Ar wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:35:40 -0700, Adrian wrote:

A much more common mistake is the misuse of the word "prestigious".

To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.

The London 2012 Olympics will cost £18bn, is that essential? Is that any
less bankrupting then Crossrail?

An utter waste of money.


Red Ken Livingstone lives in another planet, or should I say, inside a
bottle of Whisky?!

Many wish he did.

In message , at 16:36:51 on
Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Grumpy Old Man
remarked:
The London 2012 Olympics will cost £18bn, is that essential?

Is it even correct? The bill for the infrastructure is £4.8bn

Is that any
less bankrupting then Crossrail?

An utter waste of money.

And there's an estimated £6Bn benefit, so I'm not as pessimistic as you
are.
--
Roland Perry

On 25 Mar, 16:59, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 16:36:51 on
Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Grumpy Old Man
remarked:

The London 2012 Olympics will cost £18bn, is that essential?

Is it even correct? The bill for the infrastructure is £4.8bn

The total cost to the public purse is currently estimated at £9.325bn.

Source- DCMS December 2007 press release:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_...et_10dec07.htm
or via http://tinyurl.com/3bp5dm


Is that any
less bankrupting then Crossrail?

An utter waste of money.

And there's an estimated £6Bn benefit, so I'm not as pessimistic as you
are.


Depends upon how you measure the various benefits of course, and the
difficulty of quantifying them in monetary terms.

I remain a supporter of the 2012 Games, I think it'll do a lot of good
in a great many different ways.

In message
, at
10:47:51 on Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mizter T remarked:

The London 2012 Olympics will cost £18bn, is that essential?

Is it even correct? The bill for the infrastructure is £4.8bn

The total cost to the public purse is currently estimated at £9.325bn.

Of which 4.8bn is for the infrastructure, and only 6Bn is directly
attributable to the ODA. So where does the £18Bn come from??

Source- DCMS December 2007 press release:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_...archive_2007/d
cms_TJ-odabaselinebudget_10dec07.htm
or via http://tinyurl.com/3bp5dm


Is that any
less bankrupting then Crossrail?

An utter waste of money.

And there's an estimated £6Bn benefit, so I'm not as pessimistic as you
are.

Depends upon how you measure the various benefits of course, and the
difficulty of quantifying them in monetary terms.

They aren't going to bulldoze the stadiums and village, or undo the
public transport improvements. And some money will come from ticket
sales and TV rights, and the slightly less quantifiable "tourism"
aspect.

I remain a supporter of the 2012 Games, I think it'll do a lot of good
in a great many different ways.

I'm disappointed they aren't doing the rowing in Nottingham - I could
have walked to the venue!
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Roland Perry wrote:

In message
, at
10:47:51 on Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mizter T remarked:

I remain a supporter of the 2012 Games, I think it'll do a lot of good
in a great many different ways.

I'm disappointed they aren't doing the rowing in Nottingham - I could have
walked to the venue!

Yeah, well Nottingham didn't win the Olympic competition, did it, London
did!

As a compromise, i propose the rowing be held ing Mottingham. They can do
it on the lake in the nature reserve:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl...669&t=k &z=17

It'll be a pretty tactical course, that.

tom

--
I believe there is no philosophical high-road in science, with
epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle and find our way by
trial and error, building our road behind us as we proceed. -- Max Born

In message , at
23:23:42 on Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Tom Anderson
remarked:
I remain a supporter of the 2012 Games, I think it'll do a lot of good
in a great many different ways.

I'm disappointed they aren't doing the rowing in Nottingham - I could
have walked to the venue!

Yeah, well Nottingham didn't win the Olympic competition, did it,
London did!

Neither did Weymouth, but that's where the sailing is going to be.

Seems odd to decide to build a brand new rowing lake in the congested
London suburbs when we already have an Olympic sized one (and the
National Centre) at Nottingham.
--
Roland Perry

In message , Roland Perry
writes

Seems odd to decide to build a brand new rowing lake in the congested
London suburbs when we already have an Olympic sized one (and the
National Centre) at Nottingham.

Its hardly brand new - Eton's rowing lake opened some years ago and
hosted the 2006 World Rowing Championships, as I recall.
--
Paul Terry

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 23:23:42 on
Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Tom Anderson remarked:

I remain a supporter of the 2012 Games, I think it'll do a lot of good
in a great many different ways.

I'm disappointed they aren't doing the rowing in Nottingham - I could have
walked to the venue!

Yeah, well Nottingham didn't win the Olympic competition, did it, London
did!

Neither did Weymouth, but that's where the sailing is going to be.

Yes, and i'm still annoyed about that. What exactly is wrong with the
Thames estuary, i ask?

Apart from the ships.

tom

--
GOLDIE LOOKIN' CHAIN [...] will ultimately make all other forms of music
both redundant and unnecessary -- NTK

Roland Perry wrote
I'm disappointed they aren't doing the rowing in Nottingham - I could
have walked to the venue!

I was under the impression that the Row course at Holme Point(?) was
not up to standard and a NEW facility needed to be brought into
use.
I think its to do with the average wind speed over the course being in
the main more than that allowed.
I could be talking a load of old ******
--
dave hill

In message , at 16:09:41 on
Wed, 26 Mar 2008, dave hill remarked:
I'm disappointed they aren't doing the rowing in Nottingham - I could
have walked to the venue!

I was under the impression that the Row course at Holme Point(?) was
not up to standard and a NEW facility needed to be brought into
use.

MRD applies.
--
Roland Perry