I think the OP sounds like a UFO believer (no offense intended awjm) - it finds everything to back up the assertion but not anything that can possibly contradict it. As a non-Londoner (so I'll excuse myself from talk of logistics and the local impact). I'll say that we're doing the games as only Britain can - we sign ourselves up to ridiculous contractors (presumably through buddies making deals) who charge too much for too poor a service (exacly the same as the whole Wembley reconstruction) that then forces us into a situation whereby we have to sell our souls to the corporate devil in order to try to break even. We also seem to offend the Olympic spirit by our enthusiasm (false or real) with the media going completely OTT (blanket coverage unlike anything before that just implies that the Olympics didn't really count for anything until it was held here). So basically, I resent the contracts given, the commercial overhype (as goes with anything else Britain does) and the expression of decadence when it comes to the budgeting (despite the national debt). That said, I can't wait to see who the fastest man on the planet is, the ping pong tournament and most other things (except field hockey - I can't stand that). I'm really looking forward to the bits of the Games that Britain (hopefully) can't **** up.
Be fair. Where did I say stopping one can of coke being opened at the games would help? What I'm talking about is not ignoring how things are. Your message there seems to say "well, this is the way it is and there's nothing we can do so we might as well accept it".
The OP, and the site you linked to, is completely against the 'corporate' control that is exerted over the Olympic Games, the imagery that is used, the sponsorship that is allowed, the products that are banned due to a competing sponsor getting 'first and exclusive rights'. Whilst you may not have specifically mentioned Coke or Pepsi, there is enough in what you and your fellow anti-olympians have posted to imply this stance. Also, it's a good way of highlighting my point. If we could have the Olympics without the politics, without the sponsorships, without the hype and the hypocrisy, then fine - that's how we should do it. However, this is an utterly impossible dream held by those whose grasp on reality is tenuous at best, and probably substance-induced at worst. Corporate sponsorship is here to stay, and is the only way a games of this magnitude can be held - not just here, but anywhere. It's the same with the World Cup, European Championships, Commonwealth Games, any major event. Not holding the games, because we don't like the way that some of the sponsors treat their supply chain, isn't going to make any positive difference to the people at the bottom end of said chain. In fact, if you boycott a company and the demand is reduced, you'll take away a few share dividends and maybe a bonus or two, but you'll also take away the livelihood of many many people working in those 'sweat-shops', because they work there because there's no other way of getting any money. So what if you can only buy Coke and not Pepsi? So what if yoou can only buy chips from McDonalds (unless you also order fish)? So what if you can't sell Olympic-branded products unless you are registered with LOCOG and have complied with all the marketing and image rights stuff? This means nothing to the people making the goods in the Far East, and it makes no difference to the athletes who have basically been working for years and years, just in the hope that they can perform to the best of their ability over the next month. That's what I mean by not being interested in the corporate side - not because there isn't anything wrong with it, but because it's not what the Olympic Games is about, for me. It's about Derek Redmond being helped by his father (yes, I know that may have been the World Championships). It's about the Jamaican Bobsled Team. It's about Eric The Eel. It's about Chris Hoy, Steve Redgrave, Rebecca Adlington, Tom Daley, and the hundreds of other athletes, fencers, shooters, gymnasts, swimmers, sportsmen and women. It's about all of the Paralympians that only get a chance to compete at all because of the profit made by the regulat games - all of which is down to corporate sponsorship and advertising. Would you deny them the opportunity to perform on the world stage? All because of someone else's anarchistic principles?
The Olympics for me are just plain boring....I dont care about them 1 little bit.....even watching Gb vs Brazil football, I just felt...."I really couldnt give a damn about any of this." For some they love it....it needs money to be possible, and so big corporations are willing to fund it, but only with strict advertising rules....the way the world spins im afraid.
They did it just fine for many, many decades without the corporations taking over. Unless you are a teenager, youve seen it in your lifetime. Its a disgrace and hypocritical for the IOC and FIFA to lower themselves to be sponsored by 2 of the biggest companies responsible for obesity in Coke and McD. That would be akin for AA (not the motoring one) to be sponsored by Stella.
Life moves on - you can't do it these days the way you used to do stuff back in the 'good old days'. I'm not saying it's right (see above) and I'm not saying it's not hypocritical (also see above) but I AM saying it's how it is (see... well, you know where)
I'm not going to get into actively campaigning about/against the Olympics. There are bigger things to worry about. More to the point, now it's happening it seems churlish to get in the faces of those who want to enjoy the event and risk spoiling their enjoyment of it. Were QPR to get to the FA Cup Final, I wouldn't enjoy listening to a bunch of people belittling the competition or playing down its significance. That said, I've never personally felt any excitement about the Olympics and the fact that the event is now in London adds nothing for me. It's largely composed of sports that I do not follow, played by people I've never heard of and whose names I will rapidly forget. Yes, they're all brilliant at what they do. But that doesn't make it interesting to me. What does seem a great shame is that the execution of this event appears to be particularly shabby in some respects - the security thing, the cynical way in which certain companies sponsor it purely to improve their fairly toxic PR situations (Dow Chemical, owners of the company that killed 25,000 Indians in Bhopal, BP with its oil spill, plus the assorted producers of industrial super-quantities of junk food). It feels like an opportunity to have run this event with a bit of class and to have done this country some real credit has been squandered. But, hey ho, it's not the end of the world. Good luck to all runners, jumpers, swimmers, stick throwers etc. I genuinely hope they and their fans have a brilliant time. Personally, I'm off to a cottage in another country until it all blows over.
TIME, agree with every word of that, but it's only fair to point out that Dow have only owned Union Carbide since 2001, so can't be held responsible for Bhopal. I'm sure they've done loads of other nasty stuff though. Wish I had access to a nice cottage elsewhere......any offers Irish Rs? One thing that has seriously pissed me off is the remaining members of the Clash and presumably Joe Strummer's estate allowing London's Calling to be used for a stupid British Airways Olympic advert. With the lyrics, essentially about London being submerged, it makes as much sense as Reagan appropriating Springsteens 'Born in the USA'.
As willy says, the corporate side leaves a lot to be desired, but I haven't seen many complain about the premiership which is closer to home and doesn't just come round every four years.
Such shameless hijacking of a ballad that was the opposite of everything Reagan and his Cronies stood for - which admittedly wasn't much.
