Turn on thread page Beta

UKIP support Paris 2012 watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    LOL

    Wots so funny? Its true.


    :rolleyes: Like signing up a former chat show host.........

    Conservatives signed up Seb Coe, Labour have signed up Richard Wilson and Geri Halliwell, it's hardly like UKIP were the 1st people to sign up famous people, we're one of the last! Moreover, Kilroy-Silks first job IS politics! He was a Labour MP before hosting his own show! His television career came later. If you were describing someone like Portillo would you say his first job was "tv political commentator"? Of course not, he's a politician first and foremost, just like Kilroy!


    It would cost a lot more.
    The Olympics has left many previous host cities bankrupt and paying off debts many years later, whereas housing/ community projects are being done everyday and leave no-one bankrupt.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greyhound01)
    The Olympics has left many previous host cities bankrupt and paying off debts many years later,
    Oh shut up and have a read of the PriceWaterHouse Coopers review into the benefits Australia has reaped from the 2000 Olympic games

    Located at:
    http://www.gamesinfo.com.au/pi/ARPICOE.html


    (Original post by Greyhound01)
    Conservatives signed up Seb Coe, Labour have signed up Richard Wilson and Geri Halliwell, it's hardly like UKIP were the 1st people to sign up famous people,
    :rolleyes: As i said before, "cheap attempts at publicity"


    (Original post by Greyhound01)
    Kilroy-Silks first job IS politics! He was a Labour MP before hosting his own show! His television career came later.
    I am well aware of this. He was also a pretty crap politician.


    (Original post by Greyhound01)
    If you were describing someone like Portillo would you say his first job was "tv political commentator"? Of course not, he's a politician first and foremost, just like Kilroy!
    Glenda Jackson was an actress before becoming a politician, but i don’t see your point. Obviously UKIP (et al) realise the "cheap publicity opportunities" to be gained by affiliating themselves with the famous, why else would they fast track the blundering Kilroy into the position of Chief Executive? (cheap publicity)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    Oh shut up and have a read of the PriceWaterHouse Coopers review into the benefits Australia has reaped from the 2000 Olympic games

    Located at:
    http://www.gamesinfo.com.au/pi/ARPICOE.html




    :rolleyes: As i said before, "cheap attempts at publicity"




    I am well aware of this. He was also a pretty crap politician.




    Glenda Jackson was an actress before becoming a politician, but i don’t see your point. Obviously UKIP (et al) realise the "cheap publicity opportunities" to be gained by affiliating themselves with the famous, why else would they fast track the blundering Kilroy into the position of Chief Executive? (cheap publicity)
    Australia is perhaps a rare example of success, but its a very long-winded and unnecessary way to regenerate areas. I'm totally bemused at your jibes at the famous being political, do you expect famous people (who obviously have opinions) to just stay silent about it? They have as much right to stand for office as anyone else surely!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greyhound01)
    Also this puts the final nail in the coffin of the crazy and unfounded suggestion put forward by a few nutters that UKIP is xenophobic, because they have carefully considered the evidence and chosen to support Paris over London based on whats actually best for London.
    Actually if it was in London then more foreigners would be entering the United Kingdom in order to particpate in the events.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Actually if it was in London then more foreigners would be entering the United Kingdom in order to particpate in the events.
    So this is a clever plot by the UKIP to stop foreign sportmen from visiting London for a few weeks? A cunning plan indeed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I don't know much about the London perspective. What I do know is that Sydney lost millions and so will Athens.

    Hosting the Olympics really does more for pandering to the egos of politicians and giving Architects the opportunity to do what they do best (using other people's money to build monuments to their own vanity) rather than generate revenue.

    The bottom line is always RED!
    They really didn't..when I find the stats will post but no idea where to start looking for them at this min....
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sophdoph)
    They really didn't..when I find the stats will post but no idea where to start looking for them at this min....
    I think you're right actually. Serves me right for shooting from the hip without doing my homework.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Too sleepy to research properly but...

    "....the Olympics will contribute an additional $6.5 billion to Australia’s GDP for the twelve year period 1994-95 to 2005-06 (Arthur Anderson/CREA,1999, p2). "

    From: http://www.austrade.gov.au/overseas/...-6_-7_,00.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sophdoph)
    They really didn't..when I find the stats will post but no idea where to start looking for them at this min....
    Ahem..... http://www.uk-learning.net/showpost....9&postcount=42
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greyhound01)
    I'm totally bemused at your jibes at the famous being political, do you expect famous people (who obviously have opinions) to just stay silent about it? They have as much right to stand for office as anyone else surely!
    UKIPs Shocking Secret!! (well worth a watch)

    Originally I said Kilroy was an example of UKIPs penchant for cheap publicity. You highlighted various other political parties linked with the “famous”, all of which were also good examples of similarly cheap publicity. Of course I am aware that “celebrities” have an opinion and I don’t see anything wrong with them voicing it. However, I do have a problem when celebrities are fast tracked into high-ranking positions within political parties for no other reason than cheap publicity. Or do you believe Kilroy was fast tracked into the ranks of UKIP for his political prowess?

    Anyway, below is a link to a short 2-minute video showing the shocking secret UKIP are hiding. It takes 2 mins for the video to load (but is WELL worth the wait) and given your political persuasion you may find it verrrry interesting indeed. (note, make sure the the sound is on)

    UKIPs Shocking Secret !
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    So this is a clever plot by the UKIP to stop foreign sportmen from visiting London for a few weeks? A cunning plan indeed.
    LOL yep that's it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    Ahem..... http://www.uk-learning.net/showpost....9&postcount=42
    Sorry yes saw it But I knew there was something else I had seen from another source which I wanted to find but still can't
    Offline

    18
    [QUOTE=Greyhound01]
    (Original post by Louise_1988)
    Sorry, this is slightly irrelevant but wht are you complaining about the congestions charge, I live in central london (sometimes) and pay 50p for the congestion charge so I dont know why your complaining about it. QUOTE]

    Because you don't pay £5 like everyone who doesn't live in the zone!
    The idea of the congestion charge is to
    a) reduce traffic (which it has done)
    b) Reduce the amount of pollution (which it probably has done, no studies have been done yet as far as i know.

    Lets face it, surely you can sympathise with louise1988. Living in the city (and no, some people DON'T choose to live there as opposed to suburbia) and having tens of thousands of people drive their empty cars in (dumping pollution along the way) and then driving back out to their clean air area at the end of the day.
    So I say game on as far as the C charge goes. Only the disabled or those with maximum occupancy should be allowed to pay reduced rates, and everyone else should get buttf*cked from their cars and into publib transport
    J
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    The idea of the congestion charge is to
    a) reduce traffic (which it has done)
    b) Reduce the amount of pollution (which it probably has done, no studies have been done yet as far as i know.

    Lets face it, surely you can sympathise with louise1988. Living in the city (and no, some people DON'T choose to live there as opposed to suburbia) and having tens of thousands of people drive their empty cars in (dumping pollution along the way) and then driving back out to their clean air area at the end of the day.
    So I say game on as far as the C charge goes. Only the disabled or those with maximum occupancy should be allowed to pay reduced rates, and everyone else should get buttf*cked from their cars and into publib transport
    J
    Perhaps is some of the billions of pounds taken in fuel tax, road tax, Ken Livingstone's congestion charges etc was actually spent on public transport people wouldn't be so reluctant to try using it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    UKIPs Shocking Secret!! (well worth a watch)

    Originally I said Kilroy was an example of UKIPs penchant for cheap publicity. You highlighted various other political parties linked with the “famous”, all of which were also good examples of similarly cheap publicity. Of course I am aware that “celebrities” have an opinion and I don’t see anything wrong with them voicing it. However, I do have a problem when celebrities are fast tracked into high-ranking positions within political parties for no other reason than cheap publicity. Or do you believe Kilroy was fast tracked into the ranks of UKIP for his political prowess?

    Anyway, below is a link to a short 2-minute video showing the shocking secret UKIP are hiding. It takes 2 mins for the video to load (but is WELL worth the wait) and given your political persuasion you may find it verrrry interesting indeed. (note, make sure the the sound is on)

    UKIPs Shocking Secret !
    At first I just thought you were mis-guided, now I think there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with you! What the heck was that video about you SICK FREAK! I watched the first 20 secs then deleted it, what is that about??? A VERY good explanation please
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    To say that the Olympics will be overall a positive thing is total bull.

    The dome made Britain a worldwide subject of ridicule. It opened for one year, and lost money, yet dozens of hospitals/schools/[insert worthwhile projects here] could have been built with the £750 million that it cost to construct.

    Like all government projects it was late and over-budget; can you imagine how wildy over-budget a project that can't be late will go, especially one of this scale?

    Even if we could organise the Olympics better than the Greeks (not hard!) it is well worth remembering that they have gone 30% over budget...over a vast budget.

    The cost/benefit issue of Olympic hosting was tackled on Newsnight tonight, and I was shocked at what I learnt. (I was skeptical enough before). Barcelona sunk $9 billion into the games, in order to get worthwhile infrastructure and affordable housing etc. out of it. They were rewarded with a moderate 2.7% rise in the city's GDP.

    Whereas in Atlanta where they spent a measly $990 million; they reneged on all the promises to regenerate the area and provide sports facilities and affordable housing (typical USA). They got a 0.07% rise in the city's GDP.
    No economic boost, no regeneration.

    Being unable to determine London's investment, if it is assumed to be an "average" Olympic host, it should get a 1.8% rise in GDP, which is around a pithy $4 billion. Considering the figures for Barcelona and Atlanta, I don't see London profiting, and if Londoners are to benefit, I will be unhappy about the amount of money being spent by government on a single project.

    (The statistics were the ones I could remember from Newsnight.)

    My summary:
    - If we're going to spend money in the order of $9 billion, then I'm horrified and against it because I'll think we'll **** up something of that scale and waste money.
    - If we're going to spend much less, then I'm against it because its pointless due to the marginal nature of any benefits.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greyhound01)
    What the heck was that video about you SICK FREAK! I watched the first 20 secs then deleted it, what is that about???

    it’s called satire. :rolleyes:http://www.ukindependence.org/
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    it’s called satire. :rolleyes:http://www.ukindependence.org/
    So you're the kind of person who looks on the web for people who look like politicians running around naked? There are a lot of words I could think of for that but satirical isn't one of them. Maybe you resort to things like that because UKIP has won the argument?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greyhound01)
    So you're the kind of person who looks on the web for people who look like politicians running around naked? There are a lot of words I could think of for that but satirical isn't one of them. Maybe you resort to things like that because UKIP has won the argument?
    :rolleyes: Er No, the film was taken from The Mark Thomas Comedy Product (a satirical show) shown on Channel 4. *pats Greyhounds head, rubs behind his ears and gives him a treat*
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    :rolleyes: Er No, the film was taken from The Mark Thomas Comedy Product (a satirical show) shown on Channel 4. *pats Greyhounds head, rubs behind his ears and gives him a treat*
    A satirical show? Saw it once and it's undoubtedly a crap show, rather than satirical. I wouldn't let you touch me mate, let alone my head. Do you like the idea of touching other men on the head and rubbing behind their ears??? Sounds a bit suspicious to me, sure you're not itching to come out of the closet???
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.