MP wants to ban fires!

[JameSemajj]

Yeah, thats it... These polititions spend all their life trying to make things 'perfect' for everyone when all it is doing is creating fear and making our live boring for us all! If people decide to be silly with fire, then that is their independent decision, we don't need these health and safety bullshit people ruining it for us all! It's extremely fustracting, and I just hate how everyone seems to just 'accept' it.

Edited September 28, 2009 by JameSemajj

[markeee]

Yeah, thats it... These polititions spend all their life trying to make things 'perfect' for everyone when all it is doing is creating fear and making our live boring for us all! If people decide to be silly with fire, then that is their independent decision, we don't need these health and safety bullshit people ruining it for us all! It's extremely fustracting, and I just hate how everyone seems to just 'accept' it.

[eFestivals]

If people decide to be silly with fire, then that is their independent decision, we don't need these health and safety bullshit people ruining it for us all!

What about those people who suffer (such as from their tent getting thrown on a fire) because others "decide to be silly with fire"? Don't they have an equal right to their wants, of their tent not being burnt?

It's not a suggestion to ban fires for just the sake of banning fires, it's a suggestion to ban fires because the fire-starters are deliberately making others suffer consequences that they don't want to suffer.

As can be seen countless times on these forums, the fire people cause anguish and fear to many more people than are involved with those fires. Perhaps some of those people are being over-sensitive, but they have equal rights to others all the same.

I'd much prefer that fires were allowed to continue, but we are where we are as the result of certain people's actions. If fires are banned, then it wouldn't be wrong to say that the crowd have brought it on themselves.

Whether or not fires do get banned might come as a result of what happens at the next festival, now that this issue is out in the open. So if fires are allowed next year and you want them to be continued to be allowed, then you know (I hope ) what to do.

[hearing_aid]

Yeah, thats it... These polititions spend all their life trying to make things 'perfect' for everyone when all it is doing is creating fear and making our live boring for us all! If people decide to be silly with fire, then that is their independent decision, we don't need these health and safety bullshit people ruining it for us all! It's extremely fustracting, and I just hate how everyone seems to just 'accept' it.

[micawber]

What about those people who suffer (such as from their tent getting thrown on a fire) because others "decide to be silly with fire"? Don't they have an equal right to their wants, of their tent not being burnt?

It's not a suggestion to ban fires for just the sake of banning fires, it's a suggestion to ban fires because the fire-starters are deliberately making others suffer consequences that they don't want to suffer.

As can be seen countless times on these forums, the fire people cause anguish and fear to many more people than are involved with those fires. Perhaps some of those people are being over-sensitive, but they have equal rights to others all the same.

I'd much prefer that fires were allowed to continue, but we are where we are as the result of certain people's actions. If fires are banned, then it wouldn't be wrong to say that the crowd have brought it on themselves.

Whether or not fires do get banned might come as a result of what happens at the next festival, now that this issue is out in the open. So if fires are allowed next year and you want them to be continued to be allowed, then you know (I hope ) what to do.

[biffoire]

If people decide to be silly with fire, then that is their independent decision, we don't need these health and safety bullshit people ruining it for us all!

Edited September 29, 2009 by biffoire

[JameSemajj]

I think that it has been asked before, but why doesn't the same logic apply to cars and drivers? Most drivers operate safely and within the speed limit, but a large number do not. That large number are dangerous and generate fear. Many do it deliberately.

The way that this is dealt with is through education, detection and law enforcement. And that is arguably of only moderate success at best. So, why wouldn't the logic of banning all cars be similar to the logic of banning all fires? What's the difference?

[hearing_aid]

I think that it has been asked before, but why doesn't the same logic apply to cars and drivers? Most drivers operate safely and within the speed limit, but a large number do not. That large number are dangerous and generate fear. Many do it deliberately.

The way that this is dealt with is through education, detection and law enforcement. And that is arguably of only moderate success at best. So, why wouldn't the logic of banning all cars be similar to the logic of banning all fires? What's the difference?

[kev1664]

Basically, the buck stops at festival republic. They are responsible for all issues within the sites, if there was someone to be harmed by the fires, or people being idiots with fires, then they (FR) would be liable.

Its going to be an eventuality that they will ban fires if this sort of behaviour continues, give them credit, they have banned gas canisters, which is a start, and it won't have fully taken effect in the first year of the ban, as people would either not know about the ban or may flirt with the rules to see the punishment they would get. Which through the experience of one of my friends, who bought a ticket late on and didnt know about the ban, got his canister confiscated of one of the security one morning whilst boiling a kettle, is not severe enough IMO.

If somone gets hurt as a result of a fire, even if the fire was not in the hands of idiots and was controlled properly there will be an instant ban on all fires, as FR would not want to have legal action against them twice for the same incident.

This has nothing to do with government, or democracy, its just a company trying to protect itself against the possiblity of it being shut down.

Put it this way if someone was to die at work due to a fire started by a cigarette in an inside bin, where its not permitted to be, which resulted in death or serious injury, your company would probably be shut donw by the HSE.

On a seperate note i'd just like to thank the very sensible comments of 'hearing aid'. But one more point on that is that cars and motoring in general provide a great amount of income to the country, without this you could possibly be living in a conutry as far detached as places in the third world. The NHS would probably collapse, just think about it that way. I'm not saying that government or democracy is perfect but it does a lot to help protect you as individuals.

[micawber]

Because cars are an essential and vital part of our society and the way we live, whether you think that is a good or bad thing; they are one of the most important inventions of the modern age, and although they have the negatives you mentioned (and other negatives) they also benefit us in a huge way, all over the world.

How is that comparable to a fire, in a camp site, for 5 days a year in one place that although can help keep you warm and add to the atmosphere offers nothing else at all.

Surely you can see the difference?

[eFestivals]

I think that it has been asked before, but why doesn't the same logic apply to cars and drivers? Most drivers operate safely and within the speed limit, but a large number do not. That large number are dangerous and generate fear. Many do it deliberately.

The way that this is dealt with is through education, detection and law enforcement. And that is arguably of only moderate success at best. So, why wouldn't the logic of banning all cars be similar to the logic of banning all fires? What's the difference?

The difference is that cars do have what is considered to be a useful purpose.

Fires just for the sake of setting fire to anything that will burn do not.

[hearing_aid]

I don't drive so I don't agree with the premise of your argument. Cars are not essential.

[micawber]

Errr.. so because YOU don't personally drive you don't think driving is important? Not sure if your joking there...

But like pretty much how anything gets anywhere probably is driven there at some point. Food, water, clothes, medical supplies, building materials, waste, music equipement etc etc. Probably 99%+ of things around you would have involved being driven around at some point.

[hearing_aid]

You seem to be getting very defensive. Let's stick to the discussion about cars (per my point) rather than general transport, or does the strength of your case depend on that?

I concede that cars are sometimes useful, but more of a convenience/luxury than anything else to most people.

Edited September 29, 2009 by hearing_aid

[Im_in_a_tent]

You seem to be getting very defensive. Let's stick to the discussion about cars (per my point) rather than general transport, or does the strength of your case depend on that?

I concede that cars are sometimes useful, but more of a convenience/luxury than anything else to most people.

[micawber]

but then again you could argue that about any object in the world

if you had your way we would be locked in a padded cell

[hearing_aid]

Exactly. That's my position. I would argue for better education, detection and enforcement - not another ban.

[micawber]

Well in the case of cars there is already a lot of that. You have to pay (quite a lot) to learn to drive, pass written and practical tests). You have to have insurance, regular M.O.T's. Then there are dedicated traffic police, speed cameras, a limit to minor fences you can commit etc in regards to driving. Obviously lots of accidents sill happen but there is still a lot of education, detection and enforcement.

I still not sure how cars can be compared to fires at reading after all this though apart from at a very basic level they can both be dangerous. But then so can be walking up stairs.

[Im_in_a_tent]

The underlying point that I was making is that the logic changes when something becomes too precious to someone, i.e. cars. I think that the amount of banning going on is just madness. And yes, it is the polictical classes gone mad. Ban conkers. Ban friends looking after your children (or regulate to hell). Ban happy hours. Ban smoking. etc. etc. We're sleep walking into a sterile state where the public cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. Thank goodness I'm at the latter end of my life!

[bouncingflea]

but then again you could argue that about any object in the world

if you had your way we would be locked in a padded cell

[JameSemajj]

I find this point of view disturbing and reflects the level of acceptance surrounding the troubles.

You speak about people having fires and the way they behave as a human right. If they want to behave like a twat and unsafely then they can. Are you serious!? People should be allowed to go to reading and behave dangerously, if they want!

This isn't health and safety gone mad or the nanny state. It's just good old fashion health and safety!! Common sense!!

[beLIEveR]

Here's something creative and left field... why don't they just ban fires on the Sunday?

[markeee]

Here's something creative and left field... why don't they just ban fires on the Sunday?

[hearing_aid]

This isn't health and safety gone mad? are you crazy? Why weren't fires banned 30 years ago? Please don't go on about people were different back then, that’s absolute rubbish.. Health and safety is taking over the world, and we won't be able to leave our houses eventually because we might fall over..

These people aren't children; they are independent people, why should they ruin it for the majority? If these people hurt themselves then that’s there choice! and the police should target the individual, not everyone! That’s the point I’m trying to make..! Just like cars, when people misbehave on the road, all cars aren't banned; the individual either gets banned or has points put onto his licence, depending on the offensive caused.

Fires banned at reading? ridiculous, and it's not going to do anything! Why do people just casually accept the restrictions which are taking place... it's just taking our freedom away from us, what boring lives we are going to live! I wish we'd stop acting like lemmings.

Edited September 30, 2009 by hearing_aid

[hearing_aid]

Here's something creative and left field... why don't they just ban fires on the Sunday?