To think there are better things to donate €100m to than rebuilding Notre Dame?

[Bearbehind]

I know no one has to donate anything but 2 French billionaires have reportedly donated €100m and €200m respectively towards rebuilding Notre Dame.

The Catholic Church is not exactly short of money.

It just doesn’t really sit right with me spending all that money on a building when it could be used for so many other things

Hah Like Loose Women give a fuck about social housing tenants

Its more likely because of the backlash to this.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3545589-loose-women-dc-in-social-housing-banned-from-rich-kids-playground

Or there is massive cognitive dissonance going on if they cant see the connection between the denigration of social housing tenants (which they were all for just a few weeks ago) and Grenfell

It could still be an attraction without a full restoration.

Nope, not in the way it is now. It's also a common concert and lecture/talk venue, serves as a common film and photo shoot location, hosts quite a few apprentices, specialists, visiting academics and students, provides a large number of jobs in the tourist industry. It's for private individuals to determine what they do with their surplus cash within the law and if they feel this is a worthy cause, more power to 'em!

There will be some real opportunities for job creation in its restoration as well as providing important opportunities for students and apprentices to work on it, too.

A ruin in the middle of town would be . . . stupid.

I’m not talking about a ruin.

It’s the roof that’s been destroyed - as long at it was watertight it could survive without being fully restored.

I don’t understand why anyone would argue against the full restoration of one of the most beautiful landmarks in the world?

You're a right laugh, Bear. There's a very good post about what ND actually means to a great many French people, and well, thankfully, they don't agree with you and it's not your money so you can be as sneery as you like. [rolls eyes]

I would not argue over the restoration. I would argue that the Catholic Church can afford to pay for it!

I still can’t prioritise buildings over people.

What about the people whose jobs depend on Notre Dame and the Paris tourist industry in general? It's not just a building - there'll be huge numbers of people whose livelihoods are dependant, directly or independently on it.

I don’t understand why anyone would argue against the full restoration of one of the most beautiful landmarks in the world?

Because there's like, disease and poverty and homelessness and lack of whirled peas in the world, Ref.

There are a lot of French people who agree with Bear, too, actually. Or at least who think that some kind of debate and accountability is a good thing. [rolls eyes right back]

Dandy, they can debate all they'd like, you can't stop people donating their personal funds how they see fit because it doesn't suit your virtue paradigm, but they're free to fart into the wind all they like.

JSP should put her money where her mouth is and donate her money to more "worthy" causes then. She's a wealthy woman who undoubtedly could afford a more modest home or wardrobe budget in the interests of worthiness but it's easy to say stuff like that when it's not your money.

Different people find different causes the most worthy and shouldn't be judged from choosing animals over cancer or children over veterans. The philanthropists may have special connections or memories to the place which has led them to jump to help. (Obviously the tax breaks help too!)

This is actually a cause that many will benefit from compared to the usual billionaire investment of yachts and Rolls Royce's. It will create employment for specialist restorers and hopefully technology or engineering specialists will be able to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

What if the Tower of London or Westminster Abbey burned to the ground? Would you be saying that billionaires ought to spend money on other causes instead of rebuilding them?

Well, to be fair, the world is really going to shit so might as well just do it, let’s get rid of all the nice things and go back to living in caves. No cave paintings allowed either.

What if the Tower of London or Westminster Abbey burned to the ground? Would you be saying that billionaires ought to spend money on other causes instead of rebuilding them?

Absolutely

They are just buildings.

Stone henge is a load of rocks in a field at still attracts thousands of visitors.

What it stands for doesn’t require it to be in pristine condition.

There are a lot of French people who agree with Bear, too, actually. Or at least who think that some kind of debate and accountability is a good thing. [rolls eyes right back]

Waves, French person here, born in Paris (for context) and whilst I’m mourning the loss of a beautiful landmark, the amount of money that’s about to be poured into the restoration does make me feel uncomfortable. It seems almost obscene whilst refugees are being detained in really shitty conditions not a million miles away.

People can usually change their circumstances, buildings and animals can't.

Everyone has their own opinions on donating, upto the person themselves who they give you and what causes matter to them. At least they donating, many people don't.

In Glasgow when the Charles Rennie Mackintosh school of art suffered a fire, there was no shortage of wealthy people coming forward to offer to repair it. And when it proper burned down while they were rebuilding it, there were immediately people pledging millions. When a building is held in high regard, people will want to do something to pay for it.

Notre Dame is a UNESCO world heritage site. It is right it is restored to allow it to continued to be used, no matter who is paying for it.

Of course the money could be “better” spent elsewhere but that’s an argument for spending more money on those other things, not spending less on culture and heritage.

No doubt if it was in the U.K., we’d be arguing about sprinklers and cladding like we do with every other fire nowadays, which misses a whole lot of more salient points.

What Notre Dame highlights, is the danger of fires in renovation works. It’s not the first, not the last. If this helps tighten up procedures that can only be a good thing. We’ve got 4 historic renovations on the go at work and have already had reminders about “end of day” procedures on sites.

I’m loving the willy waving going on with the big donors trying to outdo each other! If that means the building will not only be restored but also fully repaired, that’s a good thing.

I don’t understand why anyone would argue against the full restoration of one of the most beautiful landmarks in the world?

Because they are the type of people who know the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

They sit on their expensive smart phones and new laptops posting on forums moaning about Grenfell and foodbanks, and complaining about poverty, and that someone should do something about it. But not them, obviously.

Really, does it not bother people that two single private individuals are able to conjure up three hundred million euros overnight?

Not in the least. In fact it's great that some people are so successful. The huge amount of tax they pay, the employment they provide. Just brilliant. And that's €300m the French govt don't have to find, everyone wins.

You're right. Please give us a list of everything you've spent money on in the last week instead of giving it to charity. Go!

Yanbu op, I thought exactly the same thing when I heard the news.

Lovely for those individuals to have easy access to 100m and 200m euro. But think of the lives it could save.

bibbitybobbityyhat

You could save loads of lives with your income, I guarantee. Why do you spend money on new clothes or Netflix or unnecessary food or books or alcohol or phones? Why are you paying for internet access when a few quid a month brings clean water to save people's lives?

Or is it only other people that have to give to the causes you apparently find so worthy?

Really, does it not bother people that two single private individuals are able to conjure up three hundred million euros overnight

No, why would it. Presumably it's their money through work, investment, family etc so there's to spend as they wish.

The poor French people have had it rough of late. I feel for them.

First Johnny Hallyday dies, then Notre Dame burns down. I’ll be donating.