Lets have a revolution then. Hang on the public don't want it...well 14% obviously do. (Link to Yougov survey)Nearholmer wrote: ↑21 Apr 2023, 9:07pm Don't loads of people visit the Palace of Versailles, and the Forbidden City, and the Kremlin, and a host of other places where royals don’t live any more, in republics?
The Guardian, well known supporters of the RoyalsPsamathe wrote: ↑21 Apr 2023, 9:00pmReport todayossie wrote: ↑21 Apr 2023, 8:53pm ...
Any figures for the millions that get off a tube to look at Buckingham Palace , its mobbed. Windsor Castle limits its numbers and is a pain to get to. The Tower of London gets over 3 million. France comes top because it has hot weather, numerous seaside and ski resorts and is generally a holiday destination. Spain, Italy and Turkey likewise - all holiday destinations.
Our tourist infrastructure is limited for a reason. Apart from London and the living Royals there's not that much to get tourists excited, Stonehenge perhaps.Ianhttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/21/will-the-coronation-bring-a-tourism-bonanza-or-drive-them-all-away wrote:Numerical claims about the value of the monarchy frequently rely on creative interpretation of visitor numbers to sites with any royal connection, however tangential, says Graham Smith, of Republic, which campaigns to abolish the monarchy.
If you look at the Tower of London, where the royals haven’t lived for hundreds of years, it’s far, far more popular than Buckingham Palace,” says Smith. (Annual visits to the tower are more than 2m, compared with 121,000 to the palace). “So it’s clearly not the living history that people are interested in, it’s the history – and history never goes away. There just isn’t any evidence to suggest that people would not visit if [the royals] were not there.”
We'd never know unless they were abolished. Perhaps we can update this thread when we actually have some figures for tourist and visitor numbers for the Coronation. I suspect it will be an overwhelmingly popular event that will bring a massive boost to the capitals tourism numbers.Unemployment is at a record low. Wages are your problem so I'm sure there's a thread somewhere you can drip on about it.
Any figures for the millions that get off a tube to look at Buckingham Palace , its mobbed. Windsor Castle limits its numbers and is a pain to get to. The Tower of London gets over 3 million. France comes top because it has hot weather, numerous seaside and ski resorts and is generally a holiday destination. Spain, Italy and Turkey likewise - all holiday destinations.Mike Sales wrote: ↑20 Apr 2023, 10:03amI did think monarchists saw the Firm as a bit more important than Morris Dancing. They do cost a bit more!
FACT CHECK: Does the monarchy really pay its way?In 2019 (pre-Covid) the biggest visitor attractions in the UK were the Tate Gallery, the British Museum, and the National Gallery – each with more than 5m visitors. In Scotland, the National Museum in Edinburgh clocked up 2.2m visitors. Even Chester Zoo got 2m – many more than Windsor Castle. The biggest draw in recent times was the London Olympics, which attracted some two million visitors over several weeks, dwarfing the one-day wedding of Kate Middleton.https://www.thenational.scot/politics/2 ... y-pay-way/In fact, the UK (even with its monarchy) comes only 10th in the international tourism stakes, measured by visitor numbers. France comes top, with 89m visitors pre-Covid compared to the UK’s 39m. Spain clocks up 83m, Italy 62m, Turkey 46m and even Germany gets more than the UK. This might suggest that in terms of a financial return, precious investment funds might be channelled into better tourist infrastructure in Britain rather than the royal family per se.
Oxford University have absolutely no issue in publishing Connor and Passels citations (PEW) I'm not sure why you're so keen to sweep the issue under the carpet even if it is difficult to come up with accurate figures.mjr wrote: ↑11 Apr 2023, 11:59amIt doesn't come from them. That page points to PEW Research as the source, but then https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019 ... ed-kingdom points to a mix of Eurostat submissions (which the UK no longer makes IIRC) and the 2001 Census as the source, along with handwaving like "in line with migration trends" without giving any source for those claimed trends, and linking to a couple of political pages, one of which has been removed.ossie wrote: ↑11 Apr 2023, 9:40amThe number has come from The Joint council for the welfare of Immigrants. Hopefully they're more clued up than the Daily Express.
https://www.jcwi.org.uk/who-are-the-uks ... population
I think it's pretty clear that it's an illegitimate statistic: that is to say, it has no parents willing to admit to creating it in a credible way. If nothing else, the link to the 2001 Census when there have been two more since should make us wary of its reliability. The further into the future that a forecast is projected, usually the wider and less reliable it becomes.
I don't think the location of the applicant should make any difference at all, but we shouldn't be making many people wait anywhere for five years for a decision. I could quite understand if France would not allow an application centre to be set up there if the UK government doesn't present a credible plan to process applications more quickly than the current UK-based shambles. The UK doesn't allow things to be built if they don't have plans to avoid excessive queues of shoppers, let alone queues of refugees.Is it the pessimism of a few ? I actually supported the idea however I still maintain it wouldn't stop those still bypassing the system . The advantage of claiming asylum in the UK is that once processed and waiting for a decision you're free to melt away or stay in the system on UK soil . These folk want to come to the UK be it for family or friends, not sit in France for five years waiting for a decision on their application. Do you also not think it would easier to turn down France based applications than UK ones, knowing the difficulties and expense of expelling unsuccessful applicants from the UK?
If there's an efficient and reasonable system, then why wouldn't the market for the smugglers and traffickers reduce massively? It would also give the Border Force and related agencies a better chance of stopping the remainder.
But we know what doesn't work: putting "Stop the Boats" slogans on a mix of failed and illegal measures which have never worked and will never work. Let's face it, if even Theresa "hostile environment" May is against the plan because "people do not just rock up and claim modern slavery", who outside the Cabinet does think this is a good plan for anything other than conning votes off people who don't look at the plan too closely?
The number has come from The Joint council for the welfare of Immigrants. Hopefully they're more clued up than the Daily Express.
Is it the pessimism of a few ? I actually supported the idea however I still maintain it wouldn't stop those still bypassing the system . The advantage of claiming asylum in the UK is that once processed and waiting for a decision you're free to melt away or stay in the system on UK soil . These folk want to come to the UK be it for family or friends, not sit in France for five years waiting for a decision on their application. Do you also not think it would easier to turn down France based applications than UK ones, knowing the difficulties and expense of expelling unsuccessful applicants from the UK?
I don't think I'm the only one who feels that if a facility was built in France to process UK applications many would still ignore it and try their hardest to set foot on UK soil.
I've done the same route in the same direction downloading GPX segments from cycle travel. You really cannot go wrong anyway, just pick the Waal up the other side of Dordrecht. As a matter of fact I mostly ignored it and just kept the river to one side or the other, much more fun an intuitive but the route's there if you need it. Best of luck its a brilliant trip.AngelaS wrote: ↑5 Apr 2023, 4:01pm Hello I am planning to cycle the River Rhine route. I have the Cicerone book and therefore the GPX routes. However, i want to cycle from the finish e.g. Rotterdam to Basel. The GPX routes go the other way round. Would anyone be able to suggest a route planning tool that would reverse the routes for me? Please.
The Guardian appear to have back tracked and have released another article stating its cruise ships. Unfortunately for them it doesn't quite have the same impact. Oh yeah they've also admitted to their founder having links to slavery...boycott I sayTangled Metal wrote: ↑27 Mar 2023, 4:41pm Did I hear it right? They're suggesting using ferries to store immigrants / asylum seekers on instead of hotels.
If there's any ferries going spare send them up to Scotland, the Scottish government needs all the help it can get supplying the ferries it needs. Surely there's more hotel spaces than ferry spaces anyway.
Yes and having visited on several occasions through my work it wasn't actually that bad. This was a temporary measure under a Labour Government and it did a job. As for asylum seekers, I think if you're desperate enough to try the channel in a rubber boat, a ferry in the UK is probably the least of your concerns until your case is heard.Ben@Forest wrote: ↑28 Mar 2023, 8:05am HMP Weare was a prison ship in Portland for about four years till about 2006. I was faintly amused when l read it was refurbished to house oil workers in Nigeria and would accommodate 500 rather than the 400 prisoners it had held.