With less than one hundred days to go until the London Olympics, the ‘risk tales’ are coming in so thick and fast that I can’t keep up blogging about them. Some of these media stories originate from agencies or stakeholders with an interest in the Games, wanting to communicate the operational demands that they face or the measures that are being put in place to mitigate identified risks. For example, the Head of Air Traffic Control in London has highlighted the “challenge” of 4,000 extra flights during the event. Meanwhile the Director-General of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism at the Home Office has suggested that “the most likely serious threat [to the Games] is crime and public disorder.” The publication of travel ‘hotspot’ data might also be seen as part of a risk communication strategy, highlighting the likely stresses on London’s transport system during the Games. Transport has been identified by the London Assembly as “one of the biggest risks” to the event. There is no real consensus, then, about which risks should be prioritised, with the governance arrangements being quite decentralised. The Boat Race protester, Trenton Oldfield, has prominently been banned from being within 100 metres of roads that make up part of the Olympic torch route, but such a measure will offer no protection against others wishing to commit a similar act. Further, over-zealous security at the Olympic site has highlighted the potential for damage to the public mood surrounding the event if various rules, controls or security measures are perceived as over-intrusive or burdensome.