Humor Fire Extinguishers banned?

[Andy44]

This is odd:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=115014&in_page_id=34

It seems the authoritah is worried that people might try to protect themselves and their stuff from fire. Strange.

 

[Talon1]

What the flip?!hmy: That, you definitely don't see everyday.:crazy:

 

[willy88]

Great idea! Let's also ban deadbolts and other home security measures! Let's leave that stuff to the professionals!

This sickens me. :dry:

 

[BHawthorne]

This is really illogical, but then again the context in which it was done was not disclosed in the article, leading me to believe that the article is only giving half-truths here because it makes for interesting reading.

What type of extinguisher was pulled? Was it the right kind for that location? Had they not been checked routinely for proper charge? Was the annual inspections of the exinguishers by "risk assessors" such an inconvienance that they got rid of them? Things to think about not answered anywhere in the article. I could very well see an underlying cause here being "risk assessors" having to do annual inspections of thousands of extinguishers in public areas every year and they just didn't want the headaches so they lobbied for legislation. Seems plausible to me...

 

[Eagle]

well, that means no chance of putting out the fire before it requires a firehose. Better keep a bucket of water and a wet towel then.

 

[Quick_Nick]

well, that means no chance of putting out the fire before it requires a firehose. Better keep a bucket of water and a wet towel then.

That probably means someone's going to stay behind with water and towels. Are they going to outlaw water next?

 

[Ghostrider]

That probably means someone's going to stay behind with water and towels. Are they going to outlaw water next?

Possibly. It may cause drowning. Think of TEH CHILDREN!

 

[Artlav]

Dorset Fire and Rescue defended the move, saying: 'Obviously, in some cases, an extinguisher could come in useful but, with new building regulations, every escape route should be completely fireproof.'

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents backed their removal because different extinguishers should be used on different types of fire.

Good, someone in the government started to realize how stupid they are.
Bad, they assumed everyone in the country are as stupid as they are.

 

[Eagle]

Good, someone in the government started to realize how stupid they are.
Bad, they assumed everyone in the country are as stupid as they are.

Its like they never heard of an ABC fire extinguisher, for dry, liquid AND electrical fires.

 

[Andy44]

Meanwhile, In Toronto, bottled water is banned in public buildings...hilarity ensues:

http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000578_Toronto_bottled_water_plastic.html

I think I need duct tape to wrap my head before it explodes.

 

[Talon1]

This sickens me. :dry:

Same here:dry:

Good, someone in the government started to realize how stupid they are.
Bad, they assumed everyone in the country are as stupid as they are.

LOL, your right, they are stupid for doing that

Its like they never heard of an ABC fire extinguisher, for dry, liquid AND electrical fires.

Hmm.. you make a valid point

Meanwhile, In Toronto, bottled water is banned in public buildings...hilarity ensues:

http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000578_Toronto_bottled_water_plastic.html

I think I need duct tape to wrap my head before it explodes.

Oh my flipping god!!!!!!!!!!! What's next, outlaw deadbolts, doors, and roofs?!!! Those flipping idiots!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jedidia]

Man, I'm glad we have a democracy in switzerland...

At least if we do something stupid you can count on it that the majority agreed with it... :lol:

 

[lalbanof]

Maybe I am not the brightest bulb...

And I cannot compare mi humble understanding of people to the all-knowing decision makers involved here...

But... was it not simpler to post a simple, visible note NEXT, or ON the extinguishers, reminding the user of said extinguishers that

It is NOT ADVISABLE to use a fire extinguisher on a raging, rapidly expanding fire (or a noxious fume producing fire) that would pose an immediate danger to YOUR SAFETY.

The measure in itself is an insult to the common sense of most people, who would already know that the charge in a fire extinguisher is not enough to put out or retard the kind of blaze that calls for the presence of firemen.

By the way, NOT tackling small fires properly or at all can cause BIG fires. Fire extinguishers are the proper instruments for handling small fires. The most probable result of this measure will be ordinary folk tackling electrical or cooking oil fires with water (ouch! at times we don't have time to search for the first cause of a fire!) or letting their apartments burn. It's just insane.

 

[Arrowstar]

People in government need to grow up and realize that the common person CAN take care of him/herself. All this moronic coddling by people in authority who THINK that we don't know what's best is really quite insulting. Warning labels are good, warning labels educate, but taking legitimately useful things away from people because they can be used improperly will kill someone. It is like saying we cannot use pencils because if sharpened enough a pencil could stab someone.

To modify a quote from Douglas Adams: I hope these folks are the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

 

[Eagle]

People in government need to grow up and realize that the common person CAN take care of him/herself. All this moronic coddling by people in authority who THINK that we don't know what's best is really quite insulting. Warning labels are good, warning labels educate, but taking legitimately useful things away from people because they can be used improperly will kill someone. It is like saying we cannot use pencils because if sharpened enough a pencil could stab someone.

To modify a quote from Douglas Adams: I hope these folks are the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Yup its the squeaky wheel problem. Dumb people get noticed. It may be one person every five years in the world who dies from using a fire extinguisher when three of the four walls in their room is on fire.

But much more often people use fire extinguishers to put out the curtains that got lit when a cat knocked over a candle in the other room. Most people are smart enough to know that the fire extinguisher can't put out a fire much bigger than a chair.

 

[Ghostrider]

People in government need to grow up and realize that the common person CAN take care of him/herself.

That seems to be forever out of their reach.

It is like saying we cannot use pencils because if sharpened enough a pencil could stab someone.

Sssssh. Don't give them any ideas.

To modify a quote from Douglas Adams: I hope these folks are the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Unfortunately the time of revolutions seems to have gone beyond recall.

 

[Missioncmdr]

It is like saying we cannot use pencils because if sharpened enough a pencil could stab someone.

Kind of reminds of a time in high school when one of my classmates accidentally proved that sheets of paper were a hazard. Fortuneately, that did not get banned!

Also, if people want a decision like this overturned, they should make their voices heard to those people instead of camplainging about it on the Internet. Too bad no one from the UK has bothered to check out this thread.

 

[Andy44]

Also, if people want a decision like this overturned, they should make their voices heard to those people instead of camplainging about it on the Internet.

Well, when I started this thread I wasn't really concerned overturning the decision itself, but merely to provoke thought on the idea of the nanny state. It then occurred to me there is an obvious connection between banning fire extinguishers and banning other "dangerous" items (like weapons). I'm pretty sure a few of you, such as Ghostrider, knew where I was coming from with this thought.

One of the things people say when they ask me why I keep and carry a handgun in my home is, "Are you expecting to get into a gunfight or something? Just trust the police to protect you".

I then ask them, "Are you expecting your house to catch on fire tonight?"

"No."

"But you have insurance, right? And you probably have a fire extinguisher too, just in case. Why don't you wait for the fire department to come save you?"

This is, for me, all about personal responsibility and independence.

For bureaucrats, it's all about removing the power to help yourself in an emergency in order to enhance their own job security, increase their budgets, and gather more power to themselves. The police department needs crime and victims to stay in business. The fire department needs fires to stay in business. Teachers' unions need public schools to be mandatory and home-schooling to be outlawed to stay in business. Citizens who can take care of themselves undermine this.

It's called "rent-seeking", and it's what's behind this fire extinguisher nonsense. And it happens in every nation.

 

[Star explorer]

lets just ban those fire saftey sprinklers while where at it somebody could get wet.

 

[Eagle]

lets just ban those fire saftey sprinklers while where at it somebody could get wet.

Wouldn't want to cause any property damage either.