nigelswift wrote:
"What was your definition of 'Us'."
In the current debate about Stonehenge and the impingement of modern traffic I was suggesting UNESCO was supporting the 'us' I personally identify with. I realise the big 'Us' is the government of the day and of course agree with you that the peace-keeping constraints which can be imposed by the United Nations is necessary and essential. With the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) being a self-explanatory branch of that. I do hope our government is listening.
That's a tricky philosophical question!
Personally I don't think "us" are to always be in charge merely because we're us. That's all bus talk. I like the idea of a supra-national body that can overrule the (sometimes) awful UK decisions such as going to war unjustly and damaging a world heritage landscape (the clue's in the word "world!").
I came across this interesting nine year old piece about UNESCO - it shows Stonehenge (still with the A344 running by) and the ever growing problem of
traffic acknowledged. Am sure its appeared on this forum in the past but worth another airing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/the-big-question-what-is-a-world-heritage-site-and-does-the-accolade-make-a-difference-997955.html
