• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

[20XX] Puy du Fou UK

I see there are proportionally quite a few more indoor shows than the other parks - it’s good to see they’re catering for the poorer weather. There also looks to be two walkthroughs, along with the distinctive outline of both the chariot show in the colisseum and the bird show. Whilst I’m sure we’ll see some similar format shows to the other parks, but with different overlays, I’m also hoping for some innovation in at least some of the presentations to provide something truly unique for this park. It looks to be more ambitious than the park in Spain at the moment.

Whilst I’m sure we’ll have to sit through the continued, tedious mentions of fascism, I think this is a positive development for the UK industry.
 
The Guardian has obtained correspondence between the UK Government and Puy Du Fou, via an FoI submission, chronicling how the former Conservative business and trade minister promised to “assist” Puy du Fou in finding a UK site, despite well known documented links to the far right and past praise for Putin.

De Villiers senior attended the funeral of far-right National Rally founder Jean-Marie Le Pen earlier this year. He hosts a weekly political television show in France on which he regularly rails against immigration and Islam.

Son, Nicolas de Villiers, and current head of the business, described Vladimir Putin as having "sweet eyes and sweet words", and claimed that the Russian president was misunderstood by the international community.

This is also the family who wanted to build a theme park in the then recently invaded and annexed Crimea, promoting the virtues of Russian superiority, despite international sanctions at the time.
www.theguardian.com

French theme park firm won UK government support despite far-right ties

Tory trade minister promised to ‘assist’ plans to open £600m Puy du Fou site in Oxfordshire, emails shows
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

I do appreciate the need for foreign investment, but I believe we have to ask if all money is good money. Are we really so desperate for investment that we'll actively assist a company whose leadership has praised Putin, tried to build a park in illegally annexed Crimea with a sanctioned oligarch, and associates with convicted hatemongers? Surely there are other investors who can bring jobs to Oxfordshire without this kind of toxic ideological baggage.

The company has tried to distance itself by saying the founder, Philippe de Villiers, is "no longer involved in management". This is a smokescreen. Philippe's extremist views are hardly historical; he's still on TV railing against immigrants and publicly stated of a convicted hatemonger, "What he defends is what I live for." This is a family business, and that family's ideology is current and clear.

I don't believe that the typical "it's just a theme park" will fly for me either. I find this the most naive defence. Puy Du Fou's entire brand is built on presenting a specific, highly politicised, nationalist, and traditionalist version of history. Their planned park in Crimea was explicitly to promote "Russian superiority". It is fanciful to believe a UK park, run by this family, would be a neutral historical attraction. It's a platform for their worldview, disguised as a day out.

This has nothing to do with cancelling someone for having a different opinion. This is about the UK government actively using public resources to "assist" and support a massive project. It is a legitimate and serious question of due diligence and national values. The same British values which are mandatory throughout UK education, as a tool in the PREVENT programme, to challenge extremist views. I would rather that the UK government didn't roll out the red carpet for a business whose leadership has supported hostile states and aligned itself with the extremist far-right.
 
Thank you for sharing that article.

GooseOnTheLoose said:
The company has tried to distance itself by saying the founder, Philippe de Villiers, is "no longer involved in management". This is a smokescreen. Philippe's extremist views are hardly historical; he's still on TV railing against immigrants and publicly stated of a convicted hatemonger, "What he defends is what I live for." This is a family business, and that family's ideology is current and clear.
Click to expand...

It is also worth noting that the convicted hatemonger you reference (Eric Zemmour) who is long time friend of De Villiers - in fact he funded Zemmour’s 2022 French presidential campaign - was a speaker at the recent Tommy Robinson far right march in London.

The links between Puy du Fou and the far right are many and varied, they are both historical and current, it is impossible to separate the business and the views of their owners.

Many things are more important than theme parks and the harm to society and citizens from the far right is one of them as far as I am concerned.

I certainly don’t want my money going to fund views such as:
De Villiers, a well-known rightwing politician, founded a party whose manifesto included a ban on the construction of new mosques and a prohibition on gay marriage and same-sex adoption.
Click to expand...
 
It's the question of how much is someone willing to ignore in order to have some leisure.

Much like the quandary facing those wishing to ride Falcon's Flight.

I also doubt that any historical attraction would actually dare to include all the truth. Given the current response to anyone daring to say that England kinda did some bad stuff (underselling it I know) historically.
 
As someone who's never been, one thing I dont think I've seen much comment in is to what extent do the owners beliefs leach out into the entertainment they provide?

It's one thing for a horrible business owner to be making money by providing entertainment for the sake of business, it's another if they are using that business to impart those beliefs on visitors within the entertainment they provide. If the entertainment is based on culture and history, are they being disturbingly selective in their source material or skewed in their narrative?
 
Islander said:
There'll be a number of people on this forum (myself included) that can say they went to PDF in France and had a fantastic day. Does this make us bad people?
Click to expand...
No, of course it doesn't make you bad people, and I am sorry if my post has caused some to question that. I would like to think that I not seen as that reductive or dismissive.

I do not think that buying a Sodastream makes you complicit in genocide. I do not think that driving a Subaru Impreza, and getting 18 miles to the gallon, makes you complicit in the destruction of the environment. I do not think that listening to the music of Michael Jackson makes you a paedophile sympathiser. None of these things make you a bad person.

That being said, it is important to be informed of these connections so that you can make an informed choice. I am not privileged enough to not feel the impact of some of De Villiers proposed measures and rhetoric. I am not privileged enough to be able to visit Saudi Arabia without fear of my own safety, or the safety of those who live there full time and are part of the same community as me.

There is nuance to everything, but if the government is going to harp on about British Values, they probably oughtn't be backing a project by a family whose extremist views are opposed to those.
 
I’m not sure I can buy into this type of piety. It seems to be a tedious contemporary human instinct to focus only on pearl-clutching about some very specific issues, whilst ignoring others.

Whilst we’re worrying about Puy du Fou imparting far right beliefs into its visitors, most of those same people haven’t even visited the two existing parks. We’re probably wearing clothes and using electronics that are made using exploitative labour practices, whilst being extraordinarily concerned by a planning application for a visitor attraction.

I’ve been to both Puy du Fou parks. They’re great. I’ll admit some of the nuances of all those alleged Nazi undertones might have passed me by due to not being a native French or Spanish speaker, but I didn’t notice any of this supposedly pervasive far right ideology.

Maybe I’m just naive though, and visit theme parks to be entertained, rather than using it form my political beliefs.
 
venny said:
I’m not sure I can buy into this type of piety. It seems to be a tedious contemporary human instinct to focus only on pearl-clutching about some very specific issues, whilst ignoring others.

Whilst we’re worrying about Puy du Fou imparting far right beliefs into its visitors, most of those same people haven’t even visited the two existing parks. We’re probably wearing clothes and using electronics that are made using exploitative labour practices, whilst being extraordinarily concerned by a planning application for a visitor attraction.
Click to expand...

I don’t really have the time or capacity to delve into or deconstruct the accusation that it's "pearl clutching" to be concerned about one issue, while not making room for the literally countless others that impact us in modern consumer society. But I will note that it tends to screech all discussion to a halt. And besides, as @GooseOnTheLoose and a few others have highlighted concisely here, there is a more specific issue at play, which is the current Labor government's intersection with an organization whose leadership has explicit links to the far right. Given the current climate, I find this troubling, regardless of the context being a new theme park or any other form of industry.
 
Now the last time I checked this was a thread about a possible Puy du Fou park in the UK, not that you'd know going by recent discussion!

I've removed a number of posts that have absolutely nothing to do with Puy du Fou UK and ask that discussion returns to that of a new park being built. Any further off-topic posts will be removed. If people do want to discuss the politics surrounding Puy du Fou then please feel free to create a topic in Corner Coffee, as has previously been suggested in the Puy du Fou France thread.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Rob said:
Now the last time I checked this was a thread about a possible Puy du Fou park in the UK, not that you'd know going by recent discussion!

I've removed a number of posts that have absolutely nothing to do with Puy du Fou UK and ask that discussion returns to that of a new park being built. Any further off-topic posts will be removed. If people do want to discuss the politics surrounding Puy du Fou then please feel free to create a topic in Corner Coffee, as has previously been suggested in the Puy du Fou France thread.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
The entire recent discussion was prompted by a Guardian article that specifically links the new Puy du Fou UK project to the UK Government's support despite the owners' political history and ideology.

The core of the issue isn't an abstract political debate (which would, of course, belong in Corner Coffee). The issue is that with this specific company, their political ideology and their product are inseparable. Their existing parks are widely documented and criticised for pushing a specific, political, historical narrative.

The "politics surrounding Puy du Fou" are not an "off-topic" distraction from the "Puy du Fou UK" discussion. They are a fundamental part of it.

How can we have a meaningful discussion about the nature of the new UK park, and the ethics of its government-backed development, without being allowed to discuss the documented track record and ideology of the very company building it?

It's impossible to artificially separate the "new park being built" from the "politics of the company building it," as they are the central issue.

I'd also like to cite precedent from other topics, in that the government's backing and support of Universal UK was allowed to be discussed and debates in the singular Universal UK thread, whilst the public consultation was underway. Surely the same moderation rules should apply here?
 
I don't really see the problem here? @GooseOnTheLoose shared an article in a post that wasn't removed, neither were several other posts responding to it. If the admins felt that subsequent discussion wasn't on topic and should have taken place in a different part of the forum I think they've every right to remove posts. I don't see that as overcensorship, particularly as no one has actually taken the mods' advice and created a dedicated topic to discuss the politics behind this chain of parks.

There are quite a lot of us that don't actually want to discuss politics at great length on these forums. I'm fine with an article being shared if it's relevant but if it derails discussion into other areas that's not really what I'm here for.
 
NuttySquirrel said:
I don't really see the problem here? @GooseOnTheLoose shared an article in a post that wasn't removed, neither were several other posts responding to it. If the admins felt that subsequent discussion wasn't on topic and should have taken place in a different part of the forum I think they've every right to remove posts. I don't see that as overcensorship, particularly as no one has actually taken the mods' advice and created a dedicated topic to discuss the politics behind this chain of parks.

There are quite a lot of us that don't actually want to discuss politics at great length on these forums. I'm fine with an article being shared if it's relevant but if it derails discussion into other areas that's not really what I'm here for.
Click to expand...
I think the situation is more complex than it appears, and I'll concede that some of the posts Rob removed, from last night, were indeed drifting. (I reported a discussion over whether Marine Le Pen is actually far right, as being off topic myself).

The discussion earlier today, which has looped back to some of the critiques @venny brought up, however, was entirely relevant.

This moderation stance isn't just to "get back on topic" from a minor drift; it's an attempt to remove any discussion of the owners' politics, even when it's the subject of a major news report specifically about the UK project and its government support, during the planning and public consultation phase. (Rob did PM me to say that he believes he should have got rid of my original post too).

You say you "don't actually want to discuss politics" and I completely respect that. In this specific case, however, the attraction and the politics are inseparable. The product is a political / historical narrative. Discussing the owners' ideology isn't a derailment, it's a fundamental discussion about the product's content.

This is especially true right now while the project is in the public consultation and planning phase, which is why I haven't just created a new thread. Doing so would wrongly accept the premise that this crucial context is separate from the development. It's not. It's essential information for anyone discussing the new park.

I would agree that if the park were already built, this discussion might be better suited elsewhere, but right now, this scrutiny is a core part of the new park discussion. Just as discussing traffic, environmental impact, or local objections would be. This information is directly relevant to the planning process.

Nobody is suggesting people go to a theme park "to form their political beliefs". The argument is that this specific company uses the cover of "entertainment" to promote its own political ideology. The entertainment is the spoonful of sugar to help the ideological medicine go down.

The core issue isn't "pearl-clutching". It’s about scrutinising why the UK government is actively helping an organisation whose leadership has praised Putin, planned projects with sanctioned oligarchs, and associates with convicted hatemongers, and is diametrically opposed to British values. It's not "piety". It's basic due diligence.
 
Last edited:
It's a very multifaceted topic and ultimately comes down to what you personally deem acceptable.

It'll create plenty of much needed jobs and bring in additional tax revenue for the country, however, it will also go on to bankroll people of questionable character.

It's up to to us a consumer to decide where our morals draw the line. I personally won't visit, but I'm glad that it's bringing additional jobs to the country.

Unfortunately there's plenty of business owners with questionable views / ethics bankrolling many of the things we buy with even EA now being owned by the Saudis. Look into Nestlé (whose products we actively avoid buying) and some of the stuff they've done which includes allegedly funding child slave labour.
 
GooseOnTheLoose said:
The entire recent discussion was prompted by a Guardian article that specifically links the new Puy du Fou UK project to the UK Government's support despite the owners' political history and ideology.

The core of the issue isn't an abstract political debate (which would, of course, belong in Corner Coffee). The issue is that with this specific company, their political ideology and their product are inseparable. Their existing parks are widely documented and criticised for pushing a specific, political, historical narrative.

The "politics surrounding Puy du Fou" are not an "off-topic" distraction from the "Puy du Fou UK" discussion. They are a fundamental part of it.

How can we have a meaningful discussion about the nature of the new UK park, and the ethics of its government-backed development, without being allowed to discuss the documented track record and ideology of the very company building it?

It's impossible to artificially separate the "new park being built" from the "politics of the company building it," as they are the central issue.

I'd also like to cite precedent from other topics, in that the government's backing and support of Universal UK was allowed to be discussed and debates in the singular Universal UK thread, whilst the public consultation was underway. Surely the same moderation rules should apply here?
Click to expand...
I (and likely many others) have no issue with being aware of the views of the owners of Puy Du Fou. But at the same time, for many they have visited their other parks and enjoyed their visit, so are excited of the possibility of a UK location.

Broadly, we have a section of people who want to have extensive discussion and debate about the views of the owners, but then again we have another who just want to put their enthusiast hat on in the enthusiast forum and see updates and progress about the park itself, without extensively being bogged down in the politics. From a personal point of view I get that. Whilst I’m into my politics and can be up for debate about it, sometimes I just want to switch off and see how things are progressing in the daft hobby that I love. Putting my team hat on, we are simply trying to walk the line between that to cater for those two groups.

The problem with the comparison to the Universal UK topics is that Comcast does not have that controversy attached to its owners. That’s partly down to it being a faceless mega corporation, so it means that discussion about the politics of the government providing any sort of funding are generally limited to the practical side of doing so. You’re unlikely to see a great deal of discussion about the moral side of the argument, so it doesn’t quickly descend into extensive debate for tens of posts, resulting in a topic becoming pretty heavily bogged down with it.

So that’s the line we’re trying to walk and our reasons for jumping in and suggesting a topic in News, Lift and Sport. If people would rather, as this is a unique case feel free to start a topic in this forum. We can then keep this topic for discussion about the attraction’s progress and subsequent construction updates.

To be clear - it’s not a case of overcensoring, we’re simply just trying to cater to everyone as best as possible. I feel we’ve still left a considerable number of posts within this topic which allow people to be informed, and read about the owner’s views and actions both past and present should they wish to. We’re not looking to prevent further discussion about those views and stop debate, we’re just suggesting to move that discussion to a dedicated spot where it can still take place, while also allowing those who don’t want to get into a back and forth about it to avoid it. There’s no ideal solution to all this, we’re just trying to run with the one we feel is best for the vast majority of members.

If anyone would like to discuss the team’s decisions further, I’d ask that you contact me directly and leave this topic for discussion about the park itself as previously requested by Rob.
 
Not a huge surprise, admittedly, but Puy Du Fou officially has the backing of the Equity union:

Iain Croker, from Equity, said it was an "exciting project".

"We look forward to seeing this project deliver on its promise to provide sustainable, high-quality employment in the creative industries," he wrote.

He said the site had the "potential to create thousands of skilled jobs and training opportunities" across industries including performance, design and production.
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz91jk5992ko
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top