Toaster sparks serious house fire (From The Oxford Times)

(Sorry if this appears more than once, the comment system has changed.)

I remember when ONE (or perhaps two) fire engines would more than cope with something like this. A mix of ridiculous health and safety laws and (sorry to say) slowly being dumbed down workforce and self conscious workforce are to blame. Our nation becomes more inefficient and victimised by the day.

What would have happened if a very serious fire had broken out elsewhere and the engines are this fire were therefore delayed?

I have noticed this more and more, with multiple vehicles turning up at even minor events - just like an American movie.

Anyone care to explain beyond my analysis above?

Oflife wrote:
(Sorry if this appears more than once, the comment system has changed.)

I remember when ONE (or perhaps two) fire engines would more than cope with something like this. A mix of ridiculous health and safety laws and (sorry to say) slowly being dumbed down workforce and self conscious workforce are to blame. Our nation becomes more inefficient and victimised by the day.

What would have happened if a very serious fire had broken out elsewhere and the engines are this fire were therefore delayed?

I have noticed this more and more, with multiple vehicles turning up at even minor events - just like an American movie.

Anyone care to explain beyond my analysis above?

I'm dumb too, made a typo. Should say "slowly being dumbed down and self conscious workforce are to blame."

There all looking for the call out and overtime payments.

50 firefighters occupied for three hours in remote village for a fire started by a small appliance that the householder should not have left unattended... Good grief. I assume that emergency coverage for the rest of North Oxfordshire and West Gloucestershire was compromised by the allocation of most of its resources to one area. I also assume the householder's insurance is invalidated by the sheer stupidity of leaving a toaster unattended for long enough to cause a fire of this scale.

Oflife wrote:
(Sorry if this appears more than once, the comment system has changed.)

I remember when ONE (or perhaps two) fire engines would more than cope with something like this. A mix of ridiculous health and safety laws and (sorry to say) slowly being dumbed down workforce and self conscious workforce are to blame. Our nation becomes more inefficient and victimised by the day.

What would have happened if a very serious fire had broken out elsewhere and the engines are this fire were therefore delayed?

I have noticed this more and more, with multiple vehicles turning up at even minor events - just like an American movie.

Anyone care to explain beyond my analysis above?

The same goes with roads being closed for hours after a minor accident. Could it be The Emergency Services trying to justify and keep their budget.

Maybe it was a very big house and the smell of toast lured them in.

Oflife wrote:
(Sorry if this appears more than once, the comment system has changed.)

I remember when ONE (or perhaps two) fire engines would more than cope with something like this. A mix of ridiculous health and safety laws and (sorry to say) slowly being dumbed down workforce and self conscious workforce are to blame. Our nation becomes more inefficient and victimised by the day.

What would have happened if a very serious fire had broken out elsewhere and the engines are this fire were therefore delayed?

I have noticed this more and more, with multiple vehicles turning up at even minor events - just like an American movie.

Anyone care to explain beyond my analysis above?

In short you don't have a clue what you're talking about. In modern times (since fire pumps ceased being pulled by horses) you will find a minimum of two fire engines attending a building fire. This will be increased, funnily enough, if the fire is bigger and requires more people, equipment and water to extinguish. You seem to be assuming that because the toaster is believed to have STARTED the fire, the fire was small. Most kitchens are on the ground floor and the article refers to Firefighters having to make holes in the roof, ergo the fire must have spread through at least some of the first floor to get to the roof. A fire involving multiple rooms, floors and the roofspace of a property is NOT going to be dealt with by two fire engines and this has NOTHING to do with "ridiculous health and safety laws". Also the fire service are more than capable of dealing with a fire and having more fire engines available for the next one...

Noodle999 wrote:

Oflife wrote:
(Sorry if this appears more than once, the comment system has changed.)

I remember when ONE (or perhaps two) fire engines would more than cope with something like this. A mix of ridiculous health and safety laws and (sorry to say) slowly being dumbed down workforce and self conscious workforce are to blame. Our nation becomes more inefficient and victimised by the day.

What would have happened if a very serious fire had broken out elsewhere and the engines are this fire were therefore delayed?

I have noticed this more and more, with multiple vehicles turning up at even minor events - just like an American movie.

Anyone care to explain beyond my analysis above?

In short you don't have a clue what you're talking about. In modern times (since fire pumps ceased being pulled by horses) you will find a minimum of two fire engines attending a building fire. This will be increased, funnily enough, if the fire is bigger and requires more people, equipment and water to extinguish. You seem to be assuming that because the toaster is believed to have STARTED the fire, the fire was small. Most kitchens are on the ground floor and the article refers to Firefighters having to make holes in the roof, ergo the fire must have spread through at least some of the first floor to get to the roof. A fire involving multiple rooms, floors and the roofspace of a property is NOT going to be dealt with by two fire engines and this has NOTHING to do with "ridiculous health and safety laws". Also the fire service are more than capable of dealing with a fire and having more fire engines available for the next one...

With 50 firemen at one house fire, you will find that the rest of the service was down to skeleton, I find your last sentence amusing, so there are Thousands of firemen and Engines just sitting around in case all the others are busy then?

ger elttil OX2 0EJ wrote:

Noodle999 wrote:

Oflife wrote:
(Sorry if this appears more than once, the comment system has changed.)

I remember when ONE (or perhaps two) fire engines would more than cope with something like this. A mix of ridiculous health and safety laws and (sorry to say) slowly being dumbed down workforce and self conscious workforce are to blame. Our nation becomes more inefficient and victimised by the day.

What would have happened if a very serious fire had broken out elsewhere and the engines are this fire were therefore delayed?

I have noticed this more and more, with multiple vehicles turning up at even minor events - just like an American movie.

Anyone care to explain beyond my analysis above?

In short you don't have a clue what you're talking about. In modern times (since fire pumps ceased being pulled by horses) you will find a minimum of two fire engines attending a building fire. This will be increased, funnily enough, if the fire is bigger and requires more people, equipment and water to extinguish. You seem to be assuming that because the toaster is believed to have STARTED the fire, the fire was small. Most kitchens are on the ground floor and the article refers to Firefighters having to make holes in the roof, ergo the fire must have spread through at least some of the first floor to get to the roof. A fire involving multiple rooms, floors and the roofspace of a property is NOT going to be dealt with by two fire engines and this has NOTHING to do with "ridiculous health and safety laws". Also the fire service are more than capable of dealing with a fire and having more fire engines available for the next one...

With 50 firemen at one house fire, you will find that the rest of the service was down to skeleton, I find your last sentence amusing, so there are Thousands of firemen and Engines just sitting around in case all the others are busy then?

No of course there aren't thousands sitting around in one area, what a ridiculous thing to suggest... there are over thirty fire engines in Oxfordshire and there were six at this fire (with two from Gloucestershire). When something catches fire, the fire service send as many fire engines as required to deal with it, they don't think "hmmm it's needs 8 but we'll only send 4 just in case something else happens"... they send what is needed and then they move others as necessary to ensure that area is still covered. When something really big happens, they move them in from other counties if necessary, as happened when Swinley Forest was on fire and Berkshire were supported by Oxon, Bucks, Hants, London, Surrey and so on. Basically somebody who knows more than a couple of local news site trolls about how to run a fire service sorts it all out, so that you can still dial 999 and still get a fire engine to your house - and you don't not get one at all just because there's already something happening. What sort of ridiculous state of affairs would we be in if they didn't have such arrangements in place? You may be used to calling the Police for a burglary and being told "we'll come round next Thursday" but the fire service (thankfully) doesn't operate in the same way.

Thank you for common sense response Noodle 999... This was a large property and the fire had spread to multiple rooms. 50 ffs attended over the whole incident which didn't mean necessarily that they were all there at the same time! Crews were relieved and returned to cover on their station grounds once the initial time crtitical part of the incident was over. The remaining crews dealt with an extensive salvage operation due to this being a heavily cluttered house with valuable property within it, a lot of which had survived the fire with smoke damage but intact... would be nice in future if people appreciated that a tiny article in the press cannot explain all of what happens at incidents such at these instead of being so quick to react negatively and criticise public services...so the answer is yes there is A LOT beyond the first analysis posted here..!

"Oflife" - please feel free to visit your local fire station on their next drill night and offer your opinions..

Being a rural property set in this area there is a possibility of it having a thatched roof. If that is the case then I think they were catering for a worse state scenario. Had they not and the fire had spread destroying several properties would the posters here now be condemning the Fire Service for not acting in the correct manner with enough appliances and man power.
Of all our services the Fire Service come across as among the most skilled and competent to deal with what ever they are presented with, perhaps a bit of praise instead of wanton criticism without any of us knowing the full facts is more in line. The whole range of what they are expected and do deal with cannot be faulted, and usually with resounding success, as was the instance here on this occasion.