With the summer 2012 drawing ever closer, it is no surprise that the amount of column inches devoted to the London Olympics is increasing. What has surprised me, though, has been how much of this coverage has been of the controversies that seem to be multiplying around the Games, and just what may be done in the name of the Olympics next year.
Flatly, I am worried that the Government is importing dodgy methods of event management to Stratford and the rest of London. The security measures recently announced are especially concerning. I hope no Liberal in Britain is reassured by military presence during civic life, whatever form it comes in. If the Met don’t have the money and manpower to police this event, then we had no place bidding, and if hosting the Games is so dangerous for the public, why do it?
Then there is the talk of protest camps being removed ‘in time for the Games’. From Westminster. I assume if there can’t be camps in Westminster, there certainly can’t be protest in Stratford. The decision has been taken at some level that the Olympics trump mere domestic politics. So are we using the excuse of looking good on an international stage to clear the streets of dissenting voices? Or, more worryingly, have we been told by the IOC and corporate sponsors that the city must look pristine, whatever the ramifications?
Of course, these are all rather wishy-washy liberal concerns about inalienable rights that won’t interest many people. What will incense ordinary Londoners will be what the press has dubbed ‘Zil lanes’, hundreds of miles of coned-off road reserved for corporate bigwigs and IOC officials. In a city like London, this will cause traffic chaos, and for what? So VIPs can be on time for canapés before the archery. So we are left with VIP lanes, protest crackdowns and armed forces policing our capital. That is not Britain. For 3 weeks, we’re the USSR, or China. Not worth it.
To be honest, I’ve never been especially keen on London hosting the Olympics. They are so bloated and expensive, and so blatantly impact only one small area of the country for the price, that I felt we should be leaving them for other nations with more money than sense. We are spending billions on London infrastructure whilst making once-in-a-generation cuts, with investment in London already dwarfing what the rest of us get. However, we’ve got the Games and must make the best of them now, but for me that means some Lib Dem common sense on how they are to be run.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
RMT calls three one-day strikes over Midland Main Line safety
The first serving PM to receive the Legion of Honour?
Will there be a general election?
Can Burnham win the endorsement of Number Ten's most important occupant?
David S
Andrew Tampion
cim
Jenny Barnes
4 Comments
Sam raises some significant questions here.
The Olympics is very important. As well as for sport and for a great welcome, it must be a showcase for British values of tolerance, freedom and diversity.
The example of the heavy-handed and unlawful policing of protesters against Chinese state policy during President Jiang Zemin’s visit to London in 1999 must not be repeated. Nor must the games allow only sanitised regulated cordoned off protests, with anyone trying to put across genuine grievances or dissent kept well away. That would be a Beijingification of the Games. It would also be not dissimilar to the protests at the last three Liberal Democrat conferences (although the pictures of Sheffield showed plenty of protest nearby).
As Gareth Epps recently reiterated in a different context t”he right to peaceful protest is a fundamental tenet of a free and open society, whether in Britain or abroad, and regardless of the level of government or political party against which it is directed (including the Liberal Democrats).” That must also apply to the World’s premier sporting event. Some friendly good natured protesters will also help show London and the UK in a good light.
I shall avoid London during the Olympics – between Seb Coe’s blatant lies about the costs of putting the games on, the ridiculous military imposition and consequent inevitable betrayals of civil liberties and so forth, it’s something I have no desire to be part of.
In retrospect, I’m quite glad the southerners decided to keep all the Olympic facilities in one place, it means those of us who live elsewhere with excellent Olympic grade sporting establishments can go about our lives in peace.
Two separate issues:
Re legitimate protests, I completely agree with you. The Olympics should not be a pretext for getting protesters shuffled out of the way.
But in terms of violent terrorist acts? Realistically there are too many events and too many people to ignore the risks. If I’m sitting in a stadium that is targeted by a suicide bomber, I don’t care what colour uniform takes him out.
This is not about military intrusion into day-to-day civic life. The Olympics is the single biggest risk event going on, with a global audience and numerous foreign dignitaries. If this isn’t an occasion for military back-up being ready, I don’t know what is.
It’s a tricky balance. Remember Munich 1972. And it is only 3 weeks.
To me the most disappointing feature of the London Olympics – so far at least – is the acceptance of sponsorship money from Dow Chemical. How about a peaceful, dignified, act of protest? Spectators might wear a discreet badge – made by a cooperative in Madhya Pradesh.