91Èȱ¬

Erm, "nutters"? Nice work, David. Mosty, anyway.

The dictionary definition ought to read as follows: Olympics n. "massive security event at which some sport is played"

I've read recently that a lot of security firms are recuirting former Gurkhas, as they know how to handle themselves and are skilled in hand to hand combat and self-defence. Some of the firms even advertise on the former Gurkhas name badges that they are "ex-Gurkhas", because they believe it will deter people from causing trouble. I quite like these ideas, although I am aware that not everyone will take notice of a name badge, and I believe that the government should think about using something similar.

By the way, I am not a fan of having openly armed guards at the games, unless there is a very high risk of terrorist attack. But having said that, it's almost impossible to be right in this situation. If there is an attack at the games then someone will say "the security wasn't tight enough", yet you might also have no incidents of note at the games but some people moaning that security was "too tight" after they suffered a random search.

Whatever happens there will always be people that complain........ I think the 2012 organisers seem to be doing a good job so far so I'm confident that they will get the security right.

If only one good thing can be taken from The Riots in the summer, it has to be that the police are now surely more alert to anti-social behaviour and will come down promptly and heavy handedly on any trouble makers with full public backing.

Fingers crossed for an incident free and fantastic 2012 Olympics.

Security 'costs', but when you outsource it the as the government have done the cost should have been fixed. But as per usual we just end up throwing more money at the 'potential' problem and headlines are made.

The use of army, police etc will always be necessary to provide high profile and visible security but some how it is never enough.

Maybe if we spent less time and money making enemies across the world with our unilateral short sighted foreign policy, this sort of thing wouldn't be an issue.
Unfortunately we're now a major target for attacks and understandably so, wish our governments would learn the meaning of diplomacy

I agree that the organisers seem to be doing a fantastic job, and we should get behind them to make the games a success and something we can be proud of. Security is vital to the success of these games, and there is a fantastic opportunity for anyone to be part of the security at the games by applying to be a security officer at www.securinglondon2012.com.
Everyone should be getting behind proud of what this country can achieve and also become a part of history!

Ground to air missiles ? How will the safety of a highly populated metropolis be increased by deploying ground to air missiles ? Or will they be deployed over Afghanistan / Libya / Syria in response to a perceived threat to London ?

"In July 2011 the 91Èȱ¬ Office downgraded the general terror threat level in the United Kingdom to "substantial" - meaning a terrorist attack is a "strong possibility"."
Sounds like Britain has a foreign policy problem, not a security problem. Far cheaper to address the causes than waste money minimising symptons. "Security" throughout the capiltalist world has become a new societal neurosis - surveillance cameras and moronic thugs "securing" pubs and entertainment venues (against their customers ?), walls around housing estates, Olympic games defended by the missiles of the local navy... what all they all afraid of ? The barbarians climbing over the walls to take what's theirs ? Solution : negotiate with the barbarians, it's cheaper.

If the Americans are unhappy with the security arrangements, they don't have to come...

Questionable use of the word "nutters" in that piece, David.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

agree with #10. or better still if they're unhappy they should pay the extra costs.
i remember that the last terrorist attack on the games happened on their watch, if i'm not mistaken by a US citizen and definitely before 9/11.

puzzled as well about how missiles will defend the games.

No doubt the Americans are also unhappy with transport arrangements, the food, the water and the weather. But does anyone other than the Guardian really care about the opinion of the 1996 "Coca-cola games" hosts?

Well I think I now what the definitions of extremist and terrorist are. Could you elaborate on your use of 'nutters' and what distinguishes them from the other 2 groups you identified?