Posts Tagged ‘Stratford’

Seumas Milne does the deconstruction work so you don’t have to:

It’s billed as the greatest show on earth. But the closer you get to the London stadium that will be the centre of the Olympic Games in just over a fortnight’s time [now under 2 days], the more it’s starting to look like a militarised occupation zone. East London has become lockdown London. The Olympics are the focus of Britain’s largest security mobilisation since the second world war.

Soldiers are already on the streets. Around 13,500 are being deployed, more than currently in Afghanistan, along with tens of thousands of police and private security guards. Drones will patrol the skies over the Olympic park, barricaded behind an 11-mile electrified fence and guarded with sonic weapons and 55 teams of attack dogs.

Mustn’t forget the law changes which will allow police to move gatherings of two or more on for any reason they can think of. Is the Olympics really worth sacrificing freedom of assembly? As Milne points out later in the article, just what is that promoting? But of course that’s just the tip of the iceberg, as he goes on to explain:

The greatest local outrage has, not surprisingly, been triggered by the decision to site surface-to-air missile batteries, with orders to shoot down any unauthorised aircraft, in six residential areas around the park – including in the former factory buildings where the socialist feminist Annie Besant led the celebrated “matchgirls’ strike” in 1888. On Tuesday, residents of another tower block failed at the high court to stop the army putting missiles on their roof on the grounds that they hadn’t been consulted and could be vulnerable to terrorist attack.

Of course, if the state hosting the Olympics is in the habit of invading and occupying other people’s countries, the likelihood of terrorist attacks will increase. And ever since the killing of Israeli athletes in Munich 40 years ago, Olympic security has been tight. But the scale and visibility of the London operations, including powers to crack down on protest and even remove critical posters from private homes, go far beyond the demands of any potential threat.

People are already getting threatened by the police, merely for having expressed anti-Olympics dissent online. It’s quite unthinkable. What is this supposed to be, China? Have we learned nothing from the police excess around the Royal Wedding, where protesters were essentially arrested (without having done a single thing), for not joining in unquestioningly with the party?

There are other motivations, naturally. In the words of one Whitehall official, the Olympics are a “tremendous opportunity to showcase what the private sector can do in the security space“. But it’s all a long way from the Olympic ideals of promoting peace, internationalism and participation through sport.

Not just security. As he goes on to discuss, it’s a corporate free-for-all. Want to get your money from a non-VISA cashpoint while you’re cheering on Tom Daley et al? Good luck with that. Want to eat healthily, which would sort of be in line with a major sporting event? Enjoy your Big Mac and supersized fries in the largest McDonalds in the world! From The Braiser:

“London won the right to host the 2012 Games with the promise to deliver a legacy of more active, healthier children across the world,” said Assembly Member Jenny Jones, who proposed the motion. “Yet the same International Olympic Committee that awarded the games to London persists in maintaining sponsorship deals with the purveyors of high calorie junk that contributes to the threat of an obesity epidemic.”

I wish the athletes (at least the non-drug taking ones) well, but the event which they’re partaking in is making a mockery of itself. Respect, excellence and friendship? By threatening dissenters, militarising the city and encouraging obesity (yes Coca Cola I’m also looking at you)? What a joke.

Advertisements

You know things are bad when the Spectator are on LOCOG’s case:

The real risk, in my view is not so much from the letter of the law. It is from the chilling effect on free speech, created by the rules and their gung-ho implementation. Consider the following:

  • Sally Gunnell photoshoot promoting easyJet’s new London Southend service in July 2011. Locog executive stopped photoshoot of her raising a Union flag above her shoulders. Union flag was removed & she had to change from a white tracksuit to an orange T-shirt.
  • Butcher in Weymouth. Was told to remove his display of sausages in the shape of the Olympic rings.
  • Olympicnic. A small village in Surrey has been stopped from running an “Olympicnic” on its village green.
  • ‘Flaming torch breakfast baguette’ offered at a café in Plymouth to celebrate the arrival of the Olympic torch was outlawed by Locog.
  • ‘Cafe Lympic’ & ‘Lympic Food Store & Off License’. Both had to drop the ‘O’ at the start of their names. But Alex Kelham, a brand protection lawyer at Locog, says: ‘The legislation actually catches anything similar to the word ‘Olympic’ as well. It’s not a fool-proof get-around.’
  • Florist in Stoke-on-Trent. Was ordered to take down a tissue paper Olympic rings display from the shop window.
  • Oxford Olympic Torch stalls. Traders will have to cover up their logos, and can only sell soft drinks from the Coca-Cola product range (inc. bottled water)
  • Webbers Estate Agents in North Devon. Threatened with legal action for displaying makeshift Olympic rings in its windows.

The word soon gets around: if you upset the Olympic censors, they will come for you. And what shopkeeper wants to get landed with a massive lawsuit? You’d sooner not take the risk. If a newsagent has been told (as we were, originally) that it’s illegal to be rude about the Olympics then to stock this week’s Spectator – which is defiantly rude about the Olympics – would be a risk you’d understandably not take.

This can’t possibly be in the spirit of what the Olympics are supposed to be about. Protected by missiles for fuck’s sake? Insane. Missiles forcibly installed on people’s roofs? What sort of country is this anyway? I can’t imagine what sense it makes for chips which aren’t McDonalds’ to be outlawed in the Stratford Park during this period! But G4S not being able to deliver the security personnel it promised, forcing army personnel to police the event, is serious financially (how many hundred million were G4S paid?) and sets an ominous precedent. And PLEASE someone tell me what sense there is in banning cyclists from ‘Games Lanes’ (very Soviet) in the run-up to and during a SPORTS EVENT?! There’s no discussion going on about sport at all, as far as I know! This is crazy!