National treasure engulfed

Fire engulfed a large part of the National Motorcycle Museum this afternoon
destroying many irreplaceable motorcycles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/3114410.stm

http://www.nationalmotorcyclemuseum.co.uk/museum/index.htm

The collections include:-
1935+ Ariel Square Four Collection
1938+ BSA Gold Star Collection
1947+ Sunbeam Twins Collection
1950+ Triumph Twins Collection
1953+ DMW Hornet Collection
1970's Triumph Racers Collection

 

I'm heartbroken. How the hell does a mainstream, public facility like that
get to go up in flames so profoundly - and in the middle of the day?

Roger

 

Lucas electrics?

;o)

 

The traffic did a good job stopping the fire service from getting there.
I've just driven past on the way back from brum - there are still fire
engines there. The fire chappies wouldn't let me look but the said three
of the five halls were totally burnt out. The public in there at the
time managed to get some of the machines out but over half of them have
gone.

I was going back next weekend as well for another look.

 

.....then Loz H sensibly suggested:

..... and Rog in a fit of paranoia decided to go and have a little look at
his garage - just in case.

Roger

 

It's a good question you would think they would have decent fire control measures
(fire shutters, sprinklers the works really).

 

There were no sprinklers, according to the Sky news report I've just
watched. :-(

 

ROFL.

Seriously, though: I don't suppose any of them had any petrol in the
tanks. (And to judge by the cleanliness of the floors, last time I
visited, no oil in the engines, either.)

 

I visited the National Motorcycle Museum several times. I can still
hardly believe it's happened.

I'm afraid it's a reflection on the way we *allow* our taxes to be
spent. Time was when councils were about roads, libraries and schools.
Now by far the biggest budget (at least here in Bristol) is 'social
services'. The problems is that, although much of what's done is good
and useful, delivery of it through a massive public bureaucracy is not
at all efficient. The money goes on administrative assistants, directors
of this that and the other, and 'marketing'.

Bureaucracy is also self-perpetuating. Nobody gets a bigger budget than
last year by keeping spending within this year's allowance. "If I had
three extra staff I could do so much more..." of course you could, and
there are so many needy causes out there too. Who could possibly say
'no'? The question we should be asking is, 'Which issues are really best
dealt with through public taxation and bureaucracy?'

It depends whom you count, but we have around 5.5 million bureaucrats in
this country (_not_ including soldiers, firemen nurses, police, etc.).
Blair is responsible for 500,000 people added to that number since 1997.

In the New World Order there's no room for respecting the past nor
recognising the achievements of our forbears - at least not through the
public purse. That money goes largely on sustaining the bureaucracy.

I wonder how many people worked at the museum, and how many of them were
full staff members, as opposed to part time or volunteers. Fire
protection regulations are about people's lives, not property, and it's
my guess the museum simply couldn't afford to upgrade the precautions to
a level sufficient to protect the bikes. In the present political
climate there would have been no chance of them getting proper funding
to do it. The money is spent elsewhere.

It's a political choice. If its one I don't like, I have nobody to blame
but myself for not engaging in the political process. It's my country,
and will be my children's. If I rely on others to run it and don't
question their motives or decision making capability, or take the
trouble to find out who it really is that I'm voting for, who else is
culpable.

My view? For a minuscule fraction of what's spent every week on dubious
social engineering projects and council 'middle management' (whatever
that is), we could have fully protected those irreplaceable examples of
brilliant real engineering. Looking at those machines mad you realise
how brilliant we've been in the past, how ingenious and how creative. I
can't come to terms with the idea that my children won't be able to see
those machines and be inspired for the future.

It's a cause for national shame.

Regards,

Simonm.

 

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 09:24:58 GMT, in uk.transport SpamTrapSeeSig

|In article <lLM9b.1400$>, Depresion
|>It's a good question you would think they would have decent fire
|>control measures
|>(fire shutters, sprinklers the works really).
|
|I visited the National Motorcycle Museum several times. I can still
|hardly believe it's happened.
|
|I'm afraid it's a reflection on the way we *allow* our taxes to be
|spent. Time was when councils were about roads, libraries and schools.
|Now by far the biggest budget (at least here in Bristol) is 'social
|services'. The problems is that, although much of what's done is good
|and useful, delivery of it through a massive public bureaucracy is not
|at all efficient. The money goes on administrative assistants, directors
|of this that and the other, and 'marketing'.
|
|Bureaucracy is also self-perpetuating. Nobody gets a bigger budget than
|last year by keeping spending within this year's allowance. "If I had
|three extra staff I could do so much more..." of course you could, and
|there are so many needy causes out there too. Who could possibly say
|'no'? The question we should be asking is, 'Which issues are really best
|dealt with through public taxation and bureaucracy?'
|
|It depends whom you count, but we have around 5.5 million bureaucrats in
|this country (_not_ including soldiers, firemen nurses, police, etc.).
|Blair is responsible for 500,000 people added to that number since 1997.
|
|In the New World Order there's no room for respecting the past nor
|recognising the achievements of our forbears - at least not through the
|public purse. That money goes largely on sustaining the bureaucracy.
|
|I wonder how many people worked at the museum, and how many of them were
|full staff members, as opposed to part time or volunteers. Fire
|protection regulations are about people's lives, not property, and it's
|my guess the museum simply couldn't afford to upgrade the precautions to
|a level sufficient to protect the bikes. In the present political
|climate there would have been no chance of them getting proper funding
|to do it. The money is spent elsewhere.
|
|It's a political choice. If its one I don't like, I have nobody to blame
|but myself for not engaging in the political process. It's my country,
|and will be my children's. If I rely on others to run it and don't
|question their motives or decision making capability, or take the
|trouble to find out who it really is that I'm voting for, who else is
|culpable.
|
|My view? For a minuscule fraction of what's spent every week on dubious
|social engineering projects and council 'middle management' (whatever
|that is), we could have fully protected those irreplaceable examples of
|brilliant real engineering. Looking at those machines mad you realise
|how brilliant we've been in the past, how ingenious and how creative. I
|can't come to terms with the idea that my children won't be able to see
|those machines and be inspired for the future.
|
|It's a cause for national shame.
|
|Regards,
|
|Simonm.


The museum was privately owned and run. The conference side grew up
just to keep the place going. I presume they will have had various
grants along the way, but the mere fact it was there in the first
place was all down to the efforts of one man, Roy Richardson. He is
determined not to be beaten and he has to be admired for that, if it
weren't for him, most of these machines would have been lost in any
case.

 

Which I discovered this morning, leading me to ask...

Can I have my money back for all those raffle tickets that I bought
thinking that this was meant to be a charitable collection for a museum
trust?

 

Re-reading what I wrote, I didn't mean to imply it was in public
ownership, merely that more support would have been a better use of
taxpayers' money than much that government does today.

Regards,

Simonm.

 

Just seen on the news that the fire was caused by a discarded
cigarette. I blame the pogrom on smokers for this. If companies etc
provided proper smoking areas then people wouldn't have to have a
covert fag in inapropriate places (in this case near a goods lift).
I wonder how many other fires have been caused by this failure to
recognise that smokers will always exist and, just like any other
*minority*, provision needs to be made for them.

Incidentally, it was good to see a couple of gorgeous drag bikes
being rescued by kitchen staff.

 

If there had been a smoking area/room for staff and visitors then
some dumbo wouldn't have chosen such a stupid place for his illicit
drag. The current thinking is "Smoking is evil, I don't smoke so I'm
going make sure that nobody else does"!

 

Understood. But what does "pogrom" mean - am I being thick?

 

Yes, Comrade Jeremy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pogrom

 

I could have (should have) looked at that site myself but I genuinely
thought it was a typo and I couldn't work out what it was *supposed* to
be.

cheers

 

What! Me let a typo slip! Go wash your typing finger immediately!!

 

Let me see if I understand this.

A building that houses and works on engines powered by petrol has a ban
on smoking ,because in general, smokers can't be trusted to dispose of
their burning waste properly. Somone then ignores this ban, discards
some burning waste and that causes a fire. You then blame the owners of
the building for having the ban that was ignored?

Hmm Nicotine must really screw up the mind!