This is not a churlish rant; I mean no disrespect, or even
have any firm objection. It’s just that I don’t see the point. It seems to me
that there are three grounds for installing memorials:
1. If it honours someone who undertook a course of action
which improved the lives of others, especially if it left a legacy which will
benefit future generations. Nelson Mandela is an obvious example.
2. If it relates to victims who have loved ones still
living.
3. If it commemorates a major historical even such as the
signing of the Magna Carta.
But the Tay
Bridge disaster happened
134 years ago. It was an accident caused by a violent storm and a badly
designed bridge. None of the victims did anything consciously to further a
cause, there can’t be anybody living who remembers them, and it was simply a
bad rail accident, the like of which is not uncommon when viewed globally. It
might be claimed that the safety of rail bridges was improved as a result, but
you can say that about any accident from which lessons are learned. So I still
don’t understand why they’re doing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment