Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

From BBC News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6452865.stm

Interesting bit:
BBC London's political editor Tim Donovan said Mr Livingstone may raid
Transport for London reserves and use a £200m loan he has taken out
for transport improvements in east London to help find the £300m.

So it looks like there could be cuts in transport for the Olympics.
What do you think will be cut?
IMHO one of the DLR projects (replacement of the North London Line or
3 cars upgrade). Or may be even some other TfL project outside East
London :-S

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

On 15 Mar, 17:00, "alex_t" wrote:
From BBC News:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6452865.stm

Interesting bit:
BBC London's political editor Tim Donovan said Mr Livingstone may raid
Transport for London reserves and use a £200m loan he has taken out
for transport improvements in east London to help find the £300m.

So it looks like there could be cuts in transport for the Olympics.
What do you think will be cut?
IMHO one of the DLR projects (replacement of the North London Line or
3 cars upgrade). Or may be even some other TfL project outside East
London :-S


That's an interesting story, though I'd to know more information
before forming an opinion - my grasp on TfL's finances and the cost of
upcoming projects is pretty loose at the best of times, so it's
difficult to able to put that sum in perspective with regards the
wider picture.

However I'm pretty sure that the DLR is committed to both the three
car upgrade project and the Stratford International Extension project
(i.e. the NLL takeover), not least because both are pretty critical
with regards to the Olympics and the associated regeneration.

Perhaps potential future DLR extensions further east, or the East
London Transit might be put on the back burner. Or the West London
Tram - IMO it's would be a good thing, but the burghers of Ealing seem
distinctly mixed in their opinions of it, so perhaps that'll be nixed
(at least for now).

The problem with the budget for the games is that, as far as I can
make out, no-one really thought we'd win it so the original bid wasn't
realistic. As a born and bred Londoner I think it's absolutely great
that it's coming to London, and it seems that the various
announcements today regarding decisions on the funding of the games
should mean that the resulting turbulence is by and large dealt with
now rather than later.

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

In message ,
writes

I am not prepared to put up with any extra outgoings from my wallet or
any inconvenience caused by them .

Its probable that a certain amount of tourist income will be generated,
but experience shows that it usually falls well short of the estimates
(remember those thousands of empty seats in the broadcasts from
Athens?).

I've never been wholly persuaded by the "regeneration" arguments. Of
course, Barcelona is always rightly quoted as the classic example - but
there the Olympics opened-up a seafront that was hitherto an industrial
wasteland and revitalised old attractions on the beautiful Montjuic
site. East London may need regeneration, but rest assured that millions
of tourists won't be flocking to Stratford once the games have ended.

if the frogs want em let em have em I say

They never did. I was in Paris just before the Olympic bid, and there
was absolutely minimal publicity or enthusiasm. A couple of hotel owners
I spoke to actually said that the bid would ruin the Parisian economy
and totally distort their lucrative tourist income. One of them did have
the courtesy to thank me that London's mistake would relieve them of
decades of debt (and that was well before London's escalating costs were
revealed).

The Olympics is a bit like going to the Opera - its great if someone
else is paying.

--
Paul Terry

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

In message . com,
Mizter T writes

The problem with the budget for the games is that, as far as I can make
out, no-one really thought we'd win it so the original bid wasn't
realistic. As a born and bred Londoner I think it's absolutely great
that it's coming to London, and it seems that the various announcements
today regarding decisions on the funding of the games should mean that
the resulting turbulence is by and large dealt with now rather than later.

Agreed... I'm with you brother Mitzer ;)
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

Its probable that a certain amount of tourist income will be generated,
but experience shows that it usually falls well short of the estimates
(remember those thousands of empty seats in the broadcasts from
Athens?).

There are many other ways that the money will be returned - one of the
major is cost of broadcast rights. Plus selling the new flats in
Olympic village, etc.

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

As a born and bred Londoner I think it's absolutely great
that it's coming to London, and it seems that the various
announcements today regarding decisions on the funding of the games
should mean that the resulting turbulence is by and large dealt with
now rather than later.

Well, I live in London only for a year (and 15 days), but I totally
support the Olympics ;-)
Besides, something *must* be done with local wastelands...

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

On 15 Mar, 21:25, "alex_t" wrote:
As a born and bred Londoner I think it's absolutely great
that it's coming to London, and it seems that the various
announcements today regarding decisions on the funding of the games
should mean that the resulting turbulence is by and large dealt with
now rather than later.

Well, I live in London only for a year (and 15 days), but I totally
support the Olympics ;-)
Besides, something *must* be done with local wastelands...


Good stuff. Of course I didn't mean to imply that only born and bred
Londoners can support the Olympics, or indeed that only those who are
born and bred are Londoners!

But when does a Londoner become a Londoner is a long conversation,
best enjoyed over a pint of London Pride in a solid London public
hostelry... or some other refreshment that's to your taste in an
establishment of your choosing (with a shisha in a Little Lebanon cafe
perhaps)... some have said that being a Londoner comes as a sudden
flash of revelation whilst out walking along the Thames or staring out
over the sweeping skyline from an elevated vantage point... this post
is creeping off topic so I'll finish it there!

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

On 15 Mar 2007 10:00:48 -0700, "alex_t"
wrote:

From BBC News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6452865.stm

Interesting bit:
BBC London's political editor Tim Donovan said Mr Livingstone may raid
Transport for London reserves and use a £200m loan he has taken out
for transport improvements in east London to help find the £300m.

I think you'll find he won't be able to do that without there being
severe consequences. The Treasury would leap on any misuse of the
specially granted powers to raise open market finance - they're just
looking for any excuse to reign in any perceived loss of their much
vaunted control.

The other consequence is that TfL's credit rating would be damaged if
reserves were raided and also if money raised from bonds for transport
were used to pay for the Olympics. What return would TfL earn from
funding the Olympics by stealth that would give an income stream to pay
those who have taken out "TfL bonds"?

The further effect is that any future bond offer would be more expensive
due to a poor credit rating and less likely to be taken up if there was
uncertainty.

Thus far TfL's financial position and controls has been sufficiently
good to make the extra financing effective and attractive. I really
cannot see the Mayor wishing to jeopardise such an important additional
power that he has gained after much fighting with Central government.

So it looks like there could be cuts in transport for the Olympics.
What do you think will be cut?
IMHO one of the DLR projects (replacement of the North London Line or
3 cars upgrade). Or may be even some other TfL project outside East
London :-S

None of them IMO.

DLR is a huge success story and much of the work is committed
contractually or about to be so. Ken needs every success he can get his
hands on. Overground is a hugely important scheme for TfL and the Mayor
- politically it is absolutely vital for Ken and also the Labour Party.
It simply will not be stopped given all the work that has been done.
Phase 2 might get delayed but I am sceptical about that because if
Overground is shown to work well in the early stages then the clamour
for a full "circle" will be huge.

The only scheme that is likely to go is East London Transit and that's
simply because Barking council won't allow it to run through the town
centre. Therefore there will probably just be a slightly improved route
369 instead. The savings are also small in the greater scheme of
things.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

Paul Terry wrote:
In message ,
writes

I am not prepared to put up with any extra outgoings from my
wallet or any inconvenience caused by them .

Its probable that a certain amount of tourist income will be
generated, but experience shows that it usually falls well short of
the estimates (remember those thousands of empty seats in the
broadcasts from Athens?).

I've never been wholly persuaded by the "regeneration" arguments. Of
course, Barcelona is always rightly quoted as the classic example -
but there the Olympics opened-up a seafront that was hitherto an
industrial wasteland and revitalised old attractions on the
beautiful Montjuic site. East London may need regeneration, but
rest assured that millions of tourists won't be flocking to
Stratford once the games have ended.
if the frogs want em let em have em I say

They never did. I was in Paris just before the Olympic bid, and
there was absolutely minimal publicity or enthusiasm. A couple of
hotel owners I spoke to actually said that the bid would ruin the
Parisian economy and totally distort their lucrative tourist
income. One of them did have the courtesy to thank me that London's
mistake would relieve them of decades of debt (and that was well
before London's escalating costs were revealed).

But they *are* going ahead with regeneration of the area they would have
used for the Olympics. The plans were announced in the press when I was
last in Paris.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

And what may I ask are these things going to do for the poor and
homeless of London .

Nothing*.
Just as they would get nothing if those money wouldn't be spent for
the Olympics.

* - well, may be nicer landscapes

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:18:15 +0000, wrote:

On 15 Mar 2007 14:17:59 -0700, "alex_t"
wrote:


Its probable that a certain amount of tourist income will be generated,
but experience shows that it usually falls well short of the estimates
(remember those thousands of empty seats in the broadcasts from
Athens?).

There are many other ways that the money will be returned - one of the
major is cost of broadcast rights. Plus selling the new flats in
Olympic village, etc.
And what may I ask are these things going to do for the poor and
homeless of London .

They will generate a great deal more homeless and poor, if history is any guide.

Salt Lake City promised 2500 units of low-cost houing; only 150 were delivered,
and prices for residential hotels increased 300%. The year before the Sydney
Olympics, tenant evictions increased by 400%. In Atlanta, Project Homeward
Bound gave the homeless a one-way ticket out of town before the Olympics began.
In Calgary, none of the promised low-cost housing units were delivered, only a
few university dorms. (Not Olympic-related, but Habitat 67, a low cost housing
project for the 1967 World Fail in Montreal, became luxury condominiums.)

And how will London's £600 million security budget be spent? In racist
repressions, most likely. In Los Angeles, 1984, the black communities
surrounding the olympic sites were cordoned off and police required IDs from
everyone entering or leaving the areas. Similar arrangements for Atlanta, 1996.
Muslims in Athens, 2004, were subjected to increased surveillance in their
mosques, and mass document checks. Amnesty International said "security for the
2004 Olympics is used in Greece as a pretext to systematically break
international treaties on the right to refugees". Laws were passed in Sydney to
allow increased surveillance, search and seizure, and military involvement in
law enforcement, just for the Olympics, but, surprise!, they are still in force.

I lived in Montreal for the 1976 Olympics - great party, but the bill was only
finally paid off in 2002. I lived in Calgary for the 1988 Olympics - great
party but a $910 million debt, and no measurable long-term economic benefit.
Sydney was proud to host a "self-financing" Olympics in 2000 but still got
burdened with a $2.3 billion debt.

And now London's TfL budget is being raided to finance construction costs, but
they also have to deliver better public transportation for the games? WTF?

I can see the PR spin now -- "Complaints have been raised that cash fares are
far in excess of Oyster fares. To make the system fairer for everyone, Oyster
fares, as of next week, will rise to the level of cash fares, which are also
going up by an amount only modestly higher than inflation. This will help make
the Olympic experience the best that it can be for residents and tourists alike.
This is a temporary measure, and will last only as long as we are paying off the
Olympic debt."

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

They will generate a great deal more homeless and poor, if history is any guide.

Rents in London are already extremely high - noone really poor cannot
afford them already. The only potentially damaging change would be
rise of the council tax - but so far it was promised that it won't
increase for the Olympics.


Salt Lake City promised 2500 units of low-cost houing; only 150 were delivered,
and prices for residential hotels increased 300%. The year before the Sydney
Olympics, tenant evictions increased by 400%. In Atlanta, Project Homeward
Bound gave the homeless a one-way ticket out of town before the Olympics began.
In Calgary, none of the promised low-cost housing units were delivered, only a
few university dorms.

All those places had quite low housing prices to start with.


Not Olympic-related, but Habitat 67, a low cost housing
project for the 1967 World Fail in Montreal, became luxury condominiums.

It was planned as "affordable" housing, not "cheap" housing. And it
was planned to be several sizes of what was originally build - thus
inflating the prices.


And how will London's £600 million security budget be spent? In racist
repressions, most likely.

Paranoid much?
Never gonna happen.


Laws were passed in Sydney to
allow increased surveillance, search and seizure, and military involvement in
law enforcement, just for the Olympics, but, surprise!, they are still in force.

Don't worry, UK is already surveillance society - nothing to change
here.


I lived in Montreal for the 1976 Olympics - great party, but the bill was only
finally paid off in 2002.

Yes, that were the most expensive Olympics in history, coupled with
very bad management - not typical for the most other Olympics.


I lived in Calgary for the 1988 Olympics - great
party but a $910 million debt, and no measurable long-term economic benefit.

Wrong! It turned a profit of around $150 million + significant
regeneration of the city.


Sydney was proud to host a "self-financing" Olympics in 2000 but still got
burdened with a $2.3 billion debt.

Pure speculation.
Did you read article by Maryann Abbs and really believed it?


And now London's TfL budget is being raided to finance construction costs, but
they also have to deliver better public transportation for the games? WTF?

Well, that was only speculation of journalist. The BBC one.

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

"Marc Brett" wrote in message
...

And now London's TfL budget is being raided to finance construction costs,
but
they also have to deliver better public transportation for the games?
WTF?


Of course, what may actually happen is that the ODA will directly fund
transport improvements, like the £104m announced today for Stratford
Regional:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6457359.stm

Paul

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:25:21PM -0700, alex_t wrote:

Well, I live in London only for a year (and 15 days), but I totally
support the Olympics ;-)

Then may I politely suggest that if you think they're such a great idea
you pay for them? I certainly don't want to.

Until you and like-minded people do that, I will vote for *any* political
party that promises to cancel the games.

--
David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age

What profiteth a man, if he win a flame war, yet lose his cool?

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

Then may I politely suggest that if you think they're such a great idea
you pay for them? I certainly don't want to.

Well, amazing logic.
So... can I get a refund of all my National Insurance contributions?
(as a migrant on work permit I cannot get any benefits, so why should
I pay NI?) Also I'd like to get some of my taxes back, especially the
part spent on roads (as I don't have a car), trains (as I don't use
them), buses (don't use 'em either), child support benefits (as I
don't have a family).

And back in the real work - I live in London and pay my council tax in
full, so I guess I already pay for the Olympics in some way. I also
suffer from constant construction work - as I live on the border of
the Olympic park site.


Until you and like-minded people do that, I will vote for *any* political
party that promises to cancel the games.

It is certainly not up to me to decide whether Olympics should be in
London (not to mention that I can't vote).

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

You know up here in Lancashire we got all this claptrap about some
big games and athletics fiasco that was being held in Manchester maybe
a couple of years or so ago ,was it the commonwealth games or
something ? . Oh yes the fiasco was going to do wonders for the city
of Manchester and would place no burden on the tax payers of
Manchester in the event the fiasco did bugger all for Manchester
except cause a lot of traffic congestion cost a mint in police
resources and also put up the council tax for the people of Greater
Manchester and two of the built venues are now unoccupied and dropping
to pieces .

Commonwealth games is minor event, which is not known outside
Commonwealth (and I suspect not very popular inside Commonwealth too).
Olympics are one of the most well known sport events with genuine
interest worldwide.


WHY ?????? .

Because they stink!

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:37:13 +0000, David Cantrell
wrote:

Until you and like-minded people do that, I will vote for *any* political
party that promises to cancel the games.

You will vote for a political party that promises to do something
that, legally, it can't?

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

To you and all people like you I have only one thing to say
if you do not like the way you are treated in this country because no
one asked you to come here .

Please, elaborate, who exactly do you include in category of "people
like me"?

And in case if you didn't get my point from the original message - I
was making a joke in response to David Cantrell's message. I find his
suggestion to me quite stupid, since nobody has ultimate control over
spending of their tax contributions (and in case if I still need to
spell this out - I am paying all taxes, and not complaining).

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

Although I may not feel any direct attack on my wallet due to the
games I feel sure this poxy government will invent some devious scheme
to get more cash out of us all to help with the funding of the fiasco.

Hear hear!

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

Well known for causing extra financial commitments for the host
country the UK cannot afford to buy the games so it shouldn't.
End of story.

Well, actually - to be completely fair I'm slowly drifting to the same
point of view:

1. The games could be managed much better (reusing existing venues,
spreading venues around the country, etc).
2. There could be much more commercial sponsorship (as far as I
remember last Olympics in the US were finances without any tax-payers
money used). One could imagine banks with their super-profits
participating in that.
3. And of course ability of New Labour to mess everything hardly adds
any optimism.

But still - Olympics are fun and interesting event. I was actually
conceived during 1980 Olympics in Moscow ;-D

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

alex_t wrote:
Well known for causing extra financial commitments for the host
country the UK cannot afford to buy the games so it shouldn't.
End of story.

Well, actually - to be completely fair I'm slowly drifting to the
same point of view:

1. The games could be managed much better (reusing existing venues,
spreading venues around the country, etc).
2. There could be much more commercial sponsorship (as far as I
remember last Olympics in the US were finances without any
tax-payers money used). One could imagine banks with their
super-profits participating in that.
3. And of course ability of New Labour to mess everything hardly
adds any optimism.

But still - Olympics are fun and interesting event. I was actually
conceived during 1980 Olympics in Moscow ;-D

For some reason this conjures up in my mind the image of a couple in
Cricklewood. "Nothing on the telly except the bloody Olympics from
Moscow", and they retire upstairs for something "fun and interesting"
....
;-)

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 07:40:04 +0000, Marc Brett
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:18:15 +0000, wrote:

On 15 Mar 2007 14:17:59 -0700, "alex_t"
wrote:


Its probable that a certain amount of tourist income will be generated,
but experience shows that it usually falls well short of the estimates
(remember those thousands of empty seats in the broadcasts from
Athens?).

There are many other ways that the money will be returned - one of the
major is cost of broadcast rights. Plus selling the new flats in
Olympic village, etc.
And what may I ask are these things going to do for the poor and
homeless of London .

They will generate a great deal more homeless and poor, if history is any guide.

Salt Lake City promised 2500 units of low-cost houing; only 150 were delivered,
and prices for residential hotels increased 300%. The year before the Sydney
Olympics, tenant evictions increased by 400%. In Atlanta, Project Homeward
Bound gave the homeless a one-way ticket out of town before the Olympics began.
In Calgary, none of the promised low-cost housing units were delivered, only a
few university dorms. (Not Olympic-related, but Habitat 67, a low cost housing
project for the 1967 World Fail in Montreal, became luxury condominiums.)

Being a bit blunt I doubt we would be as crass as North America / Canada
in how we deal with any similar issues.

And how will London's £600 million security budget be spent? In racist
repressions, most likely. In Los Angeles, 1984, the black communities
surrounding the olympic sites were cordoned off and police required IDs from
everyone entering or leaving the areas. Similar arrangements for Atlanta, 1996.
Muslims in Athens, 2004, were subjected to increased surveillance in their
mosques, and mass document checks. Amnesty International said "security for the
2004 Olympics is used in Greece as a pretext to systematically break
international treaties on the right to refugees". Laws were passed in Sydney to
allow increased surveillance, search and seizure, and military involvement in
law enforcement, just for the Olympics, but, surprise!, they are still in force.

I expect we've already got all the repressive legislation already
courtesy of having people blow themselves up on our Tube network. You
cannot ignore the facts that the Olympics are a huge and attractive
target for terrorists and also that London and the UK are also a target.
While I take the point about repression and would be against racist and
disproportionate action we still have to recognise that money has to be
spent to control, mitigate or remove the risk of such attacks.

I lived in Montreal for the 1976 Olympics - great party, but the bill was only
finally paid off in 2002. I lived in Calgary for the 1988 Olympics - great
party but a $910 million debt, and no measurable long-term economic benefit.
Sydney was proud to host a "self-financing" Olympics in 2000 but still got
burdened with a $2.3 billion debt.

I don't doubt there will be a debt post the Olympics but I expect it
will take less time to pay off than for a number of other cities given
the strength of London's economy and its projected growth well beyond
2012. Assuming Ken is still around as Mayor I think the requirement to
secure proper regeneration will be followed through. There are other
important factors like CTRL at Stratford and the effect of Docklands and
Thames Gateway expansion / regeneration that mean that regeneration at
the Olympic sites are more likely to succeed than other cities. I
recognise there is a risk that it may not be so we'll have to wait and
see and one of us can say to other "I told you so".

And now London's TfL budget is being raided to finance construction costs, but
they also have to deliver better public transportation for the games? WTF?

Complete and utter speculation by journalists. For reasons I have
outlined elsewhere in the thread there are too many risks to TfL's
continued capital funding for people to play "fast and loose" with TfL's
budgets and reserves.

I can see the PR spin now -- "Complaints have been raised that cash fares are
far in excess of Oyster fares. To make the system fairer for everyone, Oyster
fares, as of next week, will rise to the level of cash fares, which are also
going up by an amount only modestly higher than inflation. This will help make
the Olympic experience the best that it can be for residents and tourists alike.
This is a temporary measure, and will last only as long as we are paying off the
Olympic debt."

The Mayor has said the exact opposite of this both prior to and after
the £9bn cost announcement. The Mayor would also be unable to weather
the political storm that would follow if he was mad enough to take such
a step. Ken is many things but politically stupid / suicidal he is not.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:32:54 +0000, wrote:

On 15 Mar 2007 14:25:21 -0700, "alex_t"
wrote:


As a born and bred Londoner I think it's absolutely great
that it's coming to London, and it seems that the various
announcements today regarding decisions on the funding of the games
should mean that the resulting turbulence is by and large dealt with
now rather than later.

Well, I live in London only for a year (and 15 days), but I totally
support the Olympics ;-)
Put you money where your mouth is then and get you wallet out then and
go and see Coe .
You know up here in Lancashire we got all this claptrap about some
big games and athletics fiasco that was being held in Manchester maybe
a couple of years or so ago ,was it the commonwealth games or
something ? . Oh yes the fiasco was going to do wonders for the city
of Manchester and would place no burden on the tax payers of
Manchester in the event the fiasco did bugger all for Manchester
except cause a lot of traffic congestion cost a mint in police
resources and also put up the council tax for the people of Greater
Manchester and two of the built venues are now unoccupied and dropping
to pieces .
Besides, something *must* be done with local wastelands...
WHY ?????? .
We have wastelands in my city always have had far back has I can
remember oh yes the town council ( before it got city status ) did has
you say did something with them they built two spanking new large
housing estates on them and filled the houses with scumbags who
totally wrecked most of the housing stock within ten years now the
estates are full of drug takers and pushers .

Do you freelance as the part time editor of the Daily Mail and Sunday
Express? You appear to hold the same abhorrent views of our country,
society and residents as those erstwhile journals.

Is it really necessary to be making reference to scumbags in some
Northern City on a group about transport in London? Sure we go off topic
at times but I am failing to see the relevance of your rantings about
the Olympics.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:15:14 +0000, wrote:

On 16 Mar 2007 05:29:58 -0700, "alex_t"
wrote:


So... can I get a refund of all my National Insurance contributions?
(as a migrant on work permit I cannot get any benefits, so why should
I pay NI?) Also I'd like to get some of my taxes back, especially the
part spent on roads (as I don't have a car), trains (as I don't use
them), buses (don't use 'em either), child support benefits (as I
don't have a family).

To you and all people like you I have only one thing to say
if you do not like the way you are treated in this country because no
one asked you to come here .

I have one thing to say to you - such remarks are not relevant or
appropriate to the subject matter of this group. There is no need
whatsoever for such comments - especially to people who are showing an
interest in London and participating in the group.

And while we are an unmoderated group you can obviously choose to ignore
my comments but equally I am entitled to make such comment as I choose.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

In article ,
wrote:

To you and all people like you I have only one thing to say
if you do not like the way you are treated in this country because no
one asked you to come here .

What - purely theoretically speaking of course - would you say to those
of us whose mothers were resident in the UK at our birth, but who still
disagree with paying for the Big O's ?

I just hope they really do manage to bring more into the country than
they are costing, in which case we will indeed have a net national win.
But we won't know until afterwards.

Nick, uncharacteristically lenient in the use of the K key tonight
--
http://www.leverton.org/blosxom ... So express yourself

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

For some reason this conjures up in my mind the image of a couple in
Cricklewood. "Nothing on the telly except the bloody Olympics from
Moscow", and they retire upstairs for something "fun and interesting"
...
;-)

LOL

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

Re using exiting venues yes but spreading around the country no would
you wish a cancer to be spread around your body eating away all your
flesh no course you wouldn't and of course do what surgeons do and cut
the damn thing out where ever possible .

Cancer? Come on! It is just a sport event.


Please yourself :))))))) .

:)

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

And to reiterate once again - my original message was a not-so-good
attempt at sarcasm
I guess I should react less to trolls :-/

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

None of them IMO.

I hope that you're right.

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 01:25:15PM +0000, James Farrar wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:37:13 +0000, David Cantrell
wrote:
Until you and like-minded people do that, I will vote for *any* political
party that promises to cancel the games.
You will vote for a political party that promises to do something
that, legally, it can't?

Why can't it?

--
David Cantrell | A machine for turning tea into grumpiness

What is the difference between hearing aliens through the
fillings in your teeth and hearing Jesus in your heart?

Mayor says no tax rise for Games
 

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:56:19 +0000, David Cantrell
wrote:

On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 01:25:15PM +0000, James Farrar wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:37:13 +0000, David Cantrell
wrote:
Until you and like-minded people do that, I will vote for *any* political
party that promises to cancel the games.
You will vote for a political party that promises to do something
that, legally, it can't?

Why can't it?

Because LOCOG has signed a contract with the IOC.