fazer71

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The hourly rate of a lawyer is irrelevant. The > claim that fazer made is that the Olympics > infrastructure was subject to to price gouging and > over charging (and now the accusation of fraud)on > behalf of contractors. It's not fraud don't be rediculous its the equivalent to weekend rates double the daily or hourly rate. Ffs Fraud ! How can we continue to discuss this with rediculous comments like this are made?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > fazer71 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Loz > > An argument which can never be won. > > > > The figures will add up and result in ?1.2 Bn > for a media centre. > > > No they don't. > > Try again. > > (Clue: if you click on the pretty circles, magic > things happen...) Yes I know it shows what was spent. What exactly are you saying I'm missing ? lpool Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So which of the CLM contractors have told you > this? Please tell. Yea right.

Hugenot Ahhh you just twist everything into a direct insult you really should stop showing yourself up. Have you spoken to anyone who worked on the Olympics? I have, individual contractors they were earning great rates they worked hard and were well paid. I have a problem with the Companies who employed them who still made excessive profits. Loz An argument which can never be won. The figures will add up and result in ?1.2 Bn for a media centre. ?6.7 Bn total etc etc If it looks like a duck sounds like a duck it probably is a duck. I can point you to a legal bill for a contract all that will tell you is what the lawyer charged per hour worked. It won't compare the hourly charge with another it won't tell you if he actually worked the hours he charged. It's just a load of numbers which are there to show what was paid and charged. It won't show if the rate was high or low or exactly how many hours were actually worked. So to suggest I look at a load of numbers is pretty stupid unless you are able to prove the hours worked and the rates were the market rates. If my ecomparisons don't mean anything to you fine but even Hugenot was surprised by some of the contract works! If all you can offer is a link to a load of numbers and you're not bothered to justify those numbers what the F are you replying to my posts for ? Are you stupid?

Plenty of houses out there without subsidence why buy a problem? I'd avoid it like the plague.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That makes you either terminally > stupid or a troll. Geniarse Is there a Godwin law equivalent for wrongly poping the Troll card? I'm just making some valid observations. Hardly trolling. As for being me stupid possible but try looking at some other recently started threads (Stolen Bricks) "?750 of bricks were stolen from the road outside my house" currently springs to mind...

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You're being completely inconsistent - if your > claim that the Olympics was at 2.5 times the going > rate, then the point about your last flat shows > that it wasn't. See what you did there? Duh, oh > yeah. You are wrong I?ve been 100% consistent I never said it all cost 2.5 times more. I said "What I know for a fact is there were plenty of contractors being paid 2 ? 2 ? times their usual rate." Common knowledge in various circles recruitment consultants and contractors. > Really you're just moaning for the hell of it. No I'm just making some observations not moaning . "I'm gutted I didn't get some of that easy money I could have bought a nice Aston Martin". > It is delightful to see that you are being proved > consistently wrong by the facts - especially the > discovery that the Stadium was actually cheaper > than the Emirates. So much for your balls that the > Olympics were getting gouged by contractors. That was what made me question the costs it appeared that the ?6.7 billion was the cost of the venues. The venues cost was ?1.05 billion a figure that does make sense. Surely that shows my initial understanding that the venue cost were ?6.7 billion was way over the top, was correct? Is that a reason to stop questioning where the remainder of the ?6.7 bn spend went? > The impetus is really on you to either put up or > shut up on the figures - because you're the one > making abusive and incorrect claims about others. You're the one being abusive towards me. Why do you insist on attacking me I have every right to question where my tax money has been spent! You?re not forced to read this. I have no reason to prove anything I can make any observation I like. I thought my Shard observation was reasonable and sput some perspective on the discussion. What exactly have you added to the discussion? Maybe you should shut up! > I share your surprise about the costs of some > contracting works, but experience has told me that > fag packet calculations that your mate down the > pub could do it cheaper are more often than not > the vain boast of meatheads. Ah so you?re as surprised as I am. I?m not talking to my mate down the pub just looking at this through my own eyes and making valid comparisons. Are the comparisons too vague for you to grasp the enormous numbers? > Go and find some facts to back up your Olympics > claims, and stop making claims that even the Daily > Mail would struggle to justify. I don?t think politically it would be a good move for any newspaper to investigate this. It?s one of those Shhhhhhh don?t mention facts or you might upset some people Shhhhhh ?.. I don?t care I?d like to know how spending enough money to build 17 or 14 Shard Towers we appear to have little more than a few roads bridges and a load of average homes? Huguenot ? Anyone ? ?1.2 bn on a media centre !!!!!!!!! FFS total insanity ,,, unless someone can explain how that number happened? The ?1.05 bn easy to work out which is why eve I was able to see ?6.7 bn was wrong. Maybe I?m the one who?s not understanding the numbers? Hold on you?re the one who can?t see the difference between contract pay and total project cost, not me. Ummmm

That's your opinion. I do have a pretty good idea of what that amount of money can build. What I know for a fact is there were plenty of contractors being paid 2 ? 2 ? time their usual rate. Also I know for a fact is that they could have built 17 That?s ?Seventeen?. SHARD TOWERS Plenty of room to accommodate all the athletes Even spending ?1.05 bilion on the sports venues They could still build 14 Shard Towers! It?s simple maths. Something which politicians and the public appear to be incapable of grasping. Why does it bother me. Because at my last flat Southwark were the freeholder and the major works were ?25,000. ?25,000 for works that should have cost less than ?7,000. That is what happens when our tax money get spent we pay three times more than we should. Not an idea I had just a Fact.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What an idiot. > Shut up. I don't think Bungled is the word but if that's what you call it then fine. To me it looks wrong, to you it was worth it, fine. I never said it was a rip off. I said a lot of people made a lot of money from it MORE money than they would have usually made from doing the same work / job if it wasn?t for the Olympics being paid for by Tax money. I?m entitled to my view. I?m gutted because I would have loved to have been on one of the ?1,000 a day Olympic contracts. Why do you feel the need to insult me? Why are you getting so upset?

'bout now Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Yeah I leave my car, too much to ask? > > Knob Knob Isn't your car locked with a key and alarmed? Maybe if the bricks had been locked in a box. Left in the road only a fool would be surprised they were stolen. It was only a few years back that york stone slabs were being stolen from pavements. It's very naive to think anything of value could be left on the road. Maybe a few bags of sand could be left or some cheap concrete slabs. But ?750 of bricks or a load of wood or bags of cement will get stolen. Best to carry them through to where they would be safe behind a locked door "and even then"!

I'm not moaning. Just making observations. Here?s another. ?6.7 billion = 17 state of the art finished Shard Towers. Broken down on a spread sheet shown on an interactive website or listed in a notepad. So what. Paint it pink with pretty spots on it. FFS ?6.7 billion = 17 state of the art finished Shard Towers. !

Would anyone leave ?750 on the road and expect it to still be there the next day ? I'm confused did I read this correctly ?

When we're talking about ?6,700 Million that's ?6,700,000,000 it's easy to lose ?400mill ?400,000,000 and still spend ?6,300,000,000. So many zeros it's a mind boggling amount of money. Half a million 500,000 new ?15,000 cars. 27 ?260mill Boeing 747?s A quite staggering amount of money. The ?1.05 Billion looks correct for the games venues. Much of the rest just looks wrong the ?1.2 Billion media spend as an example WTF is that about they spent more on a Media building than on all the sports buildings? Anyway it?s never ever going to be investigated as too many big wigs to protect and the games were a success. Mind boggling. I though the original cost at the time they bid was ?2.8 billion and we ended up spending ?9.7 billion. But laughingly they say it came in on budget. Yep the budget the set the year before it?s comical ? yet we all just go "Oh OK" ?..

It could have been good value and all built at the correct margins. But I doubt it. I could be wrong and everyone involved just made their usual margin and took a normal days pay. The mind boggling amount of money has big question marks written all over it. I bet the company who carried out the cabling made nice big margin. Then there are the companies who have no competition so they can just pluck a figure ?any figure? how do they audit that? Audit or no audit that?s irrelevant Little question plenty of high profit margin works. Still all good for the economy a few expensive sports cars sold and some lovely holidays. Maybe not quite lottery wins for some contractors but not far off. But that?s the nature of these projects. Probably little can be done. Much like the Railway.

I think if they were able to build the venues for 1.05 billion and they spent 6.7 billion on facilities and 9.7 billion in total it doesn't add up. Even if there was a media building at 1.2 billion an insane figure! A load of homes it still doesn't make a lot of sense. It's such a huge ammount of money. Wasnt the original estimate 2.8 billion? They went and spent a huge amount more for non games items IMO. Would anyone be surprised if many companies and individuals had lined their pockets at our expense? It looks wrong and it probably is wrong. If there was an investigation I think they would find massive overcharging. But it'll never be investigated. As with the majority of public spending on public works .. It's a sham managed by incompetent fools or crooks lining their own pockets and the pockets of their friends. Who can blame them if you were given all that power and money you'd call up your mates and you'd just end up choosing one of two contractor quotes regardless of how mental the price looked just to get the project finished.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jun/1 > 3/olympics-2012-government-data Excellent linky thank you. Venues Stadium 496 431 428 -3 Aquatics 214 253 251 -2 Velopark 72 86 87 1 Handball 55 41 41 0 Basketball 58 40 40 0 Other Olympic Park Venues 59 101 101 0 Non-Olympic Park Venues 84 111 103 -8 Total Venues 1,038 1,063 1,051 -12 Now I can see the venues cost ?1,051,000,000 or ?1.05 Billion So all we need to account for now is the ?5.6 billion. looking through the bits and bobs it's looking pretty complicated. I'm still struggling. Need more time. At least my first view that ?6.7 Billion was a little high for the buildings... Edit Hold on ?1.23 billion for this lot ??????? Media Centre Stratford City Land and Infrastructure 522 623 618 -5 and Village Stratford City Development Plots -250 -71 -71 0 Village Construction ? public sector funding 0 701 712 11 Village Receipt 0 -324 -324 0 IBC/MPC 220 292 295 3 Total Media Centre and Village 492 1,221 1,230 9 WTF is all that about ?

yea right take the piss all you like ... You've been hoodwinked you're blinkered you're naive you can't add up . What happens if these things don't get highlighted ? They spent enought money to build 16 (sixteen) emirate 60,000 seater stadiums !!!!! Maybe I've missed something? But to me the numbers just don't add up. If it looks wrong the it probably is wrong.. When one considers that we the tax payer are footing the bill the questions should be asked, as with any major works we appear to end up paying far more than anyone with any sense would pay. Am I really being unreasonable to ask the question? We're not talking about the cost of running the games or buying the land or cleaning the land.. 6.7 billion (?6,700,000,000) six thousand seven hundred million pounds was the cost of building the buildings. 16 emirate stadiums. Thats Seating for 1 million people. IE An insanely huge amount of money.. If that didn't make a lot of people very very rich I'd be very surprised. Maybe it was the governments attempt to get the economy moving again? The problem, if that was the aim is it would have concentrated the majority of money into the hands of a few already very rich building companies and those who owned them. Am I the only person who thinks it's unacceptable for a company or individual to become rich from over charging the nation for an event like the Olympics? No question many companies and individuals saw the Olympics as a money making gravy train. Look at the numbers am I wrong.... I don't think so... again that's ?6,700,000,000 maybe that number is so large it's too big for a lot of people to get just how big a number it is? I tried to get an idea by comparing it to something else and I ended up with 16 emirate stadiums! Which made NO sense.

Just read that facilities cost 6.7 billion pounds that's incredible! My guess is there're a good few more millionaires now than there were before the Olympics or the millionaires involved are now multi millionaires ... That's an insane ammount of money for a few roads and a stadium a copper box and a few temporary sites. I'm in the wrong game! Was the original budget 2.8 billion? And the total cost is now 9.7 billion? Incredible. Just incredible. When it comes to these projects all common sense and mathematical capacity appears to disappear just like the money. Didn't arsenal build their 60,000 capacity football stadium for ?200 million? Edit it cost just under ?400,000.. I don't get that ?6.7 billion olympic figure ....

Yes it's worth doing. 1. No condensation in cold wether. 2. Less noise. 3. Less cold & heat. Only downside is the cost. I did this at my last flat. If you have exisisting single glazed then it is possible to replace sash sliders with double glazed units because of the extra weight you'll need new matching lead weights. Otherwise it's complete replacement see the other thread.

Looks that way.. But I was thinking of a French movie " the story of O " .

O

Annette Curtain Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just > pleased to see me" You know I'm always pleased to see you ... xx

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I'm getting so p'd off. Can't find anything. The agents keep sending that new build fenwick rd hse ten times a week. 1350sq ft in that se15 location asking ?570 a sq ft I don't think so!

Ladyboy held hostage - bellend road... Then I looked at the title again.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This seems apt. Photos of Olympic high divers - > mid dive. Or mid poo? Geniarse ... A moment of clarity in a conversation otherwise filled with absolute shit. or Someone who is generally accepted to be an arse but occasionally shows moments of pure genius.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > with a bit of luck they'll soon be driven by the > google driverless car. That reminded me of that Arnie... Movie .. Total Recall. ............ I'll be back..