Last week London made it onto the shortlist of countries for the 2012 Olympic Games. Following this there was a reshuffle of top management of the bid team, which meant that the chair of London 2012, Barbara Cassani, stepped aside and Lord Coe became the new chair of the bid. This has been done so that the team can win over the international sporting community.

Sorry, but this is a big mistake. I don’t see how making it onto a shortlist changes anything. The report by the IOC indicates a number of areas where London needs to improve in order to be considered for the games: notably transport, athletes’ accommodation and the venues for the sports. Cassani stated that its a great advantage having Coe in place as chair since “it will be easier to sell the bid with a world champion, double gold medallist who was born in London.” By this I presume she means that Coe has more experience with the whole infrastructure of London than she does. However, one only needs to visit London for a few days to realise the horrendous problems that exists in that city. I don’t know how someone who ran a bit and pretended to be a politician for a few years can figurehead the resolution of these problems, rather than someone with corporate experience. This is like asking someone who reads newspapers to run WHSmith.

Others feel that Cassani was moved because she’s American and it’s not quite right to have an American fronting a UK bid. Nor is it politically sound given the current problems in Iraq. I really don’t understand why people are as short-sighted as this. We have a large contingent of foreign management in football. We also have a non-UK coach for the England cricket team. Neither is Cassani responsible for the invasion of Iraq. Many people get confused between America as a political organisation and the people of America.

Anyhow, London’s bid is doomed to fail because of its poor infrastructure. The IOC said in their report that “the assumed average bus travel speeds of 34mph appear unrealistic.” Unrealistic? That’s an understatement! When I worked in London in 1985 the transport was pretty bad, and in my times travelling in and around London since then the situation has got worse. London requires decades of major investment and innovative transport policies in order to improve the situation, but I cannot see this happening. I think it’s best to write London off as a host for a major sporting event and start looking elsewhere.

Mark Thompson: Channel 4 chief executive:
Last month:

“I absolutely intend to stay at Channel 4 and deal with the uncertainty and challenging questions in Channel 4’s future. I intend to stay at Channel 4. I don’t intend to take part in any process leading to any kind of recruitment at the BBC. I have a job I want.”

“I will turn down any approach from the BBC.”

Today at 5.30pm:

MediaGuardian reports that the BBC has appointed Channel 4 chief executive Mark Thompson as new director general.

The Zimbabwe Cricket Union has decided to postpone the upcoming two test series against Australia in order to diffuse a situation which could have resulted in Zimbabwe losing its test status. They will however play the one day internationals which have been brought forward.

The reasons for all this relate to charges of racial and ethnic discrimination of the Zimbabwe national team dating back to 12 April 2004 when 15 white Zimbabwe players protested at the sacking of captain Heath Streak. The resulting arguments led to these players being sacked, reinstated and then sacked for a second time.

It is clear that Zimbabwe is now led by a non-democratic, institutionally racist government. Selection of players for their national cricket team now appears to be politically lead, which is why the players protested, subsequently refused to play and were sacked. The resulting national team is now depleted of quality cricketers which was why the International Cricket Council were considering dropping Zimbabwe from the list of countries with test status — they would simply not be good enough.

But, we’ve been here before, and I’m a little concerned that the same stance hasn’t been taken with Zimbabwe as was taken for 20 years with South Africa. Back in the days of apartheid, international sports teams didn’t play in South Africa. Indeed, an unofficial tour by English cricketers led to them being banned from playing for their national team for a period of time. Why is Zimbabwe being treated differently? Australia are obviously not condoning the treatment of the sacked players, or indeed the deteriorating political situation, but the fact that they are staying to play the one day internationals must make certain people in the Zimbabwe regime very happy. International opinion needs to get properly co-ordinated in its response to the Zimbabwean situation and treat it with the seriousness it deserves. Half measures such as these are just ludicrous.

Okay, so there was this purple-cornflour-in-a-condom incident during PMQs on Wednesday. Labour peer Baroness Golding auctioned off two of her allocated VIP tickets to charity, and two bozos went to parliament to behave like children. Golding speaks in the House of Lords all apologetic like. We have the usual “hear, hear”s and all is well again. Except it isn’t.

Firstly, allocated tickets are supposed to be given to people that can be vouched for. This means “to give personal assurances; give a guarantee”. How can this be done if one hands out tickets willy-nilly? Why wasn’t Golding suspended? Although, in my opinion, that should have been the least of the punishments to be considered. It’s inexcusable. But, maybe the terms of use of the tickets are too vague or lax?

Following any kind of chemical attack, parliament is supposed to then go into lockdown to prevent spread of any potential contamination. Instead, we got MPs ambling around, having a giggle — yes even our esteemed Prime Minister — or scarpering. This is ridiculous behaviour and further proves to me that politics has become the employment of choice for incompetents. Add to this the laxity of political policies and procedures and you have one huge mess of a parliament.

Like most people I do have occasions when songs get stuck in my head. However, I also have the problem of songs appearing in my head whilst I’m asleep, so that when I wake up — and it doesn’t matter what time, even the middle of the night — it’s there, playing away merrily. Last night I went to sleep with White Stripes’ Seven Nation Army. I can live with that despite it being second-rate Pixies with only one guitar to share between them. I woke in the middle of the night, sometime just before dawn, I guess. Horrors! I was confronted by Britney Spears’ Me Against The Music. What a hideous event! To be invaded by a song that sounds like a chorus of moaning teenagers. Ugh. Thankfully, I pressed the Red eject button and Ms. Spears was removed from the building.

Last Sunday night Panorama screened a dramatisation of a multiple terrorist attack on London, with a studio panel made up of politicians, emergency services experts and medical staff. The overall feeling left by the end of the programme was that London, like much of the rest of the UK is ill-equipped and ill-prepared to deal with any kind of large scale terrorist attack. There were also 143 complaints to the BBC, including people complaining it was too realistic (sorry, not in my book it wasn’t), or that there should have been some on screen graphic indicating that it was fictional (um, so like the date 25 May wasn’t a giveaway, or that there was this Panorama logo on screen, or perhaps they missed the scrolling text indicating it was fictional.) Hey people look at what you watch before you start complaining.

So what of the conclusion that we cannot cope with multiple terrorist attacks? I’d like to write a carefully studied response to this – to agree that we should do something; that the government should plough money into planning, training and ensuring our safety during such incidents, and that those affected are treated promptly by medical staff. But I can’t. Did we have all this hand-wringing in the days of threat from nuclear war. No. Instead we got a couple of public information warnings, some leaflets delivered through the post and advice on how to live under the stairs.

Furthermore, if the government was to provide the resources to ensure that incidents were handled in an effective manner, the cost would be massively prohibitive given the likelihood of such attacks and the number of lives lost. I know that the loss of one single life is hard to bear, but if one does a cost-benefit analysis, the conclusion undoubtedly would be that spending the effort is simply not worth it. The best we can hope to do is put effort into detecting and preventing terrorist incidents and building a society that isn’t prone to these risks. Unfortunately following the responses to the attacks in the United States, and the massive miscalculation of the continuing Iraq war, we are all targets.