Fire Safety Update

wiogs

When it comes to parking people are remarkably stupid/selfish/ignorant/lazy.

You only have to go past any school at opening or closing time to see examples of all of the above.

JReacher1

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

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:

Its a one day course. It usually involves watching a few videos of tragic fire deaths and then messing around with fire extinguishers.

Its an accredited course run by the fire brigade (I get a certificate and fluescent jacket).

I wouldn't say I know a bit but I know enough to ensure that my company does not fall foul of the current fire regulations.

Azari

JReacher1 wrote: »

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!

People really want to give you a chance!

And I think a lot of us actually find it hard to believe that you are that stupid or heartless*.

I think we're hoping that, having had a chance to reflect, you will have changed your mind.

---

* Here we have a prime example of what I was referirng to a few posts above:

A poster continually posts to the effect that he doesn't care about the safety of others and that it's none of his (or anyone else's) business.

This, apparently, is perfectly acceptable.

However, the fact that I have used the terms 'stupid' and 'heartless' will allow any amount of whining about 'abuse'.

How many people really think that it is worse to suggest that someone who has stated that people possibly burning to death is 'none of his business' is stupid and heartless than to actually repeatedly post claiming such an irresponsible attitude?

JReacher1

Azari wrote: »

People really want to give you a chance!

And I think a lot of us actually find it hard to believe that you are that stupid or heartless*.

I think we're hoping that, having had a chance to reflect, you will have changed your mind.

---

* Here we have a prime example of what I was referirng to a few posts above:

A poster continually posts to the effect that he doesn't care about the safety of others and that it's none of his (or anyone else's) business.

This, apparently, is perfectly acceptable.

However, the fact that I have used the terms 'stupid' and 'heartless' will allow any amount of whining about 'abuse'.

How many people really think that it is worse to suggest that someone who has stated that people possibly burning to death is 'none of his business' is stupid and heartless than to actually repeatedly post claiming such an irresponsible attitude?

I've had trouble fitting you on the sig. I can only get 6 lines on it!

Jamie_Carter

JReacher1 wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous.

I realise this is a forum that is populated by people who love to get involved with any minor breach of law they spot. Therefore I accept I'm rowing against the tide.

Still it strikes me of something not worth getting bothered about.

That's because you have your head buried in the sand, and think that things never happen.

Jamie_Carter

JReacher1 wrote: »

Slightly different example. Parking in front of a fire exit is nothing like seeing someone abuse a child. Still it's good to see you're taking in interest!

My wife works for social services (although she's working her notice as she's sick of it). I would just tell her!

99.9% of the time, parking in front of a fire exit wouldn't cause a problem. But it's that 0.1% when things do go wrong that we have to worry about, and when someone dies.

JReacher1

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

99.9% of the time, parking in front of a fire exit wouldn't cause a problem. But it's that 0.1% when things do go wrong that we have to worry about, and when someone dies.

I would question this statistic. I would think that 0.1% is too high. I would say its probably more around 0.000001%. Although without some proper research into this matter its hard to prove either way.

Azari

JReacher1 wrote: »

I've had trouble fitting you on the sig. I can only get 6 lines on it!

Well, if you have trouble getting a third line on a sig that allows six, there is a chance that you may need to acquire an extra sandwich should you ever decide to indulge in a picnic.

Is this some strange game? Seeing how many people you can wind up enough to say something that you can then use to show the world that everyone is against you?

You do realise, I suppose, that good, high quality, psychiatric care is available on the NHS, these days?

Or, you could just go back on your medication.

JReacher1

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

That's because you have your head buried in the sand, and think that things never happen.

Yes but thats the sand in a fire bucket so I can withdraw my head and use the sand in the bucket to put the fire out

JReacher1

Azari wrote: »

Well, if you have trouble getting a third line on a sig that allows six, there is a chance that you may need to acquire an extra sandwich should you ever decide to indulge in a picnic.

Is this some strange game? Seeing how many people you can wind up enough to say something that you can then use to show the world that everyone is against you?

You do realise, I suppose, that good, high quality, psychiatric care is available on the NHS, these days?

Or, you could just go back on your medication.

Yes I was wondering about that myself. It said I could only have 6 lines but then displays on 3. I think its because the sig box you enter it in is smaller so one line at the bottom is in fact 2 lines in sig world!

I have no interest in saying the world is against me. I just think some of the comments about me are quite funny. Even the OP likes the original one from our friendly apologist