sharp drop in London visitors

However Business Europe, UK - Sep 14, 2005 reports
2005 figures so far 4% higher than 2004 figures.

SHARP DROP IN TOURIST NUMBERS AFTER LONDON BOMB BLASTS

Peter Woodman, PA Travel Correspondent

London tourist attractions experienced a sharp drop in visitor numbers after
the July bombings in the capital, it was disclosed today.

The attractions welcomed 24.5% fewer visitors in August 2005 than in the
same month last year, figures from the Visit London organisation showed.

Visit London said the early indications were that figures for September 2005
were likely to be about 10-15% down on September 2004.

The organisation added that free and large attractions in the capital
experienced the biggest dip in August this year.

Visit London went on: "In contrast, the small attraction sector only
experienced a relatively modest decline in visits. Nevertheless, it is clear
that the London bombs have had a significant impact on all sectors."

In contrast, Visit London reported that its "London in September" marketing
campaign had lured more than 2.5 million people to a range of festivals and
events in the capital last month.

More than 300,000 attended the Regent Street Festival on September 4 and the
Brick Lane festival drew 62,000 visitors. The Mayor's Thames Festival had a
55% increase in visitor numbers - from 306,000 last year to 474,000 this
year.

Visit London chief executive James Bidwell said that the September campaign
had "played a pivotal role in rebooting London's visitor economy".

The figures were published as Tourism Minister James Purnell met tourism
chiefs at the Tower of London today to discuss the current state of tourism.

Mr Bidwell was among those he met, as was Robin Broke of the Leading
Association of Visitor Attractions.

October 6, 2005

Reporting. Don't assume too much.

My comments in the past have been that the tourists will return.
I also posted the fact that inspite of the bombing London tourism was
up from 2004.

Basically, "this too will pass away". Paris, having gone through numerous
bombins always bounced back.

Next, for travelers, this is a good time to come, better values.

The Reids schreef:

> Following up to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
> prestwich tesco 24h offy
>
> >That's what I decided a month or so ago. A lot of the posts are mildly
> >trolling- just ignore them. I tend not to get involved in the food
> >fights either, unless there are interesting topics. Basically, I've said
> >what I think- others have said what they think- and there's not much
> >point debating it any longer.
>
> sounds reasonable.
> --

it proves that Tony Blair's war does not pay.

....that Hydrogen is a safer fuel than Gasoline to have about.

Tim K

"The Reid" <dontuse@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vq6dk15lm9u682q10h8i9hduaepljq9pem@...
>
> Well, oil isn't just for cars. it might be an idea to switch the
> fuel we use though, bring on the hydrogen car. I have an idea for
> a name for the first mass production hydrogen car, I think its a
> winner "Hindenberg" what do you think?
> --

Timothy Kroesen schreef:

> Thanks, but no thanks; late afternoon service call scheduled and am
> starting a side job tonight; which may insure we can sort it all out in
> person in the EU next Spring!
>

excuses, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Timothy Kroesen schreef:

> I'd prefer to put you to sleep in person...<g>
>

Brave Sir Timothy ran away,
Bravely ran away, away.
When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Timothy turned about
And gallantly, he chickened out. Bravely taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Timothy.

"Martin" <me@> wrote in message
news:h4hfk1h5os31cv5phdhktruhs025mboah9@...

> Ffs he's a bloody actor.

That, Martin, is a matter of opinion!

Ian

chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h
offy wrote:


> I make some sacrifices by using public transport- the debate should be
> addressed from what is better for society,


"There is no such thing as 'society', only individuals and families."

- Baroness Thatcher


not from what is better for
> me. If public transport was seen as being more important, then it would
> be better in many ways.


Yet if most people have the means, they will usually choose the privacy
and convenience of a private vehicle. Being able to free oneself from
the forced constrictions of public conveyances is one of the hallmarks
of affluence. And it's just as true in China or India or the ex - USSR
bloc as it is in the First World nations...

I only use public transport, have not even had a driver's license for
25 years. I'm *only* interested in what is better for me, and so far
public transport suits me just fine. I don't care at all about
"society" in a larger sense, so I really don't care about others'
decisions on how they transport themselves...I've no altruistic streak
- and the vast, *vast* majority of folks in their daily lives don't
either. They just do what they can in the daily struggle to get by.

--
Best
Greg