Ops-Normal.org

At least there will be tight fiscal control here.

Assume that much of the donations from the big guys will be set against tax, where possible. I was surprised that Total could donate 100 mil to an outside cause without shareholder permission.

1DC wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:25 pm

I was surprised that Total could donate 100 mil to an outside cause without shareholder permission.

In return for a neon sign?

Is it just me, or does anyone else think the authorities were rather quick to dismiss arson as a cause of the fire?

Why were the authorities so quick to rule out arson in the Notre Dame fire?

G-CPTN wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:30 pm

1DC wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:25 pm

I was surprised that Total could donate 100 mil to an outside cause without shareholder permission.

In return for a neon sign?

Or "oh by the way, you need to rename it the Citibank Cathedral".

France, like many countries in Western Europe, is swaddled in a nervous silence about the inroads made into their society by militant Islam. They, like many Americans, are terrified of being accused of “Islamophobia.”

WTF is there to be 'terrified' about and who gives a crap what the ratbag PC left-wing accusers say?

And why is 'islamophobia' misnamed the way it is? Me and Capes for example aren't scared in any way of islam - we just conclude it's a crock of fictional violent sh!t written up by a warlord (with some influence by his sickminded mate Umar) intended for Arabs only, and a fool's doctrine to be kept within the confines of the ME and nowhere else.

I'm not laughing at this pic... not with Micronbrain in power.

Notre Dame fire: Cause of devastating blaze revealed by French police
THE cause of the catastrophic Notre Dame fire has been identified by investigators, a police official has said.
Investigators have now revealed an electrical short-circuit was the most likely cause of the disaster.

Frogs always were lousy at electricity. Very third world.

I wonder what the wording of their insurance (if any) states about malicious acts?

.....always mystifying that a country with the best DIY superstores in Europe had, and still has, the most appallingly poor building standards. And getting worse.

Sweden?

Can we blame Muslims for that?

I can no longer find the link, but this morning on one of the news feeds I subscribe to there was an article that said all the safety protocols had been followed. Where smoke was first detected, on the south side of the spire, the scaffold workers had just finished installing the scaffolding prior to starting the refurbishing. The workers had vacated the site for 30 minutes before the first smoke appeared. One safety protocol was that electricity was to be cut to the site, and apparently it was. There was no alarm from the motion detectors and the site had been locked out.

Found it.

Time-lapse shots of Notre Dame spire may yield clues on blaze.

They should have had one of those "sniffy" dogs patrolling. Two short yelps and a long one means Gauloise, and still alight.

More likely cigarette end. French (and Spanish for that matter) still chuck 'em down anywhere.

G-CPTN wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 18, 2019 7:22 pm

I wonder what the wording of their insurance (if any) states about malicious acts?

"the church and its contents were not insured because it would have been too difficult and expensive."

Re my post #54, today renovation company Le Bras Freres has admitted its workers flouted the no-smoking ban while working on the roof of Nôtre Dame, as it took too long to descend to the street when they wanted a smoke. Having watched French carelessly throw their fag ends down on bone-dry countryside I am not surprised.

Whenever I hear : "I can't afford to insure" my mind translates it into : "You can't afford not to insure."

There has been a suggestion to rebuild the cathedral In a spirit of modern inclusiveness with a glass roof and a minaret.

The fire was not caused by cigarettes. That is a conspiracy theory from the anti-smoking nazis who want smoking stopped.

At least, that is what my nicotine addicted friend in Zurich says!

Capetonian wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 24, 2019 7:54 pm

Whenever I hear : "I can't afford to insure" my mind translates it into : "You can't afford not to insure."

It's a form of gambling, except you're betting on losing rather than winning. I never bothered with pet insurance, and although I've had a few $ouch moments, I'm still ahead over the years because fortunately our pets have kept themselves pretty healthy. When it comes to other things it's a different matter and I take the approach that I'd rather give them money every year and never have to ask for any back than be the poor sod who has to make a claim.