Dear Sir,
MATTHEW O'Connor's article on the Olympic bids rang true in many respects, though I would go one stage further than his proposed saving costs in the run-up to selection, and suggest one permanent site, historically Greece, could be the venue. As it is, as an ex-Londoner, I think it may be somewhat of a poisoned chalice that London has received with the 2012 Olympics.
The projected five billion Pounds cost will probably double (as these quotes usually do: remember the London Dome?).
But more noticeably, the city will progressively resemble a war zone over the next seven years of reconstruction.
The benefits of the legacy of new buildings and sporting facilities will of course be there for the next generation, but is it not disgraceful and pathetic to see the politicians puff out their chests with pride at what they propose, when it is they who have allowed areas such as the east of London to lie in decay for decades, and sporting facilities to remain at such a low level. It has been embarrassing to view Britain's “achievements” on the medal tables of successive Olympics.
And of course, with the tragic bombings this week in London, this does not bode well for the future.
With a reported 7'000 construction workers being employed for the project, how many terrorits could infiltrate the system, to plant explosive devices to be detonated in times to come? The authorities cannot even state how many illegal immigrants enter each year (last guestimate 500'000) so one can imagine the “control” on such a venture. Apart from one permanent venue for the Olympics, maybe consideration could be given to a similar site for the G8 meetings.
Scotland certainly did not deserve the anarchists, etc. Maybe a refurbished Alcatraz, secluded, inaccessible to the public, easy to protect, might be best for all future such meetings.
Graham Phillips, Palma de Majorca


To be able to write a comment, you have to be registered and be logged in.

* Mandatory fields

Currently there are no comments.