The London 2012 Olympics: Current affairs discussion

[devilincarnate]

Whoooopie we have our first medal.

Lizzie Armitstead won Britain's first medal of the 2012 Olympics as Marianne Vos claimed gold for the Netherlands in the women's road race on Day Two.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/18904107

[Russ]

Originally Posted by gazzae

Were you not complaining when a Welsh player was called English?

Yes I was and I've not said the Koreans didn't have the right to be angry. However what they don't have the right to do is have a tantrum and throw their toys out of the pram by holding up the game and refusing to play until it was rectified. They came to play sport - if they weren't showing sporting behaviour then what's the point?

---------- Post added at 18:53 ---------- Previous post was at 18:49 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

I saw it as a typical British family who happened to be of mixed colours ,which of course is quite normal in most countries including this one.

The Daily Mail (unsurprisingly) kicked off over this one and for once, I partially see their point. They were saying it did not represent British families as a whole etc and I have to agree.

Having lived in Leicester for 2 years I would say multiculturalism is the norm. People of all colours, all over the place so in that instance (or as the Mail put it, an 'ethnic' person in each scene) the ceremony got it right.

However back in my home town, a small Welsh village where 99% (my estimate) of people are white, it's very much wasted and certainly not representative. Don't get me wrong, it's not a massive thing but for once the Mail kind of has a point.

Originally Posted by Russ

The Daily Mail (unsurprisingly) kicked off over this one and for once, I partially see their point. They were saying it did not represent British families as a whole etc and I have to agree.

Having lived in Leicester for 2 years I would say multiculturalism is the norm. People of all colours, all over the place so in that instance (or as the Mail put it, an 'ethnic' person in each scene) the ceremony got it right.

However back in my home town, a small Welsh village where 99% (my estimate) of people are white, it's very much wasted and certainly not representative. Don't get me wrong, it's not a massive thing but for once the Mail kind of has a point.

Must be me then because I never even noticed..let alone thought to comment about it..and I suggest that the vast majority didn't notice either..or more to the point didn't actually care until the Daily Fail pointed it out.

[carlwaring]

Here's the original Daily Wail article.
http://www.freezepage.com/1343493744VDGIBPHPUW

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Must be me then because I never even noticed..let alone thought to comment about it..and I suggest that the vast majority didn't notice either..or more to the point didn't actually care until the Daily Fail pointed it out.

Originally Posted by me

Don't get me wrong, it's not a massive thing but for once the Mail kind of has a point

Originally Posted by Russ

However back in my home town, a small Welsh village where 99% (my estimate) of people are white, it's very much wasted and certainly not representative. Don't get me wrong, it's not a massive thing but for once the Mail kind of has a point.

More and more people live in larger cities. It's not the norm but neither is it abnormal and the Opening Ceremony should showcase as much as the nation as possible. So while The Mail is right in that it doesn't represent the majority of couples it's a facile point and they are blowing it out of proportion in order to pander to what they perceive their readers' prejudices to be. The idea you can be outraged at the display of multiculturalism in a Opening Ceremony based in London is something only the Mail, and maybe The Express, can pull off.

It's just a shame that in a Opening Ceremony that has been widely praised around the world and at home The Mail chooses to focus on the race of it's participants. There was a tribute to the 'green and pleasant lands' of Jerusalem before giving way to the industrial revolution, a tribute to the health service and to children's literature, a tribute to our musical and comedic history. However Danny Boyle had the temerity to cast a ethnic minority in a big role and The Daily Mail hits the outrage button and throws it's toys out of the pram. It's pathetic. The Mail has a point but the real question is, who cares? It's not that The Mail is factually wrong, it's that it thinks it matters in the first place.

However this is what they want. They are professional trolls and hate-mongers. They know what they are doing. A person who visits the story in anger counts just as much as someone who visits it in support, they show up just the same in the hits and the ad revenue. Best thing we can do is ignore them, or at least don't visit their website.

Originally Posted by Damien

More and more people live in larger cities. It's not the norm but neither is it abnormal and the Opening Ceremony should showcase as much as the nation as possible. So while The Mail is right in that it doesn't represent the majority of couples it's a facile point and they are blowing it out of proportion in order to pander to what they perceive their readers' prejudices to be. The idea you can be outraged at the display of multiculturalism in a Opening Ceremony based in London is something only the Mail, and maybe The Express, can pull off.

It's just a shame that in a Opening Ceremony that has been widely praised around the world and at home The Mail chooses to focus on the race of it's participants. There was a tribute to the 'green and pleasant lands' of Jerusalem before giving way to the industrial revolution, a tribute to the health service and to children's literature, a tribute to our musical and comedic history. However Danny Boyle had the temerity to cast a ethnic minority in a big role and The Daily Mail hits the outrage button and throws it's toys at our the pram. It's pathetic. The Mail has a point but the real question is, who cares? It's not that The Mail is factually wrong, it's that it thinks it matters in the first place.

However this is what they want. They are professional trolls and hate-mongers. They know what they are doing. A person who visits the story in anger counts just as much as someone who visits it in support, they show up just the same in the hits and the ad revenue. Best thing we can do is ignore them, or at least don't visit their website.

Originally Posted by Damien

More and more people live in larger cities. It's not the norm but neither is it abnormal and the Opening Ceremony should showcase as much as the nation as possible. So while The Mail is right in that it doesn't represent the majority of couples it's a facile point and they are blowing it out of proportion in order to pander to what they perceive their readers' prejudices to be. The idea you can be outraged at the display of multiculturalism in a Opening Ceremony based in London is something only the Mail, and maybe The Express, can pull off.

It's just a shame that in a Opening Ceremony that has been widely praised around the world and at home The Mail chooses to focus on the race of it's participants. There was a tribute to the 'green and pleasant lands' of Jerusalem before giving way to the industrial revolution, a tribute to the health service and to children's literature, a tribute to our musical and comedic history. However Danny Boyle had the temerity to cast a ethnic minority in a big role and The Daily Mail hits the outrage button and throws it's toys at our the pram. It's pathetic. The Mail has a point but the real question is, who cares? It's not that The Mail is factually wrong, it's that it thinks it matters in the first place.

However this is what they want. They are professional trolls and hate-mongers. They know what they are doing. A person who visits the story in anger counts just as much as someone who visits it in support, they show up just the same in the hits and the ad revenue. Best thing we can do is ignore them, or at least don't visit their website.

That pretty much says what i was trying to get across .I think the point was not that we have multicultural families and feel the need to boast about it and feel all righteous about it but that we don't really care and attach no importance to it ........IT'S NO BIGGIE

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Russ

The Daily Mail (unsurprisingly) kicked off over this one and for once, I partially see their point. They were saying it did not represent British families as a whole etc and I have to agree.

It's because people try to be too nice. there was absolutely no reason why it couldn't have been just a plain and simple white family.

we had to go for the mixed relation to make a point. a point, an expression, a message to all.

you ask the person who decided on it. he'll tell you.

---------- Post added at 20:09 ---------- Previous post was at 20:08 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

That pretty much says what i was trying to get across .I think the point was not that we have multicultural families and feel the need to boast about it and feel all righteous about it but that we don't really care and attach no importance to it ........IT'S NO BIGGIE

You're delivering your own opinions again. which is good.
but they just read as fact sometimes

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

More and more people live in larger cities. It's not the norm but neither is it abnormal and the Opening Ceremony should showcase as much as the nation as possible. So while The Mail is right in that it doesn't represent the majority of couples it's a facile point and they are blowing it out of proportion in order to pander to what they perceive their readers' prejudices to be. The idea you can be outraged at the display of multiculturalism in a Opening Ceremony based in London is something only the Mail, and maybe The Express, can pull off.

It's just a shame that in a Opening Ceremony that has been widely praised around the world and at home The Mail chooses to focus on the race of it's participants. There was a tribute to the 'green and pleasant lands' of Jerusalem before giving way to the industrial revolution, a tribute to the health service and to children's literature, a tribute to our musical and comedic history. However Danny Boyle had the temerity to cast a ethnic minority in a big role and The Daily Mail hits the outrage button and throws it's toys at our the pram. It's pathetic. The Mail has a point but the real question is, who cares? It's not that The Mail is factually wrong, it's that it thinks it matters in the first place.

However this is what they want. They are professional trolls and hate-mongers. They know what they are doing. A person who visits the story in anger counts just as much as someone who visits it in support, they show up just the same in the hits and the ad revenue. Best thing we can do is ignore them, or at least don't visit their website.

As I said it's not an issue - but I can see their point even if it is a greatly exaggerated one. However I think most people will see through the story as I'm pretty sure none of the Mail staff live in such small villages where multiculturalism is almost non-existent enough for their story to make sense.

Originally Posted by Damien

More and more people live in larger cities. It's not the norm but neither is it abnormal and the Opening Ceremony should showcase as much as the nation as possible. So while The Mail is right in that it doesn't represent the majority of couples it's a facile point and they are blowing it out of proportion in order to pander to what they perceive their readers' prejudices to be. The idea you can be outraged at the display of multiculturalism in a Opening Ceremony based in London is something only the Mail, and maybe The Express, can pull off.

It's just a shame that in a Opening Ceremony that has been widely praised around the world and at home The Mail chooses to focus on the race of it's participants. There was a tribute to the 'green and pleasant lands' of Jerusalem before giving way to the industrial revolution, a tribute to the health service and to children's literature, a tribute to our musical and comedic history. However Danny Boyle had the temerity to cast a ethnic minority in a big role and The Daily Mail hits the outrage button and throws it's toys at our the pram. It's pathetic. The Mail has a point but the real question is, who cares? It's not that The Mail is factually wrong, it's that it thinks it matters in the first place.

However this is what they want. They are professional trolls and hate-mongers. They know what they are doing. A person who visits the story in anger counts just as much as someone who visits it in support, they show up just the same in the hits and the ad revenue. Best thing we can do is ignore them, or at least don't visit their website.

Hell to the power of yeh!

Well put, Damien.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Matt D

Nope - I hate watching sport. It bores me, even if it's Team GB at the Olympics or England at the football.

The TV will be showing it all non-stop... but only because Mrs D loves it all. I won't be watching.



Another story on it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012...ony?CMP=twt_gu


No surprise really. NBC's coverage came in for criticism from the very beginning.

- No live-stream, just a time-delayed broadcast that began when the ceremony finished.

- The NBC presenters were ignorant of who Tim Berners-Lee was. Apparently they suggested to the audience that they just Google him, not knowing that if it wasn't for TBL in the first place they would not be able to Google TBL...

- Replacing the "memorial wall" section with a Ryan Seacrest interview

Well veryone knows Bill Gates and Steve Jobs invented the internet...

Originally Posted by Gary L

It's because people try to be too nice. there was absolutely no reason why it couldn't have been just a plain and simple white family.

we had to go for the mixed relation to make a point. a point, an expression, a message to all.

you ask the person who decided on it. he'll tell you.

---------- Post added at 20:09 ---------- Previous post was at 20:08 ----------




You're delivering your own opinions again. which is good.
but they just read as fact sometimes

And there is absolutely no reason why it couldn't be the plain and simple family that they showed - it's only a big thing to those who think it is; I hadn't even noticed.... (which is why I asked the question earlier).

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And there is absolutely no reason why it couldn't be the plain and simple family that they showed - it's only a big thing to those who think it is; I hadn't even noticed.... (which is why I asked the question earlier).

Like I said. ask the person who chose to use a white woman and a black man to depict a typical British family. he'll tell you he did it for a reason.

which therefore means that those who question his thinking have a valid point.

which is. why?

Originally Posted by Gary L

Like I said. ask the person who chose to use a white woman and a black man to depict a typical British family. he'll tell you he did it for a reason.

which therefore means that those who question his thinking have a valid point.

which is. why?

Straw man argument, Gary - you may think he/she thought that way, but that does not mean he/she thought that way, so your proposition is built on how you think they thought (because you may think that way), not on how they thought (because they may not think that way).

Perhaps they took as an example Lewis Hamilton or Jessica Ennis's parents, and thought they were a good example of a British family - but, as I stated earlier, it's only a problem if you think it's a problem.

I know lots of families like the one portrayed - and to me, they are just a British family, nothing more or nothing less.