At last - the ’stop the bid’ website (against the London 2012 Olympic bid)
Thanks be to NTK: this week’s issue points to http://www.hackthebid.org.
As NTK tells it, this is
a new site aiming to prevent perhaps similar white elephant wastes of public money, giving everyone the opportunity to voice why they might not want London to host the 2012 Olympics, and so to provide some balance to the current, dubiously-representational “Text LONDON to 802012″ poster campaign. It’s hoped that the site will also become a hub for anti-Olympic campaigning of all kinds, possibly discussing the appropriate typeface and font size for printing stickers that could transform the first two letters of “Back The Bid” posters to “Ha” or “Fu” - that sort of thing.
Damn well gets my vote. Look, I don’t want London put into hock and the lives of millions of ordinary people upset for a reality TV event involving celebrities and micro-celebrities and non-celebrities who may or may not have taken drugs, in order eventually to provide a load of training facilities that will be in the wrong part of the country for the majority of athletes, and which will be in areas too expensive for those athletes to live near enough to use, given the absurd house prices and rents in the capital and the pittance that athletes get if they’re not vastly successful (in which case they noodle off to foreign parts to train in more appropriate weather).
I mean, isn’t this what Big Brother is meant to do so much more efficiently by locking them in a house in the East End?
- These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
- Save Hackney Marshes! London must not get the Olympics! (5 January 2005; score: 77.2%)
- Ever wondered why you don't see any ads against the Olympics? (17 June 2005; score: 71.7%)
- London wins Olympics: and now interviewers start saying "Yes, but.." (6 July 2005; score: 70.75%)
![[Valid RSS]](wp-includes/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
January 24th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
You said:
“training facilities that will be in the wrong part of the country for the majority of athletes”
Are southerners to effete to be sportsmen and women, then? I’m sure that last time I looked, there were at least 20 million people living in the south east of England, with about 8 million of those living in London. Some of those, surely, are good enough to deserve world class facilities.
“will be in areas too expensive for those athletes to live near enough to use, given the absurd house prices and rents in the capital”
Yeah, house prices and rent are silly in London (shock, horror) as they are in many parts of the county. But your implication here seems to be that London should only be a place for the rich. Do you think that all the working class people have moved out of the capital?
I live right by the proposed site for the games, and I have *everything* crossed (yes, even that) that we win the bid. Not only because the Olympics and Paralympics will be a wonderful month of sport and spectacle and a chance to show the world that the East End is more than jellied eels, but also because they will give a very poor part of London much needed investment.
January 24th, 2005 at 8:51 pm
Yes, some of the people living in London deserve top-class facilities; but why have them over at one particular place, where (statistically) half will have to travel across the capital to reach them?
I’d wager that more potential Olympic athletes live outside London than inside it. So, the choices (if this happens, and becomes a “national” training centre) are: (1) move to London to get top training (2) go somewhere else.
House prices and rents are higher in London than any other city, on average. Wouldn’t the Olympic bid push them up? Which would make it harder for potential athletes to live in the city where they’d then need to be to train for their sport?
Mat, my argument isn’t that London should only be for the rich; it’s exactly the opposite; I think that the money should be spent improving the state of Underground and rail services, the buses, the buildings, the public facilities and services that the capital relies on. The Olympic bid doesn’t focus on that; it’s about a sports event. Don’t forget that.
January 24th, 2005 at 10:05 pm
The IOC is widely acknowledged as a corrupt and bribeable organisation, and from the massive loss-making experience of all recent hosts to the games (except Los Angeles… where big business can clearly make money out of *anything*), it seems that the olympics is not actually about sport at all, but about making a big noisy flashy distraction that will make people fork out a *huge massive unbelieveable* amount of money, that gets swallowed up by big business and corrupt politicians.
We say no to the olympics in London, no to the glass and steel ‘vision’ of east london for the bankers, and no to concreting over hackney march for a coach park!
Hack The Bid.
January 25th, 2005 at 4:52 pm
hack the bid said:
“The IOC is widely acknowledged as a corrupt and bribeable organisation”
Gosh. Shock horror! So are lots of other organisations, government and corporations. Should we stop dealing with them, too? Should we not work with Thailand to help provide tsunami relief because their government is alleged to be involved with corruption and much worse besides? Should we leave the UN and EU for the same reasons?
No. There is a real benefit that can be gained by the people of the east end, and, for that matter, for the whole of London and country at large, if we win the bid. If we have a lot to gain from courting the IOC, even if they’ve had a very shady past, why shouldn’t we?
“and from the massive loss-making experience of all recent hosts to the games (except Los Angeles… where big business can clearly make money out of *anything*)”
Ah, so you’re all arch-capitalists then. It’s only worth doing the olympics if we turn a profit, is that what you’re saying?
Anyway, I suspect that your claim that Los Angeles was the only games to show a profit is highly contestable.
“We say no to the olympics in London, no to the glass and steel ‘vision’ of east london for the bankers, and no to concreting over hackney march for a coach park!”
The loss of the marshes would be a real shame, but I think the new facilities that will be put in place will more than make up for it.
It’s very rare for the banks and corporations in the city to put their hands in their pockets to help the people at the other end of the Whitechapel Road. Yes, they plan to get lots of publicity and contracts in return, but I certainly the long term gains will be great for London and Londoners.
January 25th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
Charles says:
“Mat, my argument isn’t that London should only be for the rich; it’s exactly the opposite; I think that the money should be spent improving the state of Underground and rail services, the buses, the buildings, the public facilities and services that the capital relies on. The Olympic bid doesn’t focus on that; it’s about a sports event. Don’t forget that.”
But the olympic bid is the catalyst that will allow the GLA to get the funding for this stuff. Do you really think that Crossrail and the like will be *more* likely if we lose the bid?
Anyhoo, you’ve got a great blog here, even if I strongly disagree with you on this :)
February 16th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
We have a recent history of ridiculous decisions regarding large scale events and structures. ‘THE DOME’. I say no more. ‘THE RIVER OF FIRE’??? What about wembley? Which as a national stadium should have been built in Birmingham.Even the privatisation of, well, everything. (Especially the railways) We should accept that we can not do this properly. It will be a debarcle for all involved and for the british people. The only group who will benefit will be the tiny group of investors and capitalists who will ensure that they take a lot of money for very little. Why are people so stupidly buying into what is a blatant disaster. Why should all Londoners and everyone else for that matter get taxed to regenerate a small area of a large country in this manner? The amount wasted on the bid already could have significantly improved many aspects of London and its boroughs. In terms of corruption the IOC is one of the world leaders. If you want to give money to the Tsunami relief give it to Oxfam, if you want a fair bank go to the Co-Op and if you want a good olympics go back to Sydney. Did i mention the wobbly bridge……
June 6th, 2005 at 11:36 am
I think some of the pro Olympics are either trolls or just ignorant. Previous Olympics end up with places supporting unsustainable stadiums, deaths on the constructions sites, in greece they rounded up the homeless and went around shooting stray animals, the money dind’t trickle down, it’s a bug PR’s and tax scam for immoral corporations such as Nike ( sweatshops ) Macdonalds ( environmentally unfriendly, shit food etc etc.), many people have been made homeless through Olympic projetcs. they are about as reasonable as Pahtfinder and ALMOs - daylight robbery in the faces of the stupids - Altruitsic banks my arse - Do you know anything about the governments flagship hospitals for instance, the IMF, structural adjustment, the WTO or so-called redevelopment funding…..Talk about ship of fools. No to The Olympics. No To the New Fascism. No to slave labour.
October 18th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
I am making a piece on the London Olympic games. and the supposed shift of large sums of money from the public sector to the private sector. anyone who would like to contribute to this please feel free to send me an email. Thankyou. [Send it to Mavericksplinter - at - yahoo.co.uk - CA]
May 16th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
ur all mad as marracas!!! *** :)
May 16th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
get sum lives why dont u!!!