Interesting that Sud-Ouest has suspended comments on this article, and one wonders whether this is because too many were of the “Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it!” variety.
I’m beginning to wonder if we shall soon get statements to the effect that Notre Dame was not affected by fire at all, it was all a son et lumière display wilfully misinterpreted by enemies of the church of Rome.
Watch this space.
Peter - you are such a suspicious soul.
Sud-Ouest quite often suspends comments - like many other papers - and not for any sinister reason.
Notre Dame is a high-profile subject and the cause of the fire is still under investigation.
The Catholic church has given the world good cause for suspicion about its carrying-ons, Stella.
One has only to look at the widespread sexual molestation of children by priests, and the systemic institutional cover-up to know that to be the case.
The good done by the faithful (like yourself, I reckon) can not be used to cloak the wickedness of the religious hierarchy that connived in it.
And I still fail to understand why such a priceless heritage had no live 24/7 security patrols of the huge work-site against the possibility of fire or intrusion. It defies all reason, in my opinion.
There’s no end to crimes C gets away with, thanks to all the non-thinking, non-critical followers.
It is well known that restoration projects result in greater fire risks. Windsor Palace, The Cutty Sark and Uppark House, to name but a few. The cost of employing a night watchman would be a drop in the ocean, considering the millions that are poured into these projects.
Four environmental activists managed to hoist themselves onto a crane overlooking the cathedral, last night I think. They came down after an hour. No damage…
Divine intervention perhaps?
Yes, well that was my point of course, the question seems never to have been asked, let alone an explanation offered.
Am I the only one who wonders why? It certainly baffles me. What about the Holy See’s insurance people? Did they ask questions about fire prevention policy? Or perhaps it wasn’t insured against fire. Odd.
It has been said that many fires have been started by rubbing two insurance policies together!
However France is unusual, in that it takes responsibility for the construction and upkeep of religious buildings. But in this case, the state seems happy to accept contributions from wealthy individuals who want to make their peace with the Almighty, or maybe even with the revenue. . . .
Or perhaps not insured for acts of God.