics?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by stoatman, Feb 17, 2005.

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. As requested, Calypso!
  2. I think it would be a spiffingly marvellous thing if our fantastic capital city were to hold the olympics.

    As long as they fecking well pay for it all and don't expect me to put me hand in me pocket!!! :D :D
  3. I voted No for the following reasons:

    We can't afford it. Although the East End needs renovation, this is not the way to do it. It will turn into another Domesque boondoggle.
    It's being used as a smokescreen to distract people from real, genuine problems caused by Tony et al over the last 8 years in true Roman "Bread and Games" tradition.
    3 of the 400 olympic disciplines are denied to British citizens for political reasons - this goes against the whole "sport for all" ethos.
    They will build new shooting ranges in London, give Sec. 5 exemptions for the foreign pistol competitors, and after the games will knock the ranges down - why not invest this money in Bisley & repeal the 1997 act so that British competitors can train at home?
    The London transport system won't cope.
    If the bid is won, it will be used as a "Aren't Tony & Red Ken fantastic" propaganda piece to deflect from Tony's record in office - they don't want the games for its own sakes, they want it as a platform for political grandstanding.

    I could probably go on...
  4. Why shouln't we want to host the Olympics (or Al-impics as the BBC will have it).

    What an opportunity for peoples from all over the world to see what we have in the UK, then stay here or atttempt to get in via numerous back doors.

    Suggestions for a new Olympic event ? - must have participants in x (20 ?) countries in 3 of 5 continents.

    What about Blair/Bush baiting?. The very modern Pentathlon would give an opportunity for them to get it 5 ways.

    Oh my God, I'm rambling,,,,, time for work, said Zebedee.
  5. I said 'sensible' Stoats, not deranged! :D

    I have voted 'No' - not becuuse it is a bad idea per se, it's just that the whole thing stinks of 'bread and circuses' to me.

    Country going down the tubes? Massive apathy at large? General dissatisfaction with the ways things are being run? Then let's hold a hugely (ruinously) expensive and somewhat unpopular jamboree of fun, dancing and sports.

    And mass transit for the masses! :D
  6. A certain letter was published in today's Torygraph, which may or may not have been written by someone who posts on here... I have access to the original, and it reads like this:

    As an exercise in newspaper editing, here's how it was printed:

  7. Ignoring for the moment that it is expensive, it will be at short notice(7 years to build everything) and some of the sports will be illegal the reason I voted No is that we as a country do not deserve to hold them.

    To elaborate? This country is nearly bankrupt both morally and financially, we are over run with financial migrants, our taxation is overburdensome to the common working man, the government impliments laws that are misdirected in the extreme... I could go on but most of all this will be a political goldmine for TB and his cronies and not one benifit will come out of it for London and the country as a whole.

    Rant, Rant, Rant
  8. Doesn't anyone remember why the pistol was banned in the first place??

    I remember vividly. Maybe being a parent of infant school age children at the time made it worse for me...I don't know, but i'm not afraid to say that I wept in the NAAFI bar when the Dunblain news appeared on the telly that evening.

    Although, it didn't stop a pal of mine handing his pistols in for the specified compensation, and going out and buying a higher powered, more accurate rifle instead. I had to see the wry humour in that!

    Anyway, I do think that accredited sports men and women should be granted special dispensation to hone their sport on home soil. It surely wouldn't take too much thought about how it could be controlled.

    So, my vote.....YES! Bring it here, and make it spectacular. The manchester games showed that we can do it well, and so what about the cost?? Yes, some venues will be temporary, but many will not, including the village, which will be returned to the capital as "affordable" housing. :roll:

    And who said that Red Ken and Bliar will still be in power to reap the benefit of a successful bid?? Remember the Dome?? That was our blue freinds who started that off, but was badly mishandled by the Labour Govt (win-win for bliar....if it worked, then that could be put down to Labour taking over the reigns, if it didn't, then it was an ill-conceived idea of the Tories...the latter obviously happened).

    Ah well......back to work...
  9. I shudder to think.

    Just remember what opening ceremonies are like - a stage lifts, a children's choir sings a lifting tune that brings tears to the eyes, a runner arrives in the stadium, 2000 people in the middle turn over their banners, lo and behold, the Olympic rings appear as if by magic, the runner makes his way up the steps, a spark appears and blossoms into life, and the games are open.The crowd gasps and everyone cries. It's beautiful.

    UK. Everyone's outside waiting for some bloke to turn up with the keys. The Olympic commission aren't there - they're trying to get their limos unclamped in some dingy office whose hallway smells of pish. The runner's got deviated by roadworks and fallen in a manhole. Hurricane Higgins manfully steps in and uses his zippo to light his farts to start the Olympic flame. Chas and Dave start up 'rabbit rabbit rabbit' as the official Olympic song, to the backdrop of 'Ginsters paties - sponsors to the London olympics' banners peeling off the chipboard barriers. John Prescott catches Seb Coe loking at him 'funny' and decks him. The first event is the Netto trolley dash, followed by the 'shot put' - the how far can I throw this washing machine off the tower block event.

    You know it's true. Let somewhere else do it in style......
  10. There should be an emoticon for almost pishing yourself. Class real class :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
  11. it has to be remembered that the weapons themselves are not Dangerous, it's who is behind the weapon.
    banning it just punishes most decent law abiding Citizens, when even more powerful weapons are being sold on the black market and used by the criminal underworld who have no intention of applying for a licence.
    re: Dunblain,if Hamilton didn't have a pistol he would have used a machete or a petrol bomb even a large Kitchen Knife. you could not change the intention of the man.
  12. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    I vote NO as I live in Laahnden and will have to pay for it via my Ken Tax for the next fifty years.

    I note that the only two major commercial sponsors thus far are British Airways and Virgin. Apart from them, almost all support has come from the Public Sector - e.g. those who are willing to spend my money for me.

    Hold them in Paris. Better weather, I can get there in rather more comfort than I can most areas of East London (possibly faster as well), and better food to boot.
  13. I voted NO, As I live in the North it will be expensive to reach, and take bloody ages to get to (Milleumim dome anyone) It will end up over-budget, underused and unwanted.
  14. I vote no because I believe that the Olympics has gone the way of football in this country -- it is nothing more than an overhyped business that has relatively little to do with the original pursuit of human excellence and everything to do with making money and political capital.

    The remarks about the illegality of three events serve to highlight the perverse nature of populist legislation that has been enacted in our name. I know some armed response officers who believed that even had they been sitting outside that school in Dunblane, they could have done little about it.

    As with every crime of this type, the liberal horror of firearms hypnotises everyone into thinking that it would never have happened had the gun been banned. This really is utter bo||ocks and I firmly believe that we will look back on this period of our history with the same incredulity that we feel for McCarthyism.

    I sometimes wonder if such legislation is passed because the British public are no longer able to follow reasoned logic...or perhaps it is because there is no-one left in authority who is capable of constructing such an argument.
  15. Nope! It's written, passed, and enacted by members of the legal profession as a form of job creation - like ambulance chasing. T0ssers!