Hmmm. Churches in France do seem to be suffering a terrible run of luck lately.

[Burney]

'...And Officials Don't Know Why'. :hehe:


https://www.newsweek.com/spate-attacks-catholic-churches-france-sees-altars-desecrated-christ-statue-1370800

[Sir C]

'...And Officials Don't Know Why'. :hehe:


https://www.newsweek.com/spate-attacks-catholic-churches-france-sees-altars-desecrated-christ-statue-1370800

A couple of years ago I attended mass on Good Friday at St Sulpice and on Easter Sunday at Notre Dame. :cry:

If it turns out to have been an arson attack by a certain group, they'll never admit it, will they?

[eastgermanautos]

'...And Officials Don't Know Why'. :hehe:


https://www.newsweek.com/spate-attacks-catholic-churches-france-sees-altars-desecrated-christ-statue-1370800

Piss off you diseased little troll

[Burney]

A couple of years ago I attended mass on Good Friday at St Sulpice and on Easter Sunday at Notre Dame. :cry:

If it turns out to have been an arson attack by a certain group, they'll never admit it, will they?

Nope. It will be covered up at all costs.

In fact, if any country has shown incredible restraint in its response to Islamic terror over the last few years, it's France, which has suffered worse than any other country. Finding out they burned down Notre Dame might be the straw that broke the camel's back.

I made the mistake of going to St Denis a couple of years ago. It's a muslim ghetto now. It's regularly vandalised and attacked - even needing armed guards. Charles Martel's buried there. He stopped the ****s at the Battle of Tours. I bet he wonders why he bothered now.

[Burney]

Piss off you diseased little troll

Mate, you almost certainly pronounce it 'Noder Dayme', which means you don't get to have a fúcking opinion.

Now fúck off back under your rock, ****.

[Rich]

'...And Officials Don't Know Why'. :hehe:


https://www.newsweek.com/spate-attacks-catholic-churches-france-sees-altars-desecrated-christ-statue-1370800

You aren't saying that mentally ill people are starting these fires, are you?

[Maravilloso Marvo]

It seems to be quite the jump from rubbing poo on a cross to burning down the Notre Dame, no?

[Pokster]

It seems to be quite the jump from rubbing poo on a cross to burning down the Notre Dame, no?

I will state your reputation that this was a horrible accident

[Rich]

It seems to be quite the jump from rubbing poo on a cross to burning down the Notre Dame, no?

What do you suppose the modus operandi is for excrement smearing? Do you crap in a bag and take it with you there. Then spread it with a spatula or similar?

[Burney]

You aren't saying that mentally ill people are starting these fires, are you?

I'm saying that if you allow huge numbers of people whose aggressively evangelical religion dictates that your holy places are an abomination into your country, one should hardly be surprised when those holy places get desecrated, attacked and destroyed.

[Burney]

It seems to be quite the jump from rubbing poo on a cross to burning down the Notre Dame, no?

Not much of a jump from setting fire to Saint Sulpice to setting fire to Notre Dame, though, is it?

[eastgermanautos]

Mate, you almost certainly pronounce it 'Noder Dayme', which means you don't get to have a fúcking opinion.

Now fúck off back under your rock, ****.

This is not an "opinion" you're offering, it's just a long blather of slightly disrespectful scab-picking. In the presence of something righteous, it strikes one as inappropriate. So, as for that rock, yes, same to you.

[Burney]

This is not an "opinion" you're offering, it's just a long blather of slightly disrespectful scab-picking. In the presence of something righteous, it strikes one as inappropriate. So, as for that rock, yes, same to you.

I fail to see what's 'disrespectful' about pointing out that this fire has occurred in the context of a spate of other attacks on religious sites in France - including arson. Would you prefer that fact were simply ignored?

[Pokster]

I fail to see what's 'disrespectful' about pointing out that this fire has occurred in the context of a spate of other attacks on religious sites in France - including arson. Would you prefer that fact were simply ignored?

I believe it was your "and officials don't know why" :hehe: that might have led ega to his post

[eastgermanautos]

I fail to see what's 'disrespectful' about pointing out that this fire has occurred in the context of a spate of other attacks on religious sites in France - including arson. Would you prefer that fact were simply ignored?

Nah you're just wasting our time. Granted, this is what AWIMB is for. You're constantly banging on about the cultural crisis faced by Europe and using this tragedy, a tragedy for art and for a sense of timelessness, to further your tendentious twaddle. Therefore, while AWIMB is for wasting time, there are limits.

[Burney]

I believe it was your "and officials don't know why" :hehe: that might have led ega to his post

Yes, because that is utterly laughable. The reason is obvious to a half-bright child. It's the same reason we now have anti-car barriers on central London, invasive levels of security at airports, bombs going off at music concerts and massacres committed in European cities.

[Burney]

Nah you're just wasting our time. Granted, this is what AWIMB is for. You're constantly banging on about the cultural crisis faced by Europe and using this tragedy, a tragedy for art and for a sense of timelessness, to further your tendentious twaddle. Therefore, while AWIMB is for wasting time, there are limits.

So you categorically dismiss the notion that there could be a link between this fire at a French Christian religious site and the many attacks on French Christian religious sites that have taken place lately?

That seems oddly certain of you. I mean by all means be sceptical, but to dismiss the notion entirely without even acknowledging that the possibility exists suggests that, rather than exercising your intelligence, you're simply following a path dictated to you by your ideology.

[Pokster]

Yes, because that is utterly laughable. The reason is obvious to a half-bright child. It's the same reason we now have anti-car barriers on central London, invasive levels of security at airports, bombs going off at music concerts and massacres committed in European cities.

So the default for you is that it was arson, and arson by a certain set of people, rather than the far more obvious answer that it was an accident?

[Sir C]

So the default for you is that it was arson, and arson by a certain set of people, rather than the far more obvious answer that it was an accident?

Of course it may well have been an accident, but what you've missed is the link in b's original post describing the disturbing number of incidents recently at catholic churches in France. So that surely weighs on the balance of probablilities?

[Pokster]

Of course it may well have been an accident, but what you've missed is the link in b's original post describing the disturbing number of incidents recently at catholic churches in France. So that surely weighs on the balance of probablilities?

I haven't missed the link, I would suggest the huge probaility that it is an accident, with a small chance it was arson....which seems to be the opposite of what b is suggesting

[PSRB]

I haven't missed the link, I would suggest the huge probaility that it is an accident, with a small chance it was arson....which seems to be the opposite of what b is suggesting

In fairness, Newsweek is suggesting that. B, is merely leading us to the article and wondering if there is an element of truth to it

[Sir C]

I haven't missed the link, I would suggest the huge probaility that it is an accident, with a small chance it was arson....which seems to be the opposite of what b is suggesting

Well, I'd say that without the ongoing story of churches being targeted in France your "huge probaility that it is an accident, with a small chance it was arson" would be the sensible conclusion, but when you add in the knowledge that recently this stuff keeps happeneing, surely your view changes a little? I mean "huge probability" versus "small chance"? Really?

[Pokster]

Well, I'd say that without the ongoing story of churches being targeted in France your "huge probaility that it is an accident, with a small chance it was arson" would be the sensible conclusion, but when you add in the knowledge that recently this stuff keeps happeneing, surely your view changes a little? I mean "huge probability" versus "small chance"? Really?

Yes, really

[Sir C]

Yes, really

:shrug: In that case we either have an extremely different view of probablities or you are furiously displaying your woke credentials.

Are you Ian Harvey in disguise?

[Pokster]

:shrug: In that case we either have an extremely different view of probablities or you are furiously displaying your woke credentials.

Are you Ian Harvey in disguise?

Well since the Paris Fire Authority have already said they don't believe it is Arson, unless you are assuming they are lying to protect some group, then i would suggest it was an accident is a very high probability

[eastgermanautos]

So you categorically dismiss the notion that there could be a link between this fire at a French Christian religious site and the many attacks on French Christian religious sites that have taken place lately?

That seems oddly certain of you. I mean by all means be sceptical, but to dismiss the notion entirely without even acknowledging that the possibility exists suggests that, rather than exercising your intelligence, you're simply following a path dictated to you by your ideology.

You can't not talk. You're like a woman. You don't give a fvck about the church; you just want to piss on about your talking points.

[WES]

In fairness, Newsweek is suggesting that. B, is merely leading us to the article and wondering if there is an element of truth to it

I would think the fact that it was undergoing renovation at the time would certainly add to the likelihood that it was an accident.

Not sure why anyone would assume it was an act of terrorism and laugh at any alternatives. Leaving it open as a possibility, certainly.

[Sir C]

Well since the Paris Fire Authority have already said they don't believe it is Arson, unless you are assuming they are lying to protect some group, then i would suggest it was an accident is a very high probability

:clap: Amazing. So when we started having this discussion they hadn't said anything, but now they have, you're using that to justify your argument?

Fúck me. That's mendacious in the extreme.

[Rich]

I would think the fact that it was undergoing renovation at the time would certainly add to the likelihood that it was an accident.

Not sure why anyone would assume it was an act of terrorism and laugh at any alternatives. Leaving it open as a possibility, certainly.

Have you considered that one of the workmen may have had an ulterior motive?

[PSRB]

Have you considered that one of the workmen may have had an ulterior motive?

There is a picture of the early stages of the fire on the BBC website, it definitely starts in the roof. Which would seem to point to an accident. :shrug:

[Rich]

There is a picture of the early stages of the fire on the BBC website, it definitely starts in the roof. Which would seem to point to an accident. :shrug:

I don't think anyone agrees that it was probably an accident. But it might have been deliberate.

[Pokster]

:clap: Amazing. So when we started having this discussion they hadn't said anything, but now they have, you're using that to justify your argument?

Fúck me. That's mendacious in the extreme.

My default position was an unfortunate accident, that has strengthened after further comments this morning? I'm not quite sure why that is such a strange opening position? :shrug:

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

I haven't missed the link, I would suggest the huge probaility that it is an accident, with a small chance it was arson....which seems to be the opposite of what b is suggesting

Apparently they had gennies in the loft with **** loads of wires everywhere because of elctrical and lighting problems. Which is basically asking for it.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Well, I'd say that without the ongoing story of churches being targeted in France your "huge probaility that it is an accident, with a small chance it was arson" would be the sensible conclusion, but when you add in the knowledge that recently this stuff keeps happeneing, surely your view changes a little? I mean "huge probability" versus "small chance"? Really?

1. It happened around 7pm French time, didn't it? I've spent a lot of time around that Church in the last 3 months and I'm telling you, there's at very least a short queue to get in, sometimes a long one. You get your bags searched on the way in. There are loads of people inside, wandering around, all taking photos on phones, lighting candles (as I did a few times in front of Jeanne d'Arc) etc etc.

There is absolutely no way anyone could get in there with stuff to start a fire - they won't let me in with a can of 8.6 in the bag, so a bottle of petrol is a no-no - manage to walk round without being on a dozen tourists' cameras and get into the loft (cos there's no way you can start a fire in a corner with a Church full of tourists without being seen), set the place on fire, get down from the loft and get out without being caught.

Absolutely none.

The place is shut at night. When it's open, there are guards searching bags on the entrances and it's always full of tourists.

So please, C, how on earth can you think anyone would start a fire at 7pm in a guarded, crowded church?

2. Imagine it was an evil allan as B suggests. As I say, he'd get caught 'cos of all the camera phones and the police presence outside every single time I was walking through there. If he gets caught, he gets banged up for life doing that. Surely it's better to murder a few kaffirs and go to paradise?

3. What with the GJs, there wasn't any Muslim **** when I was there. But there was some strong anti-clerical stuff. There always has been, what with laicité and all that. That report says hardcore secularists or feminists. Ok, I wasn't in a Muslim area and I don't see how anyone could have got in and started one at that time. And I doubt any would actually do ND. But I would say either of those, in the current climate, are actually more likely than muzzies if we were talking about some minor desecration of a small church.

4. Also around late Feb, there were loads of Swastikas on Jewish graves up in Alsace and loads more desecrated in the suburbs. Macron et al started saying it was all us GJs and that cünt Bremner in the Times started parroting it. The French Bernis said it was all the Muzzies. Turns out that the stuff in the East was by some neo-nazi group called The Wolves of Alsace (but in German) while the stuff in the suburbs was some middle-aged, local govt chief financial officer for the 94 dept, with known FN and other far right links.

Bet you a bloc of foie gras to a can of Brew it wasn't allans.

It's an accident. Started in the loft, no way anyone can get in there with the guards and the crowds et al. And they had gennies up there with loads of wires.

Hate to break it to you.

If you go to St Paul Church on Rue Rivoli towards Bastille, that would have been easy to do. Been in there alone several times and there's a lovely Delacroix.

But there is no way any arsonist is getting in and out of ND unseen at 7pm on a Monday night.

Not a hope in hell.

[Sir C]

Yes, quite impossible. Imagine, for example, a group of lads learning to fly an aeroplane. breaking into the flight deck and flying those aeroplanes into New York skyscrapers. :hehe: Abolsutely absurd, no? Nothing like that could possibly happen!

[Pokster]

Yes, quite impossible. Imagine, for example, a group of lads learning to fly an aeroplane. breaking into the flight deck and flying those aeroplanes into New York skyscrapers. :hehe: Abolsutely absurd, no? Nothing like that could possibly happen!

Breaking in when there was no security as such on flights, I would imagine it would be a lot harder to do now. Bit like breaking in to a national monument 20 years ago would have been a lot easier than it is now

[redgunamo]

Nonsense, I'm afraid. You're looking at the thing from an ordinary, innocent person's point of view.

Thing is, if it's my job to get in and start a fire, I get in and start a fire. I find a way, because it's my job.

It may have been an accident though, all the same. No-one knows enough to say yet.



1. It happened around 7pm French time, didn't it? I've spent a lot of time around that Church in the last 3 months and I'm telling you, there's at very least a short queue to get in, sometimes a long one. You get your bags searched on the way in. There are loads of people inside, wandering around, all taking photos on phones, lighting candles (as I did a few times in front of Jeanne d'Arc) etc etc.

There is absolutely no way anyone could get in there with stuff to start a fire - they won't let me in with a can of 8.6 in the bag, so a bottle of petrol is a no-no - manage to walk round without being on a dozen tourists' cameras and get into the loft (cos there's no way you can start a fire in a corner with a Church full of tourists without being seen), set the place on fire, get down from the loft and get out without being caught.

Absolutely none.

The place is shut at night. When it's open, there are guards searching bags on the entrances and it's always full of tourists.

So please, C, how on earth can you think anyone would start a fire at 7pm in a guarded, crowded church?

2. Imagine it was an evil allan as B suggests. As I say, he'd get caught 'cos of all the camera phones and the police presence outside every single time I was walking through there. If he gets caught, he gets banged up for life doing that. Surely it's better to murder a few kaffirs and go to paradise?

3. What with the GJs, there wasn't any Muslim **** when I was there. But there was some strong anti-clerical stuff. There always has been, what with laicité and all that. That report says hardcore secularists or feminists. Ok, I wasn't in a Muslim area and I don't see how anyone could have got in and started one at that time. And I doubt any would actually do ND. But I would say either of those, in the current climate, are actually more likely than muzzies if we were talking about some minor desecration of a small church.

4. Also around late Feb, there were loads of Swastikas on Jewish graves up in Alsace and loads more desecrated in the suburbs. Macron et al started saying it was all us GJs and that cünt Bremner in the Times started parroting it. The French Bernis said it was all the Muzzies. Turns out that the stuff in the East was by some neo-nazi group called The Wolves of Alsace (but in German) while the stuff in the suburbs was some middle-aged, local govt chief financial officer for the 94 dept, with known FN and other far right links.

Bet you a bloc of foie gras to a can of Brew it wasn't allans.

It's an accident. Started in the loft, no way anyone can get in there with the guards and the crowds et al. And they had gennies up there with loads of wires.

Hate to break it to you.

If you go to St Paul Church on Rue Rivoli towards Bastille, that would have been easy to do. Been in there alone several times and there's a lovely Delacroix.

But there is no way any arsonist is getting in and out of ND unseen at 7pm on a Monday night.

Not a hope in hell.

[Sir C]

Breaking in when there was no security as such on flights, I would imagine it would be a lot harder to do now. Bit like breaking in to a national monument 20 years ago would have been a lot easier than it is now

What a lot of old bollócks. How much security is there around a cathedral, for Christ's sake?

[Burney]

Well since the Paris Fire Authority have already said they don't believe it is Arson, unless you are assuming they are lying to protect some group, then i would suggest it was an accident is a very high probability

Not quite. “There is no indication that this was a deliberate act,” is what's been said. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Here's something that never happens in normal fire investigations: people ruling out arson while the thing's still smoking.

[Burney]

What a lot of old bollócks. How much security is there around a cathedral, for Christ's sake?

Last time I was there, I seem to remember the nearest thing to security was some bástard jewing money out of you at the door.

[redgunamo]

Good point. I missed that.



Here's something that never happens in normal fire investigations: people ruling out arson while the thing's still smoking.

[Sir C]

Last time I was there, I seem to remember the nearest thing to security was some bástard jewing money out of you at the door.

Surely you remember the metal detectors, the scanners, the armed guards, the close-questioning, the racial profiling? Getting into Notre Dame with a book of matches is just as hard as entering the flight deck of a 787 carrying an AK47, you know.

[Pokster]

What a lot of old bollócks. How much security is there around a cathedral, for Christ's sake?

Loads since Sept 11

[Sir C]

Loads since Sept 11

What security is there at any cathedral that's going to stop you getting in with a box of matches and a can of lighter fluid. Go on, tell me. I double dare you.

[Burney]

What security is there at any cathedral that's going to stop you getting in with a box of matches and a can of lighter fluid. Go on, tell me. I double dare you.

:hehe: I was wondering when someone was going to point out that setting fire to an 800 year-old, wood-framed building wasn't exactly Mission Impossible.

[Ash]

Last time I was there, I seem to remember the nearest thing to security was some bástard jewing money out of you at the door.

You object to contributing to the upkeep of priceless buildings that you visit? My word. Who do you expect to pay for it? Johnny Taxpayer? CEO of Gucci?

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

What a lot of old bollócks. How much security is there around a cathedral, for Christ's sake?

They search you and your bags when you go in. How is this so difficult to understand? There are also always a min of 3 policemen with guns outside at most 15 yards from the entrance or exit (different doors.)

There's always a queue of a min or two to 30 mins. And at that time, it's quite busy.

The place inside is rammed with tourists taking photos. There is no quiet corner to start a fire. You have to know how to get up into the loft from inside the church, which probably involves going into the back bit which is all fenced off cos they don't want you nicking holy water or whatever.

You've got to do that with **** loads of tourists looking at you, snapping you on their phones, get up, start a fire, get down, and get out without anyone having seen you, or got the security or fuzz, with the room begining to burn.

I've spent the last 3 months 'round that church. It just isn't possible.

[Burney]

You object to contributing to the upkeep of priceless buildings that you visit? My word. Who do you expect to pay for it? Johnny Taxpayer? CEO of Gucci?

How about...ooooh, let's see...the Roman Catholic Church? They're not short of a bob or two - even with all the nonce money they've had to pay out.

[Burney]

They search you and your bags when you go in. How is this so difficult to understand? There are also always a min of 3 policemen with guns outside at most 15 yards from the entrance or exit (different doors.)

There's always a queue of a min or two to 30 mins. And at that time, it's quite busy.

The place inside is rammed with tourists taking photos. There is no quiet corner to start a fire. You have to know how to get up into the loft from inside the church, which probably involves going into the back bit which is all fenced off cos they don't want you nicking holy water or whatever.

You've got to do that with **** loads of tourists looking at you, snapping you on their phones, get up, start a fire, get down, and get out without anyone having seen you, or got the security or fuzz, with the room begining to burn.

I've spent the last 3 months 'round that church. It just isn't possible.

Do they confiscate cigarette lighters then? And - given all the renovation work going on - would anyone look twice at someone dressed like a workman going up into the roof area? I doubt it.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Surely you remember the metal detectors, the scanners, the armed guards, the close-questioning, the racial profiling? Getting into Notre Dame with a book of matches is just as hard as entering the flight deck of a 787 carrying an AK47, you know.

You don't need matches. They have loads of candles to light. But how are you going to get into the loft from a crowded hurch full of tourists where alll the front bit is fenced off? You can sit on a pew in front on the fence, or go down the sides where all the little nooks with saints and candles are. But you can't clamber over a fence, have a root round the back trying to find how you get up to the loft, get upstairs etc etc with no-one seeing.

More planes full of tourists have been kidnapped in my lifetime than major, guarded cathedrals full of toursists have been toarched. Fact.

There is no way someone queued up, went past security and got into the loft at 7pm. Not a chance.

[Sir C]

They search you and your bags when you go in. How is this so difficult to understand? There are also always a min of 3 policemen with guns outside at most 15 yards from the entrance or exit (different doors.)

There's always a queue of a min or two to 30 mins. And at that time, it's quite busy.

The place inside is rammed with tourists taking photos. There is no quiet corner to start a fire. You have to know how to get up into the loft from inside the church, which probably involves going into the back bit which is all fenced off cos they don't want you nicking holy water or whatever.

You've got to do that with **** loads of tourists looking at you, snapping you on their phones, get up, start a fire, get down, and get out without anyone having seen you, or got the security or fuzz, with the room begining to burn.

I've spent the last 3 months 'round that church. It just isn't possible.

I have been into Notre Dame plusieurs fois, mon mec, and I can assure you that no gendarme has ever had the temerity to attmept to lay dirty, garlic-stained doigts upon my person. I've walked in for easter Sunday mass without being stopped, for God's sake. When did all this security start all of a sudden and, perhaps more pertinently, why?

Furthermore, starting a fire in Notre Dame may appear tricky to you, because you're an ageing hippy, not a full time professional terrorist whose actual job it is to fúck shít up. I mean, show me a human heart and I'll tell you that it's impossible for me to transplant it into a different human body, but then I'm not a fúcking heart surgeon, am I?

[WES]

Not quite. “There is no indication that this was a deliberate act,” is what's been said. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Here's something that never happens in normal fire investigations: people ruling out arson while the thing's still smoking.

You think that saying there is no indication that this was a deliberate act and ruling out arson are the same thing?

Really?

[Sir C]

You don't need matches. They have loads of candles to light. But how are you going to get into the loft from a crowded hurch full of tourists where alll the front bit is fenced off? You can sit on a pew in front on the fence, or go down the sides where all the little nooks with saints and candles are. But you can't clamber over a fence, have a root round the back trying to find how you get up to the loft, get upstairs etc etc with no-one seeing.

More planes full of tourists have been kidnapped in my lifetime than major, guarded cathedrals full of toursists have been toarched. Fact.

There is no way someone queued up, went past security and got into the loft at 7pm. Not a chance.

Why are you banging on and on about the loft? You know precisely fúck nothing about how or where the fire started. Three blurry pictures oin the BBC website do not make you a qualified fire investigator.

[Burney]

I have been into Notre Dame plusieurs fois, mon mec, and I can assure you that no gendarme has ever had the temerity to attmept to lay dirty, garlic-stained doigts upon my person. I've walked in for easter Sunday mass without being stopped, for God's sake. When did all this security start all of a sudden and, perhaps more pertinently, why?

Furthermore, starting a fire in Notre Dame may appear tricky to you, because you're an ageing hippy, not a full time professional terrorist whose actual job it is to fúck shít up. I mean, show me a human heart and I'll tell you that it's impossible for me to transplant it into a different human body, but then I'm not a fúcking heart surgeon, am I?

I reckon it's perfectly easy. There's probably a YouTube video telling you how to do it.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Do they confiscate cigarette lighters then? And - given all the renovation work going on - would anyone look twice at someone dressed like a workman going up into the roof area? I doubt it.

Dear God. This is like talking to Corbynistas about 9/11 or whatever.

The scaffolding for the workmen is on the outside. The loft is accessed from the inside. And even if you dressed in a hard hat you are not gonna be allowed to climb over the fences that separates the altar and the back rooms (whatever that is in church speak) from the tourists on pews looking at the stained glass behind where you have to clamber.

[Sir C]

How about...ooooh, let's see...the Roman Catholic Church? They're not short of a bob or two - even with all the nonce money they've had to pay out.

And where does Mother Church get her money? From catholic folk who attend mass.

Why would you expect decent people to subsidise your sightseeing, you Godless heathen bástard?

[Burney]

You think that saying there is no indication that this was a deliberate act and ruling out arson are the same thing?

Really?

No. In fact my whole point is that they aren't the same thing.

[Sir C]

dear god. This is like talking to corbynistas about 9/11 or whatever.

The scaffolding for the workmen is on the outside. The loft is accessed from the inside. And even if you dressed in a hard hat you are not gonna be allowed to climb over the fences that separates the altar and the back rooms (whatever that is in church speak) from the tourists on pews looking at the stained glass behind where you have to clamber.

you know nothing from the loft!

[Burney]

Dear God. This is like talking to Corbynistas about 9/11 or whatever.

The scaffolding for the workmen is on the outside. The loft is accessed from the inside. And even if you dressed in a hard hat you are not gonna be allowed to climb over the fences that separates the altar and the back rooms (whatever that is in church speak) from the tourists on pews looking at the stained glass behind where you have to clamber.

:shrug: I think it's hilarious that you think it's impossible to get to the loft of a publicly-accessible building full of people and undergoing renovations, start a fire and escape without anyone paying much attention.

[Burney]

And where does Mother Church get her money? From catholic folk who attend mass.

Why would you expect decent people to subsidise your sightseeing, you Godless heathen bástard?

Indeed! My poor ancestors who hadn't an arse to their trousers but were expected to hand over what meagre pittance they had so that some smooth-faced priest could sit on his well-fed rump and wear silk.

And I'm expected to pay again?! Fúck that.

[Pokster]

No. In fact my whole point is that they aren't the same thing.

But it appears that your default position is that this is more likely to be arson that not/ Is that correct?

[Sir C]

:shrug: I think it's hilarious that you think it's impossible to get to the loft of a publicly-accessible building full of people and undergoing renovations, start a fire and escape without anyone paying much attention.

Tommy Terrorist might have had a bow and arrows with flaming ends like in Robin Hood and shot them into the loft. :nod: Because obviously we know, beyond any doubt, that the fire started in the loft. Save the millions of euros you'd expect the goverhment to spend on an investigation, painstakingly analysing the evidence with the benefit of centuries of scientific learning, oh no, you don't need any of that because pokster and ganpati saw 15 seconds of footage taken on someone's mobile phone in the fúcking dark and they know exactly what happened.

[Burney]

But it appears that your default position is that this is more likely to be arson that not/ Is that correct?

No. I suggested that, given the recent spate of attacks against French religious sites (including a notable act of arson), the possibility that this was part of that pattern (rather than just a tragic accident) is worthy of consideration and certainly not something that can be lightly dismissed.

I do wish people would learn to fúcking read.

[Ash]

How about...ooooh, let's see...the Roman Catholic Church? They're not short of a bob or two - even with all the nonce money they've had to pay out.

As long as you know where your wallet is when you visit our decent, honest, English, popenfrei numbers.

[Pokster]

Tommy Terrorist might have had a bow and arrows with flaming ends like in Robin Hood and shot them into the loft. :nod: Because obviously we know, beyond any doubt, that the fire started in the loft. Save the millions of euros you'd expect the goverhment to spend on an investigation, painstakingly analysing the evidence with the benefit of centuries of scientific learning, oh no, you don't need any of that because pokster and ganpati saw 15 seconds of footage taken on someone's mobile phone in the fúcking dark and they know exactly what happened.

Excuse me, please show where I have said it was 100% an accident??? Oh sorry, you can't. I Said that it was far more likely to be an accident than Arson, which seems to be the opposite of what b was implying earlier.

So don't just make up **** to suit your comments, it's beneath you, bit like Monty's mum

[Pokster]

No. I suggested that, given the recent spate of attacks against French religious sites (including a notable act of arson), the possibility that this was part of that pattern (rather than just a tragic accident) is worthy of consideration and certainly not something that can be lightly dismissed.

I do wish people would learn to fúcking read.

Which is what the fire brigade and investigators will do :shrug:

[Sir C]

Indeed! My poor ancestors who hadn't an arse to their trousers but were expected to hand over what meagre pittance they had so that some smooth-faced priest could sit on his well-fed rump and wear silk.

And I'm expected to pay again?! Fúck that.

They must have paid an enormous amount indeed if their contribution is sufficient to maintain Our Blessed Houses of God for centuries.

Put your hand in your pocket you tight ****.

[Burney]

As long as you know where your wallet is when you visit our decent, honest, English, popenfrei numbers.

Well of course I could point out that most of those have been stolen from my people and that asking me to pay to enter them on top of having stolen my spiritual patrimony is adding insult to fúcking injury.

[Sir C]

As long as you know where your wallet is when you visit our decent, honest, English, popenfrei numbers.

He's not going to enter a prod wossname, temple or whatever, is he? He may be a Godless heathen but he's no occultist.

[Sir C]

Excuse me, please show where I have said it was 100% an accident??? Oh sorry, you can't. I Said that it was far more likely to be an accident than Arson, which seems to be the opposite of what b was implying earlier.

So don't just make up **** to suit your comments, it's beneath you, bit like Monty's mum

You have dismissed the possibility of it not being an accident as infinitessimally small. I can't spell infinitessimally. :-(

[Burney]

They must have paid an enormous amount indeed if their contribution is sufficient to maintain Our Blessed Houses of God for centuries.

Put your hand in your pocket you tight ****.

I would refer you to the parable of the widow's mite and point out that, in spiritual terms, my ancestors' donations were of far greater value than those of Lorenzo de Medici.

[Sir C]

I would refer you to the parable of the widow's mite and point out that, in spiritual terms, my ancestors' donations were of far greater value than those of Lorenzo de Medici.

Balls to your ancestors. Balls I say. Your ancestors aren't putting a new roof on Notre Dame, are they? Useless dead ****s.

[Pokster]

You have dismissed the possibility of it not being an accident as infinitessimally small. I can't spell infinitessimally. :-(

I said in all probability it was an accident, so what constitutes infinitessimally small i don't know.... the balance of probability, with an old structure like that, loads of generators having been used up on the roof, and the restoration work that had been going on would lead me to believe that is the likely outcome.

[Sir C]

I said in all probability it was an accident, so what constitutes infinitessimally small i don't know.... the balance of probability, with an old structure like that, loads of generators having been used up on the roof, and the restoration work that had been going on would lead me to believe that is the likely outcome.

You didn't, you said the chances of it not being an accident were tiny. Infinitessimally so. You sad it was far more likely to be an accident. Far more likely!

[Burney]

Balls to your ancestors. Balls I say. Your ancestors aren't putting a new roof on Notre Dame, are they? Useless dead ****s.

Balls to my ancestors? This is fighting talk. :furious:

Talking of that sort of thing, I may have to go to Limerick on business. I'm afraid I may revert to type.

[Sir C]

Balls to my ancestors? This is fighting talk. :furious:

Talking of that sort of thing, I may have to go to Limerick on business. I'm afraid I may revert to type.

You've moved into the farming game?

I can point you towards some excellent pubs. Well they were excellent in the 1970s, anyway.

[Pokster]

You didn't, you said the chances of it not being an accident were tiny. Infinitessimally so. You sad it was far more likely to be an accident. Far more likely!

95% v 5%??????? I would say that is about my default position on this

[Burney]

You've moved into the farming game?

I can point you towards some excellent pubs. Well they were excellent in the 1970s, anyway.

No. We are launching a product in Ireland that I am fronting (presumably on the grounds that I have an Irish name and look Irish).

I'm wondering whether I should do the accent.

[Ash]

Well of course I could point out that most of those have been stolen from my people and that asking me to pay to enter them on top of having stolen my spiritual patrimony is adding insult to fúcking injury.

You should be charged extra for the cost of, erm, ripping out all the godless bling and carrying it all the way to Henry's stash.

[Sir C]

No. We are launching a product in Ireland that I am fronting (presumably on the grounds that I have an Irish name and look Irish).

I'm wondering whether I should do the accent.

In Limerick? They'll hang you for a witch if you go in talking Dublin.

[Sir C]

95% v 5%??????? I would say that is about my default position on this

Aaaaand there we have it. A confession at last.

Your apology is accepted but this is the final time, d'you hear me?

[Burney]

In Limerick? They'll hang you for a witch if you go in talking Dublin.

Hmmm. Fair point. I'm probably best off doing posh English. Their hands will instinctively be drawn to their forelocks the minute I speak and they shall then be as putty in my hands.

Figuratively, of course. I'm not going to touch the ghastly culchies, am I?

Good God! Can you imagine?? There isn't enough Dettol in the world. :-(

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Indeed! My poor ancestors who hadn't an arse to their trousers but were expected to hand over what meagre pittance they had so that some smooth-faced priest could sit on his well-fed rump and wear silk.

And I'm expected to pay again?! Fúck that.

And this smooth-faced devil will have sodomized the poor children too b. Let us never forget the sodomizing of the children. ( filthy little urchins were probably gagging f'r it!)

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

I have been into Notre Dame plusieurs fois, mon mec, and I can assure you that no gendarme has ever had the temerity to attmept to lay dirty, garlic-stained doigts upon my person. I've walked in for easter Sunday mass without being stopped, for God's sake. When did all this security start all of a sudden and, perhaps more pertinently, why?

Furthermore, starting a fire in Notre Dame may appear tricky to you, because you're an ageing hippy, not a full time professional terrorist whose actual job it is to fúck shít up. I mean, show me a human heart and I'll tell you that it's impossible for me to transplant it into a different human body, but then I'm not a fúcking heart surgeon, am I?

Can't honestly remember from spring 2 years ago, but certainly the, no, actually, spring 2 years ago. Security. 2 mates up from Dreux. One had to wait outside with the beers in our bag because of security.

That's the first time I'd been there since the '90s.

So some time between spring '97 and spring 2017. But they have 100% had them for the last two years. Who knows? Perhaps in the same way that 9/11 led to airport security, all the attacks in France caused ND bouncers.

But you still can't answer 2 points.

1. How does the guy get over the fences to the altar and then get to the loft (assuming he knew exactly where he's going) with a room full of tourists filming him?

2. Given anyone who got caught doing that would get life, why take that risk when you could off some kaffirs which those sort of muzzies think allah likes more? Why not just fücking suicide bomb ND. Get to heaven, go down in history, lots of dead kaffirs as well as a fücked church? If you believe that ****, that's what you do.

But there is no way one or more people climbed over the fences in front of the altar and went up 20m of stairs, started a fire, came back and got out. None.

[Burney]

And this smooth-faced devil will have sodomized the poor children too b. Let us never forget the sodomizing of the children. ( filthy little urchins were probably gagging f'r it!)

Did you know, h, that as a child I narrowly avoided* being bummed by one of Ireland's most infamous nonce priests? We holidayed in a place in Wexford for three years on the trot. Now the local priest was a chap called Fr Sean Fortune and the first time my father met the chap who owned the place in which we were staying, he was advised to take me to Mass not at the local church, but at the nearby church in Hook, instead, since the local priest was known to have an unhealthy fondness for young chaps my age.

My father had no interest in wasting his valuable holiday time going to Mass, so the advice was academic, but, had my father or mother been churchgoing types and a range of other somewhat unlikely events taken place, I could easily have been buggered by this horrible ****. :-(

1083

*Came nowhere near

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Why are you banging on and on about the loft? You know precisely fúck nothing about how or where the fire started. Three blurry pictures oin the BBC website do not make you a qualified fire investigator.

Because that's what I was told was being said. My mate in the 4e went out there when he saw the flames from the window. He took me some pics.

When it was clear the fire had started up high, I blamed the scaffolding and started slagging off whichever company was doing the repairs. And he'd said the word was that it wasn't thescaffolding and workmen, that it was the loft.

They'd been having some problem with the electrics and lighting. So they'd got some generators up there and the place was over run with wires and 4-ways and the like.

I have no idea how true this is, but it looks the most plausible from the little clips I've seen.

The scaff was over the roof and around the spire, but you couldn't get to that unless you had a key to get the the bits between the fence and the walls. I don't know where the workmen entered, but anyone trying to get over fences and then clambering up in daylight when it's swarming with tourists on the river side, on the little restaurant side, or in the park at the back (as well as the front with the police and queues and bouncers) is gonna have the filth called on him before he's 1/4 way up.

And the loft is gonna be over the massive wooden beams (that took 42 acres of forest, apparently) and under the spire.

If we're playing what looks most likely, it's the loft below the spire.

[Sir C]

Hmmm. Fair point. I'm probably best off doing posh English. Their hands will instinctively be drawn to their forelocks the minute I speak and they shall then be as putty in my hands.

Figuratively, of course. I'm not going to touch the ghastly culchies, am I?

Good God! Can you imagine?? There isn't enough Dettol in the world. :-(

Dunno mate, all you thick paddies are the same to me. :shrug:

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Tommy Terrorist might have had a bow and arrows with flaming ends like in Robin Hood and shot them into the loft. :nod: Because obviously we know, beyond any doubt, that the fire started in the loft. Save the millions of euros you'd expect the goverhment to spend on an investigation, painstakingly analysing the evidence with the benefit of centuries of scientific learning, oh no, you don't need any of that because pokster and ganpati saw 15 seconds of footage taken on someone's mobile phone in the fúcking dark and they know exactly what happened.

Here you go.

It's from Le Monde.

Cited in the Sun and Boston Globe and a few others:

The restoration of the iconic spire and lead roof was the first phase of the massive 20-year renovation project, that began in July 2018 with the installation of 500 tonne scaffolding, reports Le Monde in Paris.

The paper says that the installation was "about to be completed on Monday when a fire broke out in the attic".

A "stray flame" is thought to have sparked the fire in the loft at 7pm local time (6pm BST).

"It appears that it all began as a relatively small fire linked to a stray flame in the roof," said an emergency services source.

See? I reckon Le Monde speaking to the firemen probably have a better clue than Awimb comspiracy theorists.

[Sir C]

Here you go.

It's from Le Monde.

Cited in the Sun and Boston Globe and a few others:

The restoration of the iconic spire and lead roof was the first phase of the massive 20-year renovation project, that began in July 2018 with the installation of 500 tonne scaffolding, reports Le Monde in Paris.

The paper says that the installation was "about to be completed on Monday when a fire broke out in the attic".

A "stray flame" is thought to have sparked the fire in the loft at 7pm local time (6pm BST).

"It appears that it all began as a relatively small fire linked to a stray flame in the roof," said an emergency services source.

See? I reckon Le Monde speaking to the firemen probably have a better clue than Awimb comspiracy theorists.

Thank God there's no need for an investgation. It's all been sorted it while the smoke's still rising.

This has got llahu Akbar written all over it and you JUST CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Tommy Terrorist might have had a bow and arrows with flaming ends like in Robin Hood and shot them into the loft. :nod: Because obviously we know, beyond any doubt, that the fire started in the loft. Save the millions of euros you'd expect the goverhment to spend on an investigation, painstakingly analysing the evidence with the benefit of centuries of scientific learning, oh no, you don't need any of that because pokster and ganpati saw 15 seconds of footage taken on someone's mobile phone in the fúcking dark and they know exactly what happened.

No.

It's because it's what Le Monde and the Froggie firefighters are saying.

And it's light at 7pm in Paris now.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Thank God there's no need for an investgation. It's all been sorted it while the smoke's still rising.

This has got llahu Akbar written all over it and you JUST CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Well, you did win me round when you said a flaming arrow like robin hood. They do like that medieval shît so you're probably right.

[Burney]

Thank God there's no need for an investgation. It's all been sorted it while the smoke's still rising.

This has got llahu Akbar written all over it and you JUST CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

'A stray flame' :hehe: What the faggot-felching fúck is 'a stray flame'?

It's amazing we're all not constantly on fire with all these 'stray flames' just floating about imo.

Stray fúcking flame indeed! :hehe:

[Burney]

Dunno mate, all you thick paddies are the same to me. :shrug:

You dirty racist.

[Sir C]

Well, you did win me round when you said a flaming arrow like robin hood. They do like that medieval shît so you're probably right.

It might have been Robin's saracen mate, Morgan Freeman!

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

had my father or mother been churchgoing types and a range of other somewhat unlikely events taken place, :-(

1083

*Came nowhere near

Au contraire my dear Berni, I'd say the vile pederast was practically breathing down your neck while lasciviously lubing his foul member. I think you have been subliminally traumatised and really ought to sue The RC :nod: Don't mention the wánking shed in court though b. Counsel for the nonce will try and spin that up to make you look like the deviant.

[Burney]

Au contraire my dear Berni, I'd say the vile pederast was practically breathing down your neck while lasciviously lubing his foul member. I think you have been subliminally traumatised and really ought to sue The RC :nod: Don't mention the wánking shed in court though b. Counsel for the nonce will try and spin that up to make you look like the deviant.

Fear not, h. The bum-raping cùnt topped himself in New Ross in 1999.

Here’s an article my dear, departed uncle wrote about the whole thing in 2002, in fact. For the record, the nonce priest would definitely have gone for me over my cousin, who was an ugly spaz
https://bit.ly/2KLDs6X