« Previous | Main | Next »

London's 2012 Olympic logo

Eddie Mair | 14:12 UK time, Monday, 4 June 2007

is on the programme tonight.

What do you think?

logo.gif

15.08 update: Rupert thinks it looks like two people having sex.


Comments

  1. At 02:18 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Tony Kiernan wrote:

    This is a joke, yeah?

  2. At 02:18 PM on 04 Jun 2007, anth wrote:

    Hideous (IMO).

    What approach will you be taking to interview this logo, Eddie?

  3. At 02:19 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Piper wrote:

    ...if you displayed what I think, we'd all be locked-up...

  4. At 02:19 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Ruud Fortt wrote:

    This first thing it suggested to me was a drunk, bending forward prior to vomiting.

    Not that I now associate in such company, but, from the days of my youth ...

  5. At 02:20 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Cactus wrote:

    Its hard to put into words exactly what I think of this, and i suspect that if i did try the pm mods may well not publish it anyway....

    What is more rubbish than this though are the comments from Lord Coe and Tessa Jowell -

    "This is the vision at the very heart of our brand" , Lord Coe

    This is an iconic brand that sums up what London2012 is all about", T Jowell

    I mean WTF are they on about???


    If this is supposed to appeal to the "yoof" target demographic then we'll be very very lucky if they don't have a mass cardiac arrest with laughter....though I suspect they are just not bovvered.....


    Also, the purple and yellow suck

    Cactus (feeling rather prickly about this....)

  6. At 02:21 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Jason Good wrote:

    To start with I thought it was a new breakfast cereal.

    Then I realised it is reminiscent of Rodin's The Thinker.

    It is emblematic of the great British public thinking "Did we really want this expensive white elephant that we can ill afford?" Or it is me thinking "Why not ask the Greeks or the Ozzies (not Osbourne) to have another go as they arlready have the infrastructure in place. Perhaps we could come to a leasing arrangement? They could have Lord Coe in return.

    Error in submission. Error 17 - "Elephant" spelt correctly.

  7. At 02:23 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    It's a real winner - possibly the only British one in the 2010 Olympics. It clearly conveys the numbers 2, 0, 1, 2; it has been designed to inhibit illicit copying by third parties who would want to make "False" goods. It looks like a rickety old athlete wearing a hernia belt, and even if New Labour are not in power in 2012 it will give us a last vestige of "Red". Full marks. Britain needs logo designers like these.

  8. At 02:25 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Fearless Fred wrote:

    all I can say is Yikes!

  9. At 02:27 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Peej wrote:

    I was just logging on to the blog to suggest you canvassed opinion on the logo, and what do you know !! I'm starting to think like you lot. Is there a helpline available?
    Anyway, I think its ghastly, absurd and meaningless. Lets have a little guess at the froggers reaction, I reckon it will be 20 to 1 against.

  10. At 02:35 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Robert wrote:

    Does it matter what it looks like? It's the olympic commitee for London 2012 trying to get an identity but why wasn't this decied upon last year or even at the time the games were awarded to London?

  11. At 03:04 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Paul Gledhill wrote:

    Ruud, your reading of the image is forever imprinted in my memory!

  12. At 03:09 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Gossipmistress wrote:

    It's a mess and you can't really see that it's '2012' - it just looks like something that's been broken. Maybe that's the point...

  13. At 03:17 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Vyle Hernia's colleagues wrote:

    John: "Disgusting; horrible."

    Mike: "What is it? ...Is it? Does it represent the amount of demolition and building involved?"
    I wonder what marketing agency raked off a few million for that cr*p.
    More like a b***ered-up Audi Advert."

    Tony: "Someone doing a gay pose?"

    Gemma: "I quite like it, actually."

    Cat: "Takes a bit of getting to."

    (as will the games themselves if our transport infrastructure performs in tis usual manner.)

  14. At 03:20 PM on 04 Jun 2007, YesBut wrote:

    It looks like a fat man sitting on a collapsing chair.

  15. At 03:20 PM on 04 Jun 2007, ian wrote:

    It seems to me more like oral sex than full sex. I suppose it depends what you mean by sex, Mr President.

  16. At 03:21 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Vyle Hernia's colleagues wrote:

    John: "Disgusting; horrible."

    Mike: "What is it? ...Is it? Does it represent the amount of demolition and building involved?"
    I wonder what marketing agency raked off a few million for that cr*p.
    More like a b***ered-up Audi Advert."

    Tony: "Someone doing a gay pose?"

    Gemma: "I quite like it, actually."

    Cat: "Takes a bit of getting to."

    (as will the games themselves if our transport infrastructure performs in tis usual manner.)

  17. At 03:24 PM on 04 Jun 2007, John Wilson wrote:

    It looks like a drunk dad at the disco to me.

    I also think it's so bad that they are going to have to change it. Any chance of getting the money back, do you think?

  18. At 03:28 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Vyle Hernia's colleagues wrote:

    John: "Disgusting; horrible."

    Mike: "What is it? ...Is it? Does it represent the amount of demolition and building involved?"
    I wonder what marketing agency raked off a few million for that cr*p.
    More like a b***ered-up Audi Advert."

    Tony: "Someone doing a gay pose?"

    Gemma: "I quite like it, actually."

    Cat: "Takes a bit of getting to."

    (as will the games themselves if our transport infrastructure performs in its usual manner.)

  19. At 03:31 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Gillian wrote:

    Thanks Vyle (7) I was racking my brains trying to think what ZOR stands for......

  20. At 03:32 PM on 04 Jun 2007, b carbery wrote:

    I know but is it art.Someone has been watching my cat because she regularly throws up something similar.What are you thinking piper? Can't see Rupert's either and I have looked from every angle,believe me.

  21. At 03:32 PM on 04 Jun 2007, the new blog prince aka marc wrote:

    is it anything other than a *total* co-incidence that Eddie posted this entry at 02:12 pm?

    i think we should be told...although we probably won't.

    And i think it looks like two people attempting to pass a rubik's cube to each other, without using their hands.

    it'll be an olympic sport by 2012, i bet you.

  22. At 03:32 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Well! I dunno what kind of sex Rupert indulges in, but it certainly can't be dull. Hey ho, try anything once...

  23. At 03:44 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Jason Good wrote:

    John Wilson (17): In my mind it will now forever be "medallion man dancing". It will now probably improve my enjoyment of the Olympics.

  24. At 03:47 PM on 04 Jun 2007, tom shires wrote:

    until I read it was supposed to be 2012 I could'nt make it out at all. It does not stand out enough. It's instantly forgettable.

  25. At 03:47 PM on 04 Jun 2007, anth wrote:

    I suppose my mind is as much of a sewer as everyone elses, but I thought the moderators would not let it through...

    Thanks Vyle #7 for pointing out it reads "2012", though what that square between the 1 and 2 is about I don't know.

    Some of the more publishable ideas I had as to what it was included:

    Some cubist's way of an out-line of Greater London - the olympic circles being in the quadrant unlucky enough to house the thing.

    Lower case "L" in london is clearly to show that the city is no longer a proper noun; but does that apply to the city of london, or london, the city of that name.

    That this really was "O - limp - pic"

  26. At 03:49 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Jason Good wrote:

    PS. That TM does an awful lot of design work, doesn't he.

    PPS. Has anyone every TM'd the TM sign? Would that cause an infinite loop in the royalites department?

  27. At 03:58 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Jason Good wrote:

    Tom Shires (24): Instantly forgettable? What is? Oh...

  28. At 04:01 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Gillianian wrote:

    b carbery (20) is it art Andycroak, did you forget to tell us something???

  29. At 04:04 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Moz wrote:

    I like it! I really do. [Runs for cover]

  30. At 04:09 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Charlie wrote:


    This is, surely, the logo designer's self-carricature, of her/his-self collapse into uncontrollable mirth, whilst trying to maintain a reasonably dignified upright position by holding-on with their right hand.

    Why the mirth..? Well, at a guess I'd say the designer had just received the substantial commission contract, no doubt incorporating carte-blanche authority, to produce the art(?) we now see...

    Mmmm... I believe I heard the cost of the games have crept-up from, what was it now... an estimated £9 billion to £12 billion..?

    Still, the logo surely can't have played much part in that slight mis-calculation and anyway, Ministers say the UK, as host Nation, will make all the games expenditure/investment back, and more.

    So, that's alright then...

    We only have to think of the Dome at Greenwich to realise we're right to trust and believe in the ministerial acumen of politicians of whatever party...

    And, never more so than when they dip their paws into the tax-payers and National Lottery Charitable Investments cookie-jar.

    Oh well, Education, the NHS... who needs it?

  31. At 04:15 PM on 04 Jun 2007, andycroak wrote:

    at least it's not three people having sex ...

  32. At 04:15 PM on 04 Jun 2007, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Bucket of cold water for Rupert please...

    Gillian (19):
    That's just what I was going to say. It sounds like some kind of super-villain:

    "BOW DOWN BEFORE ZOR!"

    "Holy tracksuits, Batman! Zor has increased his budget forecasts *again*!"
    "The fiend!"

    If you look at it upside down, there's a jagged question mark amongst the crazy paving.

  33. At 04:25 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    The Olympic movement does something unspeakable to London...

    Eric - do please launch a competition for listeners to do better.


    PM
    “The radio programme that provides the best way to view hideous new logos”

  34. At 04:30 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    Well, Eddie, when the aforementioned visitor arrives, I hope you'll be able to interview him/her without losing your composure. You probably need to have the contents of this thread removed from your memory beforehand.

    Anyway, all the best in this important interview.

  35. At 04:30 PM on 04 Jun 2007, David Brennan wrote:

    Sat on my own, directed to the website by Eddie, with no one to hear me, when first laying my eyes upon it I exclaimed out loud 'WHAT IS THAT?!"

  36. At 04:35 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Nick wrote:

    Is that the Chinese character for "running late and over-budget and oh, dear, why is it raining"?

  37. At 04:36 PM on 04 Jun 2007, peter wrote:

    Well it does reflect what London is all about, a drunken yob staggering about after the pubs have closed about to vomit.

    Or is he about to urinate?

    Whichever I think it is about as accurate you can get without actually having a real picture of the above.

    Is the designer colour blind too, or just taking the ...??

  38. At 04:41 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Mansilla wrote:

    Its a malfunctioning robot. Maybe an accident in an iced bun factory. Or even some purple and yellow zig-zags drawn with crayons.

  39. At 04:43 PM on 04 Jun 2007, anthony roberts wrote:

    I hope that the stadia dont have as many gaps as the logic behind this logo.

  40. At 04:46 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Um, I didn't spot the "2012" in there either, until it was pointed out -- thanks for the help fellow froggers.

    AndyCroak (31), You make that sound like it would be a bad thing...

  41. At 04:47 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Gareth Drawmer wrote:

    I would say that it looks like someting drawn by a 10 year old... except if any of the 10 year olds in my class did that I would send them back to try again and produce something better!!

  42. At 04:50 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Chris Then-Bergh wrote:

    It looks like one of those Chinese tangrams -- Hey!! We've got Beijing's leftovers. With sweet and sour (hold the sweet).

  43. At 04:50 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Grant Thomas wrote:

    Horific. Jagged, sharp, colours look like they have been grabbed from some 1980s leg warmers. Please have a rethink. Also sign the petitions against this mess!

  44. At 04:53 PM on 04 Jun 2007, DI Wyman wrote:

    ....Barf...Barf..Barf.Barf.....Barf.....Barf....Barffy Barf..Barf...Barf....BaaarrrrrFFFFFFFF....Barf..Barf......Barf...Barf..Barf.Barf.....Barf.....Barf....Barffy Barf..Barf...Barf....BaaarrrrrFFFFFFFF....Barf..Barf......Barf...Barf..Barf.Barf.....Barf.....Barf....Barffy Barf..Barf...Barf....BaaarrrrrFFFFFFFF....Barf..Barf..Barf..Baarrff..BarrrrrrrrrfffffffYYYYYYYYY..Barf,,,,,,,kin Barf........Barf...Barf..Barf.Barf.....Barf.....Barf....Barffy Barf..Barf...Barf....BaaarrrrrFFFFFFFF....Barf..Barf......Barf...Barf..Barf.Barf.....Barf.....Barf....Barffy Barf..Barf...Barf....BaaarrrrrFFFFFFFF....Barf..Barf......Barf...Barf..Barf.Barf.....Barf.....Barf....Barffy Barf..Barf...Barf....BaaarrrrrFFFFFFFF....Barf..Barf..Barf..Baarrff..BarrrrrrrrrfffffffYYYYYYYYY..Barf,,,,,,,kin Barf....

    .......nuff said..init...

  45. At 04:55 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    andycroak: Are you sure?

    newblogprince: Ah, but will Eddie post at 12.34 on the 5.6.7, I wonder? Less than 24 hours to find out .....

  46. At 04:56 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    SB34

    Has my earlier reply appeared yet?

  47. At 04:58 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Mike Lloyd wrote:

    An opportunity lost. Why on earth didn't they commission a British artist like Banksy to create the logo?
    Still it does accurately represent Modern Britain :-)

  48. At 05:08 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    First reaction: 'Oh dear.'

    Second reaction: 'Guesstimate of price, at least forty thousand pounds sterling, probably rather more.'

    Third reaction: total lack of surprise.

  49. At 05:11 PM on 04 Jun 2007, marion banks-wilkinson wrote:

    its really **** ! Oh dear i thought how did they get it so wrong after all the winning bid film was great, please say this is a joke!!!!

  50. At 05:20 PM on 04 Jun 2007, jonnie wrote:

    Rubbish!

    Though Rupert and Ian will have left an indelible mark in my mind everytime I see it in the future now.

  51. At 05:20 PM on 04 Jun 2007, kate h wrote:

    It's only through reading your comments that I've realised that those shapes are meant to be 2 0 1 2. I just though it was a random mess of shapes. Am I really unobservant or is it just rubbish? Maybe both

    If you have a look on the main BBC website readers have sent in their own logos and all of them are miles better than this one.

    Oh well, lets see how much it costs them to change it once they get everyone's feedback - do you think they did any research at all about how it would be received? I haven't heard one positive comment yet ...

  52. At 05:29 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Alfster wrote:

    That must have been designed by a Tory. Anything to make Labour look bad...though that isn't difficult.

    It took me ages to work out it was 2012.

    But as the Olympics was bid for without any consent from the British public and is being bankrolled by the British public...without our consent...does it really matter what any of us think?

    If I promise not to watch it (like I did not watch the last Olympics) can I have my money back?

  53. At 05:29 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Michael Gouda wrote:

    What's it supposed to mean?

    Someone suggested two people having sex. Not like anyone I know.

  54. At 05:31 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Michael Gouda wrote:

    What's it supposed to mean?

    Someone suggested two people having sex. Not like anyone I know.

  55. At 05:34 PM on 04 Jun 2007, PleaseGodNooooooo! wrote:

    It looks like Tessa Jowell interacting (very) closely with a potential corporate sponsor.

  56. At 05:35 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Michael Gouda wrote:

    What's it supposed to mean?

    Someone suggested two people having sex. Not like anyone (or anything) I know.

  57. At 05:38 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Owen Barstow wrote:

    Fractured, fragmented, chaotic. A little bit like a futurist or vorticist painting of the first world war.

  58. At 05:39 PM on 04 Jun 2007, jane coffey wrote:

    Two people trying to have sex under a table me thinks

  59. At 05:40 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Peter wrote:

    People on the sports message boards hated it so much they started a petition against it.

    Not sure how much good the petition will do though - I think we're stuck with it.

  60. At 05:40 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Andrew G. Craig wrote:

    Reminds me of pac-man.

  61. At 05:41 PM on 04 Jun 2007, jessica wrote:

    don't like it - don't like the colour, don't like the jagged stuff - not very human is it? is it meant to look like 80's graffiti perhaps? can we not have something more modern - or is it too late?

  62. At 05:43 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Will wrote:

    I thought we already had a logo, which is rather good and people are already used to. Why did we need another one?

  63. At 05:43 PM on 04 Jun 2007, chav wrote:

    fantastic!!! its great. love it. come on the olympics.

  64. At 05:44 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Sid Jones wrote:

    a logo for a city which builds gherkins and headlamps - very fitting but very ugly

  65. At 05:44 PM on 04 Jun 2007, geoff wrote:

    I wanted to like it but it's grotesque. Wonder how much it cost.

  66. At 05:45 PM on 04 Jun 2007, very anonymous wrote:

    Definitely Lisa Simpson and Bill Clinton...

  67. At 05:45 PM on 04 Jun 2007, jonathon pick wrote:

    looks like a cheap sigh for a holiday park in spain. something above a bar or by the pool. horrible.

  68. At 05:45 PM on 04 Jun 2007, VT Thinblot wrote:

    Oh! It's supposed to say 2012!? Inept, amateurish, incoherent, I'm afraid. It's a good job no one's going to get paid for it! What?? You're kidding...

  69. At 05:46 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Peter wrote:

    I would expect one of our Key Stage 1 Class children to have come up with better than that! Sadly they have no idea what it is.

  70. At 05:47 PM on 04 Jun 2007, David wrote:

    Surely the perfect emblem would be an albino elephant ?

  71. At 05:47 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Marcus Bell wrote:

    Ugly,Garbled, messy, but I don't see any Nazi comparisons

  72. At 05:47 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Joseph story wrote:

    Well ... its a logo. It is what a logo is supposed to be, bold distinctive, memorable. In a years time this will be a well recognised logo that we wont think twice about and will automatically link to the games.

    What do those who dislike it suggest ?

  73. At 05:48 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Linear wrote:

    If this logo represented a rowing event it would be called "Rowlocks"

  74. At 05:48 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Jane Coffey wrote:

    My 12 year old sons friend thinks it looks like an egyptian dancer

  75. At 05:48 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Evan Beswick wrote:

    I can't say I particularly like it. Couldn't the designers do any better?!

  76. At 05:49 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Adam wrote:

    very poor as my o'level art teacher used to say?

  77. At 05:49 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    tbh, why get exercised about it? Really -- is it that important? I think not.

  78. At 05:49 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Adam wrote:

    very poor as my o'level art teacher used to say?

  79. At 05:49 PM on 04 Jun 2007, jonathon pick wrote:

    looks like a cheap sign for a holiday park in spain. something above a bar or by the pool. horrible.

  80. At 05:50 PM on 04 Jun 2007, james scarlett wrote:

    Absolutely awful ... ugly, fragmented ... fractious utterly hideous. I fear this presages more fiascos to come. I live near the Olympic site and have received literature with the headline motto 'Demolish, Dig, Design' suggesting that we destroy first and only after think about what to build. Both logo and motto are literally incompetence writ large

  81. At 05:51 PM on 04 Jun 2007, meg wrote:

    i have to say yuck! its far too angular, the pink and yellow makes me want to puke, its very 1980's in design, are the british team going to mirror this my doing the 100m sprint in shoulder pads?? yuck yuck yuck

  82. At 05:52 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Arun wrote:

    oh dear - the neon colours - very hoxton 3 months ago. god knows how dated this will look in 2012

  83. At 05:52 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Joseph story wrote:

    Well ... its a logo. It is what a logo is supposed to be, bold distinctive, memorable. In a years time this will be a well recognised logo that we wont think twice about and will automatically link to the games.

    What do those who dislike it suggest ?

  84. At 05:52 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Lizzyk wrote:

    It cost £400,000, I can't believe it. I would have done it for £200,000.

  85. At 05:54 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Karen wrote:

    Well I guess Rupert's admission has cut his chances of pulling...

  86. At 05:55 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Danny wrote:

    I think it's really good actually. I totally identify with it.

    Also, if you look at it upside-down it looks like a profile of Phil Collins.

  87. At 05:55 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Paul Reynolds wrote:

    That 2012 logo - looks like its staggering under the weight of its designer's self satisfaction - not very sporty I'm afraid!!

  88. At 05:56 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Piers wrote:

    Looks to me like the dog ate it.

  89. At 05:56 PM on 04 Jun 2007, T Hizzle wrote:

    I think this may be the first of many failures regarding the olympics, well I say 'first'.

  90. At 05:56 PM on 04 Jun 2007, ChrismintFowler wrote:

    It's a rehashed TISWAS logo - get the custard pies ready

  91. At 05:56 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Chris the Pickle wrote:

    Bleaaarrrrggghhhhh!

    S'orrible. It jars the eyes, and leaves me feeling vaguely... no, very ...embarassed that this will be appearing all over the World, without a By Your Leave form the Great British Public.

    Nick & DIY: love your comments.

    Hi Fronds by the way, had a great time watching the puffins on Skomer! Yes, really. They're the cutest of cute things and comical with it.

    xx

  92. At 05:57 PM on 04 Jun 2007, John Robinson wrote:

    How much did this at first glance map of Oz / Liebeskind lookalike nonsense cost us?
    Time to bring back capital punishment.

  93. At 05:57 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Paul curtis wrote:

    I don't believe it. This cannot really be the product of an organisation that presumably wants to be taken seriously. It does however reflect the appalling and incompetent way in which the Olympics are being organised, so in that respect, perhaps it's very suitable. I certainly did not get 2012 when I first saw it. What I got was ZITZ and a blob so maybe it's about spotty faced youths!

  94. At 06:00 PM on 04 Jun 2007, zefrog wrote:

    Has this been looted from an 80's video? I know that the 80's are currently the fashionable decade but someone is going to pretty silly in 6 years' time when all will look out of say the 50's...

    The designers are failing to get some street cred with the yoof with this (a stated aim of the thing) and are alianated the rest of the population.

    I know the rules say that the bid logo had to be changed but surely they could have kept the same refrained elegant sort of design for the new one.

    This is simply hiddious.

  95. At 06:00 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Macroman wrote:

    I can't believe April 1st has come around so soon!

  96. At 06:03 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Vivienne wrote:

    What a complete mess - great that they managed to fit in the Nazi SS logo, and let's not forget the disjointed swastika! Who on earth designed this - Goebells??

  97. At 06:03 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Guy Reynolds wrote:

    "The jagged emblem, based on the date 2012, comes in a series of shades of pink, blue, green and orange and will evolve in the run-up to the Games. "

    Rough translation:
    "Its a crap logo, we know its a crap logo, and we are working on getting something better before the Games"

  98. At 06:05 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Lesley Orr wrote:


    It was obviously designed by a committee.
    It is a muddle which unfortunately may be quite an appropriate symbol for the entire event.

  99. At 06:06 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Paul Bale wrote:

    If this is the winning entry what on earth was the rest of the competition like?

    I would never have spotted the date 2012. I thought that it was a caricature of a disjunct Europe with a lower case London.

    I refuse to believe that the colours are gay.

  100. At 06:07 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Meg Cox wrote:

    I'm with Rupert, certainly it is sexual, and otherwise incomprehensible. Can it really be that difficult to design something that makes one think 'how clever' and 'iconic'?

  101. At 06:08 PM on 04 Jun 2007, James Pickett wrote:

    Hard to put into words, especially printable ones...
    May we know who was responsible so we can tell him (it must be a him, surely) exactly what we think?
    It would be good to know how much money changed hands, too. If it was more than 4p, we wuz robbed!

  102. At 06:10 PM on 04 Jun 2007, ashley Leboff wrote:

    no need to trade mark the 2012 design. No one in their right mind would want to copy it! I missed it the first time I looked. I thought it was a floor plan for a a building development.

  103. At 06:10 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Lesley Barnes wrote:


    It was obviously designed by a committee.
    It is a muddle which unfortunately may be quite an appropriate symbol for the entire event.

  104. At 06:12 PM on 04 Jun 2007, John Graham wrote:

    Oh well, there used to be a distinct difference between 'logo' and 'symbol'. Thanks to the guardians of our language at the BBC, there isn't now.

  105. At 06:16 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Don wrote:

    A drunken mess. Sad if that's the best we can do.

  106. At 06:16 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Fred Campbell wrote:

    I see two boxers, and one is going down.

    It doesn't work on any level.

    The overall image is confused. it has no identity, or imagery you can catch onto.

    It doesn't work in black and white. it can't be displayed small.

    I can imagine the designers and committee members have had many a lavish lunch wasting money on this.

    But then it's always the middlemen who walk off with all the cash.

  107. At 06:19 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Amb40 wrote:


    As there are evidently so many wanabee designers out there, why didn't the committee tender the whole thing out to ITV as a dull Saturday night TV competition? Then we could all have had a vote, and a laugh at the sillier ones, all for the price of Davina McCall's fee.

    By the way, daughter (11) thinks it looks "funky".

  108. At 06:25 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Toby wrote:

    Is it only me who thinks it's reminiscent of the ghastly British Airways tail fin designs a few years ago?

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

    Just looks fantastically out of place...

  109. At 06:29 PM on 04 Jun 2007, pinkle wrote:

    Sorry to be puerile, but it looks like someone doing a poo. :s

  110. At 06:29 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Ravi wrote:

    It took one year to design the logo Ihear.It took me two seconds to decide it is crap.

  111. At 06:30 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Liz Robotham wrote:

    Surely the logo should combine the Olympic ideal with the spirit of human endeavour and include a sense of national pride. Is it too late to start again from scratch?

  112. At 06:30 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Alasdair Mackinlay wrote:

    I thought that the 2012 Olympics were for all of the United Kingdom. Just look at the first symbol, it is a map of England with Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the south-west missing. London is marked in the right place though.

    It shows what we all know, that the 2012 Olympics is just for London and the South-East.

  113. At 06:34 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Jason Good wrote:

    Andycroak: Perhaps it is three people NOT having sex?

  114. At 06:35 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Bank manager wrote:

    bloke on right is handing a large load (the olympics) to chap on left. Is it too late to pass it to the French?

  115. At 06:50 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Mr G wrote:

    Where is Iondon?

  116. At 07:21 PM on 04 Jun 2007, James Pickett wrote:

    "It looks like Tessa Jowell interacting ... with a potential corporate sponsor."

    'Yes, yes, yes - ooohh Tessa!'

    Can we get it banned now?

  117. At 08:06 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Anne Burton wrote:

    Wow!! This is so discordant - both in terms of the clashing colours and the spiky shapes.
    It certainly doesn't generate the feelings of unity and shared purpose which I thought were the backbone of the Olympic movement. It's going to be memorable for all the wrong reasons. Why do I instinctively think, "Dome"?

  118. At 08:20 PM on 04 Jun 2007, tony ferney wrote:

    The refernce to Vorticism is spot on. Pity the "designer" has been infected with motorway pictogram nostalgia.

    Incidentally, am I alone in finding the interview with the man in charge of the Design Centre (if that's the correct job description) interesting and illuminating?

  119. At 08:33 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Colin McAuley wrote:

    It looks like the result of a long night out the next morning, when one did not quit make it to the toilet bowl; and one had been was mixing ones' drinks and shooters the previous night in a very un-educated way. I'd expect that ancient Romans had a similar symbol to show where their "vomitoriums" were located.

  120. At 09:35 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Hirohito wrote:

    Sumo Wrestler ?

  121. At 09:37 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Guy Reynolds wrote:

    Having watched the whole promo video with the logo, I am now certain it has fallen through a wormhole from the 1980's, the whole thing looks like a pop video with early computer animation.

    Is this really the best we can do in 2007.

  122. At 09:39 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Tom Stockwell wrote:

    Is that it?
    I have heard it being introduced all day on a varitey of differnent programmes. I then look at it on the web and well, not worth a years work if you ask me. Probably get an average mark in graphics at school

  123. At 09:41 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Maximus Prime wrote:

    I think it resembles a "Transformer" (evil Robots in disguse) 1980's childrens toy

  124. At 09:43 PM on 04 Jun 2007, lurker wrote:

    If I saw this in my daily life, I dive for my migrane headache pills... they might save me from the worst of the latest attack.

  125. At 09:47 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Andy Sloss wrote:

    I'm confused - is 201.2 the wavelength of Olympic Radio or something?
    Or maybe a hint that only a tenth of it will be ready on time?

  126. At 09:57 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Alfster wrote:

    Having seen the video of it and heard it is for the younger internet generation..it isn't.

    It follows exactly the same formula as the majority of TV filming these days: out-of-focus, jumpy, wierd angles, swoopy shots, snap zooms...all designed to make you feel sick.

    'it's not a logo..it's a state of mind'

    Those last two words aren't necessary.

    Will TV ever get camera men who know how to use a camera again?

  127. At 10:06 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Stephanie wrote:

    The logo looks like a submission from the losing team on The Apprentice. I'd like to hear Alan Sugar's response!

  128. At 10:25 PM on 04 Jun 2007, jonnie wrote:

    andycroak wrote: ---

    at least it's not three people having sex ...

    Andy -

    What's the square in the middle then?

  129. At 10:28 PM on 04 Jun 2007, markmyword wrote:

    Brown would have my undying gratitude and vote if he would scrap the British involvement in this two week jamboree.

    If that logo is the best that can be produced with £400,000 and a years work then I ask whatever happened to the much vaunted British Design expertise?

  130. At 10:31 PM on 04 Jun 2007, sacrebleu wrote:

    An instant LOSER!

  131. At 10:34 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    I have just spotted a thing called the Orange News Blog, which has copied PM on this one today...

  132. At 10:46 PM on 04 Jun 2007, mittfh wrote:

    To me, it looks like a very dodgy interpretation of Pangea...

    ...which is very appropriate, considering it's set to "evolve" over time (presumably a crafty measure to deter counterfitters - by the time they produce the goods, the logo will be out of date).

    On the other hand, it could read something like ZOR, ZOIR, ZOTZ, ZOTR...

    And as for the colour scheme, why purple? It's hideous - even BBC Weather Map Brown (TM) would have looked better!

    As has just been discussed on The World Tonight (10:30pmish), why couldn't they have used or modified the original bid logo? And, apart from "london", what else is there to signify Britain / British culture / British society / British geography?

  133. At 11:10 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Bob wrote:

    Am I the only person who thinks it's great?

  134. At 11:50 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Gossipmistress wrote:

    Jonnie (128) don't you mean 'who'?

  135. At 12:18 AM on 05 Jun 2007, Val P wrote:

    Maximus Prime - I'm with you on that.

    Andycrabstract - go on then, you do abstract, rustle up something better and you could sell it!

    I still can't see 2012?

  136. At 01:14 AM on 05 Jun 2007, Richard wrote:

    Dear God! Four hundred grand and a years work for a piece of lurid, angular tat that embodies so little on the event it is supposed to symbolise that the word "London" and the Olympic logo have to be awkwardly superimposed on it in the only two places they'll fit on it in order to help remind us what event the abstract mess is supposed to be effortlessly promoting without the aid of text!

    If they drain four hundred grand from the budget and spend a whole year making a terrible mess of one little drawing, how are they going to cope with building a stadium or two?

  137. At 01:30 AM on 05 Jun 2007, Mrs. Naughtie wrote:

    Hello, my Dears,
    What a lot of unhappy people.
    I expect you'll all have seen:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6719747.stm

    They are much better and are very clever.
    If I had to pick just one (like in Desert Island Discs [isn't she lovely, that Kirsty Young? She's a friend of young Mr. Mair, you know.]) then it would be number ten, although I realise that might be considered a contentious choice at the moment, what with all the talk about Tony and Gordon and the delays in their house conveyancing.

    Anyway, my cocoa's going cold.
    Night, night.
    Love from Mrs. N.

  138. At 01:35 AM on 05 Jun 2007, Mrs. Naughtie wrote:

    Hello, my Dears,
    What a lot of unhappy people.
    I expect you'll all have seen:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6719747.stm

    They are much better and are very clever.
    If I had to pick just one (like in Desert Island Discs [isn't she lovely, that Kirsty Young? She's a friend of young Mr. Mair, you know.]) then it would be number ten, although I realise that might be considered a contentious choice at the moment, what with all the talk about Tony and Gordon and the delays in their house conveyancing.

    Anyway, my cocoa's going cold.
    Night, night.
    Love from Mrs. N.

  139. At 06:14 AM on 05 Jun 2007, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Mrs Naughtie (137 & 138):

    They are *very* good. I love the simplicity of the street-sign version (#6) but the first one is something I could view as a design clasic.

    ...

    Do you think this logo/symbol/vision is actually a hoax in the same way as that win-a-kidney-game-show? Will the top news story today be Seb Coe saying "Ha-ha! We're using the first one on the BBC site instead..."

  140. At 06:53 AM on 05 Jun 2007, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Ooo! I've just seen the video version of the logo, and it seems to star the jagged, flashy graphics from Queen's "A Kind Of Magic" video.

    It's good that they're getting work again after all these years, there hasn't been a lot of jobs for those kind of jerky animations since the mid-80's.

    Maybe we'll see the chunky workmen from Dire Straits' "Money For Nothing" turning up again.

    (Hmmm, that could be the theme music for these Games...)

  141. At 07:30 AM on 05 Jun 2007, Lindsay wrote:

    Thank you, Alfster (126), you are so right about current camera-"work".

    But this logo...? I don't understand, was someone actually paid to create this? It's not a joke or the product of a failed art school graduate?

  142. At 08:21 AM on 05 Jun 2007, Gossipmistress wrote:

    Mrs N - they are soo much better than that thing above! I like the street sign & picture 2 especially. I think the other one should meet with a terrible accident... (Or maybe it has already!)

  143. At 08:59 AM on 05 Jun 2007, Belinda wrote:

    The last time I saw shapes and colours like that, it was the late '70s in the back of a VW camper van.

  144. At 10:06 AM on 05 Jun 2007, Fifi wrote:

    I already know I'm a bit of a Luddite when it comes to abstract ... y'know, prepared to be open to new ideas BUT... so my subjective response to the logo isn't important.

    However.

    As Fred Campbell (106) correctly points out, any logo has a job to do, and must fulfil certain purely practical criteria:

    1. Will it work in B&W?
    2. Will it still work if reproduced very small?

    (Yes I know it should 'express the values or objectives of the brand' and stuff like that -- but those are subjective un-measurable things.)

    So, in terms of the practical objectives...

    1. Doubtful, although one hopes the designers will issue a version rendered in black-only for the print media ... if the changing-colours anti-copying feature is a prime component this may not be the case

    2. Not at all

    And that's day-one-of-the-design-course stuff.

    Fifi

  145. At 10:42 AM on 05 Jun 2007, James Pickett wrote:

    Agree with Mrs.N - nos. 1 and 8 do it for me. I see from the BBC news magazine page that:

    "The designers deliberately avoided using sporting images or pictures of London landmarks"

    which explains a lot, except why they should adopt such an idiotic restraint. Matt's cartoon today summed it up perfectly (as usual)...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Matt/pcMatt.jhtml

  146. At 10:54 AM on 05 Jun 2007, Fred Campbell wrote:

    £400,000!

    Q. How can anyone spend a year and so much money to come up with this?

    A. A committee and tax payers' money.

  147. At 11:17 AM on 05 Jun 2007, Piper wrote:

    A quote from today's "Telegraph".

    ... the logo, which cost £400,000 and took the best part of a year to be devised by brand consultants Wolff Olins....

    Design guru Stephen Bayley condemned it as "a puerile mess, an artistic flop and a commercial scandal".

    An online petition to get the logo scrapped already had more than 16,000 signatures by 10am today, and on the Telegraph website readers were heavily critical. The London Games has been plagued by rocketing costs, with the original budget of £2.375 billion now standing at £9.3 billion.

    Although LOCOG last night stressed that the logo was paid for by private money, Mr Bayley voiced his astonishment that the emblem - available in blue, pink, green and orange - had cost £400,000. "That's outrageous," he said. "There are 5,000 talented designers who could have done the job for £10,000."

    It's possible I'm just a touch cynical, given the on-going cash for honours investigations etc but what, I wonder, does "...paid for by private money..." actually mean? At the end of the day. The end of the games.

    Y'know, at the time when when medals accolades and dare one say honours are bestowed...

  148. At 11:30 AM on 05 Jun 2007, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Well, I've given it almost a day now, just in case I would "get used to it". Sad to say, it still looks a mess that doesn't make me enthusiastic about the games. As lots of others have said above, the ones submitted by members of the public to the Beeb are generally much more interesting, and they highlight London, and the games themselves. Of the ones on the link Mrs. Naughtie posted earlier, I'd pick 8 first, then 10....

  149. At 11:46 AM on 05 Jun 2007, Chris wrote:

    I think it looks like an old man/woman bent over using a walking stick to help him/her walk.

  150. At 11:48 AM on 05 Jun 2007, ian Barnes wrote:

    If the Olympics logo will be developing as time goes by, is it a 'do you know what it is yet?' piece of artwork???????

  151. At 12:13 PM on 05 Jun 2007, Charlie wrote:

    ...well, I have to say that this Olympic's Logo debacle has clarified a great deal for me.

    Before, I was struggling to understand how such massive investment by the Government in Education and NHS services has, in reality, produced so little.

    Realising now, that the London Games Committee which comprises, amongst others, eminent politicians and leaders of major industries who hail this Logo as £400,000 well spent AND that a year was then taken over it's production, I can fully understand why our Education and Health services are going down the pan despite massive spending...

    Is there anyone in Government, or remotely connected to it, who understands the concept of value for money and time spent..?


  152. At 12:21 PM on 05 Jun 2007, John Waymark wrote:

    What else can you say about this it's an insult to good design and the british public. It took a year to design this, unbeleivable!

  153. At 01:33 PM on 05 Jun 2007, Miss pooh bear wrote:

    It looks like an unfinished children's puzzle to me.

  154. At 02:00 PM on 05 Jun 2007, Les Bate wrote:

    Hi all

    I think this "logo" is actually meant to represent a Great Britain disintegrating after 10 years of "new" Labour, the fragments flying out from the page ...

    This is why they said it will evolve with time ... as the bits of our once great country come out of the page and go flying past us ...

    £400,000 for three minutes work ... not a bad rate is it? Must have one hell of a set of office overheads ...

    We used to celebrate excellence ... now we celebrate anything that doesn't purport to be excellent, praise lack of competitiveness and generally seek the lowest common denominator in every field you care to mention.

    I wonder who is the "great architect" who wants us always to be the laughing stock of the world?

    Money for old rope? Nah ... old rope CAN be useful!

    Les Bate
    Bristol

  155. At 02:09 PM on 05 Jun 2007, Peter Coghlan wrote:

    It's easy really: it's a post-modern interpretation of the Incredible Hulk, with naughty bits.

  156. At 02:12 PM on 05 Jun 2007, Gordon Brown wrote:

    Achtung! Achtung! Look at it in reverse FFS. It clearly carries a subliminal message of neo-facism. It could've been used for the '36 SS Games in Berlin... ;-)

    No, I am not the PM, MP, or any such nonsense, honest.

  157. At 02:34 PM on 05 Jun 2007, RJD wrote:

    Over 150 posts so far and I don't think more than a couple are complimentary.

    I think it a bit naive to assume that £400k been spent on just this. The elements of the figure are ideal for moving graphics and animation as already picked up by a couple of the "alternative" formats on the BBC page.

    I haven't heard much news these past few days so I'm not clued up on this, but my feeling is that there will have been a lot more design and planning for the use of the logo within the £400k budget.

    And my opinion - I quite like it.

  158. At 02:43 PM on 05 Jun 2007, luigi wrote:

    The logo reminds me of a guy being fellated. no?

  159. At 05:46 PM on 05 Jun 2007, PeteB wrote:

    Looks to me like a London person and an Olympics person are squabbling over who's going to hold the ball (torch)

    Someone did mention the old *ball between the knees* drinking game already and i would have to agree.

    £400k for that!!!

    No thanks.

  160. At 05:53 PM on 05 Jun 2007, Ellie wrote:

    Anyone else see the ss dancing around...?


    it doesnt matter what it looks like. the fact is its unclear, untidy and doesnt even read london 2012! (surely its first purpose?) it gives me a panic attacks.

  161. At 06:01 PM on 05 Jun 2007, Robert Armstrong wrote:

    Having just listened to the inane 'interpretation' of people's reactions to the logo - please can I have back the few minutes (which felt like hours...) spent listening to the puerile comments of your 'expert', or have compensation for the brain cells lost from exposure to such superficial wittering?

  162. At 06:01 PM on 05 Jun 2007, jane coffey wrote:

    Your psychotherapist got it soooo wrong, it was quite definitely my 12 year old sons friend who thought the logo was egyptian dancers. Although I suspect her response to this reply would suggest my being "Defensive" Perhaps you could have her interpretations interpreted, good grief this could go on for ever

  163. At 06:02 PM on 05 Jun 2007, Andy Walker wrote:

    Eddie,

    it looks like a scattered pile of beer mats. Someone less cynical might have thought this was thought up over ten pints in the Dog and Duck......

  164. At 06:05 PM on 05 Jun 2007, tankgirl wrote:

    Looks like the signage of a sushi bar! Imagine it moving!!! Who said yes to this???? Sack them!!!!!

  165. At 06:06 PM on 05 Jun 2007, Ian Evans wrote:

    Just listened to that psychologist-lady-person analysing people's perceptions of the logo, ooops, brand. She thinks it's "a mess".

    What does that say about her?

  166. At 06:08 PM on 05 Jun 2007, Falloch wrote:

    I am so happy I don't live anywhere near London so that I don't have to look at this ridiculous transformer/walking with a stick/having fascist sex/falling into a gutter in a stupor in 1980s-coloured legwarmers 'logo' for the next 5 years!! Iit will be bad enough seeng it on old t-shirts and peaked caps donated to Oxfam/logo-laden toy dogs, keychains/plastic mugs all made by slave labour in China, for the next 10-20 years...
    £400,000: sounds like Nu Lab is still in love with its consultant-led we-know-better-than-you cronies.

  167. At 06:10 PM on 05 Jun 2007, Julio wrote:

    Yup, the olympic rings are definately going down on london there.

    I can also see the puking bloke.

    I have to agree with Lord Coe. Its not bland.
    Its utter ****.

    I am caught between laughing and utter dismay.

    The (tm) is particularly funny - they actually bothered to trade mark that rubbish.

  168. At 06:12 PM on 05 Jun 2007, Joey Moore wrote:

    I think Tessa Jowell and Lord Coe are doing a sterling job supporting the Emperors new clothes...

  169. At 06:22 PM on 05 Jun 2007, Jesse Owens wrote:

    More "No Go" then Logo

  170. At 06:35 PM on 05 Jun 2007, Hugh Green wrote:

    I think it looks like the designer is well on his way to a Turner prize...all the hallmarks are present - looks rubbish and cost half a million!

  171. At 07:10 PM on 05 Jun 2007, hannah wrote:

    The Elephant Man doung Saturady Night Fever, I think.

    Please note: no offence to the BeeGees or John Merrick intended. I was just trying to find the best way to put what I thought into words. (Being a yoof I was doubled over laughing, yes.)

  172. At 07:15 PM on 05 Jun 2007, Ann Angood wrote:

    I get bad migraine, seeing the logo move made me instantly nauseous, as my body reaccted to its resemblance to the visual disturbance common to migraine sufferers. Migraine is bad enough, I cant imagine how it could affect epileptics, has no-one realised the hazard here ? people are usually so careful these days to warn of flashing lights , but this logo is downright dangerous. Please, BBC, can you notify the authorities ?

  173. At 07:36 PM on 05 Jun 2007, Postman Pat wrote:

    This logo is an even worse then the "Consignia" re-branding disaster temporarily forced on Royal Mail.

  174. At 07:39 PM on 05 Jun 2007, Charlie wrote:

    Hugh Green @ 170

    I couldn't agree with you more.

    About 30 years ago, an "Artist" (and here, I use the term very loosely...) exhibited at the National Gallery (?) a number of house-bricks, about 24, laid on the Gallery floor, not cemented, in random order and was asking a price of, I think, £24,000

    A wise person bought them...

    I have a feeling, the 2012 Olympic Logo designer and that artist, if not the same person, may be related...

  175. At 07:46 PM on 05 Jun 2007, c g wrote:

    I only just caught the end of today's programme, and wasn't much fussed about this logo, but was so intrigued by the comments that I had to log on and have a look.

    I think it looks like one of Calvin & Hobbes parallel universes, in which, "The laws of perspective have all been repealed!...All spatial relationships are lost! It's impossible to judge where anything is!"

    Perhaps these are the only grounds upon which we can hope for Olympic success?

  176. At 07:54 PM on 05 Jun 2007, PeteB wrote:

    ...And news just in...

    from bbc.co.uk/news...

    ...A segment of animated footage promoting the 2012 Olympic Games has been removed from the organisers' website after fears it could trigger epileptic fits.

    ...Charity Epilepsy Action said it had received calls from people who had suffered fits after seeing it.

  177. At 08:39 PM on 05 Jun 2007, Adrian Hunneyball wrote:

    Well........here we go again. Loads of money for a load of rubbish. What is the matter with these people......Do they not see the real world.....is all their designs really always this bad. They should have had a competition across the country for the design...............would have been cheaper too.

  178. At 10:05 PM on 05 Jun 2007, Laughing Dog wrote:

    £400,000 is that with or without V.A.T. ?

  179. At 10:29 PM on 05 Jun 2007, Ian Swann wrote:

    Is it broken? it looks broken to me. what a shame that something so beautiful has fallen off the plinth and shattered into so many pieces. Maybe if we club together we can raise enough money for Coe's cosy conspirators to actually design a logo rather than a kaleidoscope. Well done......value for money yet again.

  180. At 10:33 PM on 05 Jun 2007, James Pickett wrote:

    "Charity Epilepsy Action said it had received calls from people who had suffered fits after seeing it"

    What makes them think it's anything to do with epilepsy..?

  181. At 08:57 AM on 06 Jun 2007, "The Fool-on-the-Hill" wrote:

    Laughing Dog @ 178

    ...P-L-E-A-S-E, don't compound the misery...

    And, If it's £400,000 + VAT + an Honour, you might wish to stay away from this Blog. I shall probably be up-chucking all over it...

    Thinking about it further, I'll do the same for a mere £400,000 + an Honour..!

  182. At 10:14 AM on 06 Jun 2007, Just Say No wrote:

    £400,000 for this? Conclusive proof that drugs and sport don't mix in my opinion.

  183. At 11:14 AM on 06 Jun 2007, T Marshall wrote:

    WHO paid more than £10 for this? WHO!?

    It's like a cross between a Lunn Polly price tag and Timmy Mallet's shirt. The whole world will think it's 1986!

  184. At 12:03 PM on 06 Jun 2007, Awol wrote:

    Somebody tell Noel Edmunds one of his jumpers has gone missing.

  185. At 12:33 PM on 06 Jun 2007, Basil Assima wrote:

    The idiot that approved this, must be sectioned.

    Why doesn't the so called "Lord" Coe, stick to things he knows something about....Like running...

  186. At 05:34 PM on 06 Jun 2007, Mike wrote:

    Symbolises London very well. Disjointed, untidy and far too expensive!

  187. At 07:08 PM on 06 Jun 2007, Olie wrote:

    "Here you go Olympic Committee, your new design, hot off the press from our inspired team of artists..."

    "Thank you Wolff Olins, my my, isn't she beautiful"

    "Oh you're too kind Olympic Committee. So then, hate to be all serious and stuff, but the matter of the erm,£400,000......?"

    "Ah yes Wolff Olins, here you go. Gosh the poeple will be pleased. Now then, have you seen my glasses and integrity? I put them down somewhere"

    or something like that.....

  188. At 07:19 PM on 06 Jun 2007, stoneface wrote:

    i quite like the logo but i dont like the fact that the games came to london instead of paris which is where they belong

  189. At 11:50 PM on 06 Jun 2007, Martin wrote:

    Is this from the same country that designed Westminster Abbey, Tower Bridge and all the other great icons of England?

    The same country but not the same generation.

    I guess the adult supervision at the design studio got fired because they were too old.

    The way these London Olympics are being handled is making England the laughing stock of the world!

  190. At 02:10 PM on 07 Jun 2007, Mike Archibald wrote:

    This is about the worst thing I've ever seen!
    As a graphic designer I find all this a bit much to take.

  191. At 02:18 PM on 07 Jun 2007, Mike Archibald wrote:

    And another thing... the new website launching the logo isn't valid code (pretty basic sloppy errors), being a web designer this is also hard to take.

  192. At 10:38 AM on 08 Jun 2007, I.C. Whatitis wrote:

    I see what it is .... a white elephant with a black hole.

  193. At 08:54 PM on 08 Jun 2007, Richard wrote:

    Whatever anyone thinks about the logo, the responses reveal a strange feature of the British character. We always have to run things down and ridicule them. When was the last time anything produced or achieved by this country was praised or held up as a fine example to the rest of the world? Everything that anyone tried to do in Britian is knocked by the medial and the public and criticised for being too expensive or extravagant or stupid. Even the Olympics are being hailed as a failure before they even get under way. It's just a character trait of being British!

  194. At 05:48 PM on 24 Aug 2007, keith wrote:

    Dear pm,

    In the early fifties when I was a child I had two handguns and a rifle. The guns were cap pistols cowboy style and the rifle was made from wood. I used to play with our local group of children, not gangs, & we would split into two groups. One would go and hide and other would try to find them, We would pretend to shoot them when they were found & we were all good friends afterwards.

    Of course cowboy style replica six shooters and caps are not allowed now as they give kids the wrong idea - just real guns now! We all knew that this was just a game & it didn't do anybody any long term harm.

    What a mess today's parents & children have got into when really killing people seems to have become familiar.

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.