Zoe Blunt has had some interesting things to say regarding Langford but with the Olympic issue Blunt and her supporters have been remarkably inarticulate.
Their protests come off as sadly impotent. What exactly are they trying to achieve? They said nothing we don't already know. The idea that social services should come before games? I guess, but as G-Man says, it's kinda late now; they should have had that protest about seven years ago.
Are they wanting to inform us that social services shouldn't be ignored? Yet most people are already well aware that the games are being held during a time of restraint and cutbacks. Some regret the Olympics but canceling them now is virtually impossible and would be an economic catastrophe. So what does Blunt want?
I heard Blunt on the radio a couple of times and she came off as being somewhat delighted at the thought she would be making mischief, not as a believer in justice. Even clinging to the mistaken hope that their signs with Olympic symbols would be confiscated, despite the clear message that the police weren't interested in protest signs, only trademark theft used for guerrilla marketing.
As for the games on stolen land aspect--well, everything we do is on stolen land We all live, work, shop and have sex on stolen land. So what should we do about it. Blunt and ourselves could right this wrong by emigrating to the original ancestral homeland, which for some of us is Europe but to be on the safe side, let's say southwest Africa on the Angola/Namibia border
The protesters could have made their point plainly and gained sympathy but instead, the leaders of the protest--including Zoe--happily allowed the professional complainers to control the event and succeeded only in making children weep and turning what should have been a community celebration into one of intimidation and fear.