Mizter T wrote:


On Mar 15, 5:51*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 16:17:03
on Thu, 15 Mar 2012, Bruce remarked:

Oh yes, it would really have been worth spending more £ billions just
to ensure that those Olympics will run smoothly for a couple of weeks.

Ask again after the Olympics.

I see increasing panic about the transport arrangements. For example the
wifi announcement today which was hilariously conflated with talk of
travel "hotspots" where they think there's going to be half-hour queues
to get on a train, even if they can get spectators to stagger their
journeys. (And make regular travellers stay at home, of course).

I think people who are wanting to see panic about it - e.g. yourself -
are seeing just that.


If the Olympics grind to a halt because of transport problems I cannot
honestly say that I would expect to lose a moment's sleep.

Spending has already exceeded the original budget by five times, with
an expected overall outturn cost of ten times more than what was
promised when the UK lost the contest and unfortunately had to stage
the event. That's £28 billion against the original estimate of a mere
£2.8 billion.

It is only now being admitted, and reluctantly, that there was plenty
of data from previous Olympics showing that the claimed spin-off
benefits, such as increased tourism, haven't occurred in other
countries that hosted the event. So there aren't any net benefits to
the UK, just an obscenely large bill for two weeks of grossly overpaid
professional athletes prancing around in pretty colours.

If all this gets chewed up and ruined by a few transport problems, I
really could not care less.