Beijing 2008, Lhasa 2068?

The XXIX Olympiad will start in Beijing on the (apparently) auspicious day of the 8th of August 2008. I must say, I feel rather ambivalent towards both the Olympic Games and the host nation.

The Olympics used to be the greatest sporting event of the planet, but when the idea of the modern games was conceived, sport was not the global brand it is now. I ask myself: do the Olympics still have a meaning? They are supposed to be for amateurs but the great majority of athletes are now professionals. What is also the point to include a sport like football for example, where winning the gold medal is as important as the Charity Shield?

Something that has always puzzled me about the Olympics is: why they have to be hosted by only one city and they last only two weeks with so many competitions to run, and the Football World Cup, for example, lasts a month and it is hosted by an entire nation, if not two?

To spice the games up a bit I can suggest the host nation should decide which competitions to include. I.e., in 2012 London will host the games, so why not pick the favourite British sports that will shoot the nation up to the top of the medal table? Darts, bridge, croquet, snooker, queuing and binge drinking, all come to mind. At least the host country will not have to go into trouble in fixing the results of some competitions, such as boxing, gymnastics or synchronized swimming. Ever noticed that in almost every Olympiad the host nation gets many more medals than in any other previous or future Olympics? Must be the food I guess, the climate, the... yes you guessed it right.

China then, why do I feel ambivalent? I must say I like China. I have been there before and I have learned a tiny tiny bit of Mandarin. China has an amazing culture that gave us Confucius, noodles, Kung Fu and the Great Wall. The Chinese are very hospitable people, they work very hard, and they are more capitalists (it's a compliment) than the Westerners.

But what I don't like about China is the dictatorial government, still stubbornly Communist. What I would like the Chinese to do is to get rid of their obsolete regime or finally come clear about their intentions: do they want capitalism, democracy and freedom, or do they want Communism and repression? It looks like they want both. On one hand they are open to the world market and on the other they still have a red flag, the picture of Criminal Mao everywhere and Tibet under control.

I have noticed Chinese people do not care and do not want to talk about Tibet, an independent country that was taken by force, just like the Nazis did with Poland. I can only assume that people believe the government is always right and they think all is for the best.

The Tibetan issue is not only relevant to China but also to the Western world. Especially to the Left, who always ready to fight for human rights (or so it seems) are quite shy in pointing the finger at China, a Communist country after all. Remember South Africa during apartheid? They couldn't even participate in the Olympic Games!

Some people believe the Olympic Games will help the process of freedom of speech in China. I really hope it will, but I am very doubtful we will ever witness an independent Tibet. Lhasa 2068? You dream.

Councils: what do they know?

As per my previous post, I am in the process of trying to buy a house but I am having some trouble getting a mortgage. The problem I'm having is that the flat I am buying is in an ex-council building where there are five floors, and Nationwide doesn't give mortgages if you are trying to buy a flat in an ex-council building that has got more than four floors.

I have tried to convince the surveyors that the building has indeed five floors but only four in the part of the building where the flat I want to buy is. Well, because mathematics is now apparently an opinion, the surveyors counted five floors also in the part of the building where my flat is situated. Even though, if you walk up the stairs you can only go up to the fourth floor!

Now, in the last attempt to make the deal, I thought to check with the council exactly how many floors there are in the building and get a paper to prove that. Well, that should be easy, shouldn't it? I mean , Southwark council built the property so they should know how many floors there are... In fact I even have a letter from the council stating that in block 1 there are 3 floors, in block 2 there are 4 floors and so on. The problem with the paperwork I have received from the council is that it's not clear what the word "block" refers to.

I called the council to try to shed some light on the situation.

Although the council has built the building, the only thing the administrator could tell me was that the building was erected in the '60s and that... well that's it really. I asked if it was possible to know how many floors there are in each section of the building and what is the meaning and the location of the "blocks" mentioned in their report. The administrator said he didn't know, the property was built long time ago and there are no more details.

I asked the administrator what should I do to confirm the number of floors in the building and the administrator gave me an advice to get a survey for it... "Yes, I explained, I did get a survey but the surveyor said there are five floors in my part of the building and I need a letter to prove that there are only four floors and that's why I am asking you, the council who erected the building in the first place"

"Oh, I see" he said. Then silence. "Hmm..." Then silence again.

Silence, the only thing the council knows.

Banks: what do they know?

The best definition of a bank is the following:
"An institution that gives you an umbrella when the sun is out but wants it back when it rains".

For years banks were giving mortgages to any sort of people knocking to their doors. The economy was booming (or so they thought) and home-buyers were able to borrow up to 7 times their salary. Banks were being unreasonably optimistic and/or cynic and many borrowers were deluding themselves. How could people borrow more than 100% of the cost of the property? This is beyond the point of what I call human intelligence.

Now, due to the credit crunch, banks have made a 360 degrees turnaround of their policies. They don't give mortgages to people who can afford one and they come up with the most stupid rules they can think of.

Me and my girlfriend are currently trying to finance an ex-council property in the Elephant and Castle area with Nationwide. Banks don't like ex-council flats, and they try to put you off as much as they can from this type of property but for people like me the choice is not between a private property and ex-council. My choice is between ex-council, pay rent forever or waiting for the Second Coming of the Communist Party.

Nationwide at first decided to give us a mortgage. However, a couple of weeks later we got a letter, saying they cannot offer us the mortgage any more because the property where the flat is located is more than four storeys high. Apparently Nationwide is strict on this rule: more than four floors in an ex-council property and you don't get a mortgage.

The peculiar thing about this building is that there are only four floors but then, bizarrely, in one wing there are five. God knows why the council in 1966 decided to raise a council building with a sprung out floor, maybe because the planners were all celebrating the only World Cup England has ever managed to win I suppose... However, for the sake of one bloody floor, the bank will not give me the rate it had originally promised.

This means that I have lost precious time and I need to look for another bank. This also means I will definitely be getting a worse rate. But, as Nationwide probably will prefer, I can always go insane and buy a flat in a private property and then ask the bank for a mortgage 5-6 times my salary.

I will probably be better off by blowing up the entire fifth floor of the property... come that to mind.

The king is dead. Long live the king

It had been a very long Sunday afternoon and one of the most exciting Wimbledon finals of all times, but in the end we have all understood that after five years of dominance, Roger Federer is not the king of tennis any more.

The final was doomed from the start. In the first two sets Federer made lots of unforced errors and he wasted too many break points. Probably the Roland Garros left a scar on his confidence, and although he had enjoyed a good tournament at Wimbledon up to the final, he knew the real test was to face Nadal.

If the rain hadn't decided to change the screenplay of the match, Federer could have been down and out in three sets. Instead he was able to come back, win two sets at the tie-break and then... well... Nadal was amazing and I think he believed in victory more than Federer. I could be wrong, but I think Federer was too scared to lose to be able to play his best.

I really wanted Federer to win, even if my money was on Nadal. Federer's style of playing is amazing, and when he is in form, he plays with the wisdom of a Buddhist monk and the graciousness of Nureyev. Nadal, on the other hand, is all power, muscles and hard work. When I watch Nadal playing tennis I think that life is sufferance, when I watch Federer I think life could be a dream.

After this match Nadal is the first man after Borg to have won Roland Garros and Wimbledon in the same year, even though in the '70s winning at Wimbledon was much harder than now for base-liners. Federer was very close to achieving the same in 2006 and 2007 but Nadal always stood in his way. Who knows where this Spanish kid can go now but more importantly for me and for all Federer fans is: "Will King Roger come back to be the best tennis player in the world?"

I have mentioned the rain in this post and this final will also be remembered as the last final where the rain was allowed to take part. I think from next year part of the magic of Wimbledon will be gone. No more players will be watching the sky hoping for rain or cursing the interruption. No more the rain will allow the champion a chance to come back into a game to try to turn defeat into victory.