Notre Dame on fire in Paris

a reply to: RMFX1

The place should be rebuilt, its part of the heritage of the city of Paris after all.

The motivations behind building it all the same with some of the other things that need to be attended to cannot be overlooked as the hypocrisy is rather self-evident.

I honestly can not see why the Vatican should not foot the better part of the bill through, as its Jesus gaff, he's there Man with the plan, Caltholosium, Holy Roman Church Of St Peter and all that jazz is the colour of the day.

And it's not like they are short of a penny now is it, not even a drop in the ocean to there coffers.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: tanstaafl

Click your name after it says "originally posted by:"

Come on Man the rest is rather self-explanatory.

Tab/Label/heading, just click it.

It is called a Link. Nothing even resembling a 'Tab'.

But thanks, I learned something...

originally posted by: andy06shake
I honestly can not see why the Vatican should not foot the better part of the bill through, as its Jesus gaff, he's there Man with the plan, Caltholosium, Holy Roman Church Of St Peter and all that jazz is the colour of the day.

Would you pay the reconstruction work on someone else's house?

Cathedrals were (mostly) made by the dioceses, and the bigger they were the better, as they saw them as a sign of how big the devotion of the people of that diocese was, as they were the ones paying for it.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: RMFX1

The place should be rebuilt, its part of the heritage of the city of Paris after all.

The motivations behind building it all the same with some of the other things that need to be attended to cannot be overlooked as the hypocrisy is rather self-evident.

I honestly can not see why the Vatican should not foot the better part of the bill through, as its Jesus gaff, he's there Man with the plan, Caltholosium, Holy Roman Church Of St Peter and all that jazz is the colour of the day.

And it's not like they are short of a penny now is it, not even a drop in the ocean to there coffers.

Just like people, some buildings are more important than others. If at this stage, you still want to deny that then I'm sorry for your loss.

a reply to: RMFX1

I won't deny it but i will question the ethics of such a statement.

And so would Jesus, me thinks.

But certainly not the Pope nor his ilk, at least not openly or in a meaningful manner

If you wish to be sorry for someone, be sorry for the people of Paris.

a reply to: tanstaafl

No problem, easy to miss some links after all.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: RMFX1

I won't deny it but i will question the ethics of such a statement.

And so would Jesus, me thinks.

But certainly not the Pope nor his ilk, at least not openly or in a meaningful manner

If you wish to be sorry for someone, be sorry for the people of Paris.

I'm not a christian man. I'm an athiest. I dont care what the pope thinks.

What I think is that an amazing thing has happened. We've seen one of the biggest images of our culture burn to the ground, and our own people rally to rebuild it.

If was reversed somewhere else, do you think it would even be allowed? It wouldn't.


Rebuild the Notre Dame! I'm 100% behind that.

a reply to: ArMaP

"Would you pay the reconstruction work on someone else's house?"

After a disastrous fire, and if they needed the money, and i had plenty to spare.

Yes, i would like to think i would.

You would think the insurance companies would be paying out a significant sum of monies?

a reply to: andy06shake

the news earlier said the French state took ownership of all cathedrals in 1906 and has no insurance because it is self insuring from the nations budget, sorry no link but sure you will find it If you search it. Hope that is helpful.

a reply to: RMFX1

I did not say you were a Christian mate, athiest away, i dont care what anyone thinks nevermind the Pope nor Jebus.

I think it should be rebuilt also.

Thing is a lot of the artwork and stained glass is probably somewhat irreparable/irreplaceable.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: RMFX1

I did not say you were a Christian mate, athiest away, i dont care what anyone thinks nevermind the Pope nor Jebus.

I think it should be rebuilt also.

Thing is a lot of the artwork and stained glass is probably somewhat irreparable/irreplaceable.

That's absolutely true. It's tragic, but you know, we really need to get behind the people that are not only trying to save the artwork but realise that it's very important and it's not a joke, but also realise that this is an excerise on making sure that we hold onto history. Western history. We should all be proud to be European.

originally posted by: andy06shake
You would think the insurance companies would be paying out a significant sum of monies?

I don't have the slightest idea if there was any insurance and, if there was, what did it cover.

Considering how likely such and old building is to have some problem I think an insurance company would ask for a lot of money for a serious insurance, so I'm not seeing the French state paying a lot of money to insure a cathedral.

But I may be wrong.

a reply to: ArMaP

Major building inside a major city, inside a first world nation, that accommodates tourist by the millions is going to be insured up the wazoo.

Else France is very different from where i hail from.

a reply to: andy06shake

Hi see my reply above, just searched and it seems the French state has no insurance for the cathedrals it commandeered ownership of in 1906. Same as Crown vehicles in Britain have no insurance, the state insures itself from the general budget.

the makers of assassins creed offered all digital modelling undertaken on notre dame to the french state along with a sizeable donation.

f.

a reply to: RUokayHun

Christ that's tragic, and somewhat unsurprising really when i think about it.

So they feck up and the taxpayer foots the bill!

One rule for some an another for the rest indeed.

a reply to: fakedirt

500,000 Euros i think, about £433,297.

Harly a kick in the arse well done Ubisoft.

Nicely done, and they are even, ""Allegedly"" removing the majority DRM from all their PC games.

Hat and a Halloween tae Ubisoft! LoL

a reply to: RMFX1

We should all be proud to be people i guess.

Heres a point of contention though, different place, different scenario, different time, all the same, but none the less also symbolic of a sorts in a different manner.

Do you imagine the same amount of cash monies nor attention will even be applied to the likes of Grenfell Towers as will be to Notre Dame Cathedral?

Apples and Oranges I'm aware, but the way we look at and perceive tragedy, or at least the way it is reported, and people react, just seems to be rather out of proportions in some respects to empathy.

I'm sure this has nothing to do with this: abc7.com...

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: andy06shake
You would think the insurance companies would be paying out a significant sum of monies?

I don't have the slightest idea if there was any insurance and, if there was, what did it cover.

Considering how likely such and old building is to have some problem I think an insurance company would ask for a lot of money for a serious insurance, so I'm not seeing the French state paying a lot of money to insure a cathedral.

But I may be wrong.

Ooft that's a good point, and I hadnt thought about it at all I have to be honest. I imagine that it has to be insured to some degree at least. I know that any essentially private space that operates as a business and charges the public to access it has to be insured certainly to cover potential injury costs that may occur if say for example a giant cross falls over and breaks someones leg or whatever.

And im sure that as its essentially a business, it would have to insured against fire and flooding etc... and as ridiculous as this sound, probably also against acts of god 😂