• 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.

Potential New Universal UK Park

xtpower said:
Basically if the Government plays ball then it'll go ahead. So we'll probs get planning permission documents submitted before they make that final decision.
Click to expand...
It amused me to see that you're suggesting that the government should play ball with Universal, rather than Universal playing ball with the government. It suggests that we should bow down, move things around, bend rules and accommodate the whims of massive conglomerates; rather than have them stick to our rules, regulations and values.

I don't think you're necessarily suggesting all of that for one moment, but I thought it was an interesting language choice.

If Universal do submit plans and the government does reject some of them, or request them to change, so that they can better fit with our requirements and/or laws, I do wonder how angry the enthusiast community would be toward the government, rather than to Universal for "not playing ball".
 
GooseOnTheLoose said:
It amused me to see that you're suggesting that the government should play ball with Universal, rather than Universal playing ball with the government. It suggests that we should bow down, move things around, bend rules and accommodate the whims of massive conglomerates; rather than have them stick to our rules, regulations and values.

I don't think you're necessarily suggesting all of that for one moment, but I thought it was an interesting language choice.

If Universal do submit plans and the government does reject some of them, or request them to change, so that they can better fit with our requirements and/or laws, I do wonder how angry the enthusiast community would be toward the government, rather than to Universal for "not playing ball".
Click to expand...
It depends what they’re rejecting and why. If they’re being difficult for the sake of being difficult they’ll get some flack.

But if they’re rejecting something that’s entirely reasonable then hopefully most people would agree.

But tbh beggars can’t be choosers and our economy needs a boost like this, so I don’t think they’ll have any issues unless they’re saying they want to flatten the surrounding towns.
 
Blackrock said:
It depends what they’re rejecting and why. If they’re being difficult for the sake of being difficult they’ll get some flack.

But if they’re rejecting something that’s entirely reasonable then hopefully most people would agree.

But tbh beggars can’t be choosers and our economy needs a boost like this, so I don’t think they’ll have any issues unless they’re saying they want to flatten the surrounding towns.
Click to expand...
Your last paragraph actually echoes my concerns. I wouldn't want Universal to be given carte blanche purely because the local area, or central government, desperately needs the investment. That's how, in extreme cases, you end up with situations like Disney's Reedy Creek Improvement District. A mechanism which gives a single corporation almost state like control over an area.

Economic impact might be good, but we need safeguard an environmental impact too. We guarantee that local facilities are going to be supported. We need working conditions assurances. We need to not give them an inch on the standards that we have set, and which every other enterprise or individual has to meet. No special cases.

In short Universal have to play ball, and play by the rules.

Sidenote: You're not a secret representative for the world's largest asset manager, BlackRock, are you? Because that would make you awfully bias against my position of companies needing to play nice with the state and regulation. 😉
 
Just under £15 Billion in additional taxes is a big carrot to dangle under anyone's nose.

There is a balance, clearly there is a case for supporting this investment by reducing some of the normal hurdles that smaller projects go through, but at the same time, as @GooseOnTheLoose correctly states it cant be carte blanche with the rules.

I guess since I am not being impacted by it, its easy for me to say, where as someone who is losing their home might be more upset. I guess the was I justify this bending the rules is that the benefit of that additional taxes is going to have a greater impact than Universal having to spend three years going through extra planning and justification steps. I guess what we want to avoid is that one person who does not want it to proceed, and causes delay after delay to the process.

Just out of interest, if, and I know its unlikely given the issues with HS2, but if there was a direct train link to Disneyland Paris, does anyone have an idea how long that journey would take? How much of an improvement would that be compared to the current journey time?
 
IanB said:
Just under £15 Billion in additional taxes is a big carrot to dangle under anyone's nose.

There is a balance, clearly there is a case for supporting this investment by reducing some of the normal hurdles that smaller projects go through, but at the same time, as @GooseOnTheLoose correctly states it cant be carte blanche with the rules.

I guess since I am not being impacted by it, its easy for me to say, where as someone who is losing their home might be more upset. I guess the was I justify this bending the rules is that the benefit of that additional taxes is going to have a greater impact than Universal having to spend three years going through extra planning and justification steps. I guess what we want to avoid is that one person who does not want it to proceed, and causes delay after delay to the process.

Just out of interest, if, and I know its unlikely given the issues with HS2, but if there was a direct train link to Disneyland Paris, does anyone have an idea how long that journey would take? How much of an improvement would that be compared to the current journey time?
Click to expand...
There used to be a direct link to DLP from Kings Cross via the Eurostar on HS1, I’ve been on it and it takes about 2 1/2 hours however it no longer runs direct for now.
France as all European countries do blame Brexit but in reality it was no longer profitable or it would still be running.
 
GooseOnTheLoose said:
Your last paragraph actually echoes my concerns. I wouldn't want Universal to be given carte blanche purely because the local area, or central government, desperately needs the investment. That's how, in extreme cases, you end up with situations like Disney's Reedy Creek Improvement District. A mechanism which gives a single corporation almost state like control over an area.

Economic impact might be good, but we need safeguard an environmental impact too. We guarantee that local facilities are going to be supported. We need working conditions assurances. We need to not give them an inch on the standards that we have set, and which every other enterprise or individual has to meet. No special cases.

In short Universal have to play ball, and play by the rules.

Sidenote: You're not a secret representative for the world's largest asset manager, BlackRock, are you? Because that would make you awfully bias against my position of companies needing to play nice with the state and regulation. 😉
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree, but I think we’re probably going to be a little more soft now (due to the economic situation) than we would be if we were exceeding expectations. But I don’t for one second think we’ll be pushovers.

Just a little bit of give and take.

Unfortunately not, I have a heart 😂
 
I don't think by any means we should be pushovers. But we absolutely should bend the rules a little and I think they will. A themepark like this is slightly different from a factory in the sense the public can enjoy it, it is an opportunity that comes very, very rarely and a huge one at that. The government should do as much as possible and within reason to secure this, even if that means breaking a few rules, again, within reason.

This is before you consider the obismal state of the economy and the huge benefits this could bring.
 
GooseOnTheLoose said:
Just incase you fancy giving Universal a heads up on what to do next, considering the breach of personal data, here's a handy link to email to them. They have 72 hours in which to report it to the ICO.

72 hours - how to respond to a personal data breach

ico.org.uk ico.org.uk
Click to expand...
Without wanting to get in too much of a debate on ICO reporting rules, there’s factors that mean they may not need to report; one of which is number of users affected. It may just be handled by an apology email on their part to the affected users if it was only a small percentage/number.

Obviously if it was their entire database or a significant percentage of people then that would be liable for ICO reporting though.
 
Leigh said:
Without wanting to get in too much of a debate on ICO reporting rules, there’s factors that mean they may not need to report; one of which is number of users affected. It may just be handled by an apology email on their part to the affected users if it was only a small percentage/number.

Obviously if it was their entire database or a significant percentage of people then that would be liable for ICO reporting though.
Click to expand...
It's worth noting that a similar case happened to the Conservative party a few months ago. They forgot to BCC the contacts in their mailing list, and accidentally leaked more than 300 email addresses as a result. From what users have self reported here, it would appear to be on a similar scale.
www.theguardian.com

Tory party refers itself to watchdog over alleged data breach

Party reportedly copied in more than 300 email addresses in appeal to supporters to sign up for conference
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

An ICO spokesperson gave this comment to The Guardian:
Failure to use BCC correctly in emails is one of the top data breaches reported to us every year.
Click to expand...

The only major concern for harm with this particular mailing list, I would suggest, would be financial or investment scams. Aside from the more obvious selling on of a mailing list you know can target theme park enthusiasts. Although it's possible that a number of minors will have signed up for updates too, so I'm sure that will be considered.

I am surprised that given the level of interest they're not using a third party marketing or transactional email sending service; Mailxhimp and SendGrid immediately spring to mind.
 
GooseOnTheLoose said:
It's worth noting that a similar case happened to the Conservative party a few months ago. They forgot to BCC the contacts in their mailing list, and accidentally leaked more than 300 email addresses as a result. From what users have self reported here, it would appear to be on a similar scale.
www.theguardian.com

Tory party refers itself to watchdog over alleged data breach

Party reportedly copied in more than 300 email addresses in appeal to supporters to sign up for conference
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

An ICO spokesperson gave this comment to The Guardian:


The only major concern for harm with this particular mailing list, I would suggest, would be financial or investment scams. Aside from the more obvious selling on of a mailing list you know can target theme park enthusiasts. Although it's possible that a number of minors will have signed up for updates too, so I'm sure that will be considered.

I am surprised that given the level of interest they're not using a third party marketing or transactional email sending service; Mailxhimp and SendGrid immediately spring to mind.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, the MoD got a £350k fine not long ago for their leaking the emails of people trying to flee Afghanistan: MoD fined after email blunder risked Afghan interpreters' lives https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67660964

That incident was reported as it was a very severe breach that had the potential to cause direct harm and they were rightly fined for it, but it’s also noted that internally they’re aware of 2 other incidents that weren’t reported as they weren’t considered to reach the ICO threshold.

That being said, they probably will report this just to save face as it’s getting press coverage (best case nothing will happen, worst case they’ll get an ICO “reprimand” in the form of a calling out on the website not to do it again).
 
I really can’t wait for this to be built as I not been to Orlando’s parks since 2011 and by the time it’s built my son will be tall enough for everything.
I do wonder if it will be a 365 day park as depends on how much will be indoors.
 
Themeparksandy1981 said:
I really can’t wait for this to be built as I not been to Orlando’s parks since 2011 and by the time it’s built my son will be tall enough for everything.
I do wonder if it will be a 365 day park as depends on how much will be indoors.
Click to expand...
They will take ideas from Universal Japan like the covered city walk area. I still think a good portion will be outside as such but they may do more covered que lines. I could see at least one 'land' being mostly indoors like Kung Fu Panda.

I wouldn't bet against a Jurassic world area being partly indoors as the tropical plants they use to theme that area would struggle in the UK climate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top