I believe a lot of British people have the right to complain because their taxpayers dollars are going towards this. Far more than the sponsorship agreement potential that demanded restriction of speech.
Essentially it's a net-negative economic policy. I'm not sure why it's beneficial for any country to host it when history has shown that it had caused violation of liberties, losses, environmental issues, no tourism increase, etc.
The little shit who lands the deal gets to say "I brought the Olympics to London". That's why. Whether that's actually a good thing is not only immaterial, it's never even given a moment's thought.
Britain been doing a good job shitting on its liberties already, though. I'm not sure the Olympic Games are going to make such a big difference. So, I suppose that's good?
Or the irony that the bunch of thieving lying scum that are now claiming the credit are the bunch of thieving lying scum that opposed it at the time - and the bunch of thieving lying scum that brought it are now criticizing the bunch of thieving lying scum that are going to run it.
If there was any measurable difference between the two brands of thieving lying scum it would be funny.....
Essentially it's a net-negative economic policy. I'm not sure why it's beneficial for any country to host it when history has shown that it had caused violation of liberties, losses, environmental issues, no tourism increase, etc.