nigelswift wrote: "What was your definition of 'Us'."
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!").
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.
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/n[...]-make-a-difference-997955.html
Reply | with quote | Posted by tjj 9th July 2017ce 09:13 |
UNESCO say a polite no to tunnel (tjj, Jun 19, 2017, 09:44)- Re: UNESCO say a polite no to tunnel (Howburn Digger, Jun 27, 2017, 19:48)
- Re: UNESCO say a polite no to tunnel (nigelswift, Jul 07, 2017, 07:52)
- Re: UNESCO say a polite no to tunnel (thesweetcheat, Jul 09, 2017, 16:26)
- Tom Holland: how very rude! (nigelswift, Jul 19, 2017, 08:31)
|
|