Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Olympics - godess forbid we might actually have a good time
Tags for Forum Posts: olympics, olympics 2012
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
A world event where most of the people enjoying are not Londoners. What a strange idea.
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
Mentioning no names, we have public viewing screens set up in public places for the duration of the olympics. Where are the screens for a community 'get together' in Harringay?
http://www.citysports.de/Bonn/magazin/artikel_810_Olympische-Spiele...
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
More screens to look at?
Is Berlin different from London, Stephen? On buses, in restaurants, on the street, crossing the road, people often seem to pay more attention to their little screens than their surroundings - or even their children. At council meetings, people sit tapping their MePads, or stroking their raspberries.
How many more screens do we really need?
-
-
hah.. I understand what you're saying Alan.. unfortunately most people don't like just listening to sport on Radio.. (BTW, I enjoy listening to football matches on the radio) - Sport is actually much more fun if it is viewed in a crowd, especially when the tension and excitement rises. So how would you suggest they get to see the olympics? Sounds like 'Killjoyism' to me!
Germany is the birthplace of public viewing, which came to international notice with the 2006 FIFA World Cup. More than 600,000 people on the fan mile in Berlin last month (with seven screens) for the European football championships and that without tanks or missiles. Yes, I'm also aware that events like that are just not possible in the UK. Plenty of beer and no trouble: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O02VEXqEyDw&feature=related
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Germany is the birthplace of public viewing, which came to international notice with the 2006 FIFA World Cup.
Stephen I think you're too modest about German engineering (that I much admire). Germany is indeed the birthplace of public viewing, but the remote viewing of big sporting events, by electronic means, was achieved by Germany earlier than you suggest.
In my research on early television, I found that as part of the well known 1936 Olympics in Berlin, the authorities broadcast much or all of the Olympic Games via television.
This wasn't public television broadcasting as we know it though. I understand the broadcasts were mainly to up to 28 viewing halls (attached to Post Offices?) throughout Berlin.
A selected audience, probably Party members and others to be impressed, were treated to live telecasts. I've read that audiences, seated in rows, were more interested in watching live sport than the political speeches by Party big-wigs that also went out.
Some of the records still exist on youtube.
The 1936 Berlin Olympics were not merely the first Olympics to be broadcast by television: they were the first televised sporting event.
It was of course, a great electronic engineering achievement and a pity that it had to be associated with National Socialism.
-
Permalink Reply by Alison Burdekin on
-
I can't wait!
-
-
I much hope there won't be any terrorist attack to spoil people's enjoyment.
On the day I first heard in 2005 that London had been selected for the games, my first thought that this was going to be the mother of all security headaches. The next day (7/7) was of course the London bombings in the tube when more than 50 people were killed.
The sheer size of the Olympics and global TV coverage make the extravaganza the most attractive terrorist target ever.
My view is that the authorities will probably pull off the giant security challenge and breathe the most enormous sigh of relief when the enormous affair is over.
Certainly the security presence is fittingly big: thousands of police, thousands of security guards (though not the 10,000 that were promised) and thousands of soldiers drafted in at the last moment (many recently risking death in Afghanistan, expecting home leave only to be asked to inspect handbags).
Then is there is the surface-to-air missile cover over London. We can now be fairly satisfied that any hijacked jet won't come down on the stadium, instead it would likely be brought down on a less important area of London.
I hope there won't be too many positive drug test scandals and that not too many tickets have changed hands on the black market, sold by corrupt Olympic officials. Finally, I hope that paying for the games won't take too many decades and that it will at least provide two or three weeks of enjoyment.
-
-
I was at work in Kings Cross on the 7th of July and the next day went back because I refused to let what had happened make me live in fear. If we live censoring our lives, that is the exact moment terrorism wins.
-
-
Michael you seem to imply that, in order to show no fear of terrorism, we could double the size of the Olympics, double the potential target and double all the security precautions, all in order to show we're not living in fear and censoring our lives. It's a point of view, but I don't think we can afford it.
Many continued to use the tube the day after the London bombings, not because they were fearless or wanted to show terrorism had not won, but because they had no choice. I'm not suggesting for a moment that we give in to terrorists, nor reduce the size of the Olympics out of any sense of fear.
The reason I suggest the size of future Olympics be reduced is because in their current form, they are grossly bloated and absurdly expensive. The immense security operation and likely disruption is merely a side disbenefit. I will be as relieved as anyone when, as I expect, the giant games go off without a terrorist attack, as happened at the Munich Olympics in 1972.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
