Story in today's 'Sun'

[Nick Cooper]

Only bought it today for the free DVD (honest!), but there was a story about the trend for property developers in particular trashing workplace war memorials during conversion projects. Gave the example of a thankfully conscientious passer-by catching workmen tossing the fragments of a large combined WW1/2 marble plaque from an ex-bank into a skip in West London, along with depressing picture of the bits that he managed to save. The story's not on the paper's website, but I'll see if I can scan/upload it tonight.

[HarryBettsMCDCM]

Dont apologise for reading a real paper!

I too saw it sadly a sign of the times,it was apparently ripped out of a redundant Bank branch,so shame on them for not being Caring Sharing enough to ensure it was removed & replaced @ another branch or kept safe,until a site could be found for it,Discraceful ,as was the Newmarket Bus Shelter Memorial also pictured.

[Guest wrighty]

ooops sorry double posted.

[Guest wrighty]

We take great pride in our Memorial at the Ordnance Survey, initially it was on a wall not easily viewed but a few years ago it was moved into a nice garden at the front of our head office.

To think they died just doing the job I so easily take for granted.

We are close to selling up and moving out of our present building, but you can be assured it will still retain pride of place in any new development.

[toofatfortakeoff]

Name amnd shame the company and the builders dont give them any trade-

[Derek Robertson]

Nick,

I'm sure that if the bank in question was to be named then they would never again dare to treat a War Memorial with such abandon.

[FredJCarss]

Banks are only interested in what they can make these days.

No sense of history, no sense of honour and no interest in who created the beginnings of their very livelyhood. Thats todays caring society.

Name and shame the lot of them

Fred

[Max]

Just a small technical point but it would seem that the bank didn't own the building at the time that the plaque was destroyed. A small fact but pertinent to the story.

Andy

[FredJCarss]

Surely if you vacate the premises you should write in a clause to safe guard it or better still remove it to a new location?

Fred

[Max]

The point that I am trying to make is that I am sure that the bank did not aid the destruction of the plaque knowingly.

[Max Poilu]

I think a similar discussion took place before - in some cases it is difficult to ascertain who actually owns or has responsibility for the memorial. This holds true for a small war plaque or a larger more substantial structure.

[chrisharley9]

Nick,

I'm sure that if the bank in question was to be named then they would never again dare to treat a War Memorial with such abandon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The article did not even give a clue as to the identity of the bank, but I agree with the sentiment of name & shame.

See Here for what can be achived by a sympathetic developer.

I only read the Sun for the Wallace & Gromit Goody Bag - my excuse & I'm sticking to it

All The Best

Chris

[chrisharley9]

Just a small technical point but it would seem that the bank didn't own the building at the time that the plaque was destroyed. A small fact but pertinent to the story.

Andy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe so Andy, but I reckon they had a moral duty to ensure it's safety prior to their departure.

All The Best

Chris

[John_Hartley]

but I reckon they had a moral duty to ensure it's safety prior to their departure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bank? Moral duty?

Almost the best one I've heard in ages.

But not as good as the above description of the Sun as a "real paper".

Nice sense of humour from both posters. My compliments

John

[Nick Cooper]

This took up most of the page*:

Although this is the actual article:

* A higher resolution scan, for those who might want to check the visible names, is on my web-space here.

[HarryBettsMCDCM]

Just a small technical point but it would seem that the bank didn't own the building at the time that the plaque was destroyed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ever the Devils advocate!

But presumably when the Lease/Ownership was relinquished on the site{which had had a War Memorial of @ least 80 Years vintage on its site}Someone with the authority/nounce,to save it or recommend its removal to a safe site could have made arrangements for it,before the lights were turned off & the doors locked for the last time!As a memorial to Former Bank Staff one would assume it belonged to the bank as part of the Fittings?;rather than being an integral part of the Building.

[Max Poilu]

But not as good as the above description of the Sun as a "real paper".

Nice sense of humour from both posters. My compliments

Hate to disappoint you John but it is very much a real paper and whatever your viewpoint on it's style an incredibly popular and powerful one too. It clearly has some very clever headline writers but also the most respected political editor in the business. I do not buy The Sun or any other daily paper but am always amazed how many people have read it but never admit to doing so!

[Jim Clay]

....As a memorial to Former Bank Staff one would assume it belonged to the bank as part of the Fittings?;rather than being an integral part of the Building....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

HB, you have to be right on this. However, history and local sensibilities I would imagine are so far from the corporate mind of the multi-national conglomerates who run banks today that we mustn't be surprised they didn't give a toss.

Jim

[chrisharley9]

Notwithstanding the sadness of the distruction & neglect of the featured war memorials what wonderful publicity for the War Memorials Trust

All The Best

Chris

[John_Hartley]

I suspect this might have been at a bank headquarters or similar. There are three distinctive names visible - E G Forde (from Bristol), P L Reynolds and T F C Webb (Essex) - so perhaps no real regional connection.

[John_Hartley]

Hate to disappoint you John but it is very much a real paper and whatever your viewpoint on it's style an incredibly popular and powerful one too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Giles

I am NEVER disappointed by the Sun. However, I should point out that your view of it is may be as subjective or objective as mine - I have no way of knowing.

Mine is not based on it's style or popularity, but on content analysis. Because content is what determines whether a newspaper is "real" (presumably you would not argue with that).

Here's a good suggestion (it's as objective as you can in an easy measurable way). On a given day, buy the Sun, a mid-ranged tabloid like the Mail and the "broadsheet" of your choice. Also make sure you have a ruler. Now for each paper, measure the column inches devoted to - advertising, editorials, sport, "human interest" stories, domestic "current affairs" news, foreign news. Also measure the space taken up by photographs and headlines. Convert to percentages of total newspaper space. Compare.

Please let me know in due course if you've changed your opinion.

John

(PS: Nothing wrong with the Sun's style. It's extremely well laid-out and cleverly designed for its target audience. Many of its stories are written in very simple "plain English", which should be required reading for anyone designing, say, public information leaflets)

Edited 13 October , 2005 by John_Hartley

[Max]

Ever the Devils advocate!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks H, I take that as a compliment. I do like a balanced discussion, there is far too much denunciation on this forum before people are in FULL possesion of the pertinent facts.

For instance, why were "workmen", quote "furtively" dumping the pieces of the memorial? Why not brazenly dumping it? Were they only dumping pieces of the memorial and no other rubble? if so, why? I think that there is probably more to this story than initially meets the eye, especially as no one has been able to identify the supposed location of said plaque. According to the Sun it is only "believed" to be from an old building that was once a bank.

Andy

[Desmond7]

IMHO The Bun is the Valhalla of journalese. To be a sub-editor on the Sun is the equivalent of total skill. Master Po territory. Make no mishstake.

The trick is making a truly boring commons debate understandable in three pars .. I take my hat off and bow low at the Idol.

Now ... how you get political influence across in those three pars is even more incredible. But they do it. Whether you remotely agree with that stance is another question.

Who said Citizen Kane was boring?

[Mark Hone]

In the dim and distant past, when I trained to teach English as a Foreign Language, a question that the teachers ask you is 'which English newspaper would you give to a relatively new learner of English'? A lot of people immediately answer 'The Sun', as they assume that it's easy to read. Of course that's the wrong answer: The Sun is written in its own mysterious argot, replete with puns, abbreviations, obscure cultural references and in-jokes.

[Max Poilu]

Please let me know in due course if you've changed your opinion.

No! I take your point and of course The Sun is often light on analysis and depth but as a potent, powerful weapon it carries more clout than any other daily. Of course it's style is unique but it represents the viewpoint of a great many people and does indeed convey the news to them in a style that like it or not, works. I am happy to admit I almost always agree with it's stance, it is the only paper that actually dares to still be patriotic for one. If I do ever buy a paper it is always the Telegraph - it's political viewpoint is obviously mine but I also think it is head and shoulders above any other paper in terms of layout, coverage and writing. However, on a morning like 10/11 there are three papers I would always buy to get an overall picture, the Telegraph, The Sun and (surprise, surprise) The Guardian.

I think whether people agree or dissagree with The Sun's stance to see it so often labeled as a piece of cr@p is very wrong - it is a very clever paper indeed. Now if you want a cr@p paper look at The Expre$$ for instance...