The petition to try and persuade the Government to not spend huge sums of money (£9.5Billion at the last count) on the London Olympics in 2012 has, as expected, fallen on deaf ears. The Prime Minister’s office has responded to the petition, as they are required to do, and Fauston Carpet, our resident language expert, breaks down the words to illustrate what they really mean.
“The decision to take a further share from the Lottery was taken only after very careful consideration.”
If China can spend billions on the Olympics then we can too and then some!
“The Government is determined to ensure that the temporary diversion of funding from the existing good causes to the Olympic good cause is done with the least possible disruption.”
We need a blatant lie in this statement somewhere does anybody have any ideas?
“As such, the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced in Parliament on 15 March that no existing lottery projects will be affected by this decision.”
This is somebody else’s fault and didn’t we fire that b*tch?
“In addition, the Minister for the Olympics and the Mayor of London have reached an agreement on the sharing of profits from the sale of remediated land in the Olympic Park after the Games, with some returning to the Lottery to compensate for its additional contribution.”
We think it’s a really good idea to secure the financial future of important, national work on the foibles of the property market in 5 years time. I mean, property markets, they’re stable as all get out right?
“The Government continues to value the important contribution of the arts, cultural and heritage sectors in broadening access and bringing high-quality cultural experiences to a wide number of people.”
We have absolutely no f***ing idea what we are doing but come on, think of the parties we’re going to have when this show comes to town! Also, do you know how much money I’m going to get paid as a non executive director of the construction company that’s building the Olympic stadium?
That’s it. The extent of the Governments reaction to this issue, raised by over 25,000 people, is a few sentences. I will point out, in conclusion, that no matter how hard you try you cannot have a “wide number” of anything. You can have a large or a small number and you can have a “wide range” of something but numbers in and of themselves cannot be “wide”.
Does anyone in Downing Street have a dictionary, or a thesaurus or a clue? I think not!