They reckon that Yorkshire would have come 12th in the medal table if they had entered as a country!

The one thing I really love about Yorkshire folk is their modesty and humbleness.

Fred, there have been a large number of different interpretations on this money, dependent on which part of the press you read. I believe G4S made more than one press release (?)

Will G4S be additionally penalised by the SIA for running a contract with unauthorised and uncertified personnel ??
None of the troops will have been anywhere near the SIA course for security guards and won't have had a CRB. Being a member of HM Armed Forces isnt a shoo-in for such certification.

Most of them wrong - assuming that this money is to compensate for the cost of the extra troops/police.

It's a matter of record that the CEO told the select committee that they would pay for the extra cost of providing the troops/police.

Some of the press seem to have forgotten that.

It's also worth noting that the army general in charge of security said the the G4S staff (those that they actually managed to get on site) did an excellent professional job alongside his troops.

Standing joint commander for Operation Olympics, General Sir Nick Parker, said:

“The day to day working with G4S has been exceptional and I would like to pay tribute to the G4S staff and volunteers. Working side by side I believe they are doing a very professional job in providing Olympic security.”

I never said anything different (did I??)

Its nice to hear the Commander Land Forces being so effusive about the people they had to work with.
It would be nice to find that Nick Buckles has been similarly courteous about the soldiers - or have I missed that as well ??

Having had high security clearance and carried out security guarding in the Armed Forces, I have been responsible for manned staffing using contract security guards, who like soldiers, take their jobs seriously and jealously protect their certification. It is the company management who don't. Expecting a grown man with a couple of kids to stay awake through a night shift for NMW.
I had to borrow money from other budgets to get their money up, they appreciated it even if the management didnt.

Like cleaners, security guards rarely get well thought of but its "funny" how they are always the first to be blamed when something goes wrong.

I once knew a dyslexic yorkshireman, he was the salt of the earth and he wore a catflap on is head.

You can always tell a Yorkshireman but you can't tell him much as they say.

No I think the sporting part went very well but I don't think paying Coe to follow up will achieve anything for anyone except for him. I've made it clear I don't like him but even if I thought he was a wonderful person I don't agree with people being paid to 'mark their own homework'. For example he has said that the Olympics were delivered on time (true) and to budget which is much less certain. He has too much of a vested interest to be objective.
I would like to know how the 'legacy' will be measured. Certainly there is not much evidence of a long term effect in other countries. If you are saying that's because they didn't throw even more money at sport after the event it just begs the question why not spend it that way in the first place?
If you did a poll of young women today would you find more of them wanting Jessica Ennis as a roll model than Victoria Beckham? I would love the answer to be 'yes' but I wonder, and if you ask the same question in 6 months time???
Perhaps a measure of impact on the country would be if all those get famous and rich for very little effort 'talent' shows had less young people apply to them and suddenly lost their audiences. Don't hold your breath.

So basically people doubted the Olympics would be successful and they were, now people are doubting they will make much of a difference.


Gotta love the negativity of some people, hardly a wonder we have talked ourselves into the mess we are in really.

Sorry Matt (are you on this forum non-stop?) I am not doubting they will make a long term difference. I'm actually saying I would like to see an objective way of measuring if they have, with someone in charge who doesn't have a vested interest in anything but the truth.

I don't think that's being negative, its trying to be realistic. Of course if not saying everything was all wonderful like good old Seb did is negative, then perhaps I am.

Can I ask you something?


Why do you think its your business if I am on here a lot or a little? I'm serious, people keep doing this, they seem to think that if they mention my posting rate they might get the last word or something. How much I am on here or not on here is surely my business. If I want to spend a week on here or an hour, is that anyone else's business?
Very strange.

As to the rest of your post I'm afraid the narkey nature of the opening comment pretty much stops me treating the rest of it with anything but contempt.

Agree. I don't see the UK's salvation being in sport. As someone wrote in a paper. Winning all the medals didn't do Russia much good. Wouldn't you rather have..a buoyant economy like Australia (they did badly at the Olympics) or a failing country with a short term feel good factor. What benefit has the world cup been to Spain...when all the flag waving has done everything is just the same.

It's been great, proud of it all but don't see any legacy from it.

You know we rank higher than Australia in Nominal GDP right?

Of course you can ask - it is none of my business except that you seem to reply so quickly to everything, you sometimes appear to miss the point the person is trying to make. Which is what I feel you are doing here.
I apologise if I have offended you which was not my intention and I really don't mind whether you take my views seriously or not. They are however, serious and considered views not 'lets all jump on todays popular bandwagon ones.'

You are welcome to the last word - I'm away to do some ironing.

No