Olympic Torch...

[MadduckUK]

I want to live in Pant.

[shelley bda]

I want to live in Pant.

There aint a lot there! A hill....And the odd sheep, among funny looking locals who funnily enough all look similar

[Barry]

They have closed all our kids schools for 2 hours so 'the parents can watch the flame' they didn't think that we may have to miss work or anything else for those 2 hours.

[Fraz]

Amazed at the cynicism of some of you guys...

...We should be celebrating the fact that the eyes of the world are on us and that in these economic times we are getting a return on the olympic investment...

Let's get this straight... the return on the olympic "investment" is hard to quantify precisely, but I've never seen a report that suggests the return is any more than at best marginal. Hosting the games costs a lot (£10+ billion), and whilst there are major increases in tourism, restaurent and hotel profits, and even increased trade from the host nation for months afterwards, this still usually falls far short of the initial investment amount. Then there are other benefits, such as the new facilities, improved transport infrastructure, etc etc. But still, £10 billion is a lot of ground to make up.

So, the UK government is happy to invest £10+ billion in somthing that probably won't even break even, with the aim of hosting some GAMES. Yes, games. One more time: games.

Let's see the definition of the word game:

"an amusement or pastime; a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators."

To put that into context, what do you think the worldwide investment into nuclear fusion research is per year? It's about £1 billion. What's the worldwide investment into cancer research per year? It's about £10 billion. What about the research into the development of an HIV-vaccine? Well, in 2006, global investment was about £700 million.

So, the UK alone is willing to blow more on some goddamn games than the entire world spends per year on research for projects that would have untold benefit for the entire human race.

That's what really #£*$%@**% me off about the Olympic games.

[Bunjiweb]

I'm pretty sure the world would be a communist totality by now if we didn't at least try and have a little fun now and then, but then I'm not overly surprised.... Next you'll be complaining about people spending money on such frivolous things as computer games, when they could be helping cure cancer....

[darknoiz]

Did you see that guy get chucked in a hedge when he ran out of the crowd - lol muppet

[Fraz]

I'm pretty sure the world would be a communist totality by now if we didn't at least try and have a little fun now and then, but then I'm not overly surprised.... Next you'll be complaining about people spending money on such frivolous things as computer games, when they could be helping cure cancer....

Yes, of course that's what I'll be complaining about next. You've really got my number, haven't you?

It's the scale and expense of the "fun" I find insulting. It's not exactly "little", is it?

[directhex]

We should be celebrating the fact that the eyes of the world are on us and that in these economic times we are getting a return on the olympic investment from the many millions of tourists that will be visiting the country this year.

None of the non-Government projections expected the increased tourist revenue to cover the £2bn the olympics were scheduled to cost. We're now up to £12bn.

[directhex]

Yes, of course that's what I'll be complaining about next. You've really got my number, haven't you?

It's the scale and expensive of the "fun" I find insulting. It's not exactly "little", is it?

I don't even mind the games per se.

I mind the insanity they've brought in alongside.

You will only be allowed to use Visa to pay for things at Olympic venues, no Mastercard.

Any business using the term "Games", "Olympics", "2012" and "London" in any combination can be fined if they're not an official sponsor of the event - e.g. a pub cannot have a sign marked "Watch the Olympics here" without being fined. No this isn't a misreading of the law, it's the very purpose of it, to "protect the investment" of the official sponsors like McDonalds.

The right to protest, and Britain's anaemic free speech laws, are basically on hold in London in the summer.

They're putting SAM sites on top of residential property, for the duration of the games, in built up areas. If one of those fires, everyone a few dozen metres in front at ground level dies, and when it hits its target, everything below THAT dies too - I can't imagine a bigger target for terrorists than making these things launch, whether with or without good reason.

Those are a few examples of non-financial things I disapprove for WRT the games.

[TeePee]

To be fair, the Games have been a target for terrorists in the past.

The games were awarded to London on 1/7/2005, we all know what happened on 7/7/2005.

Missiles on buildings are not a huge concern to me. Free speech is more important.

[TooNice]

Double post..

[TooNice]

It's the scale and expensive of the "fun" I find insulting. It's not exactly "little", is it?

Though £10-12Bn is a huge number, as far as the UK is concerned, it would work out to around £400 per individual over two years (Olympic occurs every two years - not that the UK public need to pay for it every two years), using a population of 30M (I do not expect everyone to be interested in the Olympic, but I do not think that it's too far fetched to think that half the population are interested in some of the games).

That's 5 console games per year. One pint of beer per week. A mid-range graphic card. 55p per day. Looking at it that way, the video game comparison is appropiate. And the figure ignores -any- income, or benefits derived from infrastructure upgrade and such.

Perhaps the issue is more a lack of funding that goes towards projects for the good humanity, than 10-12bn being excessive for an event that is going to be viewed by 3Bn worldwide. You might be above that, but I suspect that most people spend more on "fun" than on charities.

I *do* believe that the public should be able to vote on the issue of hosting the Olympic. I also dislike how politicised the Olympic is. On top of the issues directhex has mentioned.

Given the current state of the economy, I would prefer for government money to only go towards key issues. But back in 2003-2005, I am not convinced the the general public would have rejected the hosting the Olympic in the UK.

[Larkspeed]

If one of those fires, everyone a few dozen metres in front at ground level dies

Could you please cite your source of this info because it sounds totally ridiculous to me.

How can anything launched off the roof of a high rise building effect anything on the ground at launch

[Larkspeed]

double post

[Lowe]

Could you please cite your source of this info because it sounds totally ridiculous to me.

How can anything launched off the roof of a high rise building effect anything on the ground at launch

My thoughts too. Usually compressed gas is used to boost the missile into the air, before the rocket motor takes over. On top of the high rise the roof space will be clear, so little chance of anyone being hurt directly by the launch.

Debris after impact? Different story agreed.

[kalniel]

So, the UK alone is willing to blow more on some goddamn games than the entire world spends per year on research for projects that would have untold benefit for the entire human race.

I completely understand that concern - I lean the same way when it comes to celebrities and money spent on election campaigns..

But I think it's not really fair to talk about untold benefits for the entire human race - I think there's almost certainly a larger case for that fact that 'games' allow individuals, groups, countries and even blocks of countries to compete against each other in a way that doesn't usually cost human life. It's a hell of a lot cheaper than war, so if this remarkably good spirited event manages to prevent even the occasional skirmish then it's valuable. And there are other long term benefits I expect as well - not unique to the country hosting the games, but the fact that there is a games at all. Once you consider that benefit desirable then it's only fair to occasionally host it if you can afford it.