Do we have to rename the newsgroup?

--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:
Do we have to rename the newsgroup?

For the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland...?

Nah, I'm just waiting for Scotland to harmonise on 110v.

JGH

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 14:07:27 -0800 (PST), jgharston
wrote:

ARWadsworth wrote:
Do we have to rename the newsgroup?

For the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland...?

Nah, I'm just waiting for Scotland to harmonise on 110v.

d.c.

--
Frank Erskine

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
Do we have to rename the newsgroup?


On the Now Show (BBC Radio 4) they asked the audience for suggestions as to
what the UK should be called if Scotland got independence. Best answer was
Scot Free.
--
Tinkerer

Tinkerer wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

Do we have to rename the newsgroup?

On the Now Show (BBC Radio 4) they asked the audience for suggestions as to what the UK should be called if Scotland
got independence. Best answer was Scot Free.

Trouble is that it wouldnt be, there'd still be hordes of them

Tinkerer wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
Do we have to rename the newsgroup?


On the Now Show (BBC Radio 4) they asked the audience for suggestions as to
what the UK should be called if Scotland got independence. Best answer was
Scot Free.

ROFLMAO!



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Rod Speed wrote:
Tinkerer wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

Do we have to rename the newsgroup?

On the Now Show (BBC Radio 4) they asked the audience for suggestions as to what the UK should be called if Scotland
got independence. Best answer was Scot Free.

Trouble is that it wouldnt be, there'd still be hordes of them


yebbut we could close the borders right?


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

The Natural Philosopher wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tinkerer wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

Do we have to rename the newsgroup?

On the Now Show (BBC Radio 4) they asked the audience for
suggestions as to what the UK should be called if Scotland got
independence. Best answer was Scot Free.

Trouble is that it wouldnt be, there'd still be hordes of them

yebbut we could close the borders right?

Wrong. The EU doesnt allow that.

They'd have to leave the EU too before you could do that and I doubt even
the most rabid hairly legged barbarian in a dress is actually THAT stupid.

You cannot rename newsgroups or indeed delete them as far as I know, only
create new ones or disconnect them from the distribution list.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
Do we have to rename the newsgroup?

--
Adam

Brian Gaff wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

Do we have to rename the newsgroup?

You cannot rename newsgroups or indeed delete them as far as I know,

You can in fact delete them if you know how to do that, but
with most groups someone will just reverse that very quickly.

only create new ones or disconnect them from the distribution list.

You cant disconnect them either with most major news servers.

No but there does seem to be somone doing so in the various heirarchies, so
it has to come from a central source. Also of course control messages from
people without the required privs will often be ignored as you noted.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Brian Gaff wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

Do we have to rename the newsgroup?

You cannot rename newsgroups or indeed delete them as far as I know,

You can in fact delete them if you know how to do that, but
with most groups someone will just reverse that very quickly.

only create new ones or disconnect them from the distribution list.

You cant disconnect them either with most major news servers.

Brian Gaff wrote:
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

Do we have to rename the newsgroup?

You cannot rename newsgroups or indeed delete them as far as I know,

You can in fact delete them if you know how to do that, but
with most groups someone will just reverse that very quickly.

only create new ones or disconnect them from the distribution list.

You cant disconnect them either with most major news servers.

No but there does seem to be somone doing so in the various heirarchies,

Doing what ?

so it has to come from a central source.

Nope.

Also of course control messages from people without the required privs will often be ignored as you noted.

It isnt hard get them if you know what you are doing.

Owain wrote
Rod Speed wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tinkerer wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

Do we have to rename the newsgroup?

On the Now Show (BBC Radio 4) they asked the audience for
suggestions as to what the UK should be called if Scotland got
independence. Best answer was Scot Free.


Trouble is that it wouldnt be, there'd still be hordes of them

yebbut we could close the borders right?

Wrong. The EU doesnt allow that.

They'd have to leave the EU too before you could do that and I doubt even
the most rabid hairly legged barbarian in a dress is actually THAT stupid.

No guarantee that Scotland would be *in* the EU,

Yes, but its very unlikely to not be. Given their economic situation,
it would be much more likely that they would stay in the EU and
bludge off the EU as much as they could like Ireland does.

especially if it had to join the Euro.

There is no 'had to'. And the reasons that Britain chose not to
dont necessarily apply to them, so they may choose to anyway.

Even if it was in the EU it might or might not be in Schengen.

Schengen is gone now.

Fortunately the Scottish Government (which does not
actually have any lawful devolved powers in this matter)

It would do if they have left tho.

is making the proposals completely clear and understandable
to the electorate (which may or may not include children).

I expect there'll be some form of tax treaty on
whisky heading south and Buckfast heading north ...

Irrelevant to whether Scot Free is actually feasible.

When Britain cant even work out how to get rid of most of the illegals already
in the country, they'd have buckleys of getting rid of all the Scots already in
the country, particularly the ones who dont agree with Scotland leaving.

In message , Brian Gaff
writes
You cannot rename newsgroups or indeed delete them as far as I know, only
create new ones or disconnect them from the distribution list.
Brian

Err brian

it's not a wholly serious question


--
geoff

In message , Rod Speed
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tinkerer wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

Do we have to rename the newsgroup?

On the Now Show (BBC Radio 4) they asked the audience for
suggestions as to what the UK should be called if Scotland got
independence. Best answer was Scot Free.

Trouble is that it wouldnt be, there'd still be hordes of them

yebbut we could close the borders right?

Wrong. The EU doesnt allow that.

They'd have to leave the EU too before you could do that and I doubt even
the most rabid hairly legged barbarian in a dress is actually THAT stupid.


AIUI an independent Scotland would have to re-apply for membership of
the Eu, assuming they wished to join, and it is a non-negotiable
condition for new members that they join the euro.

They would then be subject to fiscal control by Brussels - and do you
think that lot will be able to keep their grubby little hands off the
oil revenues.
If I were Shetland I'd start an Independence from Scotland move right
now.
--
hugh

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Rod Speed
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tinkerer wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

Do we have to rename the newsgroup?

On the Now Show (BBC Radio 4) they asked the audience for
suggestions as to what the UK should be called if Scotland got
independence. Best answer was Scot Free.

Trouble is that it wouldnt be, there'd still be hordes of them

yebbut we could close the borders right?

Wrong. The EU doesnt allow that.

They'd have to leave the EU too before you could do that and I doubt even
the most rabid hairly legged barbarian in a dress is actually THAT stupid.


AIUI an independent Scotland would have to re-apply for membership of the
Eu, assuming they wished to join, and it is a non-negotiable condition for
new members that they join the euro.

They would then be subject to fiscal control by Brussels - and do you
think that lot will be able to keep their grubby little hands off the oil
revenues.
If I were Shetland I'd start an Independence from Scotland move right now.

Yes, I think Salmond thinks he's Hitler #2, he needs knocking down a few
pegs.

hugh wrote
Rod Speed wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tinkerer wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

Do we have to rename the newsgroup?

On the Now Show (BBC Radio 4) they asked the audience for suggestions as to what the UK should be called if
Scotland got independence. Best answer was Scot Free.

Trouble is that it wouldnt be, there'd still be hordes of them

yebbut we could close the borders right?

Wrong. The EU doesnt allow that.

They'd have to leave the EU too before you could do that and I doubt even the most rabid hairly legged barbarian in a
dress is actually THAT stupid.

AIUI an independent Scotland would have to re-apply for membership of the Eu,

Fraid not.

assuming they wished to join, and it is a non-negotiable
condition for new members that they join the euro.

They may well want to do that anyway. The reason
Britain didnt wouldnt apply to an independant Scotland.

They would then be subject to fiscal control by Brussels

Fraid not.

- and do you think that lot will be able to keep their grubby little hands off the oil revenues.

Fiscal control has nothing to do with getting their hand on any
revenues, its just about what sort of deficits you are allowed to run.

If I were Shetland I'd start an Independence from Scotland move right now.

Taint gunna happen.

brass monkey wrote:
"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Rod Speed
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tinkerer wrote
ARWadsworth wrote
Do we have to rename the newsgroup?
On the Now Show (BBC Radio 4) they asked the audience for
suggestions as to what the UK should be called if Scotland got
independence. Best answer was Scot Free.
Trouble is that it wouldnt be, there'd still be hordes of them
yebbut we could close the borders right?
Wrong. The EU doesnt allow that.

They'd have to leave the EU too before you could do that and I doubt even
the most rabid hairly legged barbarian in a dress is actually THAT stupid.


AIUI an independent Scotland would have to re-apply for membership of the
Eu, assuming they wished to join, and it is a non-negotiable condition for
new members that they join the euro.

They would then be subject to fiscal control by Brussels - and do you
think that lot will be able to keep their grubby little hands off the oil
revenues.
If I were Shetland I'd start an Independence from Scotland move right now.

Yes, I think Salmond thinks he's Hitler #2, he needs knocking down a few
pegs.



He can have Scotland as long as england is scot free.

And we don't pay a cent over market rate for all his fantasy 'renewable
energy'.

SCOTLAND can pay its FITS and ROCsd but we wont be required to
underwrite the subsidy.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

The Natural Philosopher writes:

brass monkey wrote:
"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Rod Speed
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tinkerer wrote
ARWadsworth wrote
Do we have to rename the newsgroup?
On the Now Show (BBC Radio 4) they asked the audience for
suggestions as to what the UK should be called if Scotland got
independence. Best answer was Scot Free.
Trouble is that it wouldnt be, there'd still be hordes of them
yebbut we could close the borders right?
Wrong. The EU doesnt allow that.

They'd have to leave the EU too before you could do that and I doubt even
the most rabid hairly legged barbarian in a dress is actually THAT stupid.


AIUI an independent Scotland would have to re-apply for membership of the
Eu, assuming they wished to join, and it is a non-negotiable condition for
new members that they join the euro.

They would then be subject to fiscal control by Brussels - and do you
think that lot will be able to keep their grubby little hands off the oil
revenues.
If I were Shetland I'd start an Independence from Scotland move right now.

Yes, I think Salmond thinks he's Hitler #2, he needs knocking down a few
pegs.



He can have Scotland as long as england is scot free.

And we don't pay a cent over market rate for all his fantasy 'renewable
energy'.

SCOTLAND can pay its FITS and ROCsd but we wont be required to
underwrite the subsidy.

But we're currently paying in part for London's Olympics, which will
make a profit for London as a result of the tourism, but will do little
or nothing for Scotland.
Not that that's an argument for independence. It's a complicated
business, and all in all I think every part of the UK would be a little
poorer if any part left.

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:
Tinkerer wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

Do we have to rename the newsgroup?

On the Now Show (BBC Radio 4) they asked the audience for suggestions as
to what the UK should be called if Scotland got independence. Best
answer was Scot Free.

Trouble is that it wouldnt be, there'd still be hordes of them

yebbut we could close the borders right?

Yes, and drive plantpot Jocks back over the border.

Doctor Drivel wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Rod Speed wrote:
Tinkerer wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

Do we have to rename the newsgroup?

On the Now Show (BBC Radio 4) they asked the audience for
suggestions as to what the UK should be called if Scotland got
independence. Best answer was Scot Free.

Trouble is that it wouldnt be, there'd still be hordes of them

yebbut we could close the borders right?

Yes, and drive plantpot Jocks back over the border.

Might not work too well. There are likely rather more of them in the military than you lot.

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Rod Speed
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tinkerer wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

Do we have to rename the newsgroup?

On the Now Show (BBC Radio 4) they asked the audience for
suggestions as to what the UK should be called if Scotland got
independence. Best answer was Scot Free.

Trouble is that it wouldnt be, there'd still be hordes of them

yebbut we could close the borders right?

Wrong. The EU doesnt allow that.

They'd have to leave the EU too before you could do that and I doubt even
the most rabid hairly legged barbarian in a dress is actually THAT stupid.


AIUI an independent Scotland would have to re-apply for membership of the
Eu, assuming they wished to join, and it is a non-negotiable condition for
new members that they join the euro.

They would then be subject to fiscal control by Brussels - and do you
think that lot will be able to keep their grubby little hands off the oil
revenues.

Being under fiscal control does not mean "we take your money".

and as there is currently no common policy for oil reserves, being under
fiscal control would not invent one

tim.... wrote:
"hugh" ] wrote in message

AIUI an independent Scotland would have to re-apply for membership of the
Eu, assuming they wished to join, and it is a non-negotiable condition for
new members that they join the euro.

They would then be subject to fiscal control by Brussels - and do you
think that lot will be able to keep their grubby little hands off the oil
revenues.

Being under fiscal control does not mean "we take your money".


These days it does, in respect of Brussels anyway.

and as there is currently no common policy for oil reserves, being under
fiscal control would not invent one


No but it wouldn't take very lomh to enusre that oil reserves were in
fact a European Asset and would there for effectively be owned by Germany.




--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

In message , Windmill
writes
The Natural Philosopher writes:

brass monkey wrote:
"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Rod Speed
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tinkerer wrote
ARWadsworth wrote
Do we have to rename the newsgroup?
On the Now Show (BBC Radio 4) they asked the audience for
suggestions as to what the UK should be called if Scotland got
independence. Best answer was Scot Free.
Trouble is that it wouldnt be, there'd still be hordes of them
yebbut we could close the borders right?
Wrong. The EU doesnt allow that.

They'd have to leave the EU too before you could do that and I doubt even
the most rabid hairly legged barbarian in a dress is actually THAT stupid.


AIUI an independent Scotland would have to re-apply for membership of the
Eu, assuming they wished to join, and it is a non-negotiable condition for
new members that they join the euro.

They would then be subject to fiscal control by Brussels - and do you
think that lot will be able to keep their grubby little hands off the oil
revenues.
If I were Shetland I'd start an Independence from Scotland move right now.

Yes, I think Salmond thinks he's Hitler #2, he needs knocking down a few
pegs.



He can have Scotland as long as england is scot free.

And we don't pay a cent over market rate for all his fantasy 'renewable
energy'.

SCOTLAND can pay its FITS and ROCsd but we wont be required to
underwrite the subsidy.

But we're currently paying in part for London's Olympics, which will
make a profit for London as a result of the tourism, but will do little
or nothing for Scotland.

Hmm Will Chris Hoy have to give back his knighthood?
Not that that's an argument for independence. It's a complicated
business, and all in all I think every part of the UK would be a little
poorer if any part left.

+1
--
hugh

In message , Rod Speed
writes
Doctor Drivel wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Rod Speed wrote:
Tinkerer wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

Do we have to rename the newsgroup?

On the Now Show (BBC Radio 4) they asked the audience for
suggestions as to what the UK should be called if Scotland got
independence. Best answer was Scot Free.

Trouble is that it wouldnt be, there'd still be hordes of them

yebbut we could close the borders right?

Yes, and drive plantpot Jocks back over the border.

Might not work too well. There are likely rather more of them in the
military than you lot.


That's because otherwise they would mostly be unemployed.
--
hugh

Windmill wrote:

But we're currently paying in part for London's Olympics, which will
make a profit for London as a result of the tourism, but will do little
or nothing for Scotland.
Or Yorkshire! They should have had the Olympics nationwide, using the
facilities already existing.

My main thoughts are for the small business thrown off their premises in
East London, just for a silly sport event. It's an outrage.

Bill

In message , Bill Wright
writes
Windmill wrote:

But we're currently paying in part for London's Olympics, which will
make a profit for London as a result of the tourism, but will do little
or nothing for Scotland.
Or Yorkshire! They should have had the Olympics nationwide, using the
facilities already existing.

My main thoughts are for the small business thrown off their premises
in East London, just for a silly sport event. It's an outrage.

Bill
The Olympics are awarded to a city not a country.
If you want them in Yorkshire/Scotland make your bid.
Feel sorry for the council tax payers who have had to pay a supplement
for the past few years but can't get/afford tickets.
--
hugh

In article ,
hugh ] wrote:
In message , Bill Wright
writes
Windmill wrote:

But we're currently paying in part for London's Olympics, which will
make a profit for London as a result of the tourism, but will do little
or nothing for Scotland.
Or Yorkshire! They should have had the Olympics nationwide, using the
facilities already existing.

My main thoughts are for the small business thrown off their premises
in East London, just for a silly sport event. It's an outrage.

Bill
The Olympics are awarded to a city not a country.

true, but the UK wide national lottery funds are being raided to pay for
the games. If "london" is hostingb the games, why are some events taking
place miles outside London, anyway?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 15:04:13 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:

Windmill wrote:

But we're currently paying in part for London's Olympics, which will
make a profit for London as a result of the tourism, but will do little
or nothing for Scotland.
Or Yorkshire! They should have had the Olympics nationwide, using the
facilities already existing.

My main thoughts are for the small business thrown off their premises in
East London, just for a silly sport event. It's an outrage.

We shouldn't have had the olympics at all.

We may have beaten the French on 25 October 1415 but they certainly
had their revenge on 6 July 2005

Nick

hugh wrote:

Feel sorry for the council tax payers who have had to pay a supplement
for the past few years but can't get/afford tickets.

Feel sorrier for all the citizens who have paid, and never wanted
tickets, or the sodding olympics, in the first place...

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Nick Odell wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 15:04:13 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:

Windmill wrote:

But we're currently paying in part for London's Olympics, which
will make a profit for London as a result of the tourism, but
will do little or nothing for Scotland.
Or Yorkshire! They should have had the Olympics nationwide, using
the facilities already existing.

My main thoughts are for the small business thrown off their
premises in East London, just for a silly sport event. It's an
outrage.

We shouldn't have had the olympics at all.

We may have beaten the French on 25 October 1415 but they certainly
had their revenge on 6 July 2005

I know exactly where I was when the results for the 2012 olympics were
announced.

I was in a police car about to get a ticket for driving with a smashed
windcreen and I managed to talk the officer into only giving me a
rectification notice. It was the officer of Police Interceptors with the
lisp that stopped me:-)

--
Adam

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
hugh wrote:

Feel sorry for the council tax payers who have had to pay a
supplement for the past few years but can't get/afford tickets.

Feel sorrier for all the citizens who have paid, and never wanted
tickets, or the sodding olympics, in the first place...

So it will be just me that enjoys them and will be proud to be British.

Of course I will be English and not British for the Euro 2012 Football
finals.

--
Adam

"tim...." wrote in message
...

They would then be subject to fiscal control by Brussels - and do you
think that lot will be able to keep their grubby little hands off the oil
revenues.

Being under fiscal control does not mean "we take your money".

and as there is currently no common policy for oil reserves, being under
fiscal control would not invent one

I don't know why people think the Scots get the oil reserves in the first
place.
There are international treaties on how the coastal resources are allocated
and the Scots don't get as much of the oil fields as England does.

On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 14:07:27 +0000, hugh ] wrote:

In message , Bill Wright
writes
Windmill wrote:

But we're currently paying in part for London's Olympics, which will
make a profit for London as a result of the tourism, but will do little
or nothing for Scotland.
Or Yorkshire! They should have had the Olympics nationwide, using the
facilities already existing.

My main thoughts are for the small business thrown off their premises
in East London, just for a silly sport event. It's an outrage.

Bill
The Olympics are awarded to a city not a country.

So why should the UK's taxpayers pay for them, rather than just
Londoners?

--
Frank Erskine

On 11/03/12 17:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
hugh wrote:

Feel sorry for the council tax payers who have had to pay a supplement
for the past few years but can't get/afford tickets.

Feel sorrier for all the citizens who have paid, and never wanted
tickets, or the sodding olympics, in the first place...


+1

I usually go to Italy for a month May/June: this year I will be going
away in June and not coming back till the Olympics are over.

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:

Windmill wrote:

But we're currently paying in part for London's Olympics, which
will
make a profit for London as a result of the tourism, but will do little
or nothing for Scotland.
Or Yorkshire! They should have had the Olympics nationwide, using the
facilities already existing.
My main thoughts are for the small business thrown off their
premises in East London, just for a silly sport event. It's an outrage.

We shouldn't have had the olympics at all.

Nothing wrong with the olympics in principle, its the whole corporate
gig that's the problem

--
geoff

The Natural Philosopher wrote
tim.... wrote
hugh ] wrote

AIUI an independent Scotland would have to re-apply for membership
of the Eu, assuming they wished to join, and it is a non-negotiable
condition for new members that they join the euro.

They would then be subject to fiscal control by Brussels - and do you think that lot will be able to keep their
grubby little hands off the oil revenues.

Being under fiscal control does not mean "we take your money".

These days it does, in respect of Brussels anyway.

Nope.

Cameron just told them to **** off when they wanted him to be part of bailing out Greece.

and as there is currently no common policy for oil reserves, being under fiscal control would not invent one

No but it wouldn't take very lomh to enusre that oil reserves were in fact a European Asset

Have fun explaining why that hasnt happened alread.

and would there for effectively be owned by Germany.

Fantasy.

hugh wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Rod Speed wrote:
Tinkerer wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

Do we have to rename the newsgroup?

On the Now Show (BBC Radio 4) they asked the audience for
suggestions as to what the UK should be called if Scotland got
independence. Best answer was Scot Free.

Trouble is that it wouldnt be, there'd still be hordes of them

yebbut we could close the borders right?

Yes, and drive plantpot Jocks back over the border.

Might not work too well. There are likely rather more of them in the military than you lot.

That's because otherwise they would mostly be unemployed.

Sure, but thats still a problem if you want to drive them back over the border.

They might have other ideas.

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 14:07:27 +0000, hugh ] wrote:

In message , Bill Wright
writes
Windmill wrote:

But we're currently paying in part for London's Olympics, which will
make a profit for London as a result of the tourism, but will do little
or nothing for Scotland.
Or Yorkshire! They should have had the Olympics nationwide, using the
facilities already existing.

My main thoughts are for the small business thrown off their premises
in East London, just for a silly sport event. It's an outrage.

Bill
The Olympics are awarded to a city not a country.

So why should the UK's taxpayers pay for them, rather than just
Londoners?


same reason UK taxpayers pay for all the old benefit infested industrial
towns to vote labour.

Because some people believed in Blair.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:

Windmill wrote:

But we're currently paying in part for London's Olympics, which
will
make a profit for London as a result of the tourism, but will do little
or nothing for Scotland.
Or Yorkshire! They should have had the Olympics nationwide, using the
facilities already existing.
My main thoughts are for the small business thrown off their
premises in East London, just for a silly sport event. It's an outrage.

We shouldn't have had the olympics at all.

I agree. If you're not actually attending then they could be anywhere in
the world.
--
hugh