ANGELFIRE1 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Well well well, it would appear that the Olympic Games WILL cost us more than stated. Started at £2.5 billion, but was quickly revised up to £9 Billions. Dear Lord, last figure is now £24 billions, I hate to say I told you so, I'm just surprised it's only £24 Billions. To think some were sold on the idea "The Games will make money" aye, look out a flying pig has just gone by. Phil* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Everything will be forgotten when Disasterous Dave gets his ugly mug plastered across the world via the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Well well well, it would appear that the Olympic Games WILL cost us more than stated. Started at £2.5 billion, but was quickly revised up to £9 Billions. Dear Lord, last figure is now £24 billions, I hate to say I told you so, I'm just surprised it's only £24 Billions. To think some were sold on the idea "The Games will make money" aye, look out a flying pig has just gone by. Phil* ......Source?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted January 26, 2012 Author Share Posted January 26, 2012 ......Source?? I think it was newsnight, or one of the news programmes anyway. Watched it with my own eyes. Although the "news" was no surprise to me. As I used to be a shootist I take great interest in the games shooting sports. FACT. The shooting at the games will cost between 30 and 50 million. 10 million of this figure is the cost of raising to the ground the complex that was built, and making good so it looks like it did before the games. I have written to Tessa Jowell, Boris, Cameron, and LOCOG expressing my complete disgust at the waste of ratepayers money. It all fell on deaf ears. The MOD site at Bisley is just a few miles away, it is allready the national shooting ground. A few million spent there would have done the job, and it would have left a legacy and saved the taxpayer MILLIONS. It was just madness sheer madness to build a new complex at Woolwich, but to then knock it down is just insane. Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mumkin Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Rather a blinkered one sided view of things by Angelfire. Take into account the jobs it has created, the legacy it is going to leave, the money it is generating now and in the future and I think you'll see the polarised picture you're presenting in a completely different light. Here are just some examples http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16708384 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wobblygob Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Rather a blinkered one sided view of things by Angelfire. Take into account the jobs it has created, the legacy it is going to leave, the money it is generating now and in the future and I think you'll see the polarised picture you're presenting in a completely different light. Here are just some examples http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16708384 The Olympics will only benefit London, which is awash with money anyway, it won't benefit the deprived areas of the north in any way. As for jobs, most of them went to asylum seekers rather than local people. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085444/20-000-migrant-workers-register-London-Olympics-jobs--despite-pledge-provide-work-local-people.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 As for jobs, most of them went to asylum seekers Nope, none of them went to asylum seekers. Asylum seekers aren't allowed to get jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wobblygob Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Nope, none of them went to asylum seekers. Asylum seekers aren't allowed to get jobs. Read the link in my last post. They might not be able to work legitimately, but employers are happy to pay them cash in hand so they undercut British workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Read the link in my last post. They might not be able to work legitimately, but employers are happy to pay them cash in hand so they undercut British workers. Once again, nope. Your link does not mention asylum seekers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mumkin Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 The Olympics will only benefit London, which is awash with money anyway, it won't benefit the deprived areas of the north in any way. As for jobs, most of them went to asylum seekers rather than local people. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085444/20-000-migrant-workers-register-London-Olympics-jobs--despite-pledge-provide-work-local-people.html Do you intentionally tell untruths? http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/health/10m_olympic_boost_for_city_1_4123260 http://www.tourism2012games.org/usa-divingteam.aspx http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/hlst/documents/resources/ispal/RC87.pdf Plus much of the steelwork was made in Sheffield and North England, building construction employed people from all over Britain, Asphalters from Sheffield have been heavily involved. I believe the seats for the stadium were made in Rotherham. But hey, don't let the truth spoil a good debate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.