YesBut the camera never lies.

British Security Services have foiled a daring plot by a gang with a crane to steal Westminster Bridge. It is believed the gang had sold the bridge to a town in Arizona. Well Robert McCulloch founder of Lake Havasu City did buy London Bridge when he thought he was buying Tower Bridge.

If you are interested in buying the Tower of London, I can do you a good deal, tell you what I’ll throw in the London Eye for free.

Every photograph tells a story.



Before I forget, Why not join in the fun and post a caption for YesBut’s Image, just click here to participate.

Listen, can you hear them? It’s the French laughing their bollocks-off.

How the British gloated back in July 2005, London had stuffed Paris and had won the bid to host the 2012 Olympics. Up-yours you froggy bastards. But how things have changed. For six months the Government has been squirming and twisting trying to avoid giving a firm estimate of the costs. Next week it is likely to reveal the estimate has risen from the original bid document figure of £2.35bn to £9bn. That’s a rise from US$4.61bn to $17.66bn.

Now there might be some confusion over billion, at one time it was a million million, but thank f#uck in this case it’s a thousand million - so why complain its only £9,000,000,000 it could have been £9,000,000,000,000. Whether it’s a thousand million or a million million the sums involved are beyond imagination.

The London Eye is by far London’s most popular attraction with 3.5 million passengers per year, each paying £14.50. It would take 177 years for it to earn £9bn. The estimated population of the United Kingdom is 60.6 million, which means each woman, man, child would have to make a contribution of £148.50 to pay for the 2012 Olympic Games. No wonder the general public is questioning whether the games are worth the investment. And no wonder the Government is reticent to discuss its cost estimates.

The Mayor of London, Ken Livingston is adamant, the inhabitants of London will not finance the cost increases. The Government is equally resolute that it should not pay. So who do the Government want to pay for the Games? The Lottery Fund. They want the Lottery to divert funds it would give to charities to fund the Olympics. You might agree, after all it is a good cause. But wait, lets examine some of the factors that are contributing to the quadrupling of costs.

One of the reasons the original estimate was so wrong was, the Organising Committee were told Value Added Tax (Vat) would not be charged. But it now turns out the Government will be collecting £1bn in Vat. Realise what is happening; as a result of the Government, by requiring the Lottery to pay the excess, will in effect be getting £1bn, (US$1.96bn) that should have been given to charities. So the Government is using the Olympics to impose a stealth tax.

At this stage of a construction project, there should be a fair degree of certainty of the final construction costs. However there are always the unforeseen or things that will not go to plan, so its normal to add a contingency sum, depending upon the degree of uncertainty 20 to 30%. However the Government is insisting on a massive 60% contingency sum. Why? Prudence, given the UK’s appalling record of failing to complete prestige projects on time and within cost. There were a number of embarrassing “Millennium Project” failures: the biggest embarrassment was the Millennium Dome which cost twice the original estimate, and failed to attract visitors. Even the London Eye, which is now a success was plagued by construction problems, resulting in its opening being delayed. The Government are more than conscious of the New Wembley Stadium saga, it should have cost £352 million and been finished early 2006, in fact it will cost £757 million (more than double the original estimate the most expensive stadium ever constructed) and might open this year. So to have a 60% contingency is prudent.

What a f#cking farce, no wonder the French are chuckling.

Why Tourists are a pain in the arse

Talk on the Radio of the drop in the value of the American dollar! My mind immediately switched to tourists. I know tourism makes a big contribution to the UK economy but tourists are such a pain in the neck. It could be any town or city which is a tourist attraction, (York, Canterbury, Edinburgh, Dublin, Cardiff, etc.) but I take London as an example, and just one part of London - Westminster Bridge.

Starting on the South Bank. First you have the London Eye and the other tawdry attractions in the former County Hall. The tourists and buskers in this area makes it difficult to walk unimpeded along the embankment. The top of the steps onto the bridge is blocked by a tout for Big Bus Tours. Walking across the bridge is impeded by tourists taking photographs - they expect people either to stop or walk on the road while they take five minutes to take a photo of the Eye. Then there are the sellers of honey coated peanuts, the Chinese selling smuggled cigarettes (why hasn’t the police acted against these). And the most ridiculous of all, those who bend aluminium coat hangers into names.

(I can just imagine in thirty yeas time an edition of “Cash in the Attic” on - ”well what have we here?”, “its Aunty Mary’s postcard holder made from aluminium wire”, “how interesting”, “what’s it worth?”, “on a good day, with the right buyers at the auction, 3p”, “ho wonderful, that will make a big contribution to the costs of our planned Caribbean cruise”.)

The steps down to the north bank Embankment are always blocked by tourists who have decided it’s an ideal location to hold a meeting to plan the rest of their lives. Tourists are oblivious of everyone around them; they block stairs, entrances and walkways. And they shout if they are talking in a foreign language.

A point in their favour, the majority don’t spit.