Another case of profit before safety

I believe that the government would spin this as 'removing burdensome red tape which holds back businesses'.

It is also very kindly rolling back 'the nanny state' so that we learn again to take responsibility for our own lives and choices.

I can't think why anyone should be complaining about this splendid move towards increasing manufacturer's profits and developing a sense of individual responsibility... it's all part of the tory dream, isn't it?

And as the tories were voted into power with a very big majority 4 years ago it must be what the people want, mustn't it?

Goodness, how I loathe them....

How, how, how can they still be in power?

I think that people should take responsibility for their own lives.

I never, ever charge electrical items overnight, I charge them when I am in the room during the day, I turn off my TV and kitchen appliances at the mains socket every night, it takes a second to do this. The only thing I leave plugged in is the fridge and my router as my Alexa works from it.

People have stopped using their common sense. In my era, I am 81 years old, we didn't have health and safety, we just got on with our lives and like I said, used our common sense.

I think fire regulations have got a lot (LOT) tougher since 1979 and wonder if that may be part of what's driving the law change.

Granny G I can't tell if you're being serious. I hope you're not. Just because something was less safe in the past didn't make it OK and doesn't make it OK to move back to less safe.

It was OK to plug your iron into the light socket when I was a child. No safety fuse. No covering of metal parts. We wouldn't dream of doing something that dangerous now. Gas was deadly. My aunt and her two children died due to an undetected leak. We wouldn't dream of not having secure pipes and automatic cut offs now. Water came through lead pipes and we had lead in paint. We wouldn't dream of doing that now.

Taking responsibility isn't just about individuals being careful. We all do that when we check before we cross a road but it doesn't stop the need for safe places like zebras and pelicans to cross at. This isn't about individual responsibility. It's about profits for a few at the expense of safety for the many.

Before long ro-ro ferries will be able to "set sail" and leave the harbour before closing its doors.

I wonder what FIRA think?

GrannyGrunter, i am surprised that you take that attitude.
have you thought it through.
i could challenge it on so many points, but i hardly know where to begin.
are you suggesting that those who die from fires caused by sub-standard chargers deserve such a fate.
and the children of the house, too young to have made a purchasing decision in the matter. do they deserve the same.
and the elderly man asleep in the flat above, who couldn't hear the alarm, mercifully perhaps, as couldn't get out in time anyway??

I have taken a screen shot of something I think is sensible in this proposed review. testing the finished product (item of furniture) for combustibility as opposed to individual components would surely show how the finished item would react in a house fire.

Where did you take the screen shot from, GG13?

Have you a link (or is it behind a pay wall?)

MaizieD

Where did you take the screen shot from, GG13?

Have you a link (or is it behind a pay wall?)

It is further down in the article in the Manchester News from the link in the OP

Stricter fire regulations and fire prevention regulations it is, then.

GrannyGravy13

I have taken a screen shot of something I think is sensible in this proposed review. testing the finished product (item of furniture) for combustibility as opposed to individual components would surely show how the finished item would react in a house fire.

So does this mean that an item of furniture made from flammable material could be covered in material which is flame retardant and pass tests? It would then depend upon the quality and length of the tests. A dropped cigarette would not instantly cause a fire, but left long enough might scorch through the material and then the inside would burst into flame.

There are laws in place regarding post 1950s domestic furniture and fire safety of fabrics. It is taken pretty seriously but it does appear there has been some sort of consultation.

www.antiquestradegazette.com/print-edition/2023/november/2618/news/trade-unaware-as-new-furniture-fire-safety-rules-are-mooted/

It's not just the speed at which something burns, but the chemicals that are released when it does.

The requirement that all upholstery including beds and headboards was introduced in 1988 and manufacturers and retailers were given a time frame (can't remember exactly how long) to sell off any existing stock, before it became illegal to do so.

Any remaining stock had to be disposed of.

Yes that's right Baggs. This is not a retrograde step it's a step forward to improve safety by reducing the use of chemicals to achieve flame retardancy.

This has nothing to do with putting profits before safety.

GrannyGrunter

I think that people should take responsibility for their own lives.

I never, ever charge electrical items overnight, I charge them when I am in the room during the day, I turn off my TV and kitchen appliances at the mains socket every night, it takes a second to do this. The only thing I leave plugged in is the fridge and my router as my Alexa works from it.

People have stopped using their common sense. In my era, I am 81 years old, we didn't have health and safety, we just got on with our lives and like I said, used our common sense.

I never, ever charge electrical items overnight, I charge them when I am in the room during the day, I turn off my TV and kitchen appliances at the mains socket every night, it takes a second to do this. The only thing I leave plugged in is the fridge and my router as my Alexa works from it.

And those who live in high-rise blocks of flats have to rely on everyone else being as safety conscious. What do you suggest they do?

Fires will always break out. Are you really saying that manufacturers should absolve themselves of the responsibility of not using flame-retardant materials?

There are millions of people who cannot afford the more expensive, and more safe, furnishings - and some will be living in rented accommodation where the landlord has chosen the cheaper option. Others will be living in temporary accommodation - often with children - in cheap B&B rooms.

Do they not matter? Is it OK for them to be at risk because greedy manufacturers want to maximise their profits at the expense of people's safety?

And, in fact, I'm not sure your trope is true... I'm not convinced that people have stopped using their common sense.

No one is going to be at risk Dickens. The OP is very misleading. Regulations are being looked at to improve safety, not take it away and no doubt it will take time to find a product that is as efficient but safer than the current use of chemicals to achieve flame retardancy.

Hmmm do I believe this government with its honesty track record or do I believe trained firemen?

If you genuinely believe that this government has your best interest at heart then fair enough but I'd rather put my faith in people who are trained in fire fighting and rescue.

A slight deviation, but I don't understand why the tags showing that an item is fire resistant are often attached by string, or otherwise dangling about, so the owner is likely to cut them off, meaning that they item can't be given to charity and sold on. Why can't they be sewn to the bottom of the item, or put in an unobtrusive place such as under a chair cushion?

Totally agree Doodledog

These proposals aren't going against the opinions and experience of trained fire fighters vampirequeen. They will improve safety by finding an alternative to the use of chemicals currently used for flame retardancy, because those chemicals produce toxic fumes when burning.

That would make sense Doodledog.

I do regret my hasty post of yesterday morning now that I've read the consultation document. It 'looks' quite reasonable and certainly doesn't appreciably diminish the current regulations.

I do wonder if there are any implications in changing the ultimate testing of the furniture from testing the individual components to testing the finished article.

I also wonder if it changes to the regulations would have an adverse effect on manufacturers who sell furniture into the EU as the standards would no longer be the same.

Of course, we don't actually know what the result of the consultation will be. It could be that some proposals are rejected.