Olympics v The Mary Rose

[Bazile]

I was listening to radio 2 today - they had on David Starkey ( maritime historian ) who was lamenting the fact that they were having trouble getting lottery funds, in order to have a musuem where the many artefacts from the Mary Rose and the ship can be exhibited together
( the artefacts currently being stored in sheds )

He was particularly annoyed that vast amounts of lottery funds was being / will be diverted to underwrite the costs of the olympics - when all he was after was 20 million pounds for this musuem - ( by the way why would it costs 20 million pounds for this musuem - seems very expensive to me )

My opinion is - aren't we getting our priorities wrong here - shouldn't we be preserving an important part of our history - as this is - for future generations , instead of spending billions on the olympics - given that many of the facilities will end up as white elephants , like the dome ?

Or is the Mary Rose just a load of ' manky planks ' ( the views of one listener - not mine ) not worth bothering about ?

What's your opinion ?

[cardi88]

when they said that 20 million was one percent of what the olympics will cost (and thats what it will cost now, not at the end) that blew me away - not being that enthralled with the olympics anyway and living in wales where the effects wont benefit us it does scare me the cost of it all and if it's to the detriment of attractions that already bring tourists to the country then its wrong, but then i dont play the lottery so its not really my money to loose.

[Loosehead]

As usual, complete and utter horsesh1t from the ignorant. The Olympics will not cost anything at all. The initial outlay will be repaid and more as was the case for every Olympics since 1984. The Atlanta Olypmics made a profit before it even started! Even if it did cost it would be the equivalent of the NHS budget for 6 weeks anyway. let's get it in perspective people please! Give him is 20m, it matters not!

[Loosehead]

Ok I meant LA!