They must be rolling in their graves now.
In a news report today from that nation formerly known as Great Britain comes a report that fire extinguishers are being removed from communal areas in flats (apartments buildings in American English) because they are considered a safety hazard. The hazard comes not from juvenile delinquents spraying the extinguishers in the faces of little children and old ladies. No, the hazard is that they will encourage people to use initiative and fight a fire.
The life-saving devices encourage untrained people to fight a fire rather than leave the building, risk assessors in Bournemouth decided.While private citizens have challenged this and residents are fearful of fire as a result of their removal, some are actually defending this move.
There are fears that their recommendation, which has seen the extinguishers ripped out of several private, high-rise flats in the town, could set a national precedent.
Under the Fire Safety Order of 2005, fire assessments must be carried out to 'eliminate or reduce risk as is reasonably practical'.
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.'I guess I shouldn't be so surprised at the creeping nanny-statism of the UK. After all, if you defend yourself against armed intruders with even a piece of wood, you'll probably do more time than the intruder.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents backed their removal because different extinguishers should be used on different types of fire.
I don't understand the self defense argument in the linked article.
ReplyDelete"The intruders tied the family up but Munir Hussain was able to escape and alerted his brother Tokeer. Together they chased the intruders down the street and were able to bring one of them, Walid Salem, to the ground.
It was then that they beat him with such force that the cricket bat they used broke into three pieces. The attack left the intruder Salem with permanent brain damage.
And...
"Speaking about the case Lord Judge said this case was a "true exceptionality". He also said, "This trial had nothing to do with the right of the householder to defend themselves or their families or their homes. The burglary was over and the burglars had gone. No one was in any further danger from them."
Would not the same standard be applied here in th Statesto any of us? If the intruders left the premises and the threat of grave bodily harm and/or death was over, why were they chased and beaten?
Nick is right.... chasing a burglar/murderer/rapist/assailant etc... down and beating/killing him, after the fact, is revenge, not self defense. I'll shoot a person flat out if they break into my home and I think harm me or steal from me. I'll shoot them just for breaking in. But after they leave, running after them, is assault/maiming/murder.
ReplyDeleteThe UK has terrible self defense/home defense laws, but that was the worst example that could have been used.
As for the fire extinguishers... it's pretty stupid. There's ABC extinguishers for this reason. And grease fires, may start as a grease fire in the kitchen, but by the time it's in the exterior hallway.... it's wood burning- extinguishers work well. Just one more law that the UK is making, trying to protect the people from themselves, because they don't think the people CAN protect themselves.... the US only yards behind. Anti-heroism- don't die because you were trying to save people, die with your family because you didn't have an extinguisher to aid their escape!
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it" -Mark Twain