Adrian F

With all these TV adverts from the Government saying we should drive 5 miles less a week to save the planet how can they fund the Olympics where they will fly competitors and TV crews and Supporters/spectators round the world, talk about double standards!

53

iTrader: (41)

I probably only drive 5 miles a week, yet I still get raped £400+ a year in car tax priorities are well and truely muddled IMHO !

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

Unfortunateley it's p*ss easy to target the masses who have little control / say over what the Govt does / do. If you could work out the carbon footprint of the Olympics (one off event) I guess it would get dwarfed by 60m cars driving 5 miles a week from here to eternity

I'm a climate change sceptic anyways so will drive as much as a like whilst doing what I can to get round their dodgy taxes, f*ckers

TX.

Martin2005

If you only drive 250 miles a year then you're a mug for having a car that will cost you £400 a year in road tax

Leslie

Don't forget the effects of a third runway at Heathrow as well!

What I find irritating about the Olympics is the apparent need to outdo which means outspend everyone else on the opening and closing ceremonies. Quite unnecessary to go to such an extent over such ceremonies.

I support the Olympic competition, apart from the entertainment value I think it does a lot to unite the world which is no bad thing.

Les

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Maybe if there was proper strategic investment in our services, industries and commercial businesses outside "the city", one wouldn't have to travel further to work, shops school or hospital.

It smarts that governments tell you to drive 5miles less, when they are partly responsible for making everything 5miles further away. There is nothing within 10mins walking distance of my home, not even a bus stop!

It wasn't an issue ten years ago, but the motorist wasn't persecuted as much back then either.

Adrian F

The government has encouraged the use of cars because it wants "mobility of labour" e.g. people who will commute anywhere to go to work.

It doesn't want a return to where most people can walk or cycle to work as a lot of people in modern day Britain have to change jobs every few years as jobs come and go and families cant keep moving round the country uprooting their children plus their partners have jobs to so the only way to have a flexible work force is for individuals to commute long distances (We have the longest commutes in Europe) and not just along traditional public transport routes.

Martin2005

I completely agree with you about the olympics, it's bloody fantastic it's coming here.

I don't get what your point is about the spending on open/closing ceremony is though, why wouldn't you want to out-do previous ceremonies. Afterall next to the actual cost of hosting the games it's chicken feed

Spoon

Even forgetting the cost though the ceremonies are out of hand and slightly embarrassingly overly long drawn out affairs. Outdoing each other should really be left for the competition. It would be great if we could put on a decent yet not overtly daft ceremony then go on to whip everyone.

Alg

I don't think either is very likely.
We'll strive to "beat" all other ceremonies by employing some foreign company to carry out over elaborate firework displays (woooooooooooooooooooo) which will only partly work.
Our medal count will consist of very few bronzes, fewer silvers and even less golds. Won for us by conveniently "British" Canadians, Americans, and South Africans. Maybe even some "British" Eastern Europeans probably in something like the Shot Putt because as we know they do the jobs British people don't want to do.

Total waste of money imo. A bankrupt country spending billions on glorified ***** waving, nothing more. The vast majority, if not all recent Olympics have lost money.

The Olympic site built in a sh-it hole area will quickly fall into a state of disrepair due to abuse, underuse and underfunding and will show as another expensive white elephant like the Millenium Dome.

FlightMan

Les please stop banging on about Heathrows 3rd runway. If we don't add extra capacity those flights will go to AMS/FRA etc, LHR will be slowly run down and 000's of jobs will go.

Co2 is a global gas, stopping R3 will just shift the planes elsewhere and save nothing.

Spoon

Okay, so you're challenging others for the doom award.

I said it would be great if.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

I'd prefer that; I avoid flying from Heathrow and Gatwick at all costs

Few more runways at Manchester and Birmingham would be nice.

FlightMan

Well good for you.

Leslie

Last thing I would want to do is to make people lose their jobs of course. They were saying that the third runway would double passenger throughput. Surely if the same number of people want to use LHR at the moment, how would that mean loss of jobs. I would expect most passengers want to use LHR for the convenience of landing close to the capital.

Les

FlightMan

Because LHR is at 100% of capacity, and without a new runway it cannot grow. Running at 100% all of the time costs everyone money as delays are inevitable, and if they can save cash by moving flights abroad, they will do it. If flights go, jobs go with them.

AMS has 5 runways, FRA has 4 and CDG 4. We're bumbling along with just the 2. While we've been talking about it, the Dutch, French and Germans have been building, building building!

ScoobyWon't

Can we have a couple more at EMA, please?

Or perhaps use Donington as the second runway, apart from on race days, therefore employing more people to rebuild Donington and work at the airport.

Maybe we should have made building of the Olympic stadium a competition. Each nation gets a segment to build, awarding medals to the first three to finish

Leslie

Thanks for the information.

It just seemed a bit two faced to me that the Govt. was wittling on about GBW and stopping emissions etc. etc. and then approving doubling the no of passenger flights using LHR.

Les