Fire Safety Update

Azari

JReacher1 wrote: »

Yes well of course you'll defend him

I wasn't defending him. I don't think he should have said that if he was being serious. But as he apologised - which is pretty rare, here - it seems a bit underhand to use what he admitted was a mistake as a sig.

as you tend to be all about the personal abuse yourself!

I find that remark quite abusive.

I wish posters on this forum could argue without resorting to personal insults.

It's an interesting internet phenomena that I have been observing from Usenet days.

You get posters who are expert in winding people up, quite deliberately making posts that are designed to inflame, just waiting for whomever they are baiting to say something that just crosses the line into personal and then getting themselves (and anyone else too stupid to see what they were up to) into a lather of self righteous indignation in an attempt to win the argument by indirect ad hominem.

Of course, their tactic probably does not work as well as they think because the more intelligent posters can see right through them and even the less intelligent have probably already made their minds up and won't change them just because someone was a bit rude to someone else.

JReacher1

Azari wrote: »

I wasn't defending him. I don't think he should have said that if he was being serious. But as he apologised - which is pretty rare, here - it seems a bit underhand to use what he admitted was a mistake as a sig.

I believe the phrase that is relevant here is "actions speak louder than words"

The comment was not deleted by the poster (would take 5 seconds to edit it out of his post) so its still out there in the "public domain". Therefore it is clearly not underhand to use it as my sig.

Sheldon_Cooper

JReacher1 wrote: »

However read the thread this has already been debated extensively. The consenus is that I am a terrible person.

Not terrible. Just possessing a rather sad lack of a sense of social responsibility. Let's be realistic, you are nowhere near as bad (or stupid) as the person doing the dangerous parking.

wiogs

JReacher1 wrote: »

As do I

Well that's nice to know that you, I and the forum admin people would know the meaning of a word.

No confusion there then.

Jamie_Carter

JReacher1 wrote: »

Has that happened?

Thing is its a small shop so they've only got 2 exits due to over the top fire regulations that are applied to workplaces. I live in a flat on the top floor. I only have one exit from my flat and I never worry that a fire will break out in my flat blocking me from the only exit.

You've raised it with the shop. If they don't take any interest then you'll have to raise it with people in authority. It seems a bit over the top for something that hasn't got anything to do with you. It's just going to make you unwelcome in the shop!

Yes it has happened, many times.
http://cherwellfiresafety.co.uk/news.php
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-09-07/news/mn-1602_1_fire-exits
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardust_Disaster
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2002137531_wdig01.html
http://dahnbatchelorsopinions.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/deaths-caused-in-fires-is-by-outright.html
I could post many, many more.

You really need to have a look on youtube and watch some examples of how fast a fire can spread.

Hear is just one example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyP6RCfVCjI

As for the fire regulations. It's travel distance that decides if the shop needs a fire exit at the rear. If it has been decided that a designated fire exit is required, then the shop is big enough to require one.

Jamie_Carter

JReacher1 wrote: »

I sadly wouldn't care. The danger has been pointed out to them. If they choose to ignore it then it's there own fault.

So you wouldn't care if it was a relative of yours who died in the shop?

JReacher1

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

So you wouldn't care if it was a relative of yours who died in the shop?

You really want to read the thread. This has all been covered. You're going over old ground. We've all accepted I'm a terrible person!

Jamie_Carter

JReacher1 wrote: »

Funnily enough I'm actually the head fire Marshall for my company. I have to do the fire safety course every 2 years so know quite a bit about it. I don't ignore any fire regulations at work.

I am just not that bothered about anyone else's is. They've been told the danger and they choose to ignore it. It's not my job to enforce fire regulations onto other businesses.

Well I would say that with your attitude, you aren't suitable to be a fire warden.

As for you knowing quite a bit about it. Do you actually think that the small amount of training you receive once every two years, means that you know quite a bit?? :rotfl::rotfl:

JReacher1

Sheldon_Cooper wrote: »

Not terrible. Just possessing a rather sad lack of a sense of social responsibility. Let's be realistic, you are nowhere near as bad (or stupid) as the person doing the dangerous parking.

Thanks. I've amended the Sig

Jamie_Carter

JReacher1 wrote: »

She's already mentioned it to the shop. They'll probably suspect it's linked. Although it's only going to annoy the one employee who parks there.

Who cares if it annoys the person who parks there. They shouldn't be so stupid in the first place.