Lord Finesse Learning How The Streisand Effect Works: Tons Of People Re-Upload Dan Bull's Video

Olympics Can't Hire Enough Actual Security, But Fully Staffed With 'Brand Police'

from the that'll-work dept

Mon, Jul 16th 2012 3:51pm — Mike Masnick

We've talked about how the Olympics are so focused on hiding any non-sponsor brand that they had officials in Beijing during the last Olympics tape over bathroom fixtures from non-sponsoring companies. And it was clear that this same sort of activity was set to continue this time around in London, including a specific law against "ambush marketing."

You may have heard the reports in London about the terrible security for the London Olympics that has left things in "absolute chaos," due to a failure to hire enough security personnel. In fact, there's talk of soldiers having to be called in to help. Given all that, it's interesting to find out that the Olympics do have a fully-staffed "brand police" force, which is heading around the city to carefully block any non-sponsor brands, and try to track down and kill off any kind of unpaid-for marketing.

Almost 300 enforcement officers will be seen across the country checking firms to ensure they are not staging "ambush marketing" or illegally associating themselves with the Games at the expense of official sponsors such as Adidas, McDonald's, Coca-Cola and BP....

Wearing purple caps and tops, the experts in trading and advertising working for the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) are heading the biggest brand protection operation staged in the UK. Under legislation specially introduced for the London Games, they have the right to enter shops and offices and bring court action with fines of up to £20,000.

So, if a terrorist attack happens to hit London over the next few weeks, at least we'll know that it wasn't sponsored by some non-paying brand.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: london, olympics, sponsorship, uk
Companies: adidas, bp, coca-cola, mcdonald's

72 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 3:59pm

Chips
There was a funny story on NPR about how since McDonalds is the official heart attack provider for the Olympics, only McDonald's french fries (chips) are allowed to be served at the Olympic sites. But the exception is if you're buying fish and chips. So, you can't sell chips, unless you have some fish in there as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tunnen (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 4:21pm
  
  Re: Chips
  Perhaps that's why McDonalds is able to sell their fries as well. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some fish by-product mixed in with what they claim is potato. =P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - SolkeshNaranek (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 4:44pm
    
    Re: Re: Chips
    It's all Soylent Green.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - harbingerofdoom (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 5:22pm
    
    Re: Re: Chips
    they are able to sell theirs because they are the official sponsor.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sam, 16 Jul 2012 @ 4:07pm

They have some 13,500 military personnel on security duty anyway - they're talking about cancelling leave and bringing in *more* to make up the G4S shortfall. The last few news stories have talked about bringing in more police officers from other forces instead, though, so I don't know if the extra military are still being brought in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 4:16pm
  
  All the King's horses and all the King's men [Re: ]
  They have some 13,500 military personnel on security duty anyway
  
  And with all the King's horses and all the King's men... ...they still can't patrol the LIBOR.
  
  �
  
  ( That's a laughable complaint, you say? The military brutes could not possibly be educated enough to understand high finance! )
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - arcan, 16 Jul 2012 @ 4:20pm
    
    Re: All the King's horses and all the King's men [Re: ]
    hell even the grunts are smarter than the olympic committee
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 4:13pm

Personally, I won't buy from any sponsor until the games are over. Spirit of peace and goodwill my ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nospacesorspecialcharacters (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 11:34am
  
  Re:
  Same here, years ago I made a personal commitment to avoid buying any brands that sponsor the Olympics. Not that I buy a lot of junk food or sports clothes but when I do, I make sure it's NOT an Olympic sponsor.
  
  Just doing my bit... One day I'd like to see being an Olympic sponsor something of a poison chalice linked to lost sales. Perhaps then the Trademark Marximalists will be kicked out.
  
  The Olympics is supposed to be about sporting achievements, not sponsorship achievements.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tunnen (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 4:18pm

This bombing was brought to you by al-Qaeda, the official terrorist of 2012 Olympic Games... =P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 4:37pm
  
  Re:
  And Allah brand underwear bombs, the official explosives of the 2012 olypic games
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tunnen (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 4:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Also the Zebra Flu, the official pandemic of the 2012 Olympic Games.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 8:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "And Allah brand bombs underwear, the official explosive garment of the 2012 olympic games"
    FTFY
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Almost Anonymous (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 9:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      At least we know they weren't made in America.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vidiot (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 4:54pm
  
  Re:
  If they weren't the OFFICIAL terrorists, they'd be thwarted by the Brand Police. Of whom there are apparently plenty.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - harbingerofdoom (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 5:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    so what you are saying is that they need to designate an official terrorist organization and then they would be 100% set security-wise!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - orbitalinsertion (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 8:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No Unauthorized Terrorists Beyond This Point
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRMan, 16 Jul 2012 @ 4:40pm

Sounds like...
Sounds like the terrorists just need to show up in purple hats and shirts and they can plant bombs in businesses with no oversight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 4:53pm
  
  Re: Sounds like...
  terrorists just need to show up in purple hats and shirts
  
  Yes. Well, dinging a small business with up to �20,000 damage is not the type of thing you can stop with a �a high-velocity missile lightweight multiple launcher during a media event�.
  
  �
  
  ( See pic in linked article. )
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), 16 Jul 2012 @ 7:56pm
  
  Re: Sounds like...
  They just have to make absolutely sure that there's no kind of brand marking on the bomb, in case it gets found.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- orbitalinsertion (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 8:25pm
  
  Re: Sounds like...
  Any further regulation would be an undue burden on terrorists' ability to do business.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 4:45pm

London just keeps on falling and falling...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tunnen (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 4:47pm
  
  Re:
  Perhaps it's just being dragged down with the bridge?
  
  =P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 4:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    They already sold the bridge.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - orbitalinsertion (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 8:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So, London may end up in Arizona as well?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 9:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Give it time...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nigel (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 4:53pm

Who needs foot patrols...
When you have rockets on roof tops lol..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/29/london-rooftops-missiles-olympic-games

Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 6:44pm
  
  Re: Who needs foot patrols...
  "During the Games, they will be controlled around the clock by 10 unarmed soldiers, who might be guarded by armed police."
  
  If they have an entire missile battery at their disposal, are they really "unarmed?"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 4:28am
    
    Re: Re: Who needs foot patrols...
    Against your average East-End 'chib' (knife) - yes!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 17 Jul 2012 @ 5:18am
    
    Re: Re: Who needs foot patrols...
    "The weapons are capable of shooting down aircraft and can counter "pop-up strikes" by helicopters, according to the MoD. During the Games, they will be controlled around the clock by 10 unarmed soldiers, who might be guarded by armed police."
    
    Unarmed ... might be guarded ... seriously?
    Wow. What could possibly go wrong?
    And if indeed the case, why would you publish the fact?
    
    Imagine this in the context of a Monty Python episode - lol
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ken (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 5:16pm

Unauthorized Olympic memorabilia puts terror in the hearts of Olympic organizers. See they are out to stop terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone Special, 16 Jul 2012 @ 6:09pm

Who's Responsible?
Who's responsible for the security at the Olympics? The hosting city or the people running the Olympics?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 6:31pm
  
  Re: Who's Responsible?
  Who's responsible for the security at the Olympics? The hosting city or the people running the Olympics?
  
  This 2007 reference, �Changing Homeland Security: A Strategic Logic of Special Event Security� by Christopher Bellavita, indicates that security responsibility is assigned to the host country.
  
  Typically, there is little guidance about what the public safety mission is for a large-scale event. For example, here, in its entirety, is the security portion of a contract between the International Olympic Committee (the group that awards a city the rights to hold the Olympics) and a recent host Olympic city:
  
  Responsibility for all aspects of security is a matter to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities of the Host Country. The City and the NOC [National Olympic Committee] undertake that all appropriate and necessary security measures shall be taken accordingly.
  
  That is all. With little formal guidance � even for an event as large and complex as an Olympics � public safety officials often have to craft their own mission. Effectively, they have three choices in determining what constitutes �all appropriate and necessary security measures�:
  
  Although that reference is a little dated, recent articles in the BBC indicates that 2012 London security responsibility is with the UK Home Office.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 7:02pm
    
    Re: Re: Who's Responsible?
    Although that reference is a little dated, recent articles in the BBC indicates that 2012 London security responsibility is with the UK Home Office.
    
    Following up, here's something a bit more authoritative from the homeoffice.gov.uk website:
    
    Securing the 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic Games
    
    The Home Office is responsible for ensuring the 2012 Olympic Games is safe and secure. Find out about our plans for Olympic security and other work to make the Games a success.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Someone Special, 17 Jul 2012 @ 7:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Who's Responsible?
      Thanks for the information. It seems to me that if London is responsible for security, then it's not really fair to blame the Olympics for not being fully prepared.
      
      I think the idea of "brand police" is ridiculous, but it's disingenuous to imply that the Olympic organizers are hiring these people at the expense of regular security.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 7:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Who's Responsible?
        ...it's disingenuous to imply that the Olympic organizers are hiring these people at the expense of regular security.
        
        It clearly indicates management priorities.
        
        At the top-most level, the government's agenda is revealed by its actions. When the �brand police� component is running smoothly and, in contrast, the G4S fiasco is hitting the news, well, that shows you what the ministers have been actually focused on.
        
        Similarly, but more broadly, the goverment's highly visible efforts to provide brand protection for corporate sponsors of the Olympic circus contrast markedly with their apathy in regulating the banksters.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Someone Special, 17 Jul 2012 @ 10:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who's Responsible?
        My mistake then. I was under the impression that security for the Olympics was the responsibility of the host country while these "brand police" were being deployed by the Olympic Committee ( or whatever the governing body of the Olympics is).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 12:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who's Responsible?
        ...these "brand police" were being deployed by the Olympic Committee...
        
        Quoting from The Independent's article:
        
        Under legislation specially introduced for the London Games, they [the brand police] have the right to enter shops and offices and bring court action with fines of up to �20,000.
        
        I don't think that the London Olympic Committee has legislative powers�whether or not the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) is clothed with the full authority of the state.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Someone Special, 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who's Responsible?
        Yeah, then I have to agree with a lot of people who are calling this pretty draconian. The rationale that someone in one of the articles made that it's taking money away from the Olympics seems on par with Jamie Kellner of Turner who said that skipping commercials is stealing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 16 Jul 2012 @ 6:42pm

Seems a waste having the military provide security for the (redacted), don't they have a sovereign nation to invade or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MichaelG, 16 Jul 2012 @ 7:22pm

Fun things to do at the Olympics
1. Make a stamp of a non-approved brand logo. 2. Stamp the forehead of a purple brand enforcer. 3. Watch the others tackle him to the ground. 4. Run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- orbitalinsertion (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 9:20pm
  
  Re: Fun things to do at the Olympics
  It goes a little something like this. Like to hear it? Here it goes:Purple.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 7:23pm

It's a funny story, except of course that...

1) 300 isn't really what they are missing, it's more like thousands, and
2) the "brand police" could be retired people, handicapped people, or what have you, with you physical requirements at all.

So yeah, except for reality, your story is good. Too bad about reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 8:37pm
  
  Re:
  For someone who doesn't live in reality, you sure claim to have vast insight into it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 9:28pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Wow, that was a deep, meaningful reply. Did you learn that in class today (third grade)?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 12:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Wow, that was a deep, meaningful reply"
      
      Like your uncited claims backed with random assumptions that you then pretend are "reality" for no other reason than you say so?
      
      If you have information that's backed by evidence, cite it, else your claims are really no better. Try it, for once.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- orbitalinsertion (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 9:26pm
  
  Re:
  It is too bad about reality. The one they made provisions for, not the real one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 9:46am
  
  Re:
  Perhaps you misunderstood the OP. It isn't saying that those 300 brand police would otherwise have been security police, so your criticism is misplaced.
  
  I do think the OP misses the mark a bit in that the olympics committee isn't in charge of security. If you are looking for something to nitpick about the article, that would be a better approach.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 8:05pm

crazy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 9:21pm

Well there are some actions we can take to stop them from treating people like this. They're very obvious.. well too me at least.

Make the sponsors pay for it is one way.. Stop buying their shit even if it's just for a day. If enough people did that the cost would add up very fast making them change their ways or lose money.

Another obvious way is to not watch the Olympics. Myself I love the Olympics but I refuse to watch them. Same goes with movies and music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

viveth, 16 Jul 2012 @ 9:35pm

oly
as Eddie implied I'm blown away that a person able to profit $7977 in four weeks on the internet. did you look at this site NUTTYRich dotcom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
relghuar, 16 Jul 2012 @ 11:09pm

What's that "Olympics" thing?
Please don't answer, I really don't want to know. I'd like to forget the word itself as well, but with it appearing even on Techdirt.... :-(
I'd like to think if enough people actively forget that it exists, and will avoid anything to do with it, that could make them reconsider their stupidity.
I'm not gonna hold my breath, though, stupidity is a pretty resilient and contagious virus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duke (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 12:52am

In fairness to the "brand police" issue, there are 300 of them, but the security shortfall was around 3,500 people, so it isn't as if those 300 could fill in the gap.

Plus, brand protection is worth a lot of money to big companies (or so they believe), normal security is just about saving lives and protecting ordinary citizens from crime. It makes far more sense for a government to priorities the way it has; companies donate to Parties and politicians, people just get in the way by doing that pesky voting thing, and sometimes they have the nerve to vote for the other side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 4:31am
  
  Re:
  Except that they have a full quota of them, so we know their priorities.
  
  They could draft those 300 into security, that's 8% or so of the shortfall filled instantly!
  
  But no, they'd rather go and turn this into even more of a publicity nightmare.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
99% of the UK, 17 Jul 2012 @ 3:31am

We're.
So.
Utterly.
Embarrassed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hfbs (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 4:25am
  
  Re:
  Seconded. While I can't comment on the state of things in the capital, I can tell you that down here in Weymouth (the sailing avenue), pretty much everyone thinks it's utter bollocks. The town's nowhere near suitable for the extra traffic predicted and people aren't terribly excited about having the whole of the main town centre (including vital roads) shut down or restricted.
  
  From what I read about the security detail down here, it's pretty bad too - some days have had a staff shortage of 60% and on the best days, they can only manage 85% of total. I haven't seen any security people around, but I'm told they're here. I suppose they'll be more obvious during the actual games, but I'm buggered if I'm going out then.. everywhere's going to be heaving. The only time I'll go out is to work and even then, my commute's blocked, so we've had had to do a complete shuffle round of routes and stuff.. Nightmare, I tell you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 4:37am
    
    Re: Re:
    Same here in Glasgow, where we have some of the football. Everyone in Britain pretty well knows how much football is an effective religion in Scotland - and yet well over half the Olympic football tickets remain unsold. Other than a brief fillip for the torch coming through, no-one seems too impressed - I guess London 2012 is just 'another London-centric' event that is meaningless to us.
    
    Plus, living near the venue myself (Hampden) I'm not looking forward to the disruption either. I really pity the poor buggers in London.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 4:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The only times I'm ever near London is when I go to a film festival in Leicester Square every August. Nobody I've talked to is particularly excited other than a few bits and pieces such as the torch coming through my home town 100+ miles away. Unless Team GB does exceptionally well, I think more people are going to be pissed off with it than actually enjoy it, at least locally. Nobody I know seems convinced that it will be anything other than an expensive disaster.
      
      Last year when I was there, we were just pissed off at all the works that meant that standing outside the cinema and nearby pub between screenings became almost impossible. Now, I'm just hoping it'll all be a distant memory before I go back there this year...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 17 Jul 2012 @ 5:15am

How about a quiet protest?
I think I will head on over t London and go behind the brand police and remove the tape over other brands. That way when people go to the restroom, they will think Royal Sloan Valve Company is an official sponsor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 17 Jul 2012 @ 5:25am

How do they intend to fill the empty seats?
Will attendance become mandatory?
How do they make people look like they are enjoying the event?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Almost Anonymous (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 9:34am
  
  Re:
  "Attention! The beatings will continue until all empty seats are filled and everyone is enjoying the event!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 5:33am

Oh God, I can't wait to see this circus when it comes to Brazil. I'm already laughing in anticipation.

Ahem. I wonder how much money they could save without this over aggressive strategy. I also wonder why recent Olympics hosts are facing some serious financial crisis now (Greece, Spain etc).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 6:11am
  
  Re:
  Really? You think that the 1992 Barcelona Olympics had a direct impact on Spain's current financial crisis?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 9:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, that's probably overstating the case, but it is true that most of the time hosting the olympics is a net loss to the economy of the region that hosts it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
OC, 17 Jul 2012 @ 7:05am

If something like a terrorist attack happened I would not like to be the person responsible, having to explain why security was lacking in London while they had personel all over the country checking local bakeries and clothing stores.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 8:07am

The Olympics
are no longer about sports; it is all about businesses making money. "Brand Police" sounds silly; they obviously don't care about the physical security of the athletes; they only care about making money and intimidating businesses. It's typical of businesses today; the only thing they care about is money; they don't care about people being injured or killed.

The chaos of the Olympics is a perfect opportunity for terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BentFranklin (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 8:28am

Banksy where are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 9:41am

Considering the absolute difference in the amount *AND MOST IMPORTANTLY* type of personnel needed for security and for making sure someone isn't claiming to be a sponsor, the implication of this story is pure horseshit. They require a whole lot of security personnel. Bitching because they filled up 300 positions that require nothing more than a warm body but they couldn't fill, but couldn't come up with 11,000 more security personnel they were originally contracted for is just stupid.

That said, the whole brand police thing once again makes me glad I don't watch the Olympics :)

Also, whose friggin idea is it to place a missile battery there? And NOT have it guarded by ARMED soldiers? That's just asking for someone to move in, take it, and shoot down a news helicopter or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 9:54am
  
  Re:
  the implication of this story is pure horseshit.
  
  The implication you saw in the article isn't the one I got from it, so YMMV, I guess.
  
  In my reading, the point is that the branding police (i.e., defending against the public) is a well-run machine while the security police (defending the public) is travesty -- thus revealing what is more important to the powers that be. I don't really agree with the comparison (even though I find the olympics abhorrent), but that's what I took from the OP.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
btr1701 (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:30pm

> Under legislation specially introduced for the
> London Games, they have the right to enter shops
> and offices and bring court action with fines of
> up to �20,000.

If this is the kind nonsense the IOC now requires of countries who want to host, it'll be interesting to see what happens the next time the US wants to host an Olympics.

We have a pesky and inconvenient Constitution and no matter how much the Congress may want to drop trou and bend over for the IOC, they can't just pass laws creating special 'Olympics exceptions' to the 1st Amendment and the 4th Amendment.

If I own a home or a building which can be seen from an Olympic venue in the US, I have every right to allow Pepsi to put a sign in my window even if Coke is the 'official' sponsor, and they certainly can't legally give the cops the right to break into my private property and confiscate the sign or fine me for exercising my 1st Amendment rights.

If this is what the IOC requires, then the US will never again be able to meet their requirements and can no longer be considered as a host for the games.

And thank god for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brent (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:31pm

Seriously, I cannot imagine how any business owner would support the Olympic Laws. I understand how the Olympics themselves could drive up business but unless the laws explicitly state what is allowed by the purple people in terms of "entering a store", i would never allow a purple hat in my business w/o a police escort. I envision this law granting full access to a business, as in back room, store room, main office, etc - EVERY part of a business (to check for marketing ambushes, of course). I would kick out a purple hat and call the police and allow them to enter only if the police stayed until they left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2012 @ 3:15am

Olympics is scum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]