Some very interesting comments Davewales, and this has been an interesting topic. As far as how much would Sri Pachecho consider is enough to qualify staying in Goa, no idea but it would probably equate to a percentage of what goes in his own pocket.

I don't suppose he himself knows just how much an individual spends whilst in Goa, whether they are there for a fortnight, a month or six months I bet he doesn't have a clue. He might find out just how much we all spend when local people do eventually vote him out of office because they no longer have a job to go to.

Fizz

Some very interesting comments Davewales, and this has been an interesting topic. As far as how much would Sri Pachecho consider is enough to qualify staying in Goa, no idea but it would probably equate to a percentage of what goes in his own pocket

This has to be one of the most interesting threads ever posted on this forum and many congratulations to the Mods for letting it run un-hindered.

Fizzy2.

Your comments seem to sum up what many feel about the current non tourism minister.

Papa

All topics are fine, but, as we are a small independent site we do have to be careful re libel so please all take care with what you post. It may be your opinion but we need to take heed of libel laws. To ensure we are all allowed to express our views within the internet libel laws please take a look here:-

http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html

We tend to use the above site as a guideline as to what is/not acceptable.

Thanks

According to Goan press Pachecho stayed at the Ritz whilst attending a Tourism Exhibition in London at a cost of £60,000 to the Goan Government - his aides stayed at Travel Lodge!!! He probably wants us all to stay in the same grade of Hotel in Goa.
There was nothing missing in the transaltion of his words - he speaks perfect English and lived in the USA before going back to Goa to become a Minister.

Just think how far £60,000 would go over in Goa - If this money was better spent on the infrastructure he might then get his so called "genuine tourists".

IMO The basic standard of a Travel Lodge here outweighs what they call basic in Goa - if they were to achieve even Travel Lodge standard for a basic 2 star in Goa I am sure lots of people would be quite happy with that. No longer relevant though seeing as budget visitors are not now considered worth encouraging to Goa's shores.

Thanks Glynis, for letting this run and I think we have all tried to be mindful of the rules. In consideration of that, a lot of things have been left unsaid by many of us I'm sure

Papa and Davewales - to you both for an interesting thread with interesting views - maddening though it is nothing we say will alter views expressed by the "Tourism Minister" (if indeed he does read HT and sees what we think). He will no doubt spout more of his ramblings before too long, poor chap can't help himself

My last words (I'm sure many will be glad to hear that) is WAKE UP GOA - BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!

Fizz

My last words: You must be talking about getting a "retirement visa" Dave wales. There is no need to get one really there are ways of obtaining another 90 days in Thailand.
PS. I know this is the Goa forum so this is definitly the last from me but i arrived in Thailand last night and it is very,very busy with a really good atmosphere.......will probably bump into a few ex goa holidaymakers.

I'm interested in all this talk of Thailand as an alternative to Goa.
We've been to Thailand a few times but never in November.

I thought that there was a fair bit of rainfall in November - which you don't often get in Goa.

I hope it's my final contribution to this emotive subject too, of course I know my views are not shared by everyone but it's all part of the balance !

My last words: You must be talking about getting a "retirement visa" Dave wales. There is no need to get one really there are ways of obtaining another 90 days in Thailand.

Spaldy, isn't this partly the point I'm making. You are finding ways to get around the rules of law in Thailand which is disrespectful to their nation.When they try to stop you, you will no doubt complain about the injustice of it all and then tell us how good it is somewhere else !

The Goan tourism minister, who as a person I know nothing about ( but from previous comments, some obviously feel they do ) is surely only trying to raise the profile of Goan tourism. Events like the International Film Festival are aimed at doing just this. Currently Goa is the leading tourist resort/state in India. Yes we all know it has problems because the infrastructure isn't in place but to do that needs investment . That investment comes from the additional revenues to be gained ... from tourism. There isn't really anywhere else to turn to. Attending international tourism events in London is part of the process of attracting not only tourists but investors in hotels and infrastructure etc etc. £60k is really a drop in the bucket and wouldn't pay for a single prime time advert for Goa on ITV. OK. the minister stays in the Ritz, the rest of the party in the Travel Lodge. Would the Queen host the entire entourage of a travelling dignitary to the UK at Buckingham Palace ? NO. That's the way it works and Goa too has an image to try and project which isn't about staying in cheap boarding houses is it ????.
I am sure there are lots of us who have a vested interest in keeping Goa inexpensive. I actually love Goa as it is right now because it's very affordable. You can have an international standard meal for 2 people at prices you couldn't make it for here at home in the UK and you have virtually guaranteed sunshine. You can buy glasses, jewellery and clothing at bargain prices. We save up all year to spend our money on holiday.
There are comments from HT'ers about the state of the toilets, the amount of rubbish lying about, the lack of pavements, etc etc. I accept it for what it is, it's a trade off, but as a tourism minister these are the things I would want to put right. Restricting beach shacks is probably as much about hygiene as anything else. You can't cater for '000's of people by simply digging holes in the beach for toilets or telling them to use the sea.
I think Goa has a great future as a tourist destination but the changes have to be gradual. Evolution rather than revolution. There is a place for budget holidays alongside the more ambitious plans to bring in the high rollers. Not every where can be an exclusive retreat for the wealthy.
Other parts of the world seem to have successfully achieved this balance, Florida and Spain spring to mind but other factors do come into play such as currency exchange rates and the global economy.
As far as permanent residency or semi permanent residency is concerned isn't it a bit unfair to the host nation suggesting that their attempts at getting a bigger slice of the economic cake is simply not on. You can't hold back theirdevelopment to suit your own economic needs. I think that comments that taxi's are a rip off when they charge a fraction of the amount we get charged here at home is somewhat ridiculous. I walk or get the bus where possible, after all I have a choice. Others complain about one price for tourists and another price for visitors, well that too tends to be from the semi orpermanent foreign residents. There is good reason for this discrepancy , the locals can't afford the higher prices until they in turn get a share of the cake.Eventually I am sure they will. Who knows, in 50 years time they may all be coming to the UK for a cheap holiday and we will be off somewhere else ( hopefully) because right now the majority of Indians can't even have a holiday never mind travel abroad. If they are allowed to come to the UK on a longer term basis it's to work, not hang around in bars and beach shacks.
Let's face it , as "westerners" we have had nothing but the best of everything over the last 50 or so years. Is it wrong that other nations in other parts of the world want their share too ? Tourism is a way of redistributing wealth, and foreign governments should take advantage of that opportunity in whatever way they see fit and if that includes property ownership restrictions, limited stay policies, vaccination policies or whatever, it's their choice to make. Our choice to travel there or not but we have an obligation to abide by the rules. We are guests in those countries .

Isn't it just as we would expect foreigners who visit our country to behave too ?

I have to say Ive held of from posting on this subject and looking at all sides,now i dont have to.

Dave has just posted a well thought out and well written view which pretty much echos how i feel. Its been really interesting to read.

I agree with most of what you say Dave, except

We are guests in those countries .

I have said this many times on this forum, we are not guests, we are paying customers. There is a major difference.

A guest should feel honour bound to live to the locals traditions etc, a paying customer expects a service to be supplied to his/her requirements.
Granted, some customers are happy/prefer to actually be treated as guests, others want to see the tourist industry supply their needs or requirements.

Whilst I don't have any problems regarding the changes to visas or the attitude of the tourist minister, mainly because they don't affect me, I guess that is also becasue I have never considered myself as a guest. I pay therefore I am a customer.

(incidentally, I suppose that as I am unemployed I am one of the "dolers" he refers to)!

Del, must add to that comment !!!!!!

I see your point about the difference of being a guest or a paying customer but you still have to respect laws and religions. You can refuse to pay for a bad meal but you can't pick up the plate and hurl it at the nearest wall because it not up to standard.
You can't expect to get away drinking alcohol in Saudi Arabia just because you do it at home can you ? You can't come to Britain and demand Sharia law either. But that's my opinion !

As an unemployed person I would be outraged at the ministers condemnation of your position too. The one thing the global recession has done is to make more people aware that unemployment isn't always a personal choice.
cheers
Dave

You can't expect to get away drinking alcohol in Saudi Arabia just because you do it at home can you ? You can't come to Britain and demand Sharia law either. But that's my opinion

I agree, but you make your decision on wether to go based on the laws of the country you are visiting, Saudi makes it plain that alcohol is not allowed.
Yes you have to obey the laws wherever you go, and in some countries it is an offence to disrespect the religion so you must take notice of this.
Any decent customer would anyway , in the same way as being a customer in a local shop you would be polite to the counter staff.

But to take your argument further, whilst you may have to respect the religion/culture of the host country you would not, I imagine, feel happy to be compelled to partake. Thus, if using a prayer mat several times a day was required I doubt that many of us would go to such a country.

I suppose the distinction is wether you are happy to obey the "traditions" of the country or merely to be aware of them and react accordingley

For myself and I admit to being selfish, I will quite happily obey laws of a country and if they suit me will also conform to traditions.
If the traditions offend or cause me a problem then I will seek ways to avoid them.

I won't go out of my way to offend locals but equally if I do offend inadvertantley I won't lose any sleep over it.

I would imagine this applies to most paying customers viiting any country.

Note I am referring to traditions and customs not laws.

As far as being offended by being labelled a doler, no I'm not. (technically he is correct ) I draw contribution based JSA currently but have no intention of doing so after the 26 weeks has expired and will then live on our savings/ investments/ pensions or will find another job.
I am quite happy that should I meet this minister he would not regard me as being less than a positive asset to the Goan tourist industry and if he didn't...... why worry?

Sorry, can't resist

a) I liked Goa as it was - sunny, hot, relaxing, cheap, friendly
b) I like Goa as it is - still sunny, still hot, still relaxing, not so cheap as before but still affordable, less friendly
c) I don't know Sri Pachecho
d) I am offended by the derogatory remarks he uses to describe us tourists/paying guests
e) I am not on the dole (have only been once in my entire working life, but thats because I have been lucky)
f) He appears to lump everyone on benefits under the same umbrella as "on the doles" - which isn't the case.
g) Goa has had a lot of free advertising from us "less desirable tourists/paying guests" for years - word of mouth has done more for Goa than most of their advertising campaigns ever did.

I understand his job is to promote tourism for Goa and that is why he was visiting the UK.
(How he has the gall to do so after his remarks though beats me - sorry but he's got some brass neck).
I don't give a flying duck where he stays but would like to see a similar amount of money being spent on something worthwhile in Goa - even if it's just to prove he really does give a flying duck about tourism, about the people who's money helps to finance the state economy (you and me) and more importantly about the local people who rely on it for a living.

Goa has earned a lot from tourism over the years but apart from the rapid building of more and more hotels (which I presume are all privately financed) there doesn't seem much evidence of the money being ploughed back into tourist related projects OR projects that would have a greater benefit for the locals. (Like sorting out the electrics and the water issues). I am not against progress, but there doesn't really seem to have been much, if any, in terms of infrastructure (the locals didn't want the National Highway widened) - likewise, it doesn't bother me that the infrastructure is as it is, I accept that this is how Goa is but I would think the average Goan might like to see where all the tourists money is being spent.

Religious issues don't come into it for me - that's their business.
I am also happy to abide by the rules of any country I am visiting even if I do think some are downright barmy.

Fizz...............a genuine tourist (whatever that means)

well said Fizzy!
Chilly

Spot on Fizzy2, my sentiments exactley
Alan

I am also happy to abide by the rules of any country I am visiting even if I do think some are downright barmy.

Fizzy is that laws or traditions or both?
Also , I wonder, as a regular visitor spending a lot of time there, do you bring Rupees out of the country for your next visit?

Exactly. Well said. This thread is about whether the new regs will bring in more 'genuine' tourists. They won't. What they will do is lose loyal regular ones.

back on topic , got to agree with last post.
It won't increase the number of visitors but what it will do ON PAPER is increase the average spend per visitor and in India, as in UK, figures on paper are more important than the truth.

an aside, I have just signed off the dole (an hour ago) for the duration of my holiday.... am I now a genuine tourist?

As far as i am concerned del you are a genuine tourist dole or no dole. As for ruppees del - do you?

Yes I am a regular visitor to Goa. I am not a long term stayer although my view there is that long termers are genuine tourists who just stay a bit longer.

Anyone who is over in Goa just to have a bit of R & R is a genuine tourist - shouldn't matter where their money comes from as long as it's spent in Goa and not elsewhere. Mr Pachecho's remarks are derisory and are ill informed assumptions based on a number of Globally reported incidents that have happened in Goa involving people who are deemed undesirable. Not all people claiming benefits are undesirables.

Example: 50 year old guy, diabetic, insulin dependent, suffered 2 x minor strokes - claims DLA and has mobility car. Wife works part time they save up and go to Goa annually for a holiday, enjoys meeting his UK friends each year when there, has a great time and doesn't cause any bother to anyone. Is he a genuine tourist.

Example: 35 year old guy on JSA decides he wants a 2 week break as getting depressed about his job prospects and chooses Goa as its affordable (with a bit of help from the bank of mum and dad). Has a great time, makes new friends, good laugh, enjoys Titos etc., relaxes, lets his guard down and then someone slips him something in his drink and he dies.............. (Doesn't matter that he has no prior history of drug use). A certain person would say he came to Goa for drugs and wasn't a genuine tourist. Was he a genuine tourist?

Example; Smartly dressed suited and booted gentleman arrives in Goa says he's a business man, got his own big business in UK. stays in 5 star hotel who's staff thinks he's the bees knees, tipping everyone etc., Spends a lot of time on the beach oggling little girls, giving them money and sweeties. Police are called, he offers them cash - no action. He moves to another hotel as he knows you can't tell a book by it's cover and he is so smart and well heeled isn't he....! Is he a genuine tourist?

Example: Mr and Mrs Jones. Retired, got their pensions and a small bit of savings. Been going to Goa for years but now have time to stay a bit longer. Had difficult year, deaths in family, ill health etc so thinks we'll stay for 4 months. Do it for one year then think actually that was good, we saved money on the utility bills and buying clothes and food. We will do it every year, get away from the damp and cold UK weather and have a longer holiday instead of 2 or 3 shorter ones. Are they genuine tourists?

What exactly IS a genuine tourist - don't think I know any more!

Fizz