Jump to content

London  bid – dishonest and unethical?


Recommended Posts

London  bid – dishonest and unethical?

I have identified a number of matters to bring to the attention of the IOC ethics committee and all the voting members:

1. The London 2012 bid team has been advertising free sporting events for Londoners, but people have being denied use of the facilities, unless they fill in a postcard saying they support the bid.

2. It has been announced that Nelson Mandela supports the bid – but the Mayor of London  has promised Mr Mandela that his statue will be erected in Trafalgar square

3. In the London Evening Standard Thursday, 30 June 2005 any other newspapers, it has been reported that the London2012 team is attempting to do a do deal with Juan Antonio Samaranch to pick up the Spanish votes in exchange for London supporting Samaranch Junior’s bid to become the IOC president in 2009. The papers reported that attempts were being made for deal to be done between Britain and Spain at government level

4. The 2012 team offered ever black cab driver a free bacon roll for breakfast. What they overlooked is that very many of them are Jewish and do not eat pork (oops!)

5. The 2012 bid team claim that their surveys indicate that 78% of Londoners support the bid but in carrying out the questionnaire their agents did NOT inform the respondents of ANY of the downsides, such as:

• Increase in council tax for a number of years

• Lottery funds being diverted from good causes (£340 million)

• Or any of the other facts identified in the ‘myths’ article below.

Therefore the public were unethically deceived.

I also wish to bring the following other matters to the attention of the IOC.

Re: London 2012 Candidate File Theme 14: Transport

Lord Coe states: “That (this) is my promise to every athlete who competes in London."

“A dedicated road network would be exclusively reserved for the use of the Olympic Family, including competitors, throughout the Games, providing fast, convenient access to every venue.”

What exactly does this means? The only possible interpretation is that there would be an exclusive NEW road or an exclusive lane for use by ‘the Olympic family.’ This new road/new lane will exist from the Olympic village to ALL the venues.

Therefore this new road/lane will run from Stratford to Wimbledon (tennis venue tennis) for example. This is a blatant LIE. I would love to see the IOC asking Livinstine to produce the new road map!

They would also have to build a new road/lane from Stratford to St John’s Woods (Lords for artery).

Try driving from Stratford to Wimbledon, you would struggled to find any roads suitable to create  an additional dedicated lane – let alone any space to build an additional road.

Here is another vitally important issue to be bought to the attention of the IOC:

We are told that the London bid is stronger than Paris’ because the improvements and regeneration of east London can only happen IF London succeeds in getting the games. However, on television last night Livingstone stated that only if we get the games, will east London get all the improvements – sporting facilities, better transport etc. The only difference is that it might take ‘an additional year or two because there would be no cut-off deadline.’

Therefore the games are not that fundamental to the regeneration of east London

THE ‘LEGACY’ CONTRADICTION

The Prime Minister has stated that the “unique selling point” for London is in the “legacy.” However in the same article his colleague Tessa Jowel said that even if London failed the bid had already left Britain with a “lasting legacy” for British Sport.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The London 2012 bid team has been advertising free sporting events for Londoners, but people have being denied use of the facilities, unless they fill in a postcard saying they support the bid.
Hadn't heard about that. I would have thought the papers would be straight onto that if it were the case. It'd be a shame if that were true but it'd hardly a reason for not supporting the bid which would do a lot of good to London if it is won.
2. It has been announced that Nelson Mandela supports the bid – but the Mayor of London  has promised Mr Mandela that his statue will be erected in Trafalgar square

I think the statue idea came long before London was even considering a bid. I think the fact that Mandela is supporting the bid, statue or no statue, suggests that the bid is strong.

3. In the London Evening Standard Thursday, 30 June 2005 any other newspapers, it has been reported that the London2012 team is attempting to do a do deal with Juan Antonio Samaranch to pick up the Spanish votes in exchange for London supporting Samaranch Junior’s bid to become the IOC president in 2009. The papers reported that attempts were being made for deal to be done between Britain and Spain at government level
Is there any evidence for this? I'm aware the London team are tring to secure the second preference votes of those who would normally support Madrid but this sort of thing is going on with all of the bids and that's just the way it is. Also, as has been mentioned by several people before, the bids cannot control IOC voters so any effective deal at goverment level would be impossible. BTW a link to the article in question would be nice.
4. The 2012 team offered ever black cab driver a free bacon roll for breakfast. What they overlooked is that very many of them are Jewish and do not eat pork (oops!)

Ooops indeed but it was a nice offer (inducement) and I'm sure no malice was meant! Blimey..you try to do a nice thing!

5. The 2012 bid team claim that their surveys indicate that 78% of Londoners support the bid but in carrying out the questionnaire their agents did NOT inform the respondents of ANY of the downsides, such as:

• Increase in council tax for a number of years

• Lottery funds being diverted from good causes (£340 million)

• Or any of the other facts identified in the ‘myths’ article below.

Therefore the public were unethically deceived.

Come on! The public knows exactly what the situation is with the bid. It's been all over the news for the past two years. You don't think they didn't already know that there will be a very small rise in council tax and an Olympic lottery which will be seperate from the main one so people don't have to buy tickets if they don't want to? The negative articles about this bid (of which there were many) have not destroyed it and a 79% approval rating certainly won't. You're clutching at straws.
Lord Coe states: “That (this) is my promise to every athlete who competes in London."

“A dedicated road network would be exclusively reserved for the use of the Olympic Family, including competitors, throughout the Games, providing fast, convenient access to every venue.”

What exactly does this means? The only possible interpretation is that there would be an exclusive NEW road or an exclusive lane for use by ‘the Olympic family.’ This new road/new lane will exist from the Olympic village to ALL the venues.

Therefore this new road/lane will run from Stratford to Wimbledon (tennis venue tennis) for example. This is a blatant LIE. I would love to see the IOC asking Livinstine to produce the new road map!

They would also have to build a new road/lane from Stratford to St John’s Woods (Lords for artery).

Try driving from Stratford to Wimbledon, you would struggled to find any roads suitable to create  an additional dedicated lane – let alone any space to build an additional road.

I'm not an expert in transport matters by any means so I can't really answer this point other than to say the person on the evaluation commitee who is an expert in these matters seemed more than happy with London's proposed transport plans. If there were any problems they would have been highlighted in the Evalutation report.

Here is another vitally important issue to be bought to the attention of the IOC:

We are told that the London bid is stronger than Paris’ because the improvements and regeneration of east London can only happen IF London succeeds in getting the games. However, on television last night Livingstone stated that only if we get the games, will east London get all the improvements – sporting facilities, better transport etc. The only difference is that it might take ‘an additional year or two because there would be no cut-off deadline.’

Therefore the games are not that fundamental to the regeneration of east London

THE ‘LEGACY’ CONTRADICTION

The Prime Minister has stated that the “unique selling point” for London is in the “legacy.” However in the same article his colleague Tessa Jowel said that even if London failed the bid had already left Britain with a “lasting legacy” for British Sport.

Many of the venues are already going ahead such as the aquatics centre and the velopark. The regeneration would go ahead without the Olympics but it would

a) come at a much later date without the 2012 deadline as the mayor has pointed out

B) not be centred around sport. e.g. the olympic institue and national athletcis stadium would not exist without the bid in place

Either way the regeneration of that part of London will cost billions. With the Olympics much of this will be paid for by the Olympic lottery and the c. £100m generated from the games. Without the Olympics I'd imagine it would all come from council tax.

Also, as Ken pointed out the night before last, had the UK and London not been bidding the government may have been reluctant to give huge amounts of money towards improving the transport etc. Of course you'll say the money should be given anyway but the people to blame in this instance are the goverment, not London 2012 who have, incidentally, done an awful lot to improve the image of Britain in international sporting circles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...