I remember quite the uproar in the Netherlands back when we were competing for the Olympic bid and it turned out the IOC demanded it's own special legislative powers for the duration of the games. It was found unconstitutional and i recall it managed to turn a lot of people against the whole idea of having the Olympics. I mean, aside from the fact that it costs an mindboggling amount of money while education, culture and healthcare sectors (to name but a few) are being heavily pruned with austerity measures in this time of crisis.
Kinda makes you sick and angry, don't it...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ndon-avoidThis means that, for the rest of the summer, London will effectively be "ruled" by the IOC. Enthusiasts for world government should take note. An unaccountable, self-validating body expects five-star hotels, chauffeur-driven BMWs, Soviet-style Zil lanes and all-green light phases for its thousands of "officials" and corporate hangers-on. It not only expects them, it gets them. It demanded and got its own legislative powers, under the 2006 London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act. Lord Coe does what the IOC tells him and passes the bill to George Osborne, who pays it. When the opening ceremony alone was £30m short (on a staggering budget of £60m), the cheque was promptly sent round.
The IOC is ever vigilant for its sponsors. Inspectors are to fan out across the capital, arresting anyone who uses the words "2012 Olympics" or any other associative phrase, for not paying Coe and the IOC a fortune in sponsorship fees. Jamie Oliver cannot hold an Olympics party in Victoria Park as he is a non-sponsor. Blogs, pictures or videos on YouTube or Facebook are banned. Anyone who so much as carries an unapproved bag, hat or shoe in a venue is banned.




