Same thing could be said about pretty much everything the government spends money on (whether or not in conjunction with others). The trouble is, when your logic is applied to stuff that could be fun, which the opening ceremony might be (but I may well be watching it from behind the sofa in case it is a cringe fest), what we are left with is just a double dip recession, the crappiest summer weather I can remember and gloom and doom around every corner. In short, people with your mindset would have the rest of us confined to periods of deep depression because we shouldn't be spending such big money on stuff like FUN.

Not only that but the opening ceremony of the Olympics is the one moment everyone in the world who owns a TV and has so much as a passing interest in the event stares at us full in the face. I want them to see a quality dressed face, not one wearing cheap makeup, a bad hairdo and spots.

SaintsFan wrote:Same thing could be said about pretty much everything the government spends money on (whether or not in conjunction with others). The trouble is, when your logic is applied to stuff that could be fun, which the opening ceremony might be (but I may well be watching it from behind the sofa in case it is a cringe fest), what we are left with is just a double dip recession, the crappiest summer weather I can remember and gloom and doom around every corner. In short, people with your mindset would have the rest of us confined to periods of deep depression because we shouldn't be spending such big money on stuff like FUN. But, given the mindset of our politicians over public spending is it a good use of money? Why not spend £25miilion on life-saving medical equipment and £2 million filming the ensuing uplifting stories of saved people anf their families? Personally, I'd find that much more gloom-lifting than a couple of hours of so-called fun. Indeed, this article makes some good points about the matter: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... NTCMP=SRCH

SaintsFan wrote:Same thing could be said about pretty much everything the government spends money on (whether or not in conjunction with others). The trouble is, when your logic is applied to stuff that could be fun, which the opening ceremony might be (but I may well be watching it from behind the sofa in case it is a cringe fest), what we are left with is just a double dip recession, the crappiest summer weather I can remember and gloom and doom around every corner. In short, people with your mindset would have the rest of us confined to periods of deep depression because we shouldn't be spending such big money on stuff like FUN. But, given the mindset of our politicians over public spending is it a good use of money? Why not spend £25miilion on life-saving medical equipment and £2 million filming the ensuing uplifting stories of saved people anf their families? Personally, I'd find that much more gloom-lifting than a couple of hours of so-called fun. Indeed, this article makes some good points about the matter: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... NTCMP=SRCH

You're right. Cancel the fecking lot and tell all the thousands of people in London to feck off home too. Let's have 2 weeks of Eastenders on tv instead

SaintsFan wrote:Same thing could be said about pretty much everything the government spends money on (whether or not in conjunction with others). The trouble is, when your logic is applied to stuff that could be fun, which the opening ceremony might be (but I may well be watching it from behind the sofa in case it is a cringe fest), what we are left with is just a double dip recession, the crappiest summer weather I can remember and gloom and doom around every corner. In short, people with your mindset would have the rest of us confined to periods of deep depression because we shouldn't be spending such big money on stuff like FUN. But, given the mindset of our politicians over public spending is it a good use of money? Why not spend £25miilion on life-saving medical equipment and £2 million filming the ensuing uplifting stories of saved people anf their families? Personally, I'd find that much more gloom-lifting than a couple of hours of so-called fun. Indeed, this article makes some good points about the matter: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... NTCMP=SRCH

SaintsFan wrote:Same thing could be said about pretty much everything the government spends money on (whether or not in conjunction with others). The trouble is, when your logic is applied to stuff that could be fun, which the opening ceremony might be (but I may well be watching it from behind the sofa in case it is a cringe fest), what we are left with is just a double dip recession, the crappiest summer weather I can remember and gloom and doom around every corner. In short, people with your mindset would have the rest of us confined to periods of deep depression because we shouldn't be spending such big money on stuff like FUN. But, given the mindset of our politicians over public spending is it a good use of money? Why not spend £25miilion on life-saving medical equipment and £2 million filming the ensuing uplifting stories of saved people anf their families? Personally, I'd find that much more gloom-lifting than a couple of hours of so-called fun. Indeed, this article makes some good points about the matter: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... NTCMP=SRCH

How did you manage to repeat yourself with someone else interjecting?

I hope Chris28 apologises

It would have been far better if, in 2005, they'd announced "Paris" rather than "London". Let them pay for it and have all the hassle. And still be near enough for a trip over the channel to see it.

But they didnt. And nearly everything that's being criticised now has been inevitable since then. The cost overruns, the traffic problems, the disruption to Londoners' lives, the marketing clampdowns etc, etc. All entirely predictable.

The only thing worse than having the games and everything that goes with it, would be to have the games and everything that goes with and not actually enjoy the games. So I think I'll just draw a line now and enjoy what's to come.

I saw a TV programme recently which claimed that since I think it was the Georgia Olympics (but I may be wrong on that one; it was definitely one held in the US), the Olympics have been making a profit for the host nations. That is largely due to the introduction of sponsorship financing. So on the one hand the Gruniad is claiming its all wasted public money; on the other it is claimed that public money is only one element and in fact the Olympics can make a profit.

Either way, while there are many noble causes on which the same money could be spent, the Olympics comes around very rarely for this country - it won't visit again in my lifetime I shouldn't think - and while it is here I would like to imagine that there will be some enjoyable viewing moments, that our sports men and women may achieve some great things, and that the image of my country may improve as a result of them being here which may, in turn, create positive outcomes in the future.

All of that may be naive garbage or it may be rooted in reality. We won't know until we get there. But I don't want to write off the Olympics just because the public money spent on them (how ever much that actually is) could have been spent on something else (but I am pretty certain it probably wouldn't have been).

Lost network connection. First attempt must have sneaked through even though message said I needed to retry.

After the last Olympic games held in the UK, we went on and even though we were crippled with war debts, we built affordable housing for the majority of the population, we embraced a 'free at point of need' health service. Everyone in the country felt that they were better off than before the Olympics.

Do I expect a repeat? With this lot in charge, do I fook.

Truth is that very little public money was spent on the 1948 Olympics, a very tiny amount indeed, no new stadia were built and the athletes even had to provide their own kit.

In that same year the Government spent (from memory) the equivalent in todays money of £7.3 billion in the first year of operation of the NHS and that figure includes the purchase of property from private hospital trusts and charities.

In brief, for less than the cost of this years Olympics the socialist government of 1948 established a National Health Service where one didn't exist before, that has lasted for a legacy of 64 years, so far.