Notre Dame on fire - looks pretty serious

[Baby Shark doo doo doo doo]

Trevatanus said:

Baby Shark doo doo doo doo said:

I’ve noticed a lot of French on various social media are suspicious of what started the fire. Claims it was planned to deflect attention from Macron’s policies and promote him as unifying France in this ‘national tragedy’.

Seems a bit far fetched IMO

My first thought was that it was a terrorist attack, not because that's the default thought, but because I understand there has been some cases of arson in French churches recently, and I would imagine this would something of a "soft" target.

I seem to remember ISIS threatening to destroy / damage national buildings. I thought the same as you, or a builder had dropped one of his fags.

[Burwood]

biggbn said:

BlackLabel said:

I see they’ve already raised over a billion euros from donations - and it’s only been a couple of days. Remarkable stuff.

One wonders if that billion should be spent on more worthy causes? Or is the historic and aesthetic significance of this building worth it to France? If it is, why doesnt the state fund it, put the jobless to work labouring, create a scheme to train craftsmen etc... Discuss....

Thinking exactly this. It’s not even a billion euro project. I’m unimpressed. I’ll qualify that by saying that I’m not advocate of training people on a national treasure.

Edited by Burwood on Thursday 18th April 23:20

[jonny142]

You lot thinking what i'm thinking ... Dick Strawbridge isn't that far away to lend a hand

[BlackLabel]

“Notre-Dame: Police say 'short circuit' most likely cause of devastating blaze”

https://news.sky.com/story/short-circuit-most-like...

[voyds9]

BlackLabel said:

“Notre-Dame: Police say 'short circuit' most likely cause of devastating blaze”

https://news.sky.com/story/short-circuit-most-like...

Cause of Notre Dame fire found immediately.

Just another example of the French famed efficiency.

They must have melted their boots to get through the wreckage so quickly.

[funkyrobot]

BlackLabel said:

“Notre-Dame: Police say 'short circuit' most likely cause of devastating blaze”

https://news.sky.com/story/short-circuit-most-like...

Johnny Cinq!

[Guybrush]

gregs656 said:

Guybrush said:

It's odd how the mainstream media has been extremely quiet about the hundreds of other church fires in both France and Germany over the last few years. The 'news' does seem to be somewhat selective.

Is it? Really? There are fires in all kinds of buildings all the time.

If the Globe caught fire, would you say it is surprising that the mainstream media has been extremely quiet about the hundreds of other thatched buildings that have caught fire?

Notre Dame is an iconic building any major incident to it would have made the news.

It shocks me that any adult can type the words 'The 'news' does seem to be somewhat selective.' and think that they are saying something even vaguely insightful or interesting.

It is odd that hundreds of churches in France and Germany have suffered from fires in the last few years. Maybe I'm used to investigative journalism, which we don't seem to get any more. It surely would be an item of interest, maybe the wiring on all the churches hasn't been renewed, there seems to be a common problem, that's all.

[jet_noise]

jonny142 said:

You lot thinking what i'm thinking ... Dick Strawbridge isn't that far away to lend a hand

And Angel can pin butterflies to the outside.

I think we're on to something...

[rscott]

Guybrush said:

gregs656 said:

Guybrush said:

It's odd how the mainstream media has been extremely quiet about the hundreds of other church fires in both France and Germany over the last few years. The 'news' does seem to be somewhat selective.

Is it? Really? There are fires in all kinds of buildings all the time.

If the Globe caught fire, would you say it is surprising that the mainstream media has been extremely quiet about the hundreds of other thatched buildings that have caught fire?

Notre Dame is an iconic building any major incident to it would have made the news.

It shocks me that any adult can type the words 'The 'news' does seem to be somewhat selective.' and think that they are saying something even vaguely insightful or interesting.

It is odd that hundreds of churches in France and Germany have suffered from fires in the last few years. Maybe I'm used to investigative journalism, which we don't seem to get any more. It surely would be an item of interest, maybe the wiring on all the churches hasn't been renewed, there seems to be a common problem, that's all.

There haven't been hundreds of fires in churches - the reports are of hundreds of acts of vandalism, including a small number of fires. As I linked to earlier, the number of these acts are falling, not increasing

[dasigty]

rscott said:

There haven't been hundreds of fires in churches - the reports are of hundreds of acts of vandalism, including a small number of fires. As I linked to earlier, the number of these acts are falling, not increasing

12 in March alone (10 in one week), 3 of them in Paris, including a confirmed arson attack. Some were indeed just acts of vandalism, but there were others that were deliberate acts of desecration. That sounds more like an increase to me.

The point being made is the media did not speculate or connect these, that is so unlike any previous incident ever.

[rscott]

dasigty said:

rscott said:

There haven't been hundreds of fires in churches - the reports are of hundreds of acts of vandalism, including a small number of fires. As I linked to earlier, the number of these acts are falling, not increasing

12 in March alone (10 in one week), 3 of them in Paris, including a confirmed arson attack. Some were indeed just acts of vandalism, but there were others that were deliberate acts of desecration. That sounds more like an increase to me.

The point being made is the media did not speculate or connect these, that is so unlike any previous incident ever.

As posted previously -
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/vandalism-at-hu...
- clearly states the number of incidents fell in 2018 compared to 2017 by 20% .

The other link I posted before (which you also seem to have ignored, presumably because it doesn't fit your views) is clear that the Catholic church themselves don't see any connections between the incidents.

The "confirmed arson attack" is presumably the fire at St Sulpice. The curate of that church has confirmed that preliminary reports show it was started by a homeless person in there -https://www.newsweek.com/wake-notre-dame-fire-priest-church-where-other-arson-took-place-warns-against-1400494?amp=1 .

The media have been reporting these cases - the 10 in March were widely reported.

Interesting to see that the Ministry of the Interior are taking these attacks (on all faiths) seriously - see quotes from them here https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/churches-destroy... .

[dasigty]

rscott said:

As posted previously -
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/vandalism-at-hu...
- clearly states the number of incidents fell in 2018 compared to 2017 by 20% .

The other link I posted before (which you also seem to have ignored, presumably because it doesn't fit your views) is clear that the Catholic church themselves don't see any connections between the incidents.

The "confirmed arson attack" is presumably the fire at St Sulpice. The curate of that church has confirmed that preliminary reports show it was started by a homeless person in there -https://www.newsweek.com/wake-notre-dame-fire-priest-church-where-other-arson-took-place-warns-against-1400494?amp=1 .

The media have been reporting these cases - the 10 in March were widely reported.

Interesting to see that the Ministry of the Interior are taking these attacks (on all faiths) seriously - see quotes from them here https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/churches-destroy... .

Quoting 2017/18 numbers is a nonsense, the attacks have increased since Feb 2019 and are at the rate of two a day now.

That they are not stating it outright is not the same thing.

No, it was a confirmed arson attack, the curate has speculated it could have been a homeless person.

Yet the leader of the Republican party Laurent Wauquiez has complained constantly that the media have been downplaying these incidents.

Snopes is the infowars of the left.


None of the above addresses the point made. The media did not bring up either the attacks or the jailing of the bomber on Friday in connection with the fire.

The lack of speculation from the media is the story, their usual frenzy of any and ever possible connection, no matter how far fetched, is the norm.

[Blackpuddin]

Burwood said:

biggbn said:

BlackLabel said:

I see they’ve already raised over a billion euros from donations - and it’s only been a couple of days. Remarkable stuff.

One wonders if that billion should be spent on more worthy causes? Or is the historic and aesthetic significance of this building worth it to France? If it is, why doesnt the state fund it, put the jobless to work labouring, create a scheme to train craftsmen etc... Discuss....

Thinking exactly this. It’s not even a billion euro project. I’m unimpressed. I’ll qualify that by saying that I’m not advocate of training people on a national treasure.

Edited by Burwood on Thursday 18th April 23:20

Seem to recall that Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland (often cited as the home of the Holy Grail) had much of its more spectacular interior stonework done by apprentice masons.

[Composer62]

Blackpuddin said:

Seem to recall that Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland (often cited as the home of the Holy Grail) had much of its more spectacular interior stonework done by apprentice masons.

Slightly OT perhaps but there's one particular pillar called the "Apprentice" Pillar which has a rather tragic history.

[cardigankid]

It doesn't seem too far fetched to me that the public sector are now doing what a number of private individuals have previously done, which is, if it's not making money, torch it. There is the possible added refinement that you raise a ludicrous amount of money in donations. What are the donations for? Are we saying that the building wasn't insured? If so, what is going to happen to the billions?

Just speculating.

[Vaud]

cardigankid said:

It doesn't seem too far fetched to me that the public sector are now doing what a number of private individuals have previously done, which is, if it's not making money, torch it. There is the possible added refinement that you raise a ludicrous amount of money in donations. What are the donations for? Are we saying that the building wasn't insured? If so, what is going to happen to the billions?

Just speculating.

Breitbart is looking for people like you.

[cardigankid]

The unfortunate thing about Rosslyn Chapel is that it is a fragment of a much larger planned church which was never completed, and lacks the cohesive appearance of a more finished article. In addition, while it has a stone vaulted ceiling, like many cathedrals, it never had the timber framed roof covering it. The stone vault isn't the roof, it's the ceiling. Maybe it was covered in lead as a temporary solution, but maybe that was stolen, and for a long time the stone vaults were left exposed to the elements. This made the stone damp and it corroded. Then someone had the bright idea of coating it in cement to make the surface stronger. This has the consequence that the stone can't breathe, and accelerates the corrosion. Therefore the sharpness of the mouldings is mostly gone. It isn't the pristine sculpture it appears from photographs, it's a sad wreck.

It contains references to Gnostic Christian beliefs, paganism, and represents plants from the New World which had allegedly not been discovered when the Chapel was built. The suggestion is that it was built by a Knight Templar (demonstrably true) as the High Church of the Knights Templar, after the Order was forcibly dissolved by Pope Clement and the French King Philippe 'Le Bel' in 1307. The Papal decree did not run to Scotland (Robert the Bruce had been excommunicated) so Scotland, along with Portugal and Switzerland, became havens for Knights Templar fleeing from the French King. They were immensely rich, and the bulk of their treasure was never apparently found. It is speculated that Rosslyn was built using Templar funds, or possibly to house their treasure. If so, at some point the treasure moved on and the building was never completed. The Templar fleet, whose flag incidentally was the Jolly Roger, representing not piracy but Loyalty unto Death (like the Death's Head Hussars, the 17th Lancers and indeed the SS), slipped anchor and escaped the purge, and allegedly crossed the Atlantic to the USA.

[valiant]

cardigankid said:

It doesn't seem too far fetched to me that the public sector are now doing what a number of private individuals have previously done, which is, if it's not making money, torch it. There is the possible added refinement that you raise a ludicrous amount of money in donations. What are the donations for? Are we saying that the building wasn't insured? If so, what is going to happen to the billions?

Just speculating.

Or maybe, just maybe, that what with all the renovations taking place and stuff like solvents and other flammable stuff left up near the roof, an errant fag or an electrical fault may be a more realistic scenario?

A building that’s been there for over 800 years and a symbol of Paris is now it’s too costly to maintain so a civil servant torches it? I doubt very much the building was insured as it is owned by the state who easily self insure (the premiums for a policy would be astronomical - but I’m no insurance bod but I can’t see the meerkats quoting on that!).

I imagine the billions offered are pledged rather than a cheque landing on Macron’s doormat and no doubt issued in stages as rebuilding takes place.

People need to stop seeing conspiracies everywhere and just accept that sometimes people fk up and accidents happen.

If however, the investigation finds that it was Macron dropping a lit Gauloise from a helicopter laughing maniacally simply to deflect attention from the Gilets Jaune problems then I humbly eat my metaphorical hat.

[cardigankid]

Don’t take it so seriously

Mind you, are we seriously saying the building wasn’t insured? As for the funds being paid in stages, who exactly is going supervise that? If you have donated to any kind of charity or fund what you will know is that within 48 hours they are onto you for the payment.

Edited by cardigankid on Friday 19th April 21:10

[NRS]

cardigankid said:

Don’t take it so seriously

Mind you, are we seriously saying the building wasn’t insured? As for the funds being paid in stages, who exactly is going supervise that? If you have donated to any kind of charity or fund what you will know is that within 48 hours they are onto you for the payment.

Edited by cardigankid on Friday 19th April 21:10

It's self insurance. You can do it for yourself when driving your car if you are rich enough I believe. If you have the wealth to be able to pay for the cost of repairs/ a new version then why pay a company to cover it? In reality we do it for lots of stuff at home that would be too expensive to pay insurance on - say a microwave. It could break etc, but it's cheaper for us just to get a new one when it breaks, rather than paying a company extra to do the same just in case.