Got a mate who is a firefighter and their daily routine is pretty chill owing to lack of actual fires. Might go ont moor and have a few BBQs this summer to make sure they don’t get too bored
Interesting. I wonder how much of this is due to the decline in popularity of smoking?
This subject fully triggers/confuses me enough to need insight from others… (sorry)
But… Out of curiosity (because i know lots of people still rightfully angry about grenfell today), where is the line between gentrification, standard upgrades and under funding?
If the landlords and governments invest in upgrading said buildings that burnt down like grenfell, that comes at a cost no? Which then cascdes down to rent etc when that needs to be made back.
So what would be worse. No investment and leaving people in a ticking time bomb of houses at risk of fire. Or over funding and getting up to date and watching the cost of said buildings and areas rise after investment as they become “trendier”
Because it seems to me, in some situations. You just end up putting peoples lifes at risk either way, but for different reasons
Ring mains…why?
Cool, i guess it was worth to rub kilotons of BFRs into everything
The fire at Bradford City stadium in 1985, lead to a big change in fire safety. The Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987 passed into law. I recall all the stuff we were buying at the time started coming with a label saying they conformed to the new legislation, fire retardant material started being used extensively.
7 comments
source:[https://fullfact.org/health/how-many-people-die-fires/](https://fullfact.org/health/how-many-people-die-fires/)
Got a mate who is a firefighter and their daily routine is pretty chill owing to lack of actual fires. Might go ont moor and have a few BBQs this summer to make sure they don’t get too bored
Interesting. I wonder how much of this is due to the decline in popularity of smoking?
This subject fully triggers/confuses me enough to need insight from others… (sorry)
But… Out of curiosity (because i know lots of people still rightfully angry about grenfell today), where is the line between gentrification, standard upgrades and under funding?
If the landlords and governments invest in upgrading said buildings that burnt down like grenfell, that comes at a cost no? Which then cascdes down to rent etc when that needs to be made back.
So what would be worse. No investment and leaving people in a ticking time bomb of houses at risk of fire. Or over funding and getting up to date and watching the cost of said buildings and areas rise after investment as they become “trendier”
Because it seems to me, in some situations. You just end up putting peoples lifes at risk either way, but for different reasons
Ring mains…why?
Cool, i guess it was worth to rub kilotons of BFRs into everything
The fire at Bradford City stadium in 1985, lead to a big change in fire safety. The Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987 passed into law. I recall all the stuff we were buying at the time started coming with a label saying they conformed to the new legislation, fire retardant material started being used extensively.