TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

Gullscorer wrote:Why does the British media insist on putting GB third in the medals table? Russia had many more medals than GB..

On the other hand, the US media lists in their headlines: 1. USA... 2. China... 3. Russia... and that's it!
The rest nowhere..!!

All British institutions have always listed it on gold medal order, so in previous games it may not have benefitted us. I've never got the impression that this is the 'wrong' way to do it. But if you want to go by the 'if America does it that way then everyone should do it that way' attitude then there would really be no convincing you otherwise anyway.

Gullscorer wrote:Why does the British media insist on putting GB third in the medals table? Russia had many more medals than GB..

On the other hand, the US media lists in their headlines: 1. USA... 2. China... 3. Russia... and that's it!
The rest nowhere..!!

To be honest the yanks are full shit, think it is only right that the medals table is listed with gold medals as the priority, come four years time no one will remember who came second and third in London, being the olympic champion is the be all and end all, so as said it's right that comes first in the medal table regardless of how many silvers and bronzes other countries have.

Gaz many thanks for sharing your photos with us, you got around a bit and I am sure your memries will live long.

austrianandygull wrote:What a rousing closing speech by Lord Seb Coe. Shame he wasn't humble enough to thank the taxpayers for paying for the Olympics and his gravy train ticket though. Still, he's a Lord now so he couldn't give a flying f**k about the people that actually make this country work. It's over now thank bugger.

With all due respect Andy, you really are a miserable sod!!

The next Brucie perhaps?

Scott. i would have welcomed the Olympics with open arms if i wasn't helping pay for it mate. :na:

I don't see the problem, it's not as if they will lower tax by not doing things like the Olympics. You might as well just enjoy it because you paid for it!

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I watched mostly the athletic track events and the boxing, and not forgetting the football.


Watched all of the superb closing ceremony and stand out points for me was the tribute to John Lennon and Eric Idle singing Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life . . . . . . . .

cambgull wrote:I don't see the problem, it's not as if they will lower tax by not doing things like the Olympics. You might as well just enjoy it because you paid for it!

No Luke, it will stay the same but holding it INCREASES tax and as i am not in the slightest bit bothered about London OR the Olympics then it is a waste of money for me. I'd pay for the world cup to be here as it would be something i'd welcome and embrace.

Glad to see that Keith Chegwin had his gold in the ladies Shot taken away due to doping. :slap:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/19242736" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Was hoping for Billy Bragg (A New England) on the closing ceremony...not to be.
Eric Idle was quality - that needs to become the olympic anthem me thinks!

austrianandygull wrote: No Luke, it will stay the same but holding it INCREASES tax and as i am not in the slightest bit bothered about London OR the Olympics then it is a waste of money for me. I'd pay for the world cup to be here as it would be something i'd welcome and embrace.

...and there would be even more people complaining about not wanting the World Cup to raise *their* taxes. That's the whole point of tax - it's a collective burden, so the impact on each individual is reduced. If you live in a tax-levying society (that is, pretty much all of them), you're expected to contribute to some things that might not directly affect you (or that you might not even want). In return, those services etc that you do use more than average are available to you at a cost that is not prohibitive. It's part of the social contract.

happytorq wrote:
...and there would be even more people complaining about not wanting the World Cup to raise *their* taxes. That's the whole point of tax - it's a collective burden, so the impact on each individual is reduced. If you live in a tax-levying society (that is, pretty much all of them), you're expected to contribute to some things that might not directly affect you (or that you might not even want). In return, those services etc that you do use more than average are available to you at a cost that is not prohibitive. It's part of the social contract.

Yaay! You understand the system! I just wish (and this isn't a direct attack on Andy!) that more people around the country understand the ins and outs of stuff like this, as well as politics! "I don't watch BBC so i don't want to pay for it", well I'm afraid you have to compromise, that's what happens, not just for this, but in life!

On another note, what do you lot think of the paralympics?

Nothing wrong with the Paralympics, it's the Olympics that costs the money and I didn't have a problem with that. For the competitors, it's their chance to pretend they're "real people".