What is great about the Olympics is the thought of the world's best athletes congregating in one place to see who wins.



What is scandalous is that the event has been taken over wholesale as a pure marketing rip-off, for the world's mega-corporations, and a moneymaker for the many parasitic get-rich-quick merchants (see, for example, the ticketing farrago). The games themselves are almost incidental.

I'd agree with this completely.

The only cars I've ever sold in my life have been those that belonged to me. As I said, an intellectual dwarf

What? People in London are negative?!! Who'da thunk it! Anyway, in breaking news, London isn't the centre of the world, petal. EVERYONE I speak to, without fail, is sick to the back teeth of the negativity of the press. They are enthusiastic for the games - the absolutely amazing turnouts for the torch relay across the country reflect that. Granted, us commoners out in'sticks might not be as 'inconvenienced' by the event and can largely just enjoy it but don't pretend the cynicism and negativity of you miserable lot in the capital is reflected across the country.





Erm, the Olympic games themselves, my little grey cloud of cynicism? Go and see, you might find out.





What do you expect? Usain Bolt delivering your milk? If you don't go, don't participate and enjoy the events, what the hell do you expect your perception will be? Nothing but negativity and inconvenience. You want some 'bang for your buck', you need to go out and get it, not waste time on here whining about corporate sponsorship.



The legacy of the games is what we make it. Primarily it will be the sporting legacy - hopefully masses of British success. A run-down area of London has been redeveloped. Tourist numbers will be up. Thousands get to work at and experience the games (I know several going and they're all bursting with excitement). Hopefully kids will be inspired to get out and do more exercise. I'm sure there's more but I'm not scouring the internet. However unfortunately it seems the press are determined to pick the games apart and that's starting to look like part of the legacy we'll leave ourselves.



If you thought thousands of companies worldwide would suddenly throw masses of investment at the UK you're very naive.



As I said earlier, it's amazing how no-one ever trusts or believes a word politicians say, yet when it comes to their outlandish 'legacy' talk, every word they say is suddenly taken at face value. No agendas there, of course.

Or did you lease them? Whatever, lease them, sell them, who fcking cares.



Call me what you like, the opinions of angry old men mean very little to me. Hardly an intellectual heavyweight, are you? Streams of banal and bitter rants do not an intellectual make.

That to me is the lasting legacy of the almost £10bn that will have been spent by the end of September.



After that it is going to be very interesting to see what the Village is turned into, we all know what the politicians said it would be - a social legacy to that previously deprived area of London - for me that sounds like those blocks of hotel rooms will be quickly converted to family sized apartments (thats how they were designed), and then - and here's the crunch - those publically owned buildings rented out at affordable rates (using the max housing allowance cap as a guide) to those who urgently require them.



That to me would be a wonderful legacy, a tad on the expensive side maybe, but we'll get three weeks of sporting excellence and a huge wedge of social housing from governments of all shades who had previously forgotten what "social housing" actually was.



Turning the developments over to housing associations or the local council would be wonderful, controlling the rents in line with housing benefit would be almost unthinkable but a simply excellent feather in the cap for any politician - selling the developments to private investors would be like putting a bullet in the head of Cameron and his second term wet dreams.

This, for instance [urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/2012/jul/19/olympic-legacy-social-housing-east-village[/url sounds positive.

I suppose that's one way of responding to having your own factually incorrect statement pointed out.









My goodness – I had never realised that! Thanks for the edumacation.



Which, of course, is also why I don't remember claiming that it was.







The legacy will be 'what [uwe[/u make it", eh? So what's your contribution going to be then?



There are 'ordinary' tourists staying away. There are theatres closing down for the duration ([url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/07/olympics-london-hotels-slash-pricesprices being slashed at hotels and theatres for exactly this reason[/url). There are businesses told not to open (unless in the middle of the night). Deliveries to other businesses will have to take place pretty much at night too – hiking costs.



One hilarious point is that you yourself seem determined to take the 'legacy' claims absolutely at face value.



As opposed to others who remember things like [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/front_page/9111865.stmthis[/url.

Sounds positive, indeed. Unfortunately, it's a dimple in terms of what needs doing.

If you say so.





Perhaps not, but your claim was "I've yet to meet a single person in London who is cock-a-hoop", as though London is all that matters. However, as much a it might gall you, the overwhelmingly positive response and massive turnouts for the torch relay on a national level is a far better indicator of public opinion than your depressing whining.





Probably as much as yours.





Aw look, there she goes hunting for links again. Yes, ordinary tourists are staying away (and also business travellers - you missed that out). And wow, some things have changed to accommodate the disruption of the world's largest sporting event coming to town. Who would have expected there would be changes to the norm, some disruption, and not everyone would be happy! Shocking revelations there, well done you.





If that's hilarious I suggest you get out more.



I'm not sure what you've been reading, but seeing as I've been saying ALL ALONG that anyone taking the legacy claims at face value is naive, I can only assume you're being your usual obtuse self.





Cuts to funding during a global recession, with the Olympics taking priority? Absolutely astounding.

You wrote: "Meanwhile, the majority ..."



What you really meant was: 'the majority of people I have personally spoken to'. There is a difference.







In terms of the London Olympics ...







It was all the offers of free Cokes and free Samsung flags.







I haven't claimed that it'll be "what we make if". You have. So the question remains.







As opposed to you, who claimed you couldn't be bothered to look for anything to support your claims. I wonder why?







It's always amusing watching you try to squirm out of things being proved to you after your own dumb blanket assertions.









That's a really poor attempted swerve even by your standards.



If the legacy is supposed to be at least partly about – according to [uyou[/u – getting more children active, then it doesn't actually help when schemes that do exactly that are cut. It's also an utterly false economy given rates of childhood obesity.



But then you seem to be suggesting that prioritising a sporting event is a good use of taxpayers' money over such things.

Yep, exactly the same as you.



But then actually the majority of public opinion I've seen has been the hundreds of thousands turning out to watch the torch relay. Not a few cynical journalists and internet "intelligentsia" [size=85(cough)[/size.





Of course, they rest of us aren't allowed an opinion then. London snobbery at its finest, my dear.





And you say I'm squirming? Got a real issue with sponsors, ain'tcha.





I realise it's easy for you to be obtuse, but it's also rather dull. 'We' is the UK, LOCOG, the athletes, the workers, the spectators, the press, etc, etc, etc. But you knew that.





I'm not utterly desperate to prove my position and don't find hunting for bad news fulfilling. Not in my personality you see, unlike some...





Always a "giggle" to see you trying to blow up every piece of negative news into an outrage. Even ones that will be over within a couple of weeks.





As the article says, most of the shortfall is being made up by National Lottery cash, and who's to say that funding wouldn't have been cut anyway? Bit of an economic crisis going on, in case you hadn't noticed. And is Sport England and Olympic funding directly linked or from entirely unrelated budgets?



Love it - the London Olympics will be responsible for child obesity. Deary me.