Similar hubris and “follow the money” – this time it is the indigenous people being rolled over (their native leaders having been nobbled, first, just as our stakeholder “leaders” were) – way over budget – crackdown on homeless – additional CCTV cameras – military anti-terrorism measures include a sort of dirigible parked above the Olympic village – in other news, “The Norwegian Star” that was to serve as a floating hotel has just sunk.

I think it is true to say that many of those who were involved in the initial bid did not think that it would be successful and so were less than scrupulous in framing it: when London beat Paris, contrary to expectations, the result was that they have been hung with their own petard.

LOCOG, stop being so mendacious.

Honesty, professionalism, integrity – give it a try, why don’t you? Why are you at LOCOG running scared of the IOC? Yes, they are probably the most unaccountable organisation in the world but what’s the worst they can do to you?

Blisset is being very naive, in my view, in underestimating the size of the egos running LOCOG and the IOC.

1) The document you link to is certainly not a comprehensive cost–benefit analysis as you claim. And I can’t find any reference to a £50m benefit to hosting the events in Windsor in this or the other supporting documents. Could you detail where that figure comes from?

2) Considering that document was produced in part by a gentleman who appears to have worked for KPMG, I’m surprised and disappointed at the poor quality of some of the analysis. Assumptions used by LOCOG are dismissed as unrealistic based on, at best, anecdotal evidence and invalid comparisons against other events, and at worst, no more evidence than “we don’t agree”. In addition, many clearly irrelevant factors are incorporated. Much is made of threats to local business from sponsorship deals for example. It is suggested that vats swathes of Greenwich will have it’s shop fronts covered up for the course of the Games. Not only is there not evidence to suggest that LOCOG has any such plans but more importantly, even if they do, it is an irrelevance in any comparative analysis against alternative sites. Unless NOGOE are suggesting that this policy would be applied to Greenwich but not to Windsor, any subsequent costs would occur regardless of venue. But of course, the NIMBYs don’t care about Windsor shopkeepers do we?

3) I find it amusing that NOGOE’s supporters are simultaneously arguing that LOCOG’s financials are optimistic and they’ll never sell the number of tickets they suggest (page 9 of the document linked by Indigo) and also that local people won’t be able to get tickets for the events that they are giving up their park for. Which is it? If LOCOGs estimates are exaggerated then surely there’ll be plenty of tickets left for us locals?

5) Finally, I find the tone of some of the arguments on these pages immensely frustrating. It is perfectly reasonable to have concerns about the plans, question them and, if necessary, oppose them entirely. Personally, I’m still concerned about some significant elements. But some people seem to believe that there is some sinister master plan to force through an event that the organiser’s know will be a disaster for local people, the economy and the environment. You’d think that there was some Bond villain sat at LOCOGs headquarters, stroking a white cat and laughing at the good folk of Greenwich. Seriously, can anyone provide a reasonable explanation as to why LOCOG would be going ahead with this plan unless they honestly thought it was going to be a success? What’s in it for them? Is it really that hard to believe that the people at LOCOG have the best intentions? YOu may not agree with them, but to suggest that they are deliberately trying to screw us over is extremely unfair and damaging to the credibility of the cause.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23797325-request-tickets-for-2012-olympics-online-within-weeks.do

http://www.london2012.com/visiting/tickets/index.php