AIBU to think the wildfire alert about barbecues was unnecessary?

[HollyhockDayssss]

AIBU to think the alert was unnecessary? I get wildfires are an issue but informing the public not to use bbqs isnt a life and death situation.

Indeed. When I was at university, and the fire alarm went off at night four times (all false alarms) in one term, people didn’t bother hurrying by the third time, especially as they were ripping us off with battels charges all the time. “Vandalism happens, and you will be charged for it,” they said, presenting an axe to a vandal on a golden platter.

I hope you feel better for being so rude.

You really are ignorant aren’t you? Shall I spell it out for you?

People lighting fires irresponsibly could cause any part of the UK to set alight and potentially burn more people’s homes. The government don’t want that to happen. So they decided to tell people to stop being dicks with fire. It was urgent. It wasn’t dramatic and it was also never the intention the national alert system would only ever be used for actual threat to life. If people need to evacuate their homes the police/fire service knock on the doors and get them out - they don’t rely on a text message! 🙈😫

"Emergency Alerts is a UK government system that provides warning and advice in a life threatening emergency."

Actual GOV.com copy and paste.

I understand that we can all interpret things differently, but this doesn't suggest "stop using disposable bonfires and don't use fireworks because the fire brigade are a bit busy" is consistent with the purpose of the alert.

if the fire brigades are “a bit busy” hundreds of thousands more hectares of land could go up in flames, more houses burnt to the ground, more people killed or injured. Once a fire takes hold it’s too late to send out an alert. “A bit busy” means there’s no one to attend a fire in your house or your family member’s house. A lot of stupid people won’t take any notice of a TV advert or a warning on the radio.

I would rather see more hectares burn than a chunk of people turn of their alerts because they didn't appreciate intrusion and miss out on alerts when there is a genuine risk to life. They cried wolf. And they'll pay for it with less cooperation in the future. Just like they will with the post June 2020 lockdowns.

The alert did not include BBQs. You should probably have read it.

This is the message. Pretty clear reference to bbq's here, unless I'm seeing things?

There is a very high risk of wildfires nationally.
“Residents, landowners and visitors should not undertake any activity that could start a fire, including disposable barbecues, firepits, garden incinerators or fireworks.
“Even a small flame can rapidly develop into a major wildfire placing lives, homes, businesses and emergency responders at risk.
“Follow official updates and report signs of fire immediately by calling 999.”

That first sentence of yours is just mindbogglingly stupid.

A wildfire once it gets hold is not just about a few hectares getting a bit toasty. The fire service requested the alert be sent out because there is a very real risk to life.

Once again, there has been 1 alert sent out this year. Just 1. If we were into double figures maybe you'd have a point about the system being overused.

But the fact is.... it's 1 alert about something that is a very real danger to life. Settle down with the conspiracy theory nonsense.

There should be no alerts, none at all unless there is immediate danger to life. Tsunami, war, hurricane. Even then it should be kept as local and specific as possible. The aim is that it should never be used. It is not conspiracy theory to feel that emergency buzzing should not be used in this way.

Turn of their alerts because they “didn’t appreciate intrusion?” How incredibly entitled. Maybe firefighters wouldn’t appreciate risking their lives for people with that attitude.

But alerts like this shouldn't be used to placate firefighters. Just because they asked for it, doesn't make them right. Remember, the NHS spokespeople and doctors would have had us locked down for longer.

Personally, I'm sick of the catastrophising of everything these days. If it weren't for rolling news and helicopter coverage, you wouldn't have even known there was a problem.

If there was a wildfire about to burn down my village, I would have appreciated an alert, but being told to not light a fire and "there is a risk.." type messages? Nah, stay out of my life unless there is imminent danger.

When the country is suffering unprecedented heatwaves, drought across England, harvests failing, livestock being fed winter rations early, food security at risk, it’s actually of grave national concern, not just a matter of whether your village has an immediate problem. We’ve already been warned about higher food prices.

"Personally, I'm sick of the catastrophising of everything these days"

Says the person who keeps reviving an almost week old thread so they can indulge in their own catastrophising.

Was that alert going to help with food prices? Did anyone see the alert and go and rescue a sheep? I don't deny the fires have caused a lot of problems, but I just can't see how it meets a blanket nationwide threshold of immediate danger to life.

Misusing the system to treat us all like idiots, addressing comms to the lowest common dominator will only be detrimental to future responses.

Says the person who is sad enough to revisit a therad they think unworthy of comment, to, ..checks notes... comment.

It seems only nuclear war is important enough for the people complaining - and in that instance a warning is pretty pointless anyway with a warhead barrelling towards you in 20 minutes that can't be stopped. And yes, the alert could help indirectly with food prices, if less farmland was incinerated by thoughtless idiots starting fires and less water used to put them out.

That does not make sense.

No, but your example is the sort of worst case scenario threat that people will have immediately thought of, especially in a period of raised international tensions. That is why I think they need a bloody good reason to use it.

If the fires were in your locality, yes, an alert explaining that you should evacuate, shut windows, follow directions from army/fire fighters would be appropriate. Or if a once in a century storm, or flood, terrorist attack, escaped mass murder Sirius Black on the loose etc.

No? You think I'm silly for commenting on a week old thread, while doing so yourself. Have a debate or go away.

The point being that a high wildfire risk does present immediate danger to life. Wildfires can spread incredibly quickly. If a wildfire starts it can move as quickly as, say, a hurricane and cause as much damage.

They aren't pretty little bonfires. The fire in the cairngorms developed to cover 25 km and burnt for a month. The smoke covered the entirety of the east coast of Scotland at times.

If a fire of that size goes anywhere near a densely populated area please do explain how that isn't a significant danger to life.

What you are arguing is that, if we find a bomb on a beach we shouldn't bother to warn people about it because, y'know, it might not go off.

No, that is not what I am saying. They have the ability to use the alert system locally, to where the danger to life situation is. You warn the people near the bomb, but no need to spook people 400 miles away.

I'm not saying it shouldn't have been used at all, it just should not have been blanketed nationally, especially with such a stupid patronising message.

The risk at the time was nationwide. Not localised. And you can call the message patronising if you want, but the fact is there are still plenty of fucking idiots going around setting fires.

HTH.

On that day, I drove from Somerset to Durham. In Gloucestershire I definitely saw a faint cloud of smoke, likely from South Wales. That was all I saw. Not a dickie bird the rest of the way. All 8 hours, thanks to our wonderful road network. There is no way the immediate threat was national.

There are also lots of muppets out drinking furniture polish too, but we don't bother everyone else about that.