[closed] What do people in England, more specifically London think about the Olympics?

I don't live in London, however I absolutely despise the olympics being in this country. you know why? Because a ridiculous amount of money was spent on it. £24 Billion in fact - A lot of that money is from the Taxpayers. £400 thousand was spent on the logo alone, another £400 thousand, £350 thousand on some sculpture, £271 MILLION on security. It's ridiculous. I wouldn't be so bothered, but this country is in a recession and a lot of people have been laid off on Government jobs. For example my Mothers old department of the NHS was closed down, hundreds of Public Libraries which have small running costs. They can't afford to pay people £25,000 a year but they can afford to spend £24 billion on an overblown sports day?! It makes me very angry.

Hell, my friends Girlfriend works at the olympics, she's 17 and is being paid over £8 an hour (The minimum wage is £4.50). I can't even get a job, let alone one that pays me that. ITS FUCKING PREPOSTEROUS and I hate it!

i'm not a Londoner but i am British, we are excited because if you hadn't noticed we're hosting it and we have a long history with it. It's a mixed bag situation, on the one hand it's costing over £14 billion in a time when the current government is cutting billions from various departments around the country and the benefits sick people receive going a far as to say amputees even veteren amputees may loose their benefits. Which is made worse when it's openly accepted by the government that the return from the games will be at best £5 billion spread out over the next decade with many of the buildings falling out of any real use except for the main stadium which is to be bought by a London football team, currently either West Ham or Tottenham. As for security the contracted company made a shambles of it so the army had to step in at further cost to the tax payer, but tbh this will probably be the situation at all forthcoming Olympic games including the missile protection due to the risk and threat of terrorist attacks (Munich will always be case and point). As for moving people this was an issue however the area was and still is in bad need of regeneration, so in a way it's progress but it's yet to be proven whether that will be the case or whether it will be a failure until then that point can still be debated in either ones favour.

Now someone could choose to look at this and say that we should have no part in hosting such a competition given the cost and risk to attack from terrorist which has of course happened in recent times (July 7th 2005) with a tribute to those affected in the opening ceremony (which MSNBC edited out for an interview with Michael Phelps for US viewers?!). So someone could take that view and be opposed to us hosting it, that it costs too much and there's too much risk involved, that it shouldn't have moved people, but my guess is that as soon as a possibility of hosting a cultural or sporting event they are personally interested or involved in comes up that person will soon change their tune, because most people cannot help but be hypocrites at times. What's done is done, the games are here, it's time to get the proud cap on, support our athletes, make a memorable games for all those involved, keep calm and carry on.

I really couldn't care less.

I don't like the idea of the games being here regarding the price its cost to hold them. The idea that theres no guarantees of whether we're going to re-coop that money and make money on top of it.

Although, since watching the opening ceremony, I've been hooked. I haven't got any tickets to watch anything, but I'm happy to sit at home and watch it on TV.

If we take into account of the Manchester common-wealth games that were held in 2002, figures suggest that we (tax-payers) got back £3 for every £1 that was invested.

So its just about waiting and seeing if it was worth while

I guess Matt won't have a girlfriend for too much longer with that attitude. Strange, isn't it, how those who bleat most about 'taxpayer's money' being spent are as often as not paying no tax themselves at all!

As usual there is a total failure to deal with the realities of economics which are that money is only useless when it is not being spent. Yes, it costs a lot to stage an Olympic Games but it also represents a huge opportunity for industries that have been in recession. Public works has always been a staple of attempts at economic growth.

It is always easy to find someone to complain. As usual the (vast) silent majority who just get on and enjoy the event get very little say in opinion forming. The facts? The security measures are the least oppressive and the least expensive for many, many Olympics. As you might expect the measures in Beijing dwarfed those of London but Athens also was regulated and regimented to a far greater degree than here. Those with missiles on their roof should remember that had they lived in Beijing they would have been forcibly evicted for a month! Far from 'going over the top' London has been criticised by some for being too liberal over security.

The Olympic park itself has been part of a rebuilding program in that area of London which stretches back for 30 years. Large parts of the area were literally derelict for many years. There certainly were concerns over pollution but this was cleaning up of what was already there. The idea that the Olympic building caused the problem are absurd.

And as for cost, Olympic Games have now been profitable for many decades. In financial terms this may appear to be small beer (Beijing estimated $16m) but a profit is a profit and, of course, the sporting facilities and the accommodation are going nowhere and will return both social and financial benefits for many years.