alex_t wrote:
Well known for causing extra financial commitments for the host
country the UK cannot afford to buy the games so it shouldn't.
End of story.

Well, actually - to be completely fair I'm slowly drifting to the
same point of view:

1. The games could be managed much better (reusing existing venues,
spreading venues around the country, etc).
2. There could be much more commercial sponsorship (as far as I
remember last Olympics in the US were finances without any
tax-payers money used). One could imagine banks with their
super-profits participating in that.
3. And of course ability of New Labour to mess everything hardly
adds any optimism.

But still - Olympics are fun and interesting event. I was actually
conceived during 1980 Olympics in Moscow ;-D

For some reason this conjures up in my mind the image of a couple in
Cricklewood. "Nothing on the telly except the bloody Olympics from
Moscow", and they retire upstairs for something "fun and interesting"
....
;-)

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)