Olympics

[LastPoet]

With my Absurdist hat on I would say, we seem programmed to see patterns in things so we cannot be sure those patterns are there or that we are generating them ourselves.

That part I agree on, mabe I'm finding a pattern that its biased by a small sample indeed. That's why I said nevermind in the last paragraph.

As such I would advise people to support Tiberius as without his hard work we would not have a forum to disagree with him on.

You know, this does feel like a low blow, I thought we were gentlemen. Perhaps you had a bad choice of words. I don't see why you chose to include that in that reply to me.

[Tiberius]

Once the contract is made it covered the stewards for both events.

Oh my goodness. You realize the "contracts" that the articles are referring to are the contracts the government had with the company (CPUK) right? When the article mentions the word "contract" it does not mean the contracts of the workers.

To qualify to work at the Olympics workers had to go through the assessment at the jubilee as stated in the reports from the jubilee. So if you were coerced to sign up for the jubilee because the stewards contract covered both events my statement is proven is it not?

If you read the BBC article, you will find the following:

Close Protection said the unpaid roles were a trial for paid positions at the 2012 Games, for which it also has a contract to provide stewarding.

The company, which is based in Wigan, said it paid for meals for all the Jubilee volunteers, accommodation on the night after the event as well as supplying their clothing, equipment and licences to undertake the work.

But Ms Prince said steps had been taken "to ensure that better logistics planning will be in place for the Olympics".

The charity Tomorrow's People, which set up some of the placements at Close Protection UK, said it did not approve of unpaid work but in this case believed that it was valid work experience.

None of this is what you argued, which was:

"the unemployed would have had their benefits removed if they did not 'volunteer'"

There is no mention of the removal of benefits in any of this. The unpaid work was valid work experience, and was done as a trial for paid positions at the Olympics. The deal was, if you wanted a paid job for the Olympics, you had to work for free during the Jubilee. That is hardly coercion; you'll find a lot of companies take on unpaid interns and will employ the ones that perform the best later.

[jonb]

Once the contract is made it covered the stewards for both events.

Oh my goodness. You realize the "contracts" that the articles are referring to are the contracts the government had with the company (CPUK) right? When the article mentions the word "contract" it does not mean the contracts of the workers.

Oh my goodness, You realise If an employer verbably says to do this you have to do that it constitutes a contract.

To qualify to work at the Olympics workers had to go through the assessment at the jubilee as stated in the reports from the jubilee. So if you were coerced to sign up for the jubilee because the stewards contract covered both events my statement is proven is it not?

If you read the BBC article, you will find the following:

Close Protection said the unpaid roles were a trial for paid positions at the 2012 Games, for which it also has a contract to provide stewarding.

The company, which is based in Wigan, said it paid for meals for all the Jubilee volunteers, accommodation on the night after the event as well as supplying their clothing, equipment and licences to undertake the work.

But Ms Prince said steps had been taken "to ensure that better logistics planning will be in place for the Olympics".

The charity Tomorrow's People, which set up some of the placements at Close Protection UK, said it did not approve of unpaid work but in this case believed that it was valid work experience.

None of this is what you argued, which was:

"the unemployed would have had their benefits removed if they did not 'volunteer'"

There is no mention of the removal of benefits in any of this. The unpaid work was valid work experience, and was done as a trial for paid positions at the Olympics. The deal was, if you wanted a paid job for the Olympics, you had to work for free during the Jubilee. That is hardly coercion; you'll find a lot of companies take on unpaid interns and will employ the ones that perform the best later.

I did not realise that these companies paid benefits to the unemployed, so it is no surprise to me a company would not mention the removal of benefits. The reduction of benefits would be to do with government agencies.

---

With my Absurdist hat on I would say, we seem programmed to see patterns in things so we cannot be sure those patterns are there or that we are generating them ourselves.

That part I agree on, mabe I'm finding a pattern that its biased by a small sample indeed. That's why I said nevermind in the last paragraph.

As such I would advise people to support Tiberius as without his hard work we would not have a forum to disagree with him on.

You know, this does feel like a low blow, I thought we were gentlemen. Perhaps you had a bad choice of words. I don't see why you chose to include that in that reply to me.

Bad choice of words I apologise, please do not take it as any criticism of yourself! I was thinking if I was somebody else and knew nothing about the matter in question, who's argument I would be inclined towards. It was about me.

[Cato]

Post Olympic discussions would be much more enjoyable if we could change the events. I am a fan of many sports; however, just because there is an activity that requires some development of skill doesn't mean it belongs in the Olympics. Reading that golf will be reintroduced in 2016 as an event started this thought. Here are some other events that just need to go away: badminton, table tennis, synchronized diving, synchronized swimming, rhythmic gymnastics, air rifle, handball, speed walking, beach volleyball, trampoline, sailing, kayak, BMX, mountain biking, etc.

If the pinnacle achievement of the sport is not the Olympics then it should also go away: basketball, tennis, football, cycling, etc.

Here are some ideas for improvement:
Strenth: Caber tossing instead of weightlifting
Running: Pamplona comes to mind to replace sprinting events. For endurance, I am ok with the marathon; however, there should be steeplechase obstacles on the course and each participant must eat a pound of whatever the 'official restaurant' is serving up every three miles...washed down with a pint of beer of course.
Equestrian: We'll get rid of fencing at the same time and enjoy some jousting.
Combat sport: Get rid of all of them in favor of the MMA concept and be done with it.
Swimming: Sprinting should involve sharks. Endurance will be a nice long swim upstream in a fast moving river.
Projectile sports: Bows and rifles are boring. Trebuchet only. They will launch large fruit at the endurance swimmers.
Cycling: Stealing this from 'Revenge of the Nerds'. Make them ride tricycles on a track. One beer per lap, whoever makes it the farthest wins. The fact that a person could not be conscious at the moment of winning Olympic gold will make for great drama.

Also, the anti-doping rules are stupid. This means that only those with the proper genetic luck can possibly begin to train for success in certain sports.

Just some musings.

[Tiberius]

Oh my goodness, You realise If an employer verbably says to do this you have to do that it constitutes a contract.

Yes. My point was, the word "contract" used in the articles refers to the contract between the government and the company, not the company and the workers.

You said:

Once the contract is made it covered the stewards for both events.

What you were arguing is that people were coerced into the contract for the Olympics, when they clearly weren't. They were told that in order to get a paid job at the Olympics, they would have to do a trial unpaid job for the Jubilee (which lasted a day...a Sunday at that). This isn't coercion, it's a form of internship; a trial for the real job. The articles seem to suggest that the contract given to the workers was this:

1) Unpaid work for the Jubilee.
2) If unpaid work is satisfactory, paid work for the Olympics.

That's a perfectly fine contract, especially for someone unemployed. If I were unemployed, I wouldn't mind working for free if it meant I had the chance to get a paid job later. Under the current welfare program, if you are an unpaid worker, you still get your welfare cheque, so it's not like they weren't getting any money at all.

I did not realise that these companies paid benefits to the unemployed, so it is no surprise to me a company would not mention the removal of benefits.

I said there was no mention of the removal of benefits in any of this. In other words, no article you linked me to (as far as I could tell) mentioned that their benefits were removed if they didn't volunteer.

Now, if they were told that their benefits would be removed if they got the paid, well, that's what is supposed to happen. You only get benefits if you are unemployed; if you become employed, you don't get benefits anymore.

The reduction of benefits would be to do with government agencies.

Right, and there is absolutely no evidence for this; it seemingly only exists inside your head. Provide evidence for your claims!

Edit: Jubilee was on a Sunday, not a Saturday, my apologies.

[jonb]

Why are you arguing is it just to win some sort of Victory, or is it to find something out, if you just want a victory have it, I don't give a toss.

If you read my post to pad, you would find I too do not object to workfare, my objection was that 'they' pretended that it was not happening.
If you read what I have said was that stewards that work for some venues, did not work for the Olympics because they would have had to work for free.
There in the evidence that to work for the Olympics the person would have to work free for the jubilee.

So what do you want?

[Shell B]

I believe what he wants is for you to provide proof of your claims. He has been asking for it for several pages. Now, having read this discussion, I am convinced he will never get it, so I'll be surprised if he continues to "debate" with you.

Why would people choose to side with Tiberius just because he runs the site (with the help of some great cats)? Plenty of people disagree with him, though some prefer to do it in "private."

[Tiberius]

Why are you arguing is it just to win some sort of Victory, or is it to find something out, if you just want a victory have it, I don't give a toss.

Seriously? You have to ask that? I've asked you in every single post to present evidence for your claims. You have not done that. If you actually presented evidence, I wouldn't be continuing this. That is all I wanted...evidence for your two claims:

1) The people working as stewards in venues had their jobs taken away for the duration.
2) The unemployed would have had their benefits removed if they did not volunteer.

If you read my post to pad, you would find I too do not object to workfare, my objection was that 'they' pretended that it was not happening.

Who are "they" now? Is this yet another claim? Please can we focus on the two above before we go into claims of who pretended what?

If you read what I have said was that stewards that work for some venues, did not work for the Olympics because they would have had to work for free.

That isn't what I read. Can you quote and link to exactly where it says this please?

There in the evidence that to work for the Olympics the person would have to work free for the jubilee.

Yes, I agree with this. However, that does not mean that they would also have to work free for the Olympics (I quoted the section where it said the Olympics was paid work), nor does it validate either of your main claims.

So what do you want?

EVIDENCE.

[jonb]

Ok lets deal with this systematically one at a time,
Stewards that were already working for some venues prior to the Olympics would have to work for free if they wanted to work for the Olympics. That is my claim is it not?

To qualify to work for the Olympics the companies expected the stewards to work for free at the jubilee.
Have I not shown that in the evidence

[pgrimes15]

How about some games/sports that are not in the olympics but maybe should be.

Darts
Snooker
Croquet
Petanque
Pub quiz

Or perhaps some that are that shouldn't be.

Rhythmic Gymnastics (might as well have ballet in the games)
Water polo (can anyone work out whats going on ?)
Diving (action over in a split second, and all that seems to matter is how much splash you make)
Jiu Jitsu (OK if you have a foot fetish)
Mens beach volleyball (keep the womens' though . . Phwarrgh!!!)
That cycling one where they follow a man on a moped for a few laps then have a big rush at the end - crazy.

Regards

Grimesy