please empty your brain below
Well said DG. I'm a #2 too. The more that speak up, the better for all of us.

THC | 09.02.11 - 7:21 a.m. | #

Me too for #2.

ganching | Homepage | 09.02.11 - 7:27 a.m. | #

Personally I think the stadium looks FAR nicer without some gaudy tarpaulin wrap hiding the architecture from prying eyes.


IanVisits | Homepage | 09.02.11 - 8:04 a.m. | #

The big mistake was bidding for the games in the first place.

FWIW I am a number two as well. However, with respect to funding major events it is a slippery slope. I still remember a Games without real sponsorship and where the athletes had to be amateur. There were fewer sports too. But now the games are sponsored every step of the way from the socks and jocks the athletes wear to the official beer / airline / etc. Why not just sponsor / privatise the damned lot and stop pretending it is anything but a filthy money-making business?

What would really be interesting is figures on government money in vs government money made from the games. And I don't know about the UK but in Oz sports training is state funded at the Australian Institute of Sport. Most other tertiary students whether they are studying nursing, teaching, arts or engineering have to pay for their education. But not our athletes who get their education paid for and then keep their winnings.

On a different note didn't the Goodies do a couple of rather good episodes on the Olympics?

Antipodean | 09.02.11 - 8:25 a.m. | #

I agree with Greg Tingey, look at the difference between the Netherlands and the UK. The standard of living is by far better in the Netherlands due to a combination of Public & Private funding. Good schools at all levels, great transport system (roads and rail), fantastic health care.

Michael | 09.02.11 - 8:30 a.m. | #

Scratch the surface of history and you'll discover leagions of 'ladies who lunched' raising billions for so called 'state' sponsored things.

B | 09.02.11 - 8:33 a.m. | #

I'm with the italics on this one...

Baldassaro | 09.02.11 - 8:39 a.m. | #

Oh, I'm with you too. It's just a bit of a shame that all too often the natural course of things results in state taking too much into their own hands and leaving us all in the number twos.

(Actually, I'd say the problem is not so much with state control, as committee control combined with the fear of taking a position of vision that might not pander to all possible interest groups/voters/press)

Ham | Homepage | 09.02.11 - 8:39 a.m. | #

Coming out in the number 2 camp, now if only there were a political party that shared our view.

kev hennessy | 09.02.11 - 8:59 a.m. | #

TWO TWO TWO!

:o)

Greg, pleasantly surprised that there may actually be another Chingfordian who can bear to look at a map of Europe and not see "There be monsters" everywhere.

CF

ChingfordFlaneur | 09.02.11 - 9:22 a.m. | #

Antipodean - if you count "Commonwealth Games" (1971) they did three on the Games theme - the others were "Winter Olympics" (1973) and "A Kick up the Arts" (from the last BBC series in 1980) - where they (re)introduced artistic endeavours to the summer Olympics

Timbo | 09.02.11 - 9:58 a.m. | #

Im a #2 by instinct, but this is something that I really don't see why my tax money should go on. Libraries, on the other hand....

David | 09.02.11 - 10:03 a.m. | #

"Not the Olympucs again!", no no. i was already to comment "Oh no! Not another post replying to all the PR & Marketing invites you've been sent", as it's been about a week since you've done one of those. Are you feeling ok? :-)

Geofftech | Homepage | 09.02.11 - 10:03 a.m. | #

>Instead we'll get something twisted by ulterior commercial motives, heavy with unspoken branding, which somehow cheapens the entire Olympic fortnight

The whole idea of hosting the Olympics in London has a major, twisted commercial motive. I don't see how a bit of cloth will change it.

K | 09.02.11 - 10:20 a.m. | #

Whether a product or service is funded publicly or privately or by a mix of both, just ask whether the focus is on making a useful outcome for the funder, or for the customer, or for society in general. Who is this stadium wrap for? Who will get most out of it?

Is the Olympic games - wrap and all - really an investment for London and the UK? I doubt it very much. Maybe No 2 is likely to be a bit safer all round, but ask who really gains most? Sorry but Olympics tees me orf.

Herb of Romford | 09.02.11 - 11:26 a.m. | #

How about a wrap with lights and projectors on the inside so that ambient light forms could move gently across the surface. Get Brian Eno and David Byrne to do it. They could pay for it too, between them.

Joho | 09.02.11 - 12:08 p.m. | #

Thanks Timbo. Those more cynical about the Games might enjoy this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Games_%28Australian_TV_series%29

Although some of the in-jokes are deffo Aussie it is really, really funny and brilliantly acted. I see they are doing a London follow-up...

Antipodean | 09.02.11 - 12:32 p.m. | #

I think majority of the UK, including the government, are two-ers. The one-er position as represented by the libertarian movement in the US is so far extreme from our society that surely cant be considered mainstream.

Geo_rich | 09.02.11 - 3:53 p.m. | #

Well I for one am glad the wrap is back. I think it'll make the stadium look more 'finished', and not like they ran out of money before the end!
And you never know, they might get creative like with the superbowl ads!

Either way though, the more I read the more I just have this huge sence of foreboding over these games. 9 years ago (today!) when 'our' games began, there was a much higher level of excitement than there appears to be over the London games. I wonder if it's because for a city as old as London, there's nothing new left to get excited over! Or maybe it's the culture of being "British"! We are a pretty pessimistic lot, to be honest!

CornishCockney | 09.02.11 - 4:40 p.m. | #

Why grumble, just be pleased that the wrap is back.

John | 09.02.11 - 5:22 p.m. | #

I've just been past the Olympic site on the train and see that the base of the Twisted Tower has started to rise as a red spidery mass in front of the stadium. It looks good already. I shall enjoy this bit. It will take your eye and mind away from all the rest as you glide past. Arcelor/Mittal and LDA funded. Why bother with anything else?

Herb of Romford | 09.02.11 - 6:05 p.m. | #

Let’s say one of the prime sponsors, BT for example, decide to pay for the wrap.

BT could be fund it by reducing dividends which in reality means the majority of pension funds in the UK, BT biggest shareholders, get a reduced income. This impacts the majority of people with a UK pension

Alternatively a proportion of BTs next price rise could help cover the cost of the wrap.

Even if you’re not a “real” BT customer your comms supplier will itself be a customer of BT so the costs would trickle down to everyone with a telephone. And this includes mobiles as all telecoms operators rely on BT for at least part of their networks and are therefore customers of BT.

Either way, or state funded, the costs get picked up by pretty much the same people. Everyone.


Invicta | 10.02.11 - 9:13 a.m. | #

Just when we in SW London thought we'd escaped the Great Olympic Fuss altogether: this happens!
http://www.london2012.com/documents/venue-documents/cycling-road-race-route.pdf

Timbo | 10.02.11 - 10:18 p.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy