[YETI]

Article In Today's Guardian

Most Dangerous Destinations For Britons

1. Thailand
2. Australia
3. India
4. Czech Republic
5. Greece

The Foreign Office do their usual sterling work of trying to dissuade anyone from visiting the outside world. This report adds up the amounts of British deaths abroad and then they're conveniently put into a league table. No account is taken of the hugely differing numbers of people travelling to these countries - a small, but important, fact.

People will read this article and think that India's a dangerous country to travel in.

To counteract this a bit, here's my personal take on travel in India. I've been everywhere from Kashmir to Kannyakumari and in the course of two years I've had one serious illness (dysentery) and I've had twenty quid nicked off me. I've had people try to rip me off, sure, but I've never been subjected to any violence or threat of violence.

There are two things that frighten me in India: bad driving and corrupt cops. I try to avoid both as much as I can and everything's fine. It's really a very safe place.

Nice work, Foreign Office and equally nice work from The Guardian for regurgitating this drivel verbatim.

[Judi]

Er, don't you get quality newspapers down there in the West Country then?

Whilst I agree with you about the Foreign Office, the table in the Times (published yesterday ..... it takes a long time for the Grauniad to catch up on news!   ) shows the deaths as per 10,000 travellers, so it does, in fact, take account of the number of britons visiting each country.  Sorry to be pedantic, I'm just feeling that way out today  

[torryquine]

Paagla Dashu, on Aug 3 2007, 12:00 PM, said:

It could be true!

Yes, it could be - interesting that Australia is more dangerous - it begs the question "why?".  I'm inclined to think that it has more to do with the reasons why some people travel to these destinations, than the destinations themselves

[YETI]

Judi, on Aug 3 2007, 04:25 PM, said:

Er, don't you get quality newspapers down there in the West Country then?

Whilst I agree with you about the Foreign Office, the table in the Times (published yesterday ..... it takes a long time for the Grauniad to catch up on news! ) shows the deaths as per 10,000 travellers, so it does, in fact, take account of the number of britons visiting each country. Sorry to be pedantic, I'm just feeling that way out today

That changes things a bit. It's still a skewed picture, though - they've conveniently ignored any country that they don't consider a 'tourist destination'. There are plenty of South American countries I'd like to visit (Colombia, for example) that must be much more dangerous than India or Australia but there's no mention of them.

My main problem with the FO is that they consistently over-react with stuff like this - it's only recently that they've reluctantly admitted that Nepal's safe for travel despite the fact that it's as safe as anywhere in the Subcontinent now. This has a major impact on the economy of a poor country like Nepal - people that have never travelled in the Subcontinent are unlikely to do so if a government agency is explicitly telling them not to.

My gut feeling about this is that the FO are more worried about being sued by someone that gets into trouble than the economies of developing countries. It's easier to scaremonger than actually provide people with genuine information that they can make an informed decision on.

It's a symptom of the increasingly litigious and paranoid society we live in.

And it sucks.

[YETI]

Sorry if I sound stroppy about this - my Stepdad just read this article and seemed to think it conclusive proof that I shouldn't go back to India.

I've just spent a good half hour trying to explain that this isn't the case but to no avail.

I know he's not the only one that'll read it and take it as the truth.

[Judi]

YETI, on Aug 3 2007, 12:35 PM, said:

.

My gut feeling about this is that the FO are more worried about being sued by someone that gets into trouble than the economies of developing countries. It's easier to scaremonger than actually provide people with genuine information that they can make an informed decision on.

It's a symptom of the increasingly litigious and paranoid society we live in.

And it sucks.

Oh, I couldn't agree more!!!!!!!

I take it that your stepdad isn't too happy about you going swimming today, then?  

[YETI]

I've just told him I might go to Afghanistan to write a book instead.

That shut him up.

[Sudheer Poppa]

The actual India page in the FO does not sound that alarmist.. I wonder where these guys got the news from!

http://www.fco.gov.u...d=1013618387153

[dzibead]

The article says that one reason India might rank so high could be Britons of Indian origin returning for a visit and not taking the usual tourists' precautions against disease (getting their shots, taking malaria meds, etc.) because they believe they are somehow immune.  

I was reminded of the book The Namesake, where the main character, born and raised in the U.S. of Bengali parents, is talking to someone at a party about his recent visit to India and the other person comments about how lucky he is that he doesn't have to worry about getting sick when he's there becausue, after all, he's Indian!  Yeah, well, unless we're talking about malaria and the sickle cell trait, your DNA isn't going to help much!

But, gosh, I would have thought that the main risk faced by Brits in India was being overcome by a sudden, irresistable urge to buy real property illegally in Goa.  (and please don't turn this into a discussion thread on this topic.)

[Shiver me Timbers]

Despite all the current goings-on in the world, and the OTT warnings, I'm constantly reassured by just how safe the world actually is for travellers.

A quick browse on the Thorn Tree shows that travellers are going EVERYWHERE, with only one or two exceptions.

For example, did you know that the northern province of Somalia, Somaililand, is one of the safest and most stable parts of Africa?
That Iraqi Kurdisan is a beacon of stability in that country, with plans to expand its tourist industry?

Tony Wheeler reckons there are only 6 or 7 regions in the world (southern Somalia, Arab Iraq, southern Afghanistan, Chechyna/Dagestan, parts of eastern Congo/northern Uganda, Darfur, and parts of Colombia) which can be considered completely off-limits for travellers.

So go out and enjoy the world! India is one of the best and safest out there........I can't wait to get back soon.........

[torryquine]

dzibead, on Aug 3 2007, 05:31 PM, said:

The article says that one reason India might rank so high could be Britons of Indian origin returning for a visit and not taking the usual tourists' precautions against disease (getting their shots, taking malaria meds, etc.) because they believe they are somehow immune.

Quite possibly.  Also, many elderly British Asians may be traveling there to visit family.  The same reason could be why Australia ranks even higher.

Statistics can say anything you want them too.  The numbers may well be true, but that doesn't mean that India is a dangerous place - I don't believe it is either.

[YETI]

And one of the reasons so many Brits get into trouble in the Czech Republic (4th on the list) is because they go there with the express intention of getting steaming drunk.

You can't really blame the country for this, can you?

[WonderWomanUSA]

Sudheer Poppa, on Aug 3 2007, 08:39 AM, said:

The actual India page in the FO does not sound that alarmist.. I wonder where these guys got the news from!

http://www.fco.gov.u...d=1013618387153

Indeed. It says right there that "Over 600,000 British tourists visit India every year.  Most of these visits are trouble-free.  The main type of incident for which British nationals required consular assistance in India in 2006 related to lost/stolen passports (see "Crime" and "General"), medical cases (see "Health") and drugs offences (see "Local Laws and Customs")."

[YETI]

Strange bunch, the Foreign office. From their own info:

600,000 British tourists visit India each year. Last year 111 of them died. Unless my maths is rubbish, that's 0.0185%.

And this make's India the 3rd most dangerous country to visit, apparently.

I honestly can't see the point of this report - why alarm people when your own info states that India's safe?

The Guardian's coverage of it leaves a lot to be desired, too, as Judi points out.

Edited by YETI, 04 August 2007 - 03:28 PM.

[john.sw]

Of course, statistically, Britain is the most dangerous place in the world for Britons.

Also, you are more likely to die in hospital than anywhere else.  If you believe statistics, never live in your homeland, and never go to hospital when you are unwell.

Two British friends of mine will no doubt appear on some FCO statistics in the future - they went to hospital in India recently.

One (who is now back in the UK for treatment) has lived in India for over 50 years, and the other (who also lives in India) had a cataract operation.  

[jyotirmoy]

Long back Allan_D told me that in certain parts of the town he lives in it is dangerous to pass through around the pub closing time. People had been routinely assaulted.

[dzibead]

I can't believe the U.S. isn't higher on the list.  Tourists get mugged and carjacked and even murdered here!  Maybe they don't get sick here so often, or die in buses plunging over cliffs and that keeps the statistics down (as long as they stay off bridges in Minnesota) -- ?

[iwanttogoback]

dzi

it's the fact that you don't have farting ladies in bars that makes it safer...

[jyotirmoy]

Any thing special with bridges in Minnesota?