Now you know that the IOC have lost it

Whilst all around you are losing their heads, you should lose yours as well so as not to look stupid. That's presumably the motto at the IOC.





Now in some respects, I can accept that the chairman of the IOC's coordination committee Daniel Oswald quite likes the newly unveiled London 2012 logo, after all, that would be a matter of taste. He thinks that it's modern, dynamic, youthful, all the usual meaningless phrases that marketing people tend to come out with when trying to justify an excessively large invoice.
I on the other hand, as well as most of the British public, think that the 2012 logo shit but each to their own.

The worrying thing comes a little later though:

"We were delighted to have confirmation that the legacy aspect of the Games was what it was promised at the time of the bid," he said.

"This legacy is very important and we really consider London will be a model for future host cities of the Games.

What? Are you serious?

A games that is already predicting an increased budget of £9.3bn, has an aquatics centre that saw it's budget double overnight and a games policed by a force that doesn't have enough qualified officers, all of which before a brick has been laid is a 'good model' for future games?

It all comes from the IOC visit to London to check up on how the preparation is going. Given that the IOC, as an organisation, is a law unto itself, my only expectation is that this turned into a lunchtime back-patting session, just dragged out over three days.

Nevertheless, Ken Livingstone can't help but take this opportunity to have a dig at the doubters following these baffling comments:

Mr Livingstone guaranteed the 2012 Olympics would be the "most successful since Barcelona in 1992 in terms of regeneration and legacy".

"As the next three Olympic Games follow London, we will still be getting the legacy benefits in terms of housing and employment," he said.

He added that London would be able to meet all its Olympics targets and would "stage the greatest Games ever".

"It is time for the pessimists and purveyors of doom to start looking at the facts as laid out today and join the rest of us in backing London," he said.

As for the 'most successful legacy since Barcelona', he's probably right. Just as Barcelona turfed more than 50,000 gypsies from Montjuic Hill back in 1992, London will leave a legacy of local residential areas being bulldozed to make way for luxury apartments, leaving behind increased house prices and the dismantling of a community to be replaced by a wealthy clique.

But we should start looking at the facts? I am looking at the facts Mr Livingstone. The facts are that in 2002, the DCMS published the 'Game Plan' report which claimed that "hosting events is not an effective, value-for-money method of achieving ... a sustained increase in mass [sports] participation".
Another public think-tank found that "there is no guaranteed beneficial legacy from hosting an Olympic games ... and there is little evidence that past games have delivered benefits to those people and places most in need".
The facts also state that this Olympics is already over-budget by a considerable degree and that the London 2012 committee has produced an unpopular, epilepsy-inducing branding campaign.

Still, best to stick your head in the sand, assuming you haven't lost it yet.

The Atlantic is not wide enough

After buying out the Salford Quays Buccaneers, the Birmingham Villans and the Liverpool Stealers, the American's are plotting their next move in the mission to takeover British Soccerball.




The Football League will meet to discuss the proposal of abolishing "draws" from the Football League.

Instead of having a 1-1 stalemate with the points being shared, the proposal is to hold a penalty shoot-out should the teams be deadlocked after 90 minutes. Both teams would still be guaranteed the point, just as they are now, but the winners of the penalty shoot-out will take home an extra point.

You don't need me to tell you which country this crackpot theory has come from.

The supporters of the idea claim that such a system would make games more open and exciting, which would be no bad thing, had this not been the most senseless way of going about it.

Take the current system. At the moment it's not uncommon for teams to play out for a point against better opposition. It's not nice to watch but it's a necessary evil of the modern game. Now take the new idea, which is essentially encouraging these same tactics by potentially doubling the points on offer to the side using negative tactics.

And it gets worse when you here noises that this scheme would involve the "American style" shoot-out. Under the Yank's arse-backwards system, the action doesn't take place with a single strike from the infamous 12-yard spot, but way back to the half-way line. Said player than has 10 seconds to dribble unopposed to the goalmouth and attempt to score. It's a stupid system and the man who invented it should locked away in a dark room in the interests of public safety.

Remember those Budweiser adverts that were doing the rounds a few years back....

..how much of a joke did you think they actually were?

The Forbidden Towels

Sometimes, I just don't understand women. Sometimes, I don't think we're supposed to, esspecially when it involves parents.









In our bathroom, we have a towel rail with three towels permanantly resting upon it. We've also got various others on radiators around the house.
So when I've finished in the bath / shower, I grab the nearest towels on this rail and do what I need to do.

Except I'm not allowed to do that. Apparently, these towels are for "display purposes" and they are not to be used under any circumstances whatsoever.
Instead, all users of these facilities are to walk to the front of the house and get towels from the bedroom, making wet footprints all across the house.
When it is pointed out that such an idea is stupid, we're all told that we don't know what we're talking about and that we should stop questioning my mother's methods.

So anyway, I'm still considering why we have a set of towels that we can't use, yet we still have them connected to a heated towel rail.

Answers on a postcard please.