Spiralling costs of 2012 .....

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  1 2 3 Next
Current: 1 of 3
Friday 5 October 2007 10.27am
Is the spiralling cost of the London 2012 Olympics justified when we have homeless in the UK and people are starving in the Third World ???

matt
http://www.londonrentmyhouse.com
Friday 5 October 2007 1.57pm
is anything jusified in that case? eating doughnuts, pizza, fancy coffees, living in great loft apartments and having kids when there is no much wrong with the world.

or do we just carry on like generations have before? world events, bringing people together i would have thought to be beneficial.
Friday 5 October 2007 2.25pm
mattp_76 wrote:
Is the spiralling cost of the London 2012 Olympics justified when we have homeless in the UK and people are starving in the Third World ???
matt
http://www.londonrentmyhouse.com

Odd that you don't you bother to mention this on the website promoted here, through which you're encouraging property owners to profit from the anticipated accomodation demand arising from this and other events.
Friday 5 October 2007 7.27pm
Hi ...

Yes, my website has an interest in london 2012 (see the media section). It raised many issues including how much money tax payers are pumping into the Games without chance to benefit themselves. The site is there primarily to help house the visitors (a service to LOCOG) and for homeowners to benefit as did Sydney homeowners during 2000 Games.

The point I raised is just something I was interested to here your views on considering the huge cost of the Games - reported 13bn .... ?
Monday 8 October 2007 6.29am
I was always, ALWAYS, anti the Games, and nothing has happened to change my mind - quite the reverse. What on EARTH we are doing spending so much money on a two week jamboree is beyond me. East London could have been perfectly well regenerated without the Olympics, and with our lousy record (the Dome for a start) the chances of us gretting this right are nigh on zilch. Our grandchildren will still be paying the bill.The costs have tripled, and the whole thing was a ploy for the greater glorification of Tony Blair (remember him?) and Ken Livingstone. Hopefully both of them will be sunk in the mists of time long before 2012.
Monday 8 October 2007 10.06am
Matt. Speaking personally, I wish you would stop promoting your website and (unless you've got anything else to say) disappear up your olympic rings.

James, I'm sorry if this is less than polite.

...if you press it, they will come.
Tuesday 9 October 2007 12.34pm
Ivanhoe wrote:
Matt. Speaking personally, I wish you would stop promoting your website and (unless you've got anything else to say) disappear up your olympic rings.
James, I'm sorry if this is less than polite.

Ivanhoe. I am not sure what your problem is but I am not going to get sucked into your pointless reply.

My post is about a real issue and I was looking for some constructive intelligent responses. Thanks Jackie.

For your information a regular poster on this website emailed me personally to suggest I tell users about the website as they might be interested by the story it has created. James will appreciate a signiture link is acceptable. Afterall, my interest in the Games and topics raised have come from the website itself.

Anyway, back to my topic. Yes Jackie, I agree. I am not sure why the couldnt re-develop exisiting facilities instead of build new ones which surely would save afew billion for other use? .... I cant wait for the games!! .... just a shame it will cost so much for the UK tax payer.
Tuesday 9 October 2007 4.09pm
mattp_76 wrote:
Ivanhoe. I am not sure what your problem is but I am not going to get sucked into your pointless reply.
My "problem" is that you came onto this forum a while ago, using it to publicise your own website, which, if it works, will presumably make you money. You can try to dress this up as altruism, or as an attempt to discuss an issue of general interest, but to me your posts read like an advert. This is a discussion forum. There is a facility for placing adverts, but the forum rules make it quite clear that the place for adverts is not in discussion threads.

A further element to my "problem" is that you then pop up here every now and again to put up YET ANOTHER thread publicising your business website. As far as I've seen, these are your only contributions to the forum. Please accept my apologies if I'm wrong, and you've been contributing to all sorts of other discussions, but I don't think that's the case.

mattp_76 wrote:
My post is about a real issue and I was looking for some constructive intelligent responses. Thanks Jackie.
Oh. I see. You ARE trying to dress this up as an issue of general interest. IF that is really the case, it would be just as interesting WITHOUT the ad for your own business website.

mattp_76 wrote:
For your information a regular poster on this website emailed me personally to suggest I tell users about the website as they might be interested by the story it has created. James will appreciate a signiture link is acceptable.
I'm sorry but I can't understand this paragraph, much as I would love to engage you in debate about it.

...if you press it, they will come.
Tuesday 9 October 2007 5.42pm
Ivanhoe.

Not getting drawn into this.

All I will say is my website is an idea to provide a service to LOCOG and London tax payers by helping them make some cash during the games.

I look forward to your comments on my topic.
Tuesday 9 October 2007 8.35pm
I don't see why the use of LOCOG's trademarks is necessary for the successful operation of your website.

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Pages:  1 2 3 Next
Current: 1 of 3

This thread has been closed

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from: