kleinboet

B****r, there is always something I forget to check!!!! CONGRATULATIONS!!! HAPPY BIRTHDAY ELTON!!

Monk

Alan, it WAS mooted that they wanted to build a new monument, however at that time they were "feeling the water" as to support. The letter was sent out to various countries to see if the support was still forthcoming as the monument was going to cost £110 million!!! It would appear that GB, after seeing what happened (although he doesn't want it taught in GB schools!), immediately pledged cash - DURING THE RECESSION!!! As far as I am aware, no-one else has "pledged" because of the worlds financial plight!!! PLEASE NOTE!! I am not against a pledge - at the right time (when we can pay for it!!)

I hope that elephant doesn't fart!!

I do not know where you got that it was pledged a long time ago - it was pledged during his (uneccesay) trip. I used the word NAZI and not german because a lot who died in the camps were GERMAN!!! I have posted the whole article for you to see that you are mistaken with the timing: Gordon Brown pledges funds for Holocaust memorial during tour of Auschwitz. Leading his country into the deepest recession for a thousand years is taking its toll on Mr Brown and finding cheery things in his everyday life must be increasingly hard to do. So it was then that his aides, tired of him moping around all day, decided to send him for a little depression therapy. When youre as low as you think you can get the best thing is to go somewhere that reminds you just how good your life is compared to what it might have been, or was/is for others. It seems that Brown's depression is well progressed because the recommended therapy was to send him to Auschwitz! It doesn't do any harm for the citizens to also be reminded (via the reporting of Brown's trip) of how hard things can be on this earth so they stop whining about a little recession and tax increases. Not that Brown would be spinning on this occasion of course, God forbid. I suppose I just find it all a bit convenient that he should choose this time to make a visit that, frankly speaking, every politician on earth should be forced to make shortly after taking office so they can see the potential consequences of their actions. I’m also finding it very hard to believe that he feels it necessary to commit to any more taxpayer expense such as contributions to Tusk’s proposed Holocaust Memorial. Donald Tusk, the Polish Prime Minister, recently wrote to European Union leaders asking for contributions to a £100million fund to establish a monument in honour of the dead. Mr Brown said he hoped that the memorial would serve as a “permanent monument of the evils that men can do and the determination never to let it happen again. The Prime Minister did not specify how much Britain’s share would be, but confirmed it would contribute and added: “We are determined that events such as we have witnessed in the last century should never happen again”. Did I read that correctly? 100 million quid for a memorial? Are they serious? Aside from the considerable problem one might have with the cost of the memorial, shouldn't one really be asking why it is thought that the rather massive remains of Auschwitz and Birkenau themselves are not memorial enough? Not to mention the probably thousands of existing memorials to the holocaust that exist all over the world. You might also be excused for wondering out loud when, if ever, we're all going to get over this? Yes it was terrible, yes we must never forget, yes we learn from these mistakes,(not that that has helped those who have suffered and continue to suffer horrible fates in conflicts since WWII), yes there should be a memorial or two but for goodness sake, where does it all end? More than 200,000 people died in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - also terrible, also not to forget, learn lessons, erect memorials but do these get even a proportional 15% of the attention that is given to "the holocaust" (outside of Japan)? No. I wonder why? I don't wish to seem unsympathetic to the plight of all those who suffered during the war, whether in Auschwitz or elsewhere, but I find the timing of his visit, the thought of erecting another memorial and the suggestion that this should cost 100 million quid quite appalling.

Dyke (the wall kind!) re brenda: I know!!

I think that a memorial from the world showing the attrocities done by the NAZIS (not Germans), and it should be a compulsory school outing to see it! (they send their pupils everywhere else!!) BUT not when we are in the middle of a recession!!! I have been looking to see if any other country has pledged money as well (haven't seen anything yet!) I can't see it built until the recession is long over!!

Booze

Air bags are a new feature in cars and many lives that would otherwise be lost have been saved - they also cause injuries! However in like for like accidents, safety belts have reduced fatalities, and now with air bags even more. As far as crushed vehicles, yes, I have seen quite a few and found that fatalities are rare! With modern technology, a vehicle that looks like no-one could ever have got out alive have saved lives, thanks to the use of cutting equipment which, quite literally, cut the car from around the casualty, allowing the emergency services to remove them and use yet something else new, an ambulance helicopter ride to hospital!

Snakey - Of course you didn't say that - you said exactly the oppsite: and on pedestrians as well as they often encroach onto the roads where only motorists have a god given right to be, Well I tell you what, whether the money is ringfenced or not (more money to give away?) motorists pay ROAD tax (today known as vehicle excise) tax, tax on fuel, they are required by law to have insurance, they have to have a yearly M.O.T. I think if you added the total amounts of money paid by the motoring public you would find it to be a large portion of government income comes from the motorist. And some cyclists think they have the god given right to use the roads as the MAIN user! Sure motorists are better protected on the road (again, cyclists threatened to stop using their cycles if helmets are introduced - which could have been a start of cyclist safety!) but cyclist are more than welcome to SHARE the roads with motorists. What needs to happen is that sensible cyclists (and I put you in that category) need to report the numpties riding while texting or other idiotic activity, and get rid of that element, because if they do, motorists will begin to treat the cyclist with the respect they deserve. There also needs to be some sort of easily identifyable marking on all bikes, just as they are on ALL other road vehicles! (any disability buggy on the road without MOT and numberplates and MOT are ILLEGAL!!)

Butterfly

Leon, what a wonderful way with words: Such a little unpredictable thing that changed their whole future and the future of those around them, one way or another. Not necessarily the next million miles, maybe the next mile, or one soon after. I know that I would rather wear a belt "just in case" By the way, I have done well in excess of a million miles and never needed a seatbelt - but I still belt up EVERY time I drive!!

Please note, my last posting should read 1200 and not 12000 Barry it is there for you just in case! You are not going to deliberately damage yourself or your vehicle, but just take a look at those who have and are alive today because of the belts. Go to a scrapyard and see the vehicles and wonder how they got out alive. They are called accidents because you never know when they are going to happen, the car running out of brakes, the tyre blowing out, someone overtaking on a solid white line. they can, and do, happen!!

I always thought that the parents of a child had the reponsibilty for the childs upbringing, I would never have left my pool gate unlocked when my children were small, never let them "hang out" on street corners, always tried to teach them right from wrong etc. etc. It would appear that all my hard work and heartache was wrong - It was the the responsibility of all the businesses in town, and anybody else the parents can sue to bring them up! Why did I waste my time?

Having been a rep in Southern Africa doing some 12000 miles per month (traveling throughout RSA, Botswana, Mozambique etc.) I too have never needed my belt. However - Having seen how a safety belt has saved lives on many, many, occasions, as I sit in my car , I automatically "belt up"!! Sure they do cause injury - but I would far rather end up with a couple of broken ribs than have the hospital vainly fight for my life!

Queen

My point about seat belts is that when first mooted rhere as an outcry about motorists not wanting them (much like cyclists and helmets). We now have them - whether we complained or not, and I don't hear any complaints today, in fact there are a lot of people still here today because of that legislation!

Snakey, Your little rant on the preceding page it typical of a cyclist! So you believe that the roads are for cyclists and motorists are interlopers - because a bike is "green" to use, all costs of maintaining them must come from another source NOT CYCLISTS!! Cyclists should NOT be able to be identified in the course of a collision, nor should they pay damages if they are found to be at fault! You believe that a pedestrian can stand in middle of a traffic lane and show the finger to the motorist "because he has right of way" - he doesn't!! That's why they built pavements!! You don't feel that it would be fair that the government intoduce legislation to make it compulsory to wear crash helmets? Look back when safety belts were made compulsory! Why shouldn't people be able to identify a cyclist?

Rabbit, Are you sure that pedestrians have right of way? I have always been under the impression that a pedestrian walking onto (or across) the road without due care and attention, they can be charged with jaywalking!

Adored

I posted this because Brown is slapping everyone of us across the face. Since he got into power, he has done nothing but try and BUY popularity - he gave money to China and India without srecifying what it SHOULD be used for. I am sure if you Googled how much he has given away you would be horrified. He emptied the UK coffers and bankrupted the pension schemes, and now, in the middle of the recession he has even given money WE DON'T HAVE, hoping exactly for the result you all (barring Chesters) have shown! Yes it is for a wonderful cause, but I really don't think it will be built during the recession - could he not have waited until funds were available, or was he worried that HE would not be able to do it when we come out of recession!.

Even though I would appear to be the black sheep!: HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!

Allan stubbs - WHAT PART OF MY POSTINGS DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? If I had the £100m I would pay for it myself - I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE MONUMENT!!!!!! What I have a problem with is Gordon Brown giving OUR money to all and sundry during his tenure as PM. To make it worse, we are in the middle of a recesson and he gives MORE AWAY!!! Why should HE worry, it is not his money, it is the country's money!! I await to see if any other country gives to this monument, or will it be suspended until the recession is over!!

Hi snakey, I agree with with one reservation: In Cheltenham they have steamrollered a bylaw splitting the pavements in half and creating "cycle lanes" - this is being looked at by the legal profession as they are halving quite narrow pavements, putting a blind person with a guide dog, at risk! What needs to happen is that every cycle MUST be registered with an easy to see identification plate - cyclists also need some sort of accident insurance which will stop hit and run accidents involving cyclists/pedestrians!