Story in today's 'Sun'

[Jim Strawbridge]

As an ex-employee of Barclays I must recount a story which perhaps balances the comments made on this string about the money grabbing banks. In the 1980s I was a manager at Barclays Bank, Penzance. In the banking hall was a large (20ft x 15 ft) oil painting of a fishing scene by Stanhope Forbes. It was a beauty and had been bought quite a few years earlier at the whim of a director who saw it for sale by auction and wanted to see a local Newlyn School picture fitting the blank wall that he had. The painting was on the customer side of the counter and could have been vandalised quite easily. The bank found that it had a sharp lift in insurance premium when the painting was revalued at £28000 ( a lot in those days). Leaving the painting where it was was a risk not worth taking. But instead of selling it the bank presented it to the Newlyn Museum and Art Gallery as a gift where it resides to this day. Incidently, in those days the banks had surveyors and architects on the pay-roll so anything to do with buildings was theirs to deal with. It would have been inconceivable for a memorial to be lost if a building was sold on. The Premises Department would have arranged for it to be transferred to another building or placed into the archives. Either it has been missed in this instance or the banks now outsource anything to do with property.

[John_Hartley]

Giles

I take it, by your swift response that you havnt undertaken my objective suggestion. Never mind. When did objectivity get in the way of good discussion.

However, I note that you hadnt read my post fully (otherwise you would have seen that i have not disagreed with any the points you make). The Sun is enormously successfull not only in its sales but in what it sets out to do and the view it seeks to represent. It is a masterful piece of propaganda and I give it full credit for that (and always have done). However, by any reasonable viewpoint to call it a "real newspaper" is a nonsense. I really do recommend my measuring suggestion for one of the forthcoming cold winter nights (and, yes, I have done the exercise, many years ago as part of academic studies).

John

[dycer]

John,

Having glanced at the "Sun" in the Smoke Room and as this started as a serious subject I give the Paper full credit for raising the subject of "destroyed" Memorials and today's campaign for the welfare of animals.

I am intrigued,though.How you suggest I measure Page 3.Ruler,microscope or in the flesh (I know ,where is the dirty mac.)

George

[Moonraker]

I guess the way that this string has developed might qualify it for a competition to decide which topic discussion has veered the furthest from its originating post.

To get it back more or less on course, it's nice to note that a list of names to Great Western Railway staff who fell in the Great War is still on display at Newton Abbot Station; it's poignant to note that in several cases two or three names came from the same small country station. Newton Abbot station suffered severe damage in a WWII bombing raid, so it's remarkable that the list has been preserved all these years.

[ianw]

John,

I am currently comparing a copy of today's Sun and my copy of "The Times". They are (now) both the same size and are both IMHO undoubtedly "real newspapers" although each has a different style and perhaps ethos.

The method you suggest of establishing whether a newspaper is a real newspaper

or not will produce data but not data which will that would satisfactorily deliver the answer to that particular question. It could perhaps tell you how successful its advertising sales people are.

One could undertake a similar analysis of vowels , consonants, word spacings etc to try to establish if a poem is a masterpiece or doggerel. It would similarly fail.

The exercise suggested would also be extraordinarily dull and one which no individual in possession of anything vaguely akin to a life would contemplate doing

- rather like sudoku, "puzzler " magazines etc. Opium for the already brain-dead.

Apologies for fanning the flames of digression. Well done to The Sun (be it comic or newspaper) for raising the important question of disregard for our war memorials.

[Max Poilu]

Hi John,

PM sent to avoid more digression.

[but thank you ianw].

[HarryBettsMCDCM]

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'?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now that's got to be the Daily Sport!; or the Garuidan

[ChrisC]

John,

I am currently comparing a copy of today's Sun and my copy of "The Times". They are (now) both the same size and are both IMHO undoubtedly "real newspapers" although each has a  different style and perhaps ethos.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And both owned by the same person....The Dirty Digger

[Neil Mackenzie]

As John Hartley pointed out this is likely to be a 'national' memorial rather than a 'local' one as the men appear to have come from a wide variety of regions.

Therefore, is this likely to be a memorial relating to any Bank? They would have each lost hundred's of employees in each of the wars rather than the number on this memorial.

A site outlining how Lloyds TSB dealt with their war memorial can be found here.

Neil

[chrisharley9]

As John Hartley pointed out this is likely to be a 'national' memorial rather than a 'local' one as the men appear to have come from a wide variety of regions.

Therefore, is this likely to be a memorial relating to any Bank? They would have each lost hundred's of employees in each of the wars rather than the number on this memorial.

A site outlining how Lloyds TSB dealt with their war memorial can be found here.

Neil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice to see Lloyd's committment to the war memorials in it's care

All The Best

Chris

[John_Hartley]

Response sent by PM to Giles.

Ian - statistically, you are simply wrong. It will give a very accurate answer to the question. Oh, and please don't attempt to patronise or insult me. I am sufficiently arrogant for it to be a waste of your time.

I'm now outta this thread.

John

Edited 13 October , 2005 by John_Hartley

[Hedley Malloch]

There was a marketing joke to the effect that the Times is read by those people who own the country; the Telegraph by those people who run the country; the Mail by those people who used to run it; the Express by those who would like to run it, and the Guardian by those people who are best-qualified to run it.

The Sun found a gap in the market-place.

[Desmond7]

Daily Sport readers don't give f..k who runs the country as long as they've got great big

[Max Poilu]

Trying to decide if Desmond's post or this one:

...and the Guardian by those people who are best-qualified to run it.

...is the funniest...

but really...Hedley's wins by a mile!

[spike10764]

What about the Daily Mirror ??

.............I'll get me coat

[Max Poilu]

It's been downhill for the Mirror ever since it went all 'touchy feely'...

Undoubtably their high point was that superb front page with Stuart Pearce and Gazza in tin hats shouting "'Achtung Surrender! For you Fritz ze European Cup is over!"

Edited 13 October , 2005 by Giles Poilu

[ian turner]

Think about this - there were people who worked in the branch who would have seen the memorial every day, and would have been aware the branch was closing. There would have been the branch's senior management, and some lower level management responsible for the relocation of the branch, or its dispersal. There would have been some form of caretaker, and the management of the demolition company who reviewed the job before taking it on, and last but not least the demolition workmen.

Some, most, or maybe even all of them individually would surely have been concerned to hear of a war memorial being destroyed if they were to read about it in a newspaper (even maybe in the Sun!)

The bank's management would surely not want to attract bad press by being responsible for such an act of vandalism.

But nonetheless, it was destroyed without much apparent thought.

We need to ponder not only why it could happen, but how it can be stopped in the future, for this is jut one of many such similar circumstances.

Think back to the time when it was commissioned - the whole nation would have come to a halt on Armistice Day, and probably in this case the whole branch would have attended an unveiling ceremony, no doubt with a proud management in attendence.

Can we imagine the outrage today if, say, a memorial to Princess Diana, or the Dunblane victims would be damaged, vandalised or destroyed?

So how come this memorial passed by everyone's notice?

It is a sad reflection on our times....

Ian

[ypres1418]

In Seaford we had recently a school (later a nursing home) pulled down and now on it stands a housing estate. It had a memorial plaque to its fallen pupils and now stands at one of the gates to the estate. It was saved and kept til it could be put back up, so out there, there are some nice people who do remember.

Mandy

[ianw]

There was a marketing joke to the effect that the Times is read by those people who own the country; the Telegraph by those people who run the country; the Mail by those people who used to run it; the Express by those who would like to run it, and the Guardian by those people who are best-qualified to run it. 

The Sun found a gap in the market-place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Sun is of course read by plumbers and plasterers who WILL own the country in due course.

[Max]

Think about this - there were people who worked in the branch who would have seen the memorial every day, and would have been aware the branch was closing. There would have been the branch's senior management, and some lower level management responsible for the relocation of the branch, or its dispersal. There would have been some form of caretaker, and the management of the demolition company who reviewed the job before taking it on, and last but not least the demolition workmen.

The bank's management would surely not want to attract bad press by being responsible for such an act of vandalism.

But nonetheless, it was destroyed without much apparent thought.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hello Ian

I hate to be boring about this but we really must rein in our imaginations. There is absolutely no suggestion in the story, given the limited "facts", that the bank authorised its destruction or the workmen deliberately trashed the plaque. In fact the opposite could be construed by the fact that the workmen were reportedly "furtively" disposing of the pieces, maybe they had damaged the plaque in error/accidently and were getting rid of the evidence.

Why is it that we are quite prepared to think the worst of people?

Andy

[ianw]

Have to agree with Andy that builders once let loose to clear a site would demolish their own Grandma if she stood in the way. We have to allow for The Sun's journalistic licence here. However the general principal that we do not respect our memorials is well worth commenting on.

[Staffsyeoman]

and we had a version that went on to say 'and the Morning Star is read by people who'd like another country to run it..'

I'm still chuckling over the notion of the supersoaraway Sun having a 'defence correspondent' - there's hope for me yet - but above all give them great kudos for raising the profile of such an issue, which the War Memorials Trust has been labouring to do for years.

It is not just banks who are abandoning their history and heritage; the government as well. In that respect, two words 'Bentley Priory'.

There was a marketing joke to the effect that the Times is read by those people who own the country; the Telegraph by those people who run the country; the Mail by those people who used to run it; the Express by those who would like to run it, and the Guardian by those people who are best-qualified to run it. 

The Sun found a gap in the market-place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[ian turner]

Andy,

I did not suggest that a bank was resposnible for the memorial's eventual state! (Although it may have been). My point was that whatever the circumstances, the memorial was trashed and nobody until that time, including the workmen, appeared concerned enough to have overseen its safe future.

I have no idea of the circumstances surrounding this particular memorial, but it is a sad fact that too many times this sort of thing happens.

I doubt any of us on this site are in much disagreement on wanting memorials to be well looked after, but if no one makes the effort the result is as per the newspaper article in question.

Ian

[Nick Cooper]

I hate to be boring about this but we really must rein in our imaginations. There is absolutely no suggestion in the story, given the limited "facts", that the bank authorised its destruction or the workmen deliberately trashed the plaque. In fact the opposite could be construed by the fact that the workmen were reportedly "furtively" disposing of the pieces, maybe they had damaged the plaque in error/accidently and were getting rid of the evidence.

Why is it that we are quite prepared to think the worst of people?

Certainly a not an unreasonable point, Andy, but the actual picture of what remains of the plaque does seem to tell a different story. It's obvious that it's made up of three separate pieces of marble, and in fact the 1939-45 section at the bottom may have been added separately. All three segments, however, have been broken. One could believe one piece being cracked, say if it was accidentally dropped, but this looks like a more deliberate attempt to break up the entire thing. The absence of certain random pieces seems to back this up.

Of course, it's quite feasible that one particular employee may have done it off their own bat, not realising what they were doing, but that kind of side-steps the fact that something like this memorial should have been removed carefully in a process quite separate from the general building or demolition work. After all, if a building due to be gutted contained a valuable fireplace or a fresco that needed preserving, it wouldn't be a case of saying to the contractors: "Oh, by the way, while refurbishing the building, can you put that to one side and we'll collect it later?"