| Updated at least 26½ times a day |
| CONTACT THE LIZARD |
| OUR OPERATORS ARE STANDING BY |
Lizard Poll
|
| Check out our blog the monitor |
| Sign me up to receive the free weekly |
home
articles
editorials
bites
blog
gossip
love
letters
retractions
vacancies
competitions
about us
philosophy
contact
articles
editorials
bites
blog
gossip
love
letters
retractions
vacancies
competitions
about us
philosophy
contact
| _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ |
Sir Hugh Jafee, QC, lights your ire:
The Olympic Games
Friday, December 14, 2007
In a matter of a few years, London, the world’s greatest
city in the world’s greatest nation will host the world’s
greatest event.
The Olympic Games are coming to Great Britain.
My reason for telling you all this is because there has been so little
fanfare, so much reticence so characteristic of we British, that there
may be people as yet unaware of this momentous event. And even
better, we were able to beat the Frenchies to it, which is a jolly good
thing in my book.
Now, I am aware that there has been in some quarters some objection
to the idea of the Olympics coming to London, based on the cost that
such an event would incur, the lack of planning and foresight in the bid,
and even whispers of underhand activity in misrepresenting the true
cost of staging the Games, both to the International Olympic Committee
(IOC), and the British public at large. It is said that figures for the bid
were kept artificially low, by omitting to add, first, VAT (a common
enough oversight, and one that I have on occasion been guilty of
myself. Not when calculating brief fees, you understand, but
occasionally when required to pay the blasted thing. Usually happens
around March/April time…)
A second rumour, equally scurrilous in my point of view, has now
surfaced, and is no doubt originating from those people who are against
the whole idea and spirit of the Games in the first place, and don’t want
us to have it. Like the French.
There is a suggestion, completely unfounded, that the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) did not follow Treasury guidelines when
costing the event. Such guidelines call for contingency provision to be
routinely included for events of a certain scale. This contingency now
stands at some £2.7 billion, 75% of the costs of building that are
publicly admitted. Now, I am not an accountant (although I do seem to
spend an awful lot of time with mine) nor am I a politician, a sportsman
turned MP turned Conservative peer, or in any way involved or
connected with the bid. But I am a fabulously wealthy lawyer, and as
such, feel able to give my opinion on almost anything that takes my
fancy. And as a fabulously wealthy lawyer, I am here to tell you that
nothing untoward has happened, and that even if it had, which it didn’t,
it was all in a good cause. After all, is there a nobler British calling than
beating the French at something? (If only the buggers would start
playing cricket…)
When questioned about the alleged failure to include the contingency
provision, and disgracefully accused of having done so in order to keep
costs down just to maintain public support for the bid, the civil servants
at the DCMS correctly refuted this, stating time and again that the bid
had been prepared according to “expert advice”. The Treasury insists
that the DCMS was made aware of the regulations regarding
contingency provision, and that this information was ignored. To some,
this might appear to conflict with the idea that the bid was ‘expertly
advised’, but nothing can be further from the truth.
Let’s be honest about it: the last place you would go, or institution you
would listen to, for expert advice on anything to do with economics and
planning would be the Treasury, right? I mean, look at the mess they
made of that Northern bank thingy. Not what I call expert!
The ultimate charge is that, by failing to include the contingency
provision, (and of course forgetting that building materials, etc. might
incur VAT – although that wasn’t the fault of the DCMS, just the large
accountancy firm employed to do all the difficult adding up), the overall
costs of hosting the Games were kept artificially low, in order to garner
and keep public support, and to influence the outcome of the decision.
This is clearly pap and nonsense. The public are entirely in favour of the
Games – at least, the public to whom I speak are; a few killjoys have
moaned about the lack of consideration for locals in the East End of
London when planning facilities, the Olympic Village and the like. They
claim that people will have to be moved and rehoused, as land is
earmarked for development, and that basic considerations like use of the
new swimming facilities post the event have not been considered. Some
have even claimed that the money could be spent on better things, like
housing, urban regeneration and other such liberal, woolly nonsense.
To those objectors, I have this to say: quit the carping! You have an
opportunity to be part of the greatest show on Earth, and such an
opportunity doesn’t come without someone, that someone being you,
making a sacrifice.
So it’s going to cost a few billion pounds. Okay, £3.6 billion, with another
£2.7 billion as the contingency provision. Is that really that much, when
you consider what even basic amenities and essentials cost these days?
I mean, my new Bentley left me with little change from half a million
quid, so you can’t expect to get something as prestigious as the Olympic
Games on the cheap.
So a few people in the borough of Hackney may have to lose their
homes and move elsewhere. As I believe I have said, some sacrifices do
have to be made, although I am unsure as to whether moving from
Hackney is a sacrifice. I would see it as rather a blessing. I have friends
who have been to Dalston (solicitor chappies going to see ‘clients’, or
defendants, as I call them), and they assure me it’s ghastly.
The new wave-shaped Aquatics Centre has no provision for public use
after the Games? Then another remodelling is in order. I am sure a
‘leisure element’, as I am assured these things are referred to, can be
included for a few extra millions. And the cost of the Centre has only
risen by £125 million since planning, so there’s plenty more scope for
other rises. A cost increase of 166% (from an initial projected cost of
£75 million) can almost be explained simply by adjusting for inflation.
There really is nothing to worry about, I can assure you. And even if all
this creative accounting was done to ensure Paris didn’t win the bid,
isn’t that worth something? Shows the spirit of Dunkirk, and Agincourt, if
you ask me. No, we should put aside all the pettifogging objections, and
settle down to what will be a triumph for British sport. Imagine the pride
the nation will feel as Great Britain wins another gold medal, and laughs
in the face of the French, the Americans, the Australians (who, we all
know, are rubbish at sport) and the rest.
What’s that you say? The British are rubbish at Olympic sports? The
Aussies and Americans win almost everything the plucky little African
runners don’t? Oh, bugger. We haven’t really thought this through, have
we? I blame the Government…
© lizardmagazine.com, 2007
Sir Hugh Jafee, QC, also lights your ire:
The Olympic Games
Friday, December 14, 2007
In a matter of a few years, London, the world’s greatest
city in the world’s greatest nation will host the world’s
greatest event.
The Olympic Games are coming to Great Britain.
My reason for telling you all this is because there has been so little
fanfare, so much reticence so characteristic of we British, that there
may be people as yet unaware of this momentous event. And even
better, we were able to beat the Frenchies to it, which is a jolly good
thing in my book.
Now, I am aware that there has been in some quarters some objection
to the idea of the Olympics coming to London, based on the cost that
such an event would incur, the lack of planning and foresight in the bid,
and even whispers of underhand activity in misrepresenting the true
cost of staging the Games, both to the International Olympic Committee
(IOC), and the British public at large. It is said that figures for the bid
were kept artificially low, by omitting to add, first, VAT (a common
enough oversight, and one that I have on occasion been guilty of
myself. Not when calculating brief fees, you understand, but
occasionally when required to pay the blasted thing. Usually happens
around March/April time…)
A second rumour, equally scurrilous in my point of view, has now
surfaced, and is no doubt originating from those people who are against
the whole idea and spirit of the Games in the first place, and don’t want
us to have it. Like the French.
There is a suggestion, completely unfounded, that the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) did not follow Treasury guidelines when
costing the event. Such guidelines call for contingency provision to be
routinely included for events of a certain scale. This contingency now
stands at some £2.7 billion, 75% of the costs of building that are
publicly admitted. Now, I am not an accountant (although I do seem to
spend an awful lot of time with mine) nor am I a politician, a sportsman
turned MP turned Conservative peer, or in any way involved or
connected with the bid. But I am a fabulously wealthy lawyer, and as
such, feel able to give my opinion on almost anything that takes my
fancy. And as a fabulously wealthy lawyer, I am here to tell you that
nothing untoward has happened, and that even if it had, which it didn’t,
it was all in a good cause. After all, is there a nobler British calling than
beating the French at something? (If only the buggers would start
playing cricket…)
When questioned about the alleged failure to include the contingency
provision, and disgracefully accused of having done so in order to keep
costs down just to maintain public support for the bid, the civil servants
at the DCMS correctly refuted this, stating time and again that the bid
had been prepared according to “expert advice”. The Treasury insists
that the DCMS was made aware of the regulations regarding
contingency provision, and that this information was ignored. To some,
this might appear to conflict with the idea that the bid was ‘expertly
advised’, but nothing can be further from the truth.
Let’s be honest about it: the last place you would go, or institution you
would listen to, for expert advice on anything to do with economics and
planning would be the Treasury, right? I mean, look at the mess they
made of that Northern bank thingy. Not what I call expert!
The ultimate charge is that, by failing to include the contingency
provision, (and of course forgetting that building materials, etc. might
incur VAT – although that wasn’t the fault of the DCMS, just the large
accountancy firm employed to do all the difficult adding up), the overall
costs of hosting the Games were kept artificially low, in order to garner
and keep public support, and to influence the outcome of the decision.
This is clearly pap and nonsense. The public are entirely in favour of the
Games – at least, the public to whom I speak are; a few killjoys have
moaned about the lack of consideration for locals in the East End of
London when planning facilities, the Olympic Village and the like. They
claim that people will have to be moved and rehoused, as land is
earmarked for development, and that basic considerations like use of the
new swimming facilities post the event have not been considered. Some
have even claimed that the money could be spent on better things, like
housing, urban regeneration and other such liberal, woolly nonsense.
To those objectors, I have this to say: quit the carping! You have an
opportunity to be part of the greatest show on Earth, and such an
opportunity doesn’t come without someone, that someone being you,
making a sacrifice.
So it’s going to cost a few billion pounds. Okay, £3.6 billion, with another
£2.7 billion as the contingency provision. Is that really that much, when
you consider what even basic amenities and essentials cost these days?
I mean, my new Bentley left me with little change from half a million
quid, so you can’t expect to get something as prestigious as the Olympic
Games on the cheap.
So a few people in the borough of Hackney may have to lose their
homes and move elsewhere. As I believe I have said, some sacrifices do
have to be made, although I am unsure as to whether moving from
Hackney is a sacrifice. I would see it as rather a blessing. I have friends
who have been to Dalston (solicitor chappies going to see ‘clients’, or
defendants, as I call them), and they assure me it’s ghastly.
The new wave-shaped Aquatics Centre has no provision for public use
after the Games? Then another remodelling is in order. I am sure a
‘leisure element’, as I am assured these things are referred to, can be
included for a few extra millions. And the cost of the Centre has only
risen by £125 million since planning, so there’s plenty more scope for
other rises. A cost increase of 166% (from an initial projected cost of
£75 million) can almost be explained simply by adjusting for inflation.
There really is nothing to worry about, I can assure you. And even if all
this creative accounting was done to ensure Paris didn’t win the bid,
isn’t that worth something? Shows the spirit of Dunkirk, and Agincourt, if
you ask me. No, we should put aside all the pettifogging objections, and
settle down to what will be a triumph for British sport. Imagine the pride
the nation will feel as Great Britain wins another gold medal, and laughs
in the face of the French, the Americans, the Australians (who, we all
know, are rubbish at sport) and the rest.
What’s that you say? The British are rubbish at Olympic sports? The
Aussies and Americans win almost everything the plucky little African
runners don’t? Oh, bugger. We haven’t really thought this through, have
we? I blame the Government…
© lizardmagazine.com, 2007
Sir Hugh Jafee, QC, also lights your ire:
|
