Bonfire night

[davidatpreston]

No it's a reasonable debate so no need to bring words like slanging match into it as you had been quite reasonable recently.

 

The analogy stands up as far more violence occurs at organised football matches than private bonfires, all you need to do is analyse both aspects nationwide.

 

 

My post should have read 'if it is an attempt' so due to that you may not have followed that it was not a start of a slanging match, though I don't need telling whether in your opinion I have been 'quite reasonable', particularly when I see what you have been involved in yourself on other threads, but we shouldn't have to go there. Just don't be publicly judgemental and stick to the debate perhaps ?

 

I really think you have missed my point - football matches. or at least those with any crowd above double figures are ALWAYS set events, with a set date and time, and are subject to strict controls of the crowds. This still results in some unpleasant incidents, but far less than a couple of decades ago, and very few given the numbers involved. There are high police numbers and this costs a lot, as Vale know only too well, but that is another debate.

 

All I am saying is that bonfires and fireworks should be similarly controlled, and currently they are not - anyone can let off fireworks and start bonfires virtually where and when they choose, so there is no genuine comparison with organised and tightly controlled football matches.

 

I'd also dispute that there is more violence at football than incidents (not just violence) related to bonfires and fireworks, if you relate it to the numbers of people involved (Many millions for football) which is the only fair way. Many clubs had arrests in single figures for the whole of last season. Many firework incidents, including some horrific acts on animals, and intimidation of vulnerable people or minor burns, go unreported.

 

If you don't agree, then fine - I cant really make the point any clearer. I don't want to be misrepresented and am not calling for a ban - just strictly controlled safely organised displays and bonfires which will not solve every case of misuse and misbehaviour but will improve things.

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

My post should have read 'if it is an attempt' so due to that you may not have followed that it was not a start of a slanging match, though I don't need telling whether in your opinion I have been 'quite reasonable', particularly when I see what you have been involved in yourself on other threads, but we shouldn't have to go there. Just don't be publicly judgemental and stick to the debate perhaps ?

 

I really think you have missed my point - football matches. or at least those with any crowd above double figures are ALWAYS set events, with a set date and time, and are subject to strict controls of the crowds. This still results in some unpleasant incidents, but far less than a couple of decades ago, and very few given the numbers involved.

 

All I am saying is that bonfires and fireworks should be similarly controlled, and currently they are not - anyone can let off fireworks and start bonfires virtually where and when they choose, so there is no genuine comparison with organised and tightly controlled football matches.

 

I'd also dispute that there is more violence at football than incidents (not just violence) related to bonfires and fireworks, if you relate it to the numbers of people involved (Many millions for football) which is the only fair way. Many clubs had arrests in single figures for the whole of last season. Many firework incidents, including some horrific acts on animals, and intimidation of vulnerable people or minor burns, go unreported.

 

If you don't agree, then fine - I cant really make the point any clearer. I don't want to be misrepresented and am not calling for a ban - just strictly controlled safely organised displays and bonfires which will not solve every case of misuse and misbehaviour but will improve things.

 

I understand your point about controlled and non-controlled events. The point I am making is that far more trouble happens at controlled football matches than it does uncontrolled bonfires. Arguing that point isn't justified.

 

You say not to be publicly judgmental and yet you create a debate by judging the public on a national scale thanks to the actions of a select group of morons, that makes no sense.

 

The other issue is where do you stop. Regularly when I'm in the uk I burn rubbish and garden waste as do 100's of others for instance.

[davidatpreston]

I understand your point about controlled and non-controlled events. The point I am making is that far more trouble happens at controlled football matches than it does uncontrolled bonfires. Arguing that point isn't justified.

 

You say not to be publicly judgmental and yet you create a debate by judging the public on a national scale thanks to the actions of a select group of morons, that makes no sense.

 

The other issue is where do you stop. Regularly when I'm in the uk I burn rubbish and garden waste as do 100's of others for instance.

 

OK, just before going to bed....your last point first as it is easiest to answer, a ban on bonfires between, say October 20th and November 15th would not inconvenience those wishing to dispose of garden waste, or even allow the small garden bonfire in the daytime, no fireworks allowed, common sense prevails here - if someone lit a big bonfire in the house next to you in mid-April you would want to know why, and probably to stop it. And of course fireworks are more of a point here than bonfires.

 

I'm not judging the public any more than anyone else does. Everyone has a set of rules they would like society to impose, some people are very liberal and libertarian but, for example, agreeing youd like laws not to allow people to own machine guns and grenades, or perhaps call people of different skin colour by the N word, or any number of similar things.

 

These things are not judging the public but protecting them, as there are always a number of people, hopefully small, who will spoil things and cause danger and distress to others who need to be protected by law or regulation in some areas.

 

In the first paragraph you still say there is more trouble at football than at Nov 5th events, and I dispute that - not if you take into account the numbers involved and it somewhat depends on what you mean by trouble. It's still trouble to me if the kid next door has minor burns from a sparkler not put out properly (will go unreported) or a cat or dog is terrified for hours, maybe that seems a small thing to you but I don't like to see it. I'm sure I don't need to tell you though that there are much, much worse incidents.

 

Now luckily things were better in terms of really bad incidents this year but over 200 incidents in one smallish Yorkshire town?

 

http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/calderdale/firefighters-attend-over-200-incidents-on-bonfire-night-1-7557559#axzz3r387O0Ep

 

And elsewhere - http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/firefighters-called-to-hundreds-of-incidents-during-bonfire-night-1-7556484

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bonfire-night-firefighters-attacked-manchester-10396478

http://www.itv.com/news/border/update/2015-11-06/ambulance-callouts-up-5-7-percent-on-bonfire-night/

http://www.chad.co.uk/news/firefighters-called-to-hundreds-of-incidents-during-bonfire-night-1-7556484#axzz3r39B5s2w

 

And other reports described it as the 'quietest bonfire night for a while' - still a total of thousands, many up to tens of thousands of incidents nationally and scarce ambulance resources stretched which could result in people dying due to delays if they had strokes or heart attacks.

 

All this from one night, far more incidents than in a whole season of football, where there were a total of 273 arrests for violence in 2012-13, FOR ALL CLUBS IN ENGLAND - FOR THE WHOLE SEASON. That's in games where, over the season, near to 20 million went through the turnstiles.

 

Crewe, Fulham, Hartlepool, Reading, Bournemouth, Exeter, Southend, Plymouth, Brentford and about 40 other league clubs all had single figures of arrests last season -Accrington, Dagenham, Wycombe had NONE - even MK Dons had just 1 arrest. Even Premiership clubs like WBA (10 arrests) and Norwich (12) had little trouble, and only 3 clubs had over 100 arrests for the season - even that is about 4 per game.

 

Yet you say - I understand your point about controlled and non-controlled events. The point I am making is that far more trouble happens at controlled football matches than it does uncontrolled bonfires. Arguing that point isn't justified.

 

I would say I have just proved categorically it is justified and welcome any reply that does not digress into other territory, but if you still fail to see my point despite overwhelming evidence then I can only draw conclusions that I wont write here.

[Spunk Trumpet]

You were much better when you used to give out coasters.

Wheres that David gone?!

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

It will never happen David, your point about banning 99% of normal people from hosting their own private events is dafter than me suggesting banning football. Ultimately there is more football violence and disorder in the UK than there is idiots creating problems for fire fighters and at bonfires.

 

If you want those sorts of laws then places like North Korea are the place for you, thankfully the majority of this democracy are normal and law obiding citizens. Lets take the stance of not inconveniencing the majority, lets deal more actively and harshly in terms of punishment with the scumbags who give society a bad name.

 

As for the last line of your post relax for goodness sake, nobody is out to get you and nobody is coming to take you away (as much as sometimes I wished they would when you go off on your holier than thou rants which are never balanced) ;)

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Only disproportionate in your opinion

 

well obviously..this is a forum....where people put fwd their opinions

 

and a pity you rather ruined a well-composed previous post with this slightly less credible follow-up.

 

Only in your opinion

 

 

 

No the whole UK doesn't go up in flames, but that is little consolation to those that do have accidents or suffer criminal activity or abuse due to this night.

 

Proving your 'bonfires here there and everywhere "comment (I paraphrase) was disproportionate compared to what actually happens. Just cos I don't want a ban doesn't mean I don 't care..the "banners" have no monopoly on compassion

 

 

Your argument is a little like saying someone arguing to legalise guns with no limits then mocking when someone protests and saying 'Cos the whole UK gets shot up, doesn't it' or having no speed limits on roads and someone protests then you say 'Oh everyone on the road in the UK has an accident don't they'.

 

No it isn't..I'm not even remotely suggesting no limits on firework sales..infact I'd like to see tighter controls but no ban. You made the exaggerated claim not me

 

If you want to disagree, so be it, but don't distort what I am saying - make your own argument.

 

Sow me where I distorted anything..I quoted you

 

Previous post -

 

1.Your point about punishment or restrictions on or of non-offenders applies to many laws and rules, for instance an obvious one is people travelling to football away matches often have alcohol restrictions, not being able to take toiletries on planes, closure of roads for royal/VIP visits, or even sports events, thousands of other examples, (as you know). This one is more common sense and really causes no problems to sensible people who just want to see fireworks and bonfires and will still be able to do so in a proper environment.

 

I agree it does apply in some cases and some I agree with ad some I don't....I don't believe it should regarding fireworks. What about sensible people that want to let them off in their garden..they are still sensible civilised people?

 

2. Again you bring in an analogy that is not sensible or relevant, cars already have restrictions on speed, emissions, who can drive them, where they can be driven , tyre safety and a hundred other things - so applying a restriction to bonfires and fireworks that they can only be enjoyed at organised displays is actually mirroring the situation. Yet you say I want to ban them - I don't, I just want them controlled properly.

 

They are controlled properly as far as I am concerned..the law is there but you want a ban..I don't.The point is your justification at the start was some cannot be civilised regarding fireworks so why don't you want to apply hat to "everything"..it was your argument

 

 

3 / 4. Protests and marches have to be agreed in advance in most cases, big business for the police overtime when the EDL and their mates march in places like Rochdale and Rotherham every few weeks. I wouldn't ban this either,m as fre speech is more important than a few silly pyrotechnics for entertainment, but again your analogy is misplaced. I'd add that if fireworks were not sold except for displays it would be more difficult for those who misuse them at protests to obtain them.

 

Back to your 'civilised' argument.your term..your justification

 

 

Police and firemen and others that protect the public choose to do so knowing there is a risk from certain situations, but this risk should not be increased by frivolous but dangerous entertainments.

 

So much to say about that.....so you're good with anything you consider "frivolous and dangerous" entertainment being banned where it might harm the police or firemen? You'd be happy for the authorities to ban things on that justification?

 

I'm not siure why you felt the need to say 'policemen have children and pets too' - that was not the point, it was the children and pets that are at risk, whoever and whatever their parents and owners may be.

 

Simple point..they are people too

 

Nor do I see the need to divert this argument to anti-austerity marches - that has nothing to do with what I am writing, and yes, some of the gangs that attacked firemen were dozens strong, not what Id want to face if I was trying to help the people living there.

 

It has everything to do with it cos you are advocating banning something cos a minority cannot behave in a civilized manner.just like a minority on such marches do not behave in a civilised manner so surely they should be banned?

 

5. If you agree that those things are disgusting, how can you be against a way to stop them ? Another tenuous analogy to compare the internet, where name calling may offend but is hardly the same as real physical damage from fire, possibly violence, burns and so on. Surely you can see there is a degree of difference here that may not suit your argument, but comparing internet misuse with risking fire death ?

 

Cos I don't believe that the state can always use the ends to justify the means

 

You think the only misuse of the internet is name calling? IS etc don't use it t go about their activities?

 

I can see your argument comes from a loathing of state control, and in a perfect world where people behaved responsibly there would be no need for controls on many things, but the world is fare from perfect, there are stupid, misguided, ill-informed and some plain evil people who do things that threaten the innocent and vulnerable, and it is not 'nanny state' to want to improve things by making it more difficult for that to happen.

 

I do not loathe state control.... I loathe disproportionate state control

 

It will never be stopped totally, but - just as the smoking ban in many places and high tobacco taxes gradually improve health - will make life better.

 

I don't agree with some of how the smoking ban has been implemented either..it's not a black and white issue

 

I have now made my points, make more if you want, any more time I spend on the subject will be used to avctually try and get a change and convince like-minded people to campaign for it. Thanks for the debate.

 

NP

 

 

Fairynuff.it was good to get the wider issues out rather than sticking solely to fireworks....much more at stake

[davidatpreston]

You were much better when you used to give out coasters.

Wheres that David gone?!

 

Totally uncalled for, I take time to put across a view logically as I see it, inoffensive and at great length and get replies in a sensible and considered manner from two people who choose to see it differently. :(

 

So your unwelcome dig about coasters perhaps says more about you. Not going to abuse you back, it's too petty to get into an argument over, hope you are pleased with yourself as you know this will be taken up by a small number of other posters who like to be part of the clique. :(

 

Nothing sensible to add on bonfires and fireworks though I notice.:mad:

[davidatpreston]

It will never happen David' date=' your point about banning 99% of normal people from hosting their own private events is dafter than me suggesting banning football. Ultimately there is more football violence and disorder in the UK than there is idiots creating problems for fire fighters and at bonfires. [b']Why lapse into calling it daft when you have chosen to ignore the mass of statistics I provided without me calling your view daft. Those links prove the opposite- you wont see that, so we have to leave it, but neither view is daft just because the other person said it. Some statistics to prove your own view would be more welcome.

[/b]

If you want those sorts of laws then places like North Korea are the place for you, thankfully the majority of this democracy are normal and law obiding citizens. Lets take the stance of not inconveniencing the majority, lets deal more actively and harshly in terms of punishment with the scumbags who give society a bad name.

An old chestnut, if you don't like it go to NK used to be East Germany etc - which always used to be countered by telling the originator to go somewhere opposite, like China where fireworks are much worse. Or the USA with its free gun rein. A flawed response, as it means you want anyone seeking any sort of change to leave the country. If the law was enforced, if the police had resources rather then cuts (your own Lancashire chief constable is saying he wont be able to police the streets with the cuts) then Id be with that line to some extent, but they dont

As for the last line of your post relax for goodness sake, nobody is out to get you and nobody is coming to take you away (as much as sometimes I wished they would when you go off on your holier than thou rants which are never balanced) ;)

Its very public spirited of you to seem so concerned for my welfare, but as we don't know each other, just a little patronising - and I am not the only one to have had rants on here, not going to waste time linking to some of your own recent outbursts but it is a common thing. Balance is in the eye of the reader, I post as I fiund, but I would advise you not to start a poll asking if your own posts are balanced.

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

Its very public spirited of you to seem so concerned for my welfare, but as we don't know each other, just a little patronising - and I am not the only one to have had rants on here, not going to waste time linking to some of your own recent outbursts but it is a common thing. Balance is in the eye of the reader, I post as I fiund, but I would advise you not to start a poll asking if your own posts are balanced.

 

I fiund your advice on polls most useful so I won't!

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I fiund your advice on polls most useful so I won't!

 

Some posts are very balanced....a chip on both shoulders;)

[davidatpreston]

well obviously..this is a forum....where people put fwd their opinions

 

Just a final couple of points for clarity , as we have reached an impasse on opinions.

 

You consistently say I want bonfires and fireworks banned and this is what I mean when I say you distorted my argument - then you reply asking if marches should be banned too -

 

1. Why do you keep bringing marches and anti-austerity into this thread - I am not getting involved with that, and you can argue with others on another thread about it = no connection, no comparison. You seem to want to trick me into defending marches and hooligans on marches, I will discuss it elsewhere but not on this thread.

 

2. More importantly I never said total ban (ie no manufacture of fireworks) but CONTROLLED - like your marches and many other things in life. I have repeatedly said controlled displays and bonfires, that is not a ban. I didn't suggest you had no compassion either, I remember your story of taking in an unwanted pet, but sadly words being put in my mouth again for no reason.

 

The one point you did get right is me wanting to stop what you call 'sensible people wanting to et them off in their garden' - my view is they have to forego this rather dubious pleasure, and go to a display. They will still see their fireworks, but their children wont get burnt and the pets next to where they live wont be terrified. Fireworks will not be on sale for the minority of idiots, and yes I accept they will still be able to get them if mega-determined, but making it more difficult is well worth the effort.

 

 

 

 

 

So much to say about that.....so you're good with anything you consider "frivolous and dangerous" entertainment being banned where it might harm the police or firemen? You'd be happy for the authorities to ban things on that justification?

 

Maybe read your own question here - would I ask for dangerous things to be banned? - yes I would.

 

 

 

It has everything to do with it cos you are advocating banning something cos a minority cannot behave in a civilized manner.just like a minority on such marches do not behave in a civilised manner so surely they should be banned?

 

Ban, ban ban again, sorry but if there are organised safe displays that is not a ban but a precaution.

 

You think the only misuse of the internet is name calling? IS etc don't use it t go about their activities?

 

They use telephones and letters too - I believe you have been 'hoist by your own petard' here, as your argument would make those methods of communication dangerous too. Realistically the internet does not cause physical damage on its own.

 

Finally, although its obviously also for another thread, there is not a smoking ban either, there are smoking restrictions., You can smoke yourself to death at home if you wish, or even in the park - something you cant do in parts of the USA by the way which I find a massive irony given their gun laws, but that's also digressing.

 

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

Some posts are very balanced....a chip on both shoulders;)

 

 

Anyway I'm glad you had a great time JA!

[davidatpreston]

Some posts are very balanced....a chip on both shoulders;)

 

As opposed to an entire fish supper for some ? :)

[JOHNNYAITCH]

well obviously..this is a forum....where people put fwd their opinions

 

Just a final couple of points for clarity , as we have reached an impasse on opinions.

 

I don't agree as I am happy to listen further and consider the argument further

 

 

You consistently say I want bonfires and fireworks banned

 

You want them banned a far as the general public are concerned and to only have organised events..you want a ban

 

I bring marches etc into it cos your original justification was....

 

"If people can't be civilized about this....it is time to ban all but organized/controlled bonfires/displays from October 1st to Nov 30th......" Surely the same logic should be applied where a minority of marchers cannot be civilized?

 

I've never suggested that you did call for a total ban..you do want a ban of sales to the general public for use in their own back garden.for example

 

It's the choice of people whether they expose their children and pets to fireworks in their own back garden.it's not for you nor me nor anyone else to tell them..the vast majority will be perfectly responsible and successfully manage the risks or decide not to have any fireworks

 

Come come..you specifically referred to frivolous and dangerous entertainment now it's "dangerous things"..Who decides what is dangerous? Is the Notting Hill carnival frivolous and dangerous entertainment that should be banned? If Vale draw Stoke in the cup should that be banned too....it's only football and it's dangerous for the police and fans? Opening up a real can of worms with that stance.

 

You want to ban people from using fireworks in their own back garden.... that's a fact isn't it?

 

You miss the entire point re the internet..I am asking you why you don't want it banned or under intrusive state control when some people aren't civilised in their use of it..that s the criteria you put forward after all

 

I never said there is a comprehensive smoking banc I said "I don't agree with some of how the smoking ban has been implemented"..you referred to the smoking ban, I responded with the same term

 

Realistically a firework does not cause physical damage on its own..it needs someone to use it in a dangerous/inappropriate manner...and the overwhelming majority use them perfectly safely

[davidatpreston]

 

I don't agree as I am happy to listen further and consider the argument further

 

 

 

 

You want them banned a far as the general public are concerned and to only have organised events..you want a ban

 

I bring marches etc into it cos your original justification was....

 

"If people can't be civilized about this....it is time to ban all but organized/controlled bonfires/displays from October 1st to Nov 30th......" Surely the same logic should be applied where a minority of marchers cannot be civilized?

I still don't see the comparison to marches so will not continue on that one

 

 

I've never suggested that you did call for a total ban..you do want a ban of sales to the general public for use in their own back garden.for example Yes, that is exactly and precisely what I am saying. No fireworks for general sale, controlled displays only.

It's the choice of people whether they expose their children and pets to fireworks in their own back garden but not the choice of the children if they are young, and certainly never the choice of the pets.it's not for you nor me nor anyone else to tell them.. there are thousands of other things that people are told from the size of bananas on sale to whether additives in food can be used to speed limits etcso why not this the vast majority will be perfectly responsible and successfully manage the risks or decide not to have any fireworks

 

Come come..you specifically referred to frivolous and dangerous entertainment now it's "dangerous things". dangerous entertainments is fine with me, semantics ..... .Who decides what is dangerous? the state, health and safetym committes where firemen and police are lsistend to, local councils...... Is the Notting Hill carnival frivolous and dangerous entertainment that should be banned? No, but it isn't happening without strict control or planning, in a single area, where resources can be allocated If Vale draw Stoke in the cup should that be banned too...same comment as NH carnival, .it's only football and it's dangerous for the police and fans? No it isn't - look at the stats in my reply to REP, more than half the clubs almost no arrests last season Opening up a real can of worms with that stance.

 

You want to ban people from using fireworks in their own back garden.... that's a fact isn't it? Absolutely. Fireworks are dangerous explosives and shouldn't be allowed to be sold except for controlled displays

 

You miss the entire point re the internet..I am asking you why you don't want it banned or under intrusive state control when some people aren't civilised in their use of it..that s the criteria you put forward after all Really for another thread again

I never said there is a comprehensive smoking banc I said "I don't agree with some of how the smoking ban has been implemented"..you referred to the smoking ban, I responded with the same term

 

Realistically a firework does not cause physical damage on its own..Nor does a gun, an atom bomb or a hand grenade it needs someone to use it in a dangerous/inappropriate manner..as does a gun and many other things .and the overwhelming majority use them perfectly safely

maybe so, but I feel the price to pay of them losing this tiny bit of freedom is worthwhile, you do not, which is why I said we had reached an impasse. Both entitled to the opinion, but not really going anywhere, and I really am not going to allow myself the time to go into marches and smoking and all sorts of other things that aren't really related- interesting though it might be to see where it leads, there just isn't that much spare time for me.