Fire risk with children's fancy dress costumes

My God! That is shocking, especially considering the number of little girls you see every day out and about dressed up as Princess Elsa or whatever the latest movie character is. I can't believe their parents are aware of the risk, or surely they wouldn't buy them. How on earth has this loophole been allowed, that any children's clothing can be classified as toys? It's not just crazy, it's dangerously crazy.

www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/claudia-winkleman-speaks-first-time-5693760

Here's someone who knows all about how dangerous these costumes are.

A horrific story. I do hope that the shops selling these things withdraw them from sale. Halloween down our street always sees lots of kids dressed up like this can't imagine the parents realise the risks.

I saw that mutti. My granddaughter had a Halloween costume like that and I immediately threw it in the bin. I think it's as disgrace that these clothes are classified as "toys* and not subject to the same restrictions re flammability.

It appears that Claudia Winkelman's daughter was severely burned not only because the dress went up in seconds but also because even when they thought they had extinguished the flames, they kept re-iginiting. It must have been absolutely horrific.

The supermarkets are full of dressing up costumes. The are very appealing to children and cheap to buy for parents. Dressing up has always been something children love to do. We had a trunk full of old clothes and fabrics for dressing up but these days, I expect pester power and peer pressure means something so cheap and simple would be rejected in favour of the fancy stuff on sale.

The incident with Claudia Winkelman's daughter has been widely publicised so hopefully retailers will stop selling non flame proof dressing up stuff because parents will stop buying them.

Here's the 38 Degrees petition to reclassify these fancy dress clothes to meet clothing standards.

Such horrific accidents might also be prevented by not having naked flames around when children are wearing such clothes. Just how difficult is that in the modern world?

That's the devil's advocate position.

I agree that it would also be better if the dressing-up costumes were made of less flammable material, but they won't come so cheap if they are. Maybe that's a good thing in itself.

It's on a par with bonfire night accidents caused by lack of safety awareness. I think publicity and education about the risks and how to aboid them has made a difference. I hope so, anyway.

that bags It is easier to re-classify dressing-up costumes as "clothes" than it is to ensure that every possible fire risk can be predicted or that every person is aware of every possible fire risk.

Easier, but less effective in the long run if it makes people careless about safety issues. I'm not arguing against the reclassification, just saying people need to be risk aware where children and naked flames are in the same situation. Clothes have labels that tell you to "keep [them] away from fire". Well, yes, duh!

I find it hard to believe that people don't know already that synthetic fabrics are a fire hazard so that children in synthetic clothes near fire (or candle flames, or whatever it was that caused the incident mentioned up thread) are gravely at risk.

thatbags it was a candle in a pumpkin on a neighbour's porch. Lots of people put these outside their house, including those without children. It's hard to stop children from visiting these houses. Much easier to regulate the costumes.

I agree regulation is relatively easy, though I fear for the wages of the hard-working people who make dressing up clothes, as such a regulation might well put prices up. I also agree that reclassifying the clothes as clothes is a good idea.

Furthermore, I think people need to be careful near flames and educated as to the advisability of candles in pumpkins on doorsteps if you expect excited and excitable children to call. We all have to accept responsibility for this kind of thing and we should all take care and not do things thoughtlessly just because it's fashionable. Yes, fashionable.

Put it this way, if that had been my candlelit pumpkin on my doorstep, I'd feel extremely guilty about what happened to that poor child.

Agree really and of course there are those battery operated lights that look just like candlelight.

It's obviously a good idea to be aware of danger and to take steps to avoid it. However, not every person is aware of specific dangers and not every danger can be foreseen.

There are already regulations regarding flammability - it just seems sensible to me to classify dressing up clothes as "clothes" and not "toys". If a precaution like this can at least reduce the risk of severe burns, why not take it? It's probably a bit more expensive to put safety caps on medicines and toxic products and to fit child locks on car doors but these safety measures are the norm now.

As for the candle in the pumpkin, it's always much easier to be wise after the event. Claudia Winkleman didn't seem to have any bad feeling about the person whose house it was - even saying that she always made a lot of effort for the children each year.

Accidents happen, people make mistakes. They are likely to feel guilty and don't need anyone else to make them feel worse.

And making people feel worse was my intention, was it, eloethan? Don't be silly. I was discussing responsibility in a non-personal way. And I simply don't believe grown up people don't know of the dangers associated with unattended candles (magnified by the presence of children). Maybe I'm extra risk aware where children are concerned, but I doubt it.

Actually, now you mention it, I'm not sure I do mind making careless people feel worse. Maybe it'll serve as a reminder in future.

With any luck

Teachers or leaders of children's groups such as cubs and brownies would be taken to the bloody cleaners (as the saying goes) for accidents far less damaging than that one.

Yes, accidents happen. But you can do a LOT to prevent them happening. It involves THINKING.

Dangers from flames CAN be foreseen! Good grief! Parts of your post are ridiculous, which is exactly why I was talking about personal responsibility. The scenario in question was such an easy one to avoid. We are not talking about unforeseeable accidents.

Oh dear thatbags, it's early to be so very cross, especially with Eloethan whose contributions always seem so calm and well considered.

Accidents do happen and flames from candles are more magical than those from battery operated pumpkins for example. I'm not advocating a careless approach to anything involving flames and children but honestly, no need to be so shouty and critical.

My children all did sports that carry risk, life itself is risky

I'm cross with a certain implication, nothing else.

It has occurred to me, though I hadn't mentioned it yet, that there will be a generation (possibly two generations if they are short ones) of adults nowadays who have grown up with very little knowledge or experience of fire. This is (always was, though I didn't make that clear) the reason why I think education matters too.

Dressing-up clothes are obviously clothes, whether they are sold as clothes or toys. Many children's clothes, particularly nightwear I think, have warnings on the labels to keep away from fire, so even clothes that are sold as clothes do not come fireproof, even if they won't burn as fast and alarmingly as the kind fo fabrics used to make dressing-up clothes.

I think – and this has been my main point throughout this discussion – that it is too easy to if not blame someone or something else, then to want someone else or some authority to legislate to prevent accidents. My argument is that, yes, that's an option, but the most important thing is to think for oneself and, particularly where children are concerned, be risk aware.

In the over-excitement of Hallowe'en celebrations, it seems that was forgotten, not just by one person. Perhaps, with the publicity of this accident, people will start to think a bit more carefully about the Hallowe'en mix if excited children, party clothes, and naked flames. That is my hope.

of not if

The accident in question did not happen because children's dressing-up clothes are sold as toys; it happened because people were careless (or not careful enough) with candles. That is the long and the short of it. That is what needs to be addressed. That is my calm and considered opinion alongside my calmly and considered agreement with legislative suggestions that others have made on this thread.

For a short time I was a childminder to three children in my house. Before I could do this I and my house were vetted. The person who came to see the house told me that I should have a fire blanket in the kitchen. There were no naked flames or candles in my kitchen, but that was a safety precaution for the children in my care.

Children and fire are not a good mix. I knew someone whose sister took a box of matches into a locked bathroom to play with. Her parents couldn't open the door to rescue her.

Voluminous clothes are another. The second most frequent cause of the death of women up to the nineteenth century was from cooking over an open fire.

Put together excited children, loose clothes in man-made fabrics and candles, and you've a recipe for disaster. I'd say that all interventions to prevent tragedies here are needed. Dressing-up clothes are not just worn at home, for playacting, or in closely supervised surroundings, children wear them as though they are "normal" outfits, so they need protection in normal surroundings. In that context they are just clothes.

But pumpkin lanterns need to be placed out of the reach of swirling skirts, too.