Such a terrible tragedy!

[BacktoDemocracy 6,213]

7 hours ago, Marisawright said:

Not often I agree with you Simmo, but the same thought occurred to me.

When I was in England a couple of years ago, at first we toured round a lot of historic houses, because my oh loves history.  But in the end, it started leaving a sour taste in my mouth. 

In my youth, I always assumed these stately homes had survived through the ages.   But when we went on the tours, I realised that a great many of them had been virtually reconstructed.  Almost everything we saw was a modern recreation built up from what was basically a ruin. 

While I agree these places have educational value and are a link to our past, how many do we really need to fulfil that role?   If the world had oodles of money to spare, yes let's preserve them all - but I think there's a limit.  Notre Dame is, perhaps, a special case because it has symbolic as well as historic significance. But I believe the National Trust is spending millions to rebuild some big mansion in England and I really do wonder why.

Could I be controversial and point out that the gentry ran many of these houses down after losing their money gambling , whoring and drinking and then bunked off and left it to the NT and now the hoi polloi are paying to keep these places as a symbol for the establishment and give everybody a nice warm fuzzy feeling.

Just a suggestion.

[ssiri 2,478]

True if only some people’s parents had used it we would be better off

Absolutely

[simmo 22,091]

5 hours ago, unzippy said:

Yep, Notre-Dame is State owned and leased to the Guild of Kiddy Fiddlers.  For free!

That's rather offensive.  I bet you wouldn't dare to say similar to a certain other religion.

[starlight7 4,199]

People come and go but these old buildings stand for history and so I would support fixing this one up.  Maybe not some of the minor stately homes but Notre Dame goes back centuries even before Christianity and it is part of  the French national identity. If I was rich and French I'd pay to have it restored.

[BacktoDemocracy 6,213]

1 hour ago, starlight7 said:

People come and go but these old buildings stand for history and so I would support fixing this one up.  Maybe not some of the minor stately homes but Notre Dame goes back centuries even before Christianity and it is part of  the French national identity. If I was rich and French I'd pay to have it restored.

I would only interject that this building was completed in the 1300's, started in the 1100's and the wood and lead spire was an 1800's addition, a great deal of damage was done to it, along with a lot of state and wealthy land owners buildings during the Revolution in the late 1700's, so it has not always been so  revered.

Also we have some cathedrals of equal grandeur from the same period which are under constant repair.

Anyway the French state will be happy not to have to dig deep, it appears there was an ongoing conflict between the church authorities and the conservators over the work that was carried out and the backlog of repairs outstanding, vive la Revolution, or is just austerity,, Francais style.

It's a pity we are exiting the EU just as the biggest church restoration job in a few centuries kicks off, all those opportunities for masons, stone carvers, oak roofing carpenters and lead sheet workers, it could have been just like the 1200's when gangs of men travelled freely between the sites of cathedrals in England and France after we were conquered by the French. 

Ah, happy days.

I wonder if all the wealthy are being promised a place in heaven and awarded 'indigences' for their sins in reward for their contributions just like in medieval times, could be a new growth industry, especially in the UK, top up the govts coffers and you don't go to that 'special place reserved in hell'

[Rallyman 4,147]

[Parley 7,979]

Old paintings need restoration too which seems a bit odd to me.

Probably the Mona Lisa has had some technician reapplying paint to it here and there as it degrades.

Things do not last forever unfortunately without maitenance.

[Rallyman 4,147]

7 hours ago, BacktoDemocracy said:

I would only interject that this building was completed in the 1300's, started in the 1100's and the wood and lead spire was an 1800's addition, a great deal of damage was done to it, along with a lot of state and wealthy land owners buildings during the Revolution in the late 1700's, so it has not always been so  revered.

Also we have some cathedrals of equal grandeur from the same period which are under constant repair.

Anyway the French state will be happy not to have to dig deep, it appears there was an ongoing conflict between the church authorities and the conservators over the work that was carried out and the backlog of repairs outstanding, vive la Revolution, or is just austerity,, Francais style.

It's a pity we are exiting the EU just as the biggest church restoration job in a few centuries kicks off, all those opportunities for masons, stone carvers, oak roofing carpenters and lead sheet workers, it could have been just like the 1200's when gangs of men travelled freely between the sites of cathedrals in England and France after we were conquered by the French. 

Ah, happy days.

I wonder if all the wealthy are being promised a place in heaven and awarded 'indigences' for their sins in reward for their contributions just like in medieval times, could be a new growth industry, especially in the UK, top up the govts coffers and you don't go to that 'special place reserved in hell'

So what will stop a uk specialist company working on the rebuild if the French government want that company ? 

Nothing at all 

 

[Rallyman 4,147]

9 hours ago, starlight7 said:

People come and go but these old buildings stand for history and so I would support fixing this one up.  Maybe not some of the minor stately homes but Notre Dame goes back centuries even before Christianity and it is part of  the French national identity. If I was rich and French I'd pay to have it restored.

It’s a bit rich asking for donations when you consider the wealth of the CC and the money that sits in banks in Venice , just saying 

[Parley 7,979]

4 minutes ago, Rallyman said:

It’s a bit rich asking for donations when you consider the wealth of the CC and the money that sits in banks in Venice , just saying 

Did they ask for donations ?

All I heard was a lot of people immediately offering a lot of money to help.

[Marisawright 11,248]

10 hours ago, starlight7 said:

People come and go but these old buildings stand for history and so I would support fixing this one up.  Maybe not some of the minor stately homes but Notre Dame goes back centuries even before Christianity and it is part of  the French national identity. If I was rich and French I'd pay to have it restored.

I agree that Notre Dame is symbolic as well as historic, so I think it should be restored.  But I do wonder if they should be spending unnecessary money in a fancy new, modern spire (the old one was only 100 years old).  

But I think it does highlight how mad humanity is.  One old building burns down and people are rushing to donate millions.  Where are those people when people are starving and animals are going extinct?

[Gbye grey sky 6,388]

13 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

I agree that Notre Dame is symbolic as well as historic, so I think it should be restored.  But I do wonder if they should be spending unnecessary money in a fancy new, modern spire (the old one was only 100 years old).  

But I think it does highlight how mad humanity is.  One old building burns down and people are rushing to donate millions.  Where are those people when people are starving and animals are going extinct?

Pie makes that very point well.

 

[Rallyman 4,147]

1 hour ago, Parley said:

Did they ask for donations ?

All I heard was a lot of people immediately offering a lot of money to help.

I read that a donation page had been set up. Maybe that was incorrect ?

I still stand by what I said , how many would pay to help homeless off the streets or water problems in Africa ,not many but they happily give to a organisation that could well afford the repair bill and not dent the coffers ,but that’s personal choice.

 Was it not insured ? 

 

[Parley 7,979]

14 minutes ago, Rallyman said:

I read that a donation page had been set up. Maybe that was incorrect ?

I still stand by what I said , how many would pay to help homeless off the streets or water problems in Africa ,not many but they happily give to a organisation that could well afford the repair bill and not dent the coffers ,but that’s personal choice.

 Was it not insured ? 

 

You should not assume that rich people are not donating to charities.

You have no idea whether they do or don't. I expect they would.

If a person is willing to donate to one thing in all likelihood they donate to other things also.

Mean people do not donate to anything.

[Rallyman 4,147]

26 minutes ago, Parley said:

You should not assume that rich people are not donating to charities.

You have no idea whether they do or don't. I expect they would.

If a person is willing to donate to one thing in all likelihood they donate to other things also.

Mean people do not donate to anything.

Think you are missing the point I am making , will leave it at that 

[newjez 10,752]

12 hours ago, simmo said:

That's rather offensive.  I bet you wouldn't dare to say similar to a certain other religion.

If they raped children on the scale of the others, then sure, why not?

[Parley 7,979]

1 hour ago, Gbye grey sky said:

Pie makes that very point well.

 

What a loonie.

[unzippy 4,112]

13 hours ago, simmo said:

That's rather offensive.

Edited April 19, 2019 by unzippy

[simmo 22,091]

2 hours ago, newjez said:

If they raped children on the scale of the others, then sure, why not?

Indeed

[unzippy 4,112]

7 hours ago, Parley said:

What a loonie.

Unfortunately, protests like this only tend to entrench people's pre-existing views, and in some ways may serve as a disincentive to action.

Basically, and I know I'm personally as guilty of this as the next person, people want their every-increasing consumerist quality of life above all else, and while they quite like the idea of a cleaner, less-fukced planet, they'd rather have their personal guilt assuaged by tickling around the edges than actually grasp the nettle and accept that their fundamental values have to change in order to make a meaningful impact.

Want three foreign holidays a year? Want to eat red meat seven days a week? Want to spend your weekends using pointless retail as a leisure activity? Sure, crack on with all that, so long as you make the right noises, forego plastic straws and sign the odd petition for somebody else to sort the problem. You too can feel smug as fukc as you drop half a dozen bottles off for recycling out of the back of your 3-ton SUV.

At the very very heart of the problem is that reducing environmental damage and increasing national wealth are directly contradictory objectives - tax polluting companies and they move to china, tax car production and people lose jobs, tax imported food and people's grocery bill goes up, tax road travel and people complain that their real wages have fallen due to increased commuting costs. As a nation, we are a million miles from saying "yes, I'm willing to forego more trinkets and baubles to save some animals I'm never going to see or protect a forest that won't even be planted until long after I'm dead". 

And TV images of crusties being dragged away by the cops doesn't do much to sell the kind of fundamental lifestyle and value change that's needed. The sub-conscious messages are that environmentalism is extreme (so the little concessions you makes are a *fair* compromise), that taking any positive steps makes you more like those smelly people you hate (and more importantly, look down on), and that ultimately, it's all a bit pointless anyway.

If change is going to happen, it has to happen *within* the realm of established social and political norms. I hate to say it, but those pushing for change need to learn a lesson from the UKIP playbook - sell an idea that genuinely speaks to people's fears and desires, convert the support of the people you persuade into ballot box numbers, and scare mainstream political parties into incorporating the narrative into their own ideologies.

[simmo 22,091]

7 hours ago, Parley said:

What a loonie.

Problem with "comedians" now is they just ain't funny anymore.

[Saurer Pfirsich 707]

7 hours ago, Parley said:

What a loonie.

Pretty hard-hitting stuff, even by his standards. Hard to disagree with though.

Check out some of Jonathan Pie’s other stuff Parley, there’s plenty of it on YouTube. It’s thought-provoking, but also very funny.

[Slean Wolfhead 3,587]

10 hours ago, Parley said:

Did they ask for donations ?

All I heard was a lot of people immediately offering a lot of money to help.

It's quite a thing.  The Palace of Westminster, Commons and Lords is expected to cost the taxpayer £3.5 bill, (so double that then).  If they just burned it down, they could see what they get in donations.

[unzippy 4,112]

35 minutes ago, Saurer Pfirsich said:

Pretty hard-hitting stuff, even by his standards. Hard to disagree with though.

Check out some of Jonathan Pie’s other stuff Parley, there’s plenty of it on YouTube. It’s thought-provoking, but also very funny.

<whisper> I don't think @Parleyrealises he's a comedian...

[newjez 10,752]

10 hours ago, unzippy said:

Unfortunately, protests like this only tend to entrench people's pre-existing views, and in some ways may serve as a disincentive to action.

Basically, and I know I'm personally as guilty of this as the next person, people want their every-increasing consumerist quality of life above all else, and while they quite like the idea of a cleaner, less-fukced planet, they'd rather have their personal guilt assuaged by tickling around the edges than actually grasp the nettle and accept that their fundamental values have to change in order to make a meaningful impact.

Want three foreign holidays a year? Want to eat red meat seven days a week? Want to spend your weekends using pointless retail as a leisure activity? Sure, crack on with all that, so long as you make the right noises, forego plastic straws and sign the odd petition for somebody else to sort the problem. You too can feel smug as fukc as you drop half a dozen bottles off for recycling out of the back of your 3-ton SUV.

At the very very heart of the problem is that reducing environmental damage and increasing national wealth are directly contradictory objectives - tax polluting companies and they move to china, tax car production and people lose jobs, tax imported food and people's grocery bill goes up, tax road travel and people complain that their real wages have fallen due to increased commuting costs. As a nation, we are a million miles from saying "yes, I'm willing to forego more trinkets and baubles to save some animals I'm never going to see or protect a forest that won't even be planted until long after I'm dead". 

And TV images of crusties being dragged away by the cops doesn't do much to sell the kind of fundamental lifestyle and value change that's needed. The sub-conscious messages are that environmentalism is extreme (so the little concessions you makes are a *fair* compromise), that taking any positive steps makes you more like those smelly people you hate (and more importantly, look down on), and that ultimately, it's all a bit pointless anyway.

If change is going to happen, it has to happen *within* the realm of established social and political norms. I hate to say it, but those pushing for change need to learn a lesson from the UKIP playbook - sell an idea that genuinely speaks to people's fears and desires, convert the support of the people you persuade into ballot box numbers, and scare mainstream political parties into incorporating the narrative into their own ideologies.

Conservation is no longer about saving animals

It's about saving our children.

Rebuilding a pedophile palace is neither here nor there in the scheme of things.