Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
How not to get stuck on the tube during the Olympics
TfL are making an early start to their campaign to modify the travel behaviour of Londoners through the Olympics. Fears of 20 minute waits for tubes are amongst the outcomes that will be offered unless we change our travel habits for a few weeks.
TfL's first foray is the Get Ahead of the Games website. Its London page shows which lines and stations will be particularly badly hit and helps to plan travel to avoid them.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher Fowler on
-
John D - You're absolutely right. The public money to museums, art galleries, theatres, etc - all the public money to arts and culture, from "high culture" to community stuff, is to make it affordable (if not completely free) for everyone. But the 9billion of public money to the Olympics is subsidising a jamboree for the few, many of whom are the rich. Not to mention the international sports mafia/establishment, a travelling circus of people who have well and truly got their hands in the till. And it is Seb Coe's aim to become a fully paid member of that mafia as a result of spearheading the Games. Think how much better it would have been for the whole of the UK if even a quarter of that money were spent on, say, local libraries, music classes in schools, improving local sports facilities - really trying to make life better for everyone in the UK, especially the young.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I'm seeing a number of events for nothing as a volunteer.
-
Permalink Reply by Ruth on
-
The volunteering aspect is good and is enabling more people to get in I will admit that much. But the sustainability aspects are so poor of these Games. The stadium isn't being handed to us, the public, the local communities but to a privately owned football club who charge loads of money to its fans to see them play. This is so unfair- we have basically paid for a new football ground! That is clever! Ok, local groups will be allowed to use it sometimes but it should be primarily for them not for a private company. Football mafia and nouveau riche are all interlinked.
The British Libary is open to us all, all the time. It's a brilliant resource as are our museums and art galleries. Sports facilities nationwide are sadly lacking and under threat all the time with all the cuts. It's such a shame that the games turned out this way. Not that many Londoners are interested- go north of Watford and you will find even less engagement with this 'exciting' event.
-
-
I'm a Midlander in exile...
different strokes for different folks... I don't hear much excitement from friends there or in Yorshire.
No I don't want to run the stadium but I thought it would go to the general community not a private company.
Let's see how it all pans out then. I will try to be more enthusiastic
-
-
-
What's "sustainable" about a 9billion pound bill we will all be paying for the rest of our lives? What's "sustainable" about Dow Chemicals putting a "skin" on the stadium, the same people who killed hundred of people in Bhopal? What's "sustainable" about the huge shopping mall that everyone going to the Games has to walk through? What's "sustainable" about a stadium that is unsuitable for anything except track and field events, and will have to be modified at public expense to be used by a football club? What's "sustainable" about the public having to pick up the tab for the indefinite future for the losses on running the stadium, since it will remain a public liability (even if managed by some arms-length company), and is never likely to make money or break even? What's "sustainable" about surface-to-air missile batteries on top of flats in London? Or tens of thousands of police, military, para-military, security guards, fighter aircraft etc etc to defend the rich visitors and international sports mafia? Let's see if you are still singing the same song in five years' time when the full scale of the cost to the public is clear, and the over-priced Olympic venues are being torn down because they are losing so much money, and there is no real use for them.
-
-
-
So I'm clearly "not a fan"? I have no problem with sports, and with fair competition and people enjoying watching sports. What I am _not_ a fan of is the huge expenditure on the Olympics, the enormous sponsorship by brands that have nothing to do with sport or healthy living (McDonalds, Coca-Cola), the way London is being turned over to martial law, and the huge disruption to the life of ordinary people in the capital. The closest most of us will get to the games is watching it on TV. Well, that and stand by the roadside by the Zil lanes, and watch the rich people zoom past in their limos, off to enjoy their prime seats at our expense.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
Just because it's the same at Wimbledon, Lords, etc doesn't mean that it is justifiable. It stinks that only the rich and the big businesses can buy their way in while ordinary people subsidise their jollies through the additional precept on London tax. As you say, the demand is there, but it's not being met.
If this were about schooling, would you say it was exciting that the rich and the corporate clients could buy their way into the best education while the proles heve to make do with schools TV ?
-
-
It's different from all the other sporting events you mention because they do not receive a huge subsidy from the taxpayer. They all run as private initiatives. The Olympics is being funded by 9billion of public money, but only a lucky few ordinary people can get tickets. The rest are reserved for the rich, for members of the international sports mafia, and for guests of big sponsors, like Dow Chemicals, McDonalds and Coca-Cola.
We are not a totalitarian state, true, though the current government and its "security" policies are trying to move us in that direction. Yes, China spent more public money. But why should the British taxpayers pay out 9billion pounds for what amounts to a two week jamboree for the international rich? If the rich want to have a big party, and watch the world's best athletes, good luck to them. But they can pay for it themselves, not do it on the back of the British public. And why should ordinary Londoners, who live here, work here and pay taxes here, have their lives disrupted for two weeks so the international rich can drive in their Zil lanes, and thousands of "security forces" take over large areas of the capital, warships are moored in the Thames, anti-aircraft missiles are sited on top of blocks of flats, and enormously expensive fighter planes are on alert in case of terrorist aerial attack?
As to new or improved transport links, or building a new park, all that could have been done at a fraction of the cost, and without having London's life disrupted.
-
-
I sincerely hope that new train line running virtually parallel to the existing one going to Brum doesnt get built- more money down the drain and vast swathes of countryside gone for good so that those who can afford tickets for those trains can get to Brum and beyond a bit quicker. The disruption of that will be terrible.
I was beginning to see some of your points and agree with you up till you mentioned that!
I'm glad that Manchester had such a good legacy from the Commonwealth games and certainly it did the area much good. Not sure it's the same with the Olympics and here... I'm just back from Coventry where the council are spending loads of money doing up pavements and other things in the CIty Centre for the Olympics as some training events are going on there. Not sure many locals are pleased that the city is being done up for that reason when it needed doing anyway meanwhile their local services are being cut back...Lets see how that pans out. I hope the city (my home town) gets something in return for all their efforts, they sorely need it. And the Olympics are s'posd to be about more than London.The corporate aspect of the Games as with football etc., does stink.
But I don't go to those either.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
