Olympics

[Tiberius]

First . Well I do not read the papers, and as far as I know I have not heard this issue mentioned on the T.V or radio. So yes if there has been no reporting of this issue they might well of not made a fuss, but then again, why would they pursue some minor matter that would not be cohesive to their popularity even among a significant number of their own supporters.

So all you have is your anecdotal evidence, which is completely worthless to us.

I applaud your emotional suppression to favour what you think is logic.

This isn't about logic; this is about the kind of evidence you present to back up your point. You are making the claims here; you need to present evidence to support your claims. So far, you have posted no links to any sources that do this; you have made anecdotal statements only.

I would not know, but it is sometimes worth playing down a thing if you want to proclaim what a success it was afterwards.

Still, the fact that you cannot find any evidence to support your claims speaks wonders.

So it was just a mistake that the president of France, made a speech about how rubbish Finnish cookery was, to a number of Finnish Judges, as they were about to vote which bid would get the thumbs up, maybe.

Your claim was "the French decided to pull out", not "the French President made stupid remarks which led to Paris not getting the bid". The two are very different things. The President had nothing to do with the Olympic bid, just as the Prime Minister of the UK had nothing to do with the Olympic bid.

Right, now lets talk about evidence shall we because it is clear that you don't understand what evidence is!

I understand fully what evidence is; you have not provided any that can be used to validate your claims.

There is hard evidence like an artefact yes that is evidence, but there is also a consistent set of events, this is called 'circumstantial evidence' you seem not to have heard of this phrase. This would cover things like who was in the room at the time, and what was the persons motives.

Right, but you have not presented any circumstantial evidence; you have presented hearsay, anecdotes. You cannot even cite any external sources for your claims; you make the claims and back them up with your own claims. That is not evidence!

But I suppose for some body as committed to logic as you make yourself out to be, this level of evidence in a criminal court is not high enough for you, you live on a higher plane than the rest of us mere mortals, I bow down to your lofty status, thou with the pseudonym of a god emperor.

No, I want a link, a news source, another person who can validate what you are saying. That is all I've ever wanted here.

[jonb]

Now I know why you don't seem to like evidence; you clearly prefer to make up stuff and believe that instead.

Do I?
Lets get this straight, I don't care what you think, I do not use forums to get information even the links are going to be biased. If I want to check anything out I look it up myself. but for me forums do perform a very interesting and entertaining role that is to supply me with information on the attitudes and opinions of some interested parties. That being my approach that is also how I post. Now as I have said all the way through this it is difficult for me to supply my sources. There would be if I did that questions raised of compromising friends an family just to make point to you, and that is just not worth it. As such I would be content if you did not believe a word fine, but You did not leave it there as just case unproven, you went on to accuse me in the statement above. That is different that is not saying I have not proven my case that is saying I am a lair.

Now this meant as I could not use my original sources I had to look up if I could find any corroborating evidence and I think I may have found some
in fact enough to throw doubt on your above statement.

Working for the Olympics workfare programme
The guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/06...ploitation

The guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04...unemployed

The guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/05...e-stewards

The guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...ng-to-hide

The guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/12...d-stewards

The guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/j...ing-street

The Evening standard
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/fu...20037.html

BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18329526

Time
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/06/repo...er-bridge/

ITV
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2012-06-05...-stewards/

ITV
http://www.itv.com/news/2012-06-06/unpai...obe-urged/

this is Bath
http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/Row-unpaid-j...story.html

this is Cornwall
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Westcoun...story.html

LBC 97.3FM
http://www.lbc.co.uk/unemployed-jubilee-...idge-55738

Belfast Telegraph
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/...69303.html

These reports are about the Jubilee and as such do not superficially seem to have anything to do with my assertion about the Olympics. As I have said I do not know of any direct reports, but form these we can start to piece together the story I have presented. I am not saying I will convince you of anything, and I am not interested in what you think, I am merely presenting this because I have been accused of making things up. Thus I am presenting this evidence to show I have a reasonable case to hold my views. Isn’t that odd here on an atheist website I am being expected to prove my innocence, rather than the accuser having to prove my guilt? Irony; maybe my accuser has spent too much time in the company of christians and is thinking in their way now.

You will notice in several of these reports references to coercion of jobless, into a workfare scheme that covered both the jubilee and the Olympics subcontracted to a security company. So could a view be reasonably drawn from this that there was a workfare scheme that covered the Olympics?

Do you want me to go on? Do you still accuse me of making things up?

[Napoléon]

Okay, so your sources consist of a biased view from a cunt of a politician like John Prescott, and numerous sources telling us the same thing. That some jubilee staff were left under a bridge.

That big list of 'sources' looks rather good doesn't it jon, until you actually open them up and realise that they not at all relevant to the Olympics, which was the subject matter in question.



"I am not saying I will convince you of anything, and I am not interested in what you think"

Yeah ok...

"Do you want me to go on? Do you still accuse me of making things up?"

Why do you care? You must be content that you've proven yourself right?

[jonb]

That big list of 'sources' looks rather good doesn't it jon, until you actually open them up and realise that they not at all relevant to the Olympics, which was the subject matter in question.

From one
Prescott said: "Is this the Olympic model? This company has bid for the contract at the Olympics, at which they will be paid £8.45, because it's the minimum wage but which conditions will they be paying for? How will they be sleeping? Who is responsible? This government that exploits cheap labour."

from 2
Close Protection UK confirmed that it was using up to 30 unpaid staff and 50 apprentices, who were paid £2.80 an hour, for the three-day event in London. A spokesman said the unpaid work was a trial for paid roles at the Olympics, which it had also won a contract to staff. Unpaid staff were expected to work two days out of the three-day holiday.

Compare this statement with that from 4

from3
He is calling for Theresa May to investigate whether the company has broken the security industry's own employment standards and is urging the government to review the company's contract for the Olympics.

from4
Not one person was forced to go, or told that the event was a selection process. These potential employees have been trained over a period of several months, and my company has paid for Security Industry Authority licences and equipment in readiness for the Olympics work we recruited them for. There was no intention to exploit anyone or indeed supply cheap labour; our time in training and people investment shone through on the day with compliments from officials at how well turned out and efficient our team was. The event passed without incident in the area we were responsible for.

From 5
"I now await an urgent response from my letter to Locog requesting an investigation into how CPUK was appointed to a reported £850,000 fire marshaling contract for the Olympic venues and the company's competencies to deliver it.

From 6
"The fact that anybody, let alone unpaid workers, were forced to sleep under London bridge is truly scandalous," said Biggs. "To make it worse it appears that many of these people were essentially blackmailed into taking unpaid work, otherwise they wouldn't be able to work at the Olympics or would risk losing their benefits.

From 7
Ms Prince also insisted there was "dry sheltered accommodation" provided at the campsite and that the "logistical mistakes" from the weekend would be "learnt from in readiness for the Olympics".

From 8
Work experience is a compulsory part of the NVQ2 qualification in stewarding - which is essential for work at major events such as the Olympics.

That seems to conflict with 4 again

From 9; No sod it, I'm bored now, none of those bits have anything to do with the Olympics do they?
I just made it all up.

---

[Tiberius]

Lets get this straight, I don't care what you think, I do not use forums to get information even the links are going to be biased.

I never said you should use forums to get information. I said if you make a claim, you need to back it up with evidence when challenged. You didn't do that. Links can be biased; data (i.e. evidence) usually cannot.

If I want to check anything out I look it up myself.

Certainly, but when someone makes a claim here, we ask them to back it up with evidence. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim, not the person who says "prove it".

You did not leave it there as just case unproven, you went on to accuse me in the statement above. That is different that is not saying I have not proven my case that is saying I am a lair.

I accused you of making things up because you cannot present sufficient evidence other than anecdotes. Unless you can present actual evidence, you should not make claims in the first place.

These reports are about the Jubilee and as such do not superficially seem to have anything to do with my assertion about the Olympics.

Isn't it funny how you accused me of not knowing what evidence was, yet you think it's perfectly reasonable to present articles about an entirely different event as evidence of your claims. Ridiculous.

As I have said I do not know of any direct reports, but form these we can start to piece together the story I have presented.

No, from these we can determine nothing.

I am merely presenting this because I have been accused of making things up.

You have not presented any evidence which even comes close to merely suggesting your claims have some degree of validity. The fact that you cannot find any evidence at all, and continually resort to using bad evidence and even bad reasoning leads me to conclude that you either made up your claims, or heard them from someone else, decided you liked them, and now continue to propagate them despite myself and others pointing out that there is no evidence to support them. Either way, you end up being the dishonest one.

Thus I am presenting this evidence to show I have a reasonable case to hold my views.

If you think what you've presented here is a "reasonable case", you are having a laugh. Your entire post is a non-sequitur.

Isn’t that odd here on an atheist website I am being expected to prove my innocence, rather than the accuser having to prove my guilt? Irony; maybe my accuser has spent too much time in the company of christians and is thinking in their way now.

No, you were expected to present evidence for your claims. When you could not, and came up with numerous ways to try and change your argument, I charged you with making the claims up in the first place. My evidence is your complete lack of evidence, and your general behaviour when challenged.

You will notice in several of these reports references to coercion of jobless, into a workfare scheme that covered both the jubilee and the Olympics subcontracted to a security company. So could a view be reasonably drawn from this that there was a workfare scheme that covered the Olympics?

Sure, but as I've said before, just because something happens in one instance, does not mean it happens in another, even if the circumstances are similar. Indeed, since people raised such a fuss about it at the Jubilee, it's incredibly likely that things were changed for the Olympics. Put simply, it does not follow that some coercion will happen just because it's happened before under similar circumstances. If you want to claim that, you need specific evidence.

Do you want me to go on? Do you still accuse me of making things up?

Since you have still not presented any evidence whatsoever that your claims about the Olympics are true, and you continually try to support your claims through a misuse of logic, yes. My reasoning:

If your claims were true, there would be at least one (if not more) reports that support your claims, especially given that you've demonstrated how many reports there were of a similar thing happening at a different event months before. Since there are no reports that you can present, and since you have displayed that your only reason to believe this is based on anecdotes and faulty logic, I conclude that you made these claims up.

[jonb]

It is clear in those reports the contacts covered both events, therefore your assertion they are unrelated seems hard to justify. If you have evidence that the contracts did not cover both events put up or shut up.

[Tiberius]

It is clear in those reports the contacts covered both events, therefore your assertion they are unrelated seems hard to justify. If you have evidence that the contracts did not cover both events put up or shut up.

Did you even read my post? I never denied that the contracts covered both events. I pointed out that just because the coercion happened at the Jubilee does not mean it happened at the Olympics. Also, the fact that it was covered so widely by the media in the Jubilee makes is all the more likely that it would likewise be covered again if it happened at the Olympics. However, as I also pointed out, the coverage also makes it more likely that the company involved made sure the same thing didn't happen at the Olympics.

You have failed to provide evidence that the same thing happened at the Olympics. Just because the same company were used does not mean the same thing happened. There is no evidence that the same thing happened at the Olympics; now you put up or shut up, and don't make a strawman of my argument again.

[jonb]

It is clear in those reports the contacts covered both events, therefore your assertion they are unrelated seems hard to justify. If you have evidence that the contracts did not cover both events put up or shut up.

Did you even read my post? I never denied that the contracts covered both events. I pointed out that just because the coercion happened at the Jubilee does not mean it happened at the Olympics. Also, the fact that it was covered so widely by the media in the Jubilee makes is all the more likely that it would likewise be covered again if it happened at the Olympics. However, as I also pointed out, the coverage also makes it more likely that the company involved made sure the same thing didn't happen at the Olympics.

You have failed to provide evidence that the same thing happened at the Olympics. Just because the same company were used does not mean the same thing happened. There is no evidence that the same thing happened at the Olympics; now you put up or shut up, and don't make a strawman of my argument again.

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

[LastPoet]

Hmmm, as a mind that detects patterns, it seems absurdists do get into fervent discussion with Tiberius. Hmmmmm.

Nevermind, I'm just that crazy

[jonb]

Hmmm, as a mind that detects patterns, it seems absurdists do get into fervent discussion with Tiberius. Hmmmmm.

Nevermind, I'm just that crazy

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. 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.