Team GB - you absolutely ROCK!

[dulwichgirl2]

Wow! GB finally punching at its weight. Well done to the whole team and coaches, not to mention the parents and siblings who are sacrificing everything for the sporting genius.

[DJKillaQueen]

And thank you also to the millions of people buying lottery tickets, as lottery funding is the main reason for the increased success of our sports men and women.

[dulwichgirl2]

Absolutely agree re lottery. Am happy with this though - it is a good use rather than eg keeping stately homes open.

[Huguenot]

*double take*

Would you prefer our stately homes were shut down?

[dulwichgirl2]

If it came to a choice between keeping a stately home in perfect nick and sponsoring young sporting talent, for me there is no contest.

[Huguenot]

Thankfully those who must be obeyed are wiser than to make it a binary choice between preserving thousands of years of our nation's cultural heritage for our children, and the short term thrill of a fleeting moment of sporting success.

Put it this way - you probably can't even say where the 1952 Olympics was held, let alone whether the UK won and medals, wherease the National Trust has provided us with a rich and inspiring record of our history that makes us who we are today.

Thank heavens that somebody thinks for the long term!

[titch juicy]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thankfully those who must be obeyed are wiser than

> to make it a binary choice between preserving

> thousands of years of our nation's cultural

> heritage for our children, and the short term

> thrill of a fleeting moment of sporting success.

>

> Put it this way - you probably can't even say

> where the 1952 Olympics was held, let alone

> whether the UK won and medals, wherease the

> National Trust has provided us with a rich and

> inspiring record of our history that makes us who

> we are today.

>

> Thank heavens that somebody thinks for the long

> term!

bit of a silly example- i imagine most people can't name more than a handful of stately homes in this country, but many can name former olympic gold medalists

for me the money is much better spent on giving sportsmen and women the opportunities that they otherwise wouldn't have, rather than throwing money at symbols of privilege from a bygone era, that are largely irrelevant in 21st century britain.

I think the viewing figures and olympic ticket sales bear witness to that

[Huguenot]

You may well think that's a silly example, but I kinda think that anyone who sees short term populism and TV viewing figures as a reflection of national priorities is presenting a silly example.

It's particularly silly because it's wrong simply on its own terms:

The National Trust looks after 17 million paying visitors and over 50 million non-paying visitors to its sites every year. That's a damn sight more that than the tickets to the Olympics.

As for all the class war rhetoric, it's a bit student politics isn't it? All this bolshevik dogma about erasing bits of our history that don't support whatever current philosophical fad we're supporting.

I enjoy the Limpets, but to imagine that 2 weeks of brouhaha is more important than our national cultural heritage is losing the plot.

I'm not recommending that we don't support sports or that we don't have the Limpets - far from it. I'm just unimpressed by somebody suggesting that it is a better use of investment than preserving our history.

[Otta]

It's an argument we shouldn't be having. I find it sad that our athletes are forced to rely on lottery funding, and that judo lass having to set up a fund raising website to replace her old banger just so she could get to training.

I am also proud to live in a country with a history, and would not like to see stately homes left to rot.

[titch juicy]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You may well think that's a silly example, but I

> kinda think that anyone who sees short term

> populism and TV viewing figures as a reflection of

> national priorities is presenting a silly

> example.

>

> It's particularly silly because it's wrong simply

> on its own terms:

>

> The National Trust looks after 17 million paying

> visitors and over 50 million non-paying visitors

> to its sites every year. That's a damn sight more

> that than the tickets to the Olympics.

>

> As for all the class war rhetoric, it's a bit

> student politics isn't it? All this bolshevik

> dogma about erasing bits of our history that don't

> support whatever current philosophical fad we're

> supporting.

>

> I enjoy the Limpets, but to imagine that 2 weeks

> of brouhaha is more important than our national

> cultural heritage is losing the plot.

>

> I'm not recommending that we don't support sports

> or that we don't have the Limpets - far from it.

> I'm just unimpressed by somebody suggesting that

> it is a better use of investment than preserving

> our history.

How can you compare visitor numbers over 12 months, to ticket sales for a two week event- where tickets are limited. It's entirely pointless.

Why do stately homes need money in the first place? And why is it important to maintain the former homes of the very wealthy- they don't automatically offer our cultural heritage anything just by virtue of their birthright. I'm sure there are examples where they have, but certainly not for the most part. Being financially rich does not equal being culturally rich.

And 'a couple of weeks of brouhaha'? People train for years for a momen of glory that can change their lives forever- how is that short term?

....and why do you keep calling it the 'Limpets'?

[DJKillaQueen]

Interesting debate. I always see stately homes as being akin to museums, and as such they have their place in the cultural heritage of the nation. Yes they are symbols of past individual wealth (with both negative and positive associations) but by the time they are handed over to the National Trust, that wealth is gone. It's also important to point out that the National trust perserves for the nation, not any individual.

Equally however, sport and especially sport like the Olympics (where many sports are represented, and often by athletes who have trained purely for the honour of participation, not money) also have their place and value. I saw a poster on facebook today for example with Jessica Ennis and a caption asking the media to focus on role models like her for our youth, rather than reality show wannabees and Katie Price.

So my view I guess, is that we can and should have both, with one being no more important than the other.

And with that...the men's 100m final is about to start.....a visit to Hampton Court can wait :D

[dulwichgirl2]

Bolt for the 200?

[Huguenot]

I think you've missed the point or history of the National Trust by a country mile titch juicy.

I think your view is based on entirely misinformed preconceptions.

Firstly rich people don't own the houses.

The later Victorian era had many national movements to great egalitarianism - we benefit from these beliefs today with universal suffrage, healthcare and education. One of these strategies was to tax the land owning aristocracy out of existence.

The tool for this was what is now known as inheritance tax - by imposing thumping death duties on estates that lead to the break up of aristocratic fortunes and the redistribution of their assets to others.

The initial impact of this was the mass destruction of our artistic and cultural heritage as unpaid tax obligations forced houses and their contents to collapse into ruin, and paintings and furniture were left to rot.

The National Trust was an independent charity that stepped into the breach to acquire these houses and works of art on behalf of the nation.

Just being 'rich people's houses' is insufficient for National Trust acquisition - your average footballer's red brick mansion in Alderley Edge is not going to fall into this bracket.

The fact that art once belonged to rich people does not make it devoid of value - this is weird. Art was the preserve of the wealthy because they had to be sufficiently flush to pay for its creation and maintenance.

It's a matter of considerable pride that the British people are so intelligent to set up institutions like the National Trust and make such use of it.

Their paid up membership, incidentally, has risen from 2m to 3.7m people in the last 20 years - over 6% of the population.

[titch juicy]

Fairplay, i'll admit to be being less than knowledgable, and my views probably are misinformed.

The National Trust seems like a very worthwhile institution, and the fact that it has 3.7m paid up members is testament to that- but the fact remains that it does have 3.7m paid up members, which must be a healthy source of income for it. In which case, lottery funding is better spent elsewhere, providing aid to institutions that don't have 3.7m paid up members- like UK Athletics for example.

[KidKruger]

No, if you add-up the 3.7m x annual membership fee you may have the money necessary to maintain a very small no. of properties only. The remainder still need other funds or grants.

[titch juicy]

according to wikipedia The National Trust receives over ?400m funding per year, from various sources.

I can't find figures for the London Olympics- but in the four years leading up to the Beijing Olympics, UK athletics received roughly ?26m funding (over four years).

[titch juicy]

found out that Team GB is funded solely by the British Olympic Association, and the BOA is funded purely by fundraisers and events and receives no Government funding.

[El Pibe]

Olympic sport funds sports to the tune of 264 million pounds and the paralympic sports to the tune 50 million give or take.

This includes both national lottery and direct governement funding via DCMS and corporate sponsorsip

Breakdown below

http://www.uksport.gov.uk/sport/summer/

[titch juicy]

Cheers, so roughly ?66m a year spread across all Olympic Sports.

I guess it's such a subjective debate. For me, spending money on people's futures is more important.

In the aftermath of the recent riots, I think anything that offers more opportunities to young people, is the best way to spend any extra funds available.

[*Bob*]

I was very cynical about the whole 'legacy' thing ("Think of the kids!") but in all honesty the effect on our six year-old has been a real eye-opener.

He's glued to every sport - absolutely obsessed - and wants to start doing this and that as soon as it's over (might have to persuade him against sailing.. sounds expensive)

He still has no interest in football though, luckily.

[red devil]

All you need to do now *Bob* is convince him that mowing Daddy's lawn, cleaning Daddy's car, and clearing out the gutters are an Olympic event...

[*Bob*]

The lad won Gold and refilling wine glasses last night.

[Annette Curtain]

>He still has no interest in football though, luckily.<

Ah just you wait *Bobster*

I thought i'd gotten away with that one

Now Wed & Sat or Sunday, there I am on the sidelines with my 8 year old

"Oi-tuck yer shirt in"

"Er, I don't know how many goals Messei scored in 2011 & i'm not sure if RVP is leaving Arsenal or not"

"No, you don't need another pair of hard ground T90's"

And so it goes on....

(mind you, he's scarily fit & that's a good thing)

[red devil]

I think you need to set the bar higher than that *Bob*, sounds like he's ready for Nitromorsing the sash windows.

Careful with the fizzy drinks though, we don't want a doping scandal...

[*Bob*]

Testing positive for Sunny D?

The shame, the shame..