On 7 Nov 2011 at 11:41pm smoke wrote:
Let's hope the tragic mayhem on the M5 doesn't cause a kneejerk reaction for Cliffe & Southover
On 8 Nov 2011 at 12:26pm Guy wrote:
On the contrary let's hope it does.
On 8 Nov 2011 at 4:40pm bastian wrote:
it's in doubt that it was smoke,didn't look like smoke on the news,looked like fog/cloud.Arials don't make smoke that hangs about.
On 8 Nov 2011 at 5:33pm Clifford wrote:
Agree bastian. The police seem very keen to push fireworks as a cause - so I'm assuming they're trying to divert attention from something they did wrong.
On 8 Nov 2011 at 10:10pm The Super K wrote:
Or the fact that accidents actually just happen!!!
Blame the speed and reduce the speed limits to 30 on the motor ways!!!
On 9 Nov 2011 at 8:55am Yogi wrote:
Accidents do happen, but let's face it they are more likely when a carriageway is full of smoke or a stray firework hits a car. Unless these events are supervised by a local authority taking civil responsibility they should be banned. Loss of sight, serious burns, or even multiple deaths clearly can result. It's time to get your heads out of the sand bonfire folk. Presumably you now think Somerset Police are part of the anti-bonfire conspiracy too? Pitiful.
On 9 Nov 2011 at 9:18am teaboy wrote:
I'm waiting to see if there is any evidence of the M5 crash being 'caused' by a fireworks display. As yet there is no evidence that it was even a contributing factor, let alone the initial cause.
How would local authority supervision make any difference, Yogi?
On 9 Nov 2011 at 9:55am someone else wrote:
Yogi, you really are a classic know-it-all who knows nothing. All the societies in Lewes have an experienced Safety Officer who is responsible for direct liaison with the HSE and Fire Brigade. The Brigade visits every site at least a couple of times, and always on the afternoon of the 5th when all barriers, the fireworks and fire are in place. If there is anything the Brigade are not happy with, it gets changed. If the site is not considered safe, the display and bonfire would not go ahead.
What on earth makes you think that any local authority would have the technical capacity to provide meaningful supervision?
On 9 Nov 2011 at 10:15am Penguin wrote:
Well said Someone Else.
It's amazing isn't it Yogi, that having been suggested as maybe being a contributing factor, you have assumed it was fact that the carriageway was full of smoke, that a stray firework hit a car, and that, in yourwords, 'multiple deaths were clearly(?) the result'.
As Teaboy rightly says, let's see if there is any actual evidence before running around like a headless chicken demanding that fireworks are banned. This accident could equally have been caused by someone driving too fast, using a mobile phone, falling asleep at the wheel, or a million and one other reasons, but someone has mentioned fireworks and people like you instantly assume that they were the reason and jump straight up on to your soap boxes.
Who is to say that the person suggesting fireworks may have been to blame is not someone like you or Guy that would blame them whatever the facts of the matter?
You talk about people burying their heads in the sand, but it is equally dangerous to put blinkers on and make rash assumptions based on suggestions rather than actual evidence.
On 9 Nov 2011 at 3:20pm Death & Destruction wrote:
As soon as I heard that a criminal investigation had been launched centering on the firework display next to the M5, my gander was truly provoked onto a standing position. Their has to be someone to blame doesnt there? If the calibre of copper in the Taunton area is equivalent to the morons I have met from the Sussex force (one or two exceptions possibly) they will be expert at jumping to the wrong conclusion and mercilessly hounding and easy target.
Accidents happen, get over it.
On 10 Nov 2011 at 3:54pm bastian wrote:
fall out zones have to be away from roads, the smoke follows the fall out dirrection.If it is too windy fires are forbidden to be lit and mortars are not allowed either.