Signs And Portents For 2012…

In a sign that does not bode well for next summer’s celebration of sporting excellence, the biggest test event so far for the 2012 Olympic Games was marred yesterday by angry confrontations between drivers and stewards.

Oh, dear. What went wrong?

Any environmentally friendly effect of the London-Surrey Cycle Classic was negated by queues of traffic in west London and Surrey, as motorists struggled to make sense of road closures and diversions.

Was it unnecessarily complex, then?

Sitting in hot cars, with many being forced to make creative three-point-turns down back streets, Londoners complained of “transport chaos”. Most said the race stewards who had been bussed in from around the country had no idea where to direct them.

Surely not! Surely they had trained personnel to….

Oh:

one steward manning a closed road in south-west London, who did not wish to be identified, described the traffic as “chaotic”. He said he had not been provided with a map or information about which roads were closed. “We’re from Swindon – it would have been good to get a highlighted map of where to send people,” he said.

Yes. Yes, it really would…

/facepalm

TfL’s managing director of surface transport Leon Daniels said the public had been properly forewarned of the event. “Today’s test event is an essential part of the preparation for the London 2012 Games…”

And you failed. Perhaps someone should be fired?

Debbie Jevans, London 2012 Director of Sport, said: “I want to thank London and Surrey residents for changing their normal Sunday to accommodate this race.”

That’s nice of you. They didn’t have a choice, though, did they?

3 comments for “Signs And Portents For 2012…

  1. August 18, 2011 at 6:53 am

    Debbie Jevans, London 2012 Director of Sport

    Everything you need to know is in there –

    http://www.morethanthegames.co.uk/football/0311918-london-2012-organisers-reveal-highlights-event-schedule

    I include that for the photo. Tomorrow, there’s a second post on the Misissippi floods and who was responsible. Yep, it was one Ms Jody Farhat:

    http://20poundsofheadlines.wordpress.com/2011/07/02/jody-farhat-chief-of-corps-missouri-river-basin-water-management-office/

    I include that for the photo too. Now do a check on both and you come up with placewomen who’ve been parachuted in for skills other than what is required for the job. There’s a big difference between being the face of an event or of an organization and actually running the nitty-gritty of it.

    If this is a portent, as Julia says, then it is not a good one. The local railways manager near us is exactly the same and I’ve a post coming up on that. She was parachuted in over three men who were experienced managers, she hasn’t a clue about railways but is “learning on the job” she claims – I’ve spoken with her.

    This is happening everywhere. There is a girl doing a series on feminism at my place and she says:

    You can be a guy [at West Point, for example] who outscores, outtests, outrates a woman but you will not be accepted [over her] because you are a man and they need women and when I say need, I mean to fill quotas. Thank you, affirmative action.

    In that is my whole beef about things. The person who wrote this post now is a woman whom I’m a fan of. So is the woman who wrote the material for my posts over at my place. I must have quoted thirty to forty women in recent days and about five men. So I think my bias is pro-women rather than against.

    It is this placewoman mentality Christy refers to which is the problem. When you fill quotas, you are not getting the best person for the job, except by accident. The only person who gets a job is someone whose career you wish to further. If such a person is a Harman or Jacqui Smith or whoever, you know what’s going to happen.

    We’ve seen Blair’s Babes and Cameron’s cuties and this is more of the same. But it’s more than this. There are particular ways in which that sort of woman, often leftist, often with feminist propensities acts in tight situations, e.g. in the Missouri River floods:

    A front-line operational manager expressed his concern to Ms. Farhat that the information being passed on to the Corps decision-makers was routinely ignored, worrying that if such a dismissive attitude continued, the managers “will not even bother to call in, or provide input, if they feel like they’re not being heard.”

    He continued, “We’re all concerned about being in our exclusive flood control zones … but what concerns me more is the feedback that I’m hearing: ‘It doesn’t matter what we say so we may as well keep our mouths shut.'” Farhat’s response was that the operations managers don’t have a “system-wide perspective.”

    That is her level of competence in the area and in business in general. Shall I begin on Ms Jennifer Lynch of the CHRC? Read Ezra Levant on her. It’s happening all over the place. I have tales from my own workplace.

    Let’s look at Ms Zenna Atkins, former blonde bombshell head of OFSTED. Let’s look at Caroline flint and the tea biscuits. Or maybe Carly Fiorina or Patricia Dunn. How many more do I need to make a case?

    Sure there are men incompetents – don’t forget when this was devised:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

    No question of it. I’m referring to one specific phenomenon whereby, for ideological, PC, affirmative action reasons, someone is accepted over a more experienced and more competent person and there’s been a lot of it going on.

    And when you put a woman in, then you are dipping into her skills set and that can differ from a man’s. As a networker and “people person”, Debbie Jevans might be excellent. Running the infrastructure during the Olympics is an entirely different thing.

    ‘Nuff for now.

    • August 18, 2011 at 10:45 am

      Tomorrow, there’s a second post on the Misissippi floods and who was responsible. Yep, it was one Ms Jody Farhat…

      Jeez, Ms Asshat must do one hell of a raindance. :mrgreen:

      Have to agree wrt women, though. Good sense is where you find it regardless of what’s being kept in the trouser department, but it’s as daft to promote a less qualified person just because they’re a woman as it is to pass someone a better qualified woman over for promotion in favour of a man. PC and quotas is just playing at meritocracy.

    • August 19, 2011 at 6:58 am

      “When you fill quotas, you are not getting the best person for the job, except by accident.”

      Spot on!

Comments are closed.