Zero I imagine.

On Friday, September 14, 2012 8:31:37 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:
Zero I imagine.

Stratford is now "up and coming". Previously it would not go away.
Although for some reason the train did not stop there that much, so they got no extra passing trade.
Simon.

On Sep 14, 8:31*am, harry wrote:
Zero I imagine.

Plenty I expect, best being making all the grumpy old complaining gits
look a bit silly.

Philip

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article
,
" wrote:

On Sep 14, 8:31 am, harry wrote:
Zero I imagine.

Plenty I expect, best being making all the grumpy old complaining gits
look a bit silly.

No, harry was right - just this once. I can think of better ways the
country could have spent nine bullyun quid.

But that's not the same as saying that there are no benefits

tim

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 10:28:03 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article
,
" wrote:

On Sep 14, 8:31*am, harry wrote:
Zero I imagine.

Plenty I expect, best being making all the grumpy old complaining gits
look a bit silly.

No, harry was right - just this once. I can think of better ways the
country could have spent nine bullyun quid.

Very rarely has any city/country made /any/ profit from hosting the
Olympics. A parliamentary committee recently concluded that the Games cost
the public sector /alone/ £11 billion. "The Funding Package of £9.3
billion allocated to the Olympics does not cover the totality of the costs
to the public purse of delivering the Games and their legacy, which are
already heading for around £11 billion."
[London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games - Public Accounts Committee]

Some critics believe that the total cost for London will, in fact, amount
to some £24 billion when the games have ended. Don't forget, this is the
Olympics /&/ the Paralympics. Have you noticed how Coe & the politicians
have now gone quiet about the "benefits"?

To put it into context, for £11 billion you /could/ have had:

An extra 55746 nurses for a year

38500 police officers for a year

22000 doctors for a year

35 NEW schools

8 NEW hospitals

4595 libraries funded for a year

57037 university educations

45294 teachers for a year

And that is not either/or, it's ALL of the above.

In article ,
J.B.Treadstone wrote:
To put it into context, for £11 billion you /could/ have had:

An extra 55746 nurses for a year

38500 police officers for a year

22000 doctors for a year

35 NEW schools

8 NEW hospitals

4595 libraries funded for a year

57037 university educations

45294 teachers for a year

And that is not either/or, it's ALL of the above.

But they'd not have fitted on the Lee Valley site.

--
*Cover me. I'm changing lanes.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
J.B.Treadstone wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 10:28:03 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article
,
" wrote:

On Sep 14, 8:31 am, harry wrote:
Zero I imagine.

Plenty I expect, best being making all the grumpy old complaining gits
look a bit silly.

No, harry was right - just this once. I can think of better ways the
country could have spent nine bullyun quid.

Very rarely has any city/country made /any/ profit from hosting the
Olympics. A parliamentary committee recently concluded that the Games cost
the public sector /alone/ £11 billion. "The Funding Package of £9.3
billion allocated to the Olympics does not cover the totality of the costs
to the public purse of delivering the Games and their legacy, which are
already heading for around £11 billion."
[London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games - Public Accounts Committee]

Some critics believe that the total cost for London will, in fact, amount
to some £24 billion when the games have ended.

[Snip]

don't forget the cost to Surrey who 'hosted' the cycle races; Berkshire -
the rowing; Dorset - the sailing; also all the venues for football.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In article ,
charles wrote:
don't forget the cost to Surrey who 'hosted' the cycle races; Berkshire -
the rowing; Dorset - the sailing; also all the venues for football.

I'd hope the ticket sales would more than cover the costs of using an
existing venue, like a football stadium, etc. Even providing a large
profit in that particular case.

--
*Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:31:37 -0700, harry wrote:

Zero I imagine.

A relief at not having to do it again for quite a long time?

On Sep 14, 1:32*pm, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:31:37 -0700, harry wrote:
Zero I imagine.

A relief at not having to do it again for quite a long time?

Given the option I'd vote for us doing it all again (using the
existing venues) next summer

Philip

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article
,
" wrote:

On Sep 14, 1:32 pm, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:31:37 -0700, harry wrote:
Zero I imagine.

A relief at not having to do it again for quite a long time?

Given the option I'd vote for us doing it all again (using the
existing venues) next summer

Nul points for you. It was egregious enough doing it once - a waste of
public resources and an unwarranted interference with the public highway
in a number of places, too.

Blimey, was I the only one who enjoyed it?

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:16:58 +0100, brass monkey wrote:
Blimey, was I the only one who enjoyed it?

I enjoyed watching the footy, but then the huge waste of money and
resources didn't impact me as I live in the US :-)

brass monkey wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article
,
" wrote:

On Sep 14, 1:32 pm, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:31:37 -0700, harry wrote:
Zero I imagine.
A relief at not having to do it again for quite a long time?
Given the option I'd vote for us doing it all again (using the
existing venues) next summer
Nul points for you. It was egregious enough doing it once - a waste of
public resources and an unwarranted interference with the public highway
in a number of places, too.

Blimey, was I the only one who enjoyed it?


Quite probably.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Given the option I'd vote for us doing it all again (using the
existing venues) next summer

Nul points for you. It was egregious enough doing it once - a waste of
public resources and an unwarranted interference with the public highway
in a number of places, too.

But actually didn't seem to slow down journey times in London, at least.
My guess is many simply changed their travel arrangements.

--
*If you don't like the news, go out and make some.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 11:29:52 +0100, "J.B.Treadstone"
wrote:

To put it into context, for £11 billion you /could/ have had:

An extra 55746 nurses for a year

38500 police officers for a year

22000 doctors for a year

35 NEW schools

8 NEW hospitals

4595 libraries funded for a year

57037 university educations

45294 teachers for a year

And that is not either/or, it's ALL of the above.

Jeasis Etch Kerist.
What a load of ****ing cock
You truly have the economic grasp of a fool.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:18:47 +0000 (UTC), Jules Richardson
wrote:

I enjoyed watching the footy, but then the huge waste of money and
resources didn't impact me as I live in the US :-)

It wasn't actually wasted; it employed thousands of people, directly
and indirectly, for years.
The money simply went back into the economy and save that which may
have went overseas as profits for some European-based contractors, the
bulk of it stayed in the UK.
It's just part of the money-go-round, same as it ever was.
I'm amazed the whingers and moaners can't see that - but then again,
they really are short-sighted ******s. Daily Mail mentality.

On 14/09/2012 17:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
brass monkey wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article
,
" wrote:

On Sep 14, 1:32 pm, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:31:37 -0700, harry wrote:
Zero I imagine.
A relief at not having to do it again for quite a long time?
Given the option I'd vote for us doing it all again (using the
existing venues) next summer
Nul points for you. It was egregious enough doing it once - a waste
of public resources and an unwarranted interference with the public
highway in a number of places, too.

Blimey, was I the only one who enjoyed it?


Quite probably.


The interesting thing is how easily the public were persuaded that
sports they'd never heard of were worth watching. As an exercise in
taking peoples' minds off the recession it was undeniably a great
success, and I'm sure the social engineers have taken note of this.

How do you follow it though? Well, someone could run the length of the
country carrying Richard III's remains, and stage a huge event to mark
his burial somewhere else. If that made money, we could do it every
year. You got to think outside the box ennit?

It wasn't actually wasted; it employed thousands of people, directly
and indirectly, for years.
The money simply went back into the economy and save that which may
have went overseas as profits for some European-based contractors, the
bulk of it stayed in the UK.
It's just part of the money-go-round, same as it ever was.
I'm amazed the whingers and moaners can't see that - but then again,
they really are short-sighted ******s. Daily Mail mentality.

So on your economic theory we could usefully borrow several more
mother-of-all sheds-full of money and spend it on a mix of over-priced
vanity buildings, flat-pack events with no legacy assets, and temporary
jobs?

Oh, hang on a minute, I may have got the point. You are Ed Balls
AICMFP.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

But actually didn't seem to slow down journey times in London, at
least. My guess is many simply changed their travel arrangements.

Very, very many "worked at home".

I've only met one former colleague since the games and he reckoned it
was roughly half and half. That is, half did not travel and of those
about half actually did *work* at home.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

Jeasis Etch Kerist.
What a load of ****ing cock
You truly have the economic grasp of a fool.

OK, where please can we read your economic analysis of the Olympics?

On your methodlogy would it have been even better if the ODA had spent
10 times the amount in the bid rather than only around 4 times?
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

In article ,
Robin wrote:
So on your economic theory we could usefully borrow several more
mother-of-all sheds-full of money and spend it on a mix of over-priced
vanity buildings, flat-pack events with no legacy assets, and temporary
jobs?

Oh, hang on a minute, I may have got the point. You are Ed Balls
AICMFP.

Oh, hang on a minute. Don't remember any member of this government
objecting to the cost or trying to contain it. And of course were very
keen to bask in its success. Strangley, one of the few things they've not
blamed on the previous government.

--
*If a mute swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
But actually didn't seem to slow down journey times in London, at
least. My guess is many simply changed their travel arrangements.

Of course. But that's hardly the point.

It does make a good point. If changing their travel arrangements resulted
in less rush hour congestion, wouldn't it be a good thing to continue? My
guess is there's lots work 9-5 with no real reason for those hours.

--
*Vegetarians taste great*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 14/09/2012 08:31, harry wrote:
Zero I imagine.


+1
A lot of people believe that the "spirit" of the Olympics was world wide
and a good advert for the UK. The blanket TV coverage and the feel good
factor was only seen in the UK. There were complaints that very little
of the Para games was actually seen in the USA.

A lot of money was diverted from grass roots sports in the years leading
up to the Olympics to pay for it.

The history of the Olympics suggests that there is no long term benefit.


--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
But actually didn't seem to slow down journey times in London, at
least. My guess is many simply changed their travel arrangements.

Of course. But that's hardly the point.

It does make a good point. If changing their travel arrangements resulted
in less rush hour congestion, wouldn't it be a good thing to continue? My
guess is there's lots work 9-5 with no real reason for those hours.

at one point, the Civil Service used to stagger its central London hours.
It's fine to work unusual hours if your on your own, but how would it work
if you have to work with others who are on a different pattern.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

"Robin" wrote in message
...
But actually didn't seem to slow down journey times in London, at
least. My guess is many simply changed their travel arrangements.

Very, very many "worked at home".

I've only met one former colleague since the games and he reckoned it was
roughly half and half. That is, half did not travel and of those about
half actually did *work* at home.

That reminds me of -
Q - How many folks work at your place?
A - About half of them.

On 14/09/2012 17:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

But actually didn't seem to slow down journey times in London, at least.
My guess is many simply changed their travel arrangements.


They just didn't go to London - trade at all the major (non-olympic)
attractions/theatres etc. was reported to be down by 30/40% compared to
the same period last year. That's a lot of people who took note of the
warnings and stayed away.

My journey to work (not London) took half the normal time during the
Olympic weeks. I attribute this to no school run and half the population
taking holidays, thus not commuting to work.

--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

On 14/09/2012 11:56, charles wrote:
don't forget the cost to Surrey who 'hosted' the cycle races; Berkshire -
the rowing; Dorset - the sailing; also all the venues for football.

How about the disruption to traffic flow? I managed to be abroad for
most of it, but I had to avoid one of the sites which added 10 minutes
to my morning commute. Just as well it was school holidays.

Andy

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:08:13 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

I'm amazed the whingers and moaners can't see that - but then again,
they really are short-sighted ******s. Daily Mail mentality.

**** off.

Oh, I see the penny's dropped.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:22:27 +0100, "Robin" wrote:

So on your economic theory we could usefully borrow several more
mother-of-all sheds-full of money and spend it on a mix of over-priced
vanity buildings, flat-pack events with no legacy assets, and temporary
jobs?

ah shrug

Yes, you've finally got it.
That's how it works, it's all a giant smoke and mirrors trick and
you've just got to keep the curtain whirling past the smokepot fast
enough.

charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
But actually didn't seem to slow down journey times in London, at
least. My guess is many simply changed their travel arrangements.

Of course. But that's hardly the point.

It does make a good point. If changing their travel arrangements resulted
in less rush hour congestion, wouldn't it be a good thing to continue? My
guess is there's lots work 9-5 with no real reason for those hours.

at one point, the Civil Service used to stagger its central London hours.
It's fine to work unusual hours if your on your own, but how would it work
if you have to work with others who are on a different pattern.

Depends on how much time you have to spend with them chatting round the
coffee machine or having pointless meetings.....


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 14/09/12 19:40, alan wrote:
On 14/09/2012 08:31, harry wrote:
Zero I imagine.


+1
A lot of people believe that the "spirit" of the Olympics was world wide
and a good advert for the UK. The blanket TV coverage and the feel good
factor was only seen in the UK. There were complaints that very little
of the Para games was actually seen in the USA.


+1 I spent the summer in Italy. no sign of olympic interest there.



--
djc

brass monkey wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article
,
" wrote:

On Sep 14, 1:32 pm, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:31:37 -0700, harry wrote:
Zero I imagine.

A relief at not having to do it again for quite a long time?

Given the option I'd vote for us doing it all again (using the
existing venues) next summer

Nul points for you. It was egregious enough doing it once - a waste
of public resources and an unwarranted interference with the public
highway in a number of places, too.

Blimey, was I the only one who enjoyed it?

No.

--
Adam

djc wrote:
On 14/09/12 19:40, alan wrote:
On 14/09/2012 08:31, harry wrote:
Zero I imagine.


+1
A lot of people believe that the "spirit" of the Olympics was world wide
and a good advert for the UK. The blanket TV coverage and the feel good
factor was only seen in the UK. There were complaints that very little
of the Para games was actually seen in the USA.


+1 I spent the summer in Italy. no sign of olympic interest there.

Did you have a TV? Plenty of interest there and in my local bar.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
If you mean there's lots of folks whose hours are rigid but which could
be flexitime, that may well be true. But that's true anyway, nothing to
do with the Olympics. I'm talking about people whose plans may have been
seriously disrupted by this ****.

How many years notice did they want before 'making plans'?

It's the capital city. Hardly a week goes by without some disruption or
another.

--
*I took an IQ test and the results were negative.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message ,
J.B.Treadstone writes
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 10:28:03 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article
,
" wrote:

On Sep 14, 8:31*am, harry wrote:
Zero I imagine.

Plenty I expect, best being making all the grumpy old complaining gits
look a bit silly.

No, harry was right - just this once. I can think of better ways the
country could have spent nine bullyun quid.

Very rarely has any city/country made /any/ profit from hosting the
Olympics. A parliamentary committee recently concluded that the Games cost
the public sector /alone/ £11 billion. "The Funding Package of £9.3
billion allocated to the Olympics does not cover the totality of the costs
to the public purse of delivering the Games and their legacy, which are
already heading for around £11 billion."
[London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games - Public Accounts Committee]

Some critics believe that the total cost for London will, in fact, amount
to some £24 billion when the games have ended. Don't forget, this is the
Olympics /&/ the Paralympics. Have you noticed how Coe & the politicians
have now gone quiet about the "benefits"?

To put it into context, for £11 billion you /could/ have had:

Yes, but "could" and "would" are not the same, are they?




An extra 55746 nurses for a year

38500 police officers for a year

22000 doctors for a year

35 NEW schools

8 NEW hospitals

4595 libraries funded for a year

57037 university educations

45294 teachers for a year

And that is not either/or, it's ALL of the above.



--
geoff

In message , ARW
writes
brass monkey wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article
,
" wrote:

On Sep 14, 1:32 pm, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:31:37 -0700, harry wrote:
Zero I imagine.

A relief at not having to do it again for quite a long time?

Given the option I'd vote for us doing it all again (using the
existing venues) next summer

Nul points for you. It was egregious enough doing it once - a waste
of public resources and an unwarranted interference with the public
highway in a number of places, too.

Blimey, was I the only one who enjoyed it?

No.

Well, as I see it, you can either have a turgid, boring existence where
life has no ups and downs

or you can have a society whose running is punctuated by the occasional,
but non essential high point that gives some people a kick

To list what "could" be done with the money doesn't ringfence it and say
it "would" be used for the alternative possibilities

Look at all the money spent on "art" that could be better spent on
feeding the hungry

A lot of money is "wasted" on non-essentials, but then, we like our
little luxuries

--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message , ARW
writes
brass monkey wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article
,
" wrote:

On Sep 14, 1:32 pm, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:31:37 -0700, harry wrote:
Zero I imagine.

A relief at not having to do it again for quite a long time?

Given the option I'd vote for us doing it all again (using the
existing venues) next summer

Nul points for you. It was egregious enough doing it once - a waste
of public resources and an unwarranted interference with the public
highway in a number of places, too.

Blimey, was I the only one who enjoyed it?

No.

Well, as I see it, you can either have a turgid, boring existence where
life has no ups and downs

or you can have a society whose running is punctuated by the occasional,
but non essential high point that gives some people a kick

To list what "could" be done with the money doesn't ringfence it and say
it "would" be used for the alternative possibilities

Look at all the money spent on "art" that could be better spent on
feeding the hungry

A lot of money is "wasted" on non-essentials, but then, we like our
little luxuries

An fellow employee remarked to me once:

"How much cheaper it is to hold a Christmas party with unlimited drink,
than a 2% across the board pay rise".


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Friday, September 14, 2012 5:48:41 PM UTC+1, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:18:47 +0000 (UTC), Jules Richardson wrote:



I enjoyed watching the footy, but then the huge waste of money and

resources didn't impact me as I live in the US :-)



It wasn't actually wasted; it employed thousands of people, directly

and indirectly, for years.

The money simply went back into the economy and save that which may

have went overseas as profits for some European-based contractors, the

bulk of it stayed in the UK.

It's just part of the money-go-round, same as it ever was.

I'm amazed the whingers and moaners can't see that - but then again,

they really are short-sighted ******s. Daily Mail mentality.

The money went in many directions. _Some_ did go into the economy, some was simply wasted. The point is that what did go into the economy could have done so via producing a useful valuable result, rather than pointlessly. Insert here whatever your vision is of what we could have usefully done with 10 or 20 billion pounds. I'd have put some of it into antibiotic research.

Someone else mentioned that people prefer a society with entertainment. This is true. However, the olympics provided no entertainment at all for a large percentage of the population, and for those it did, the same entertainment value could have been had for 1/10th the price. To see the real cost of the entertainment, consider the 1948 olumpics. The rest of the spend was really on other things, largely on pointless ego inflation, ie 'look, we can afford to waste this much.'

With the NHS qualy now at about 20k, 20 billion could have saved a million life years. Do you still think spending that on the olympics was a great choice? Or more the lunacy of politicians' egos?


NT

In article ,
wrote:
The money went in many directions. _Some_ did go into the economy, some
was simply wasted. The point is that what did go into the economy could
have done so via producing a useful valuable result, rather than
pointlessly. Insert here whatever your vision is of what we could have
usefully done with 10 or 20 billion pounds. I'd have put some of it into
antibiotic research.

There's already more than enough money going into drug research. Given the
rewards for success are great anyway. Throwing money at it is a sure way
to waste that money.

--
*Never kick a cow pat on a hot day *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Saturday, September 15, 2012 11:18:27 AM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,

meow2222 wrote:

The money went in many directions. _Some_ did go into the economy, some

was simply wasted. The point is that what did go into the economy could

have done so via producing a useful valuable result, rather than

pointlessly. Insert here whatever your vision is of what we could have

usefully done with 10 or 20 billion pounds. I'd have put some of it into

antibiotic research.



There's already more than enough money going into drug research. Given the

not into antibiotic research, other typs of drugs are getting the investment.

rewards for success are great anyway. Throwing money at it is a sure way

to waste that money.

a relatively cost effective way to save lives in fact


NT