Jump to content
IGNORED

Why are pyros/flares banned? .... They're just a bit of harmless fun!


WhistleHappy

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, AshtonPark said:

In Norway they are deemed perfectly safe by their government.  

I once spent new year in Norway, and New Year's Eve in Stavanger culminated in climbing up a steep hillside overlooking the town and letting off fireworks at midnight.  When I say letting off fireworks I mean holding them in your hand, lighting them and then throwing them in the air before they went off.  Flaming carnage, and by the time we came down the hillside had frozen so you had to slide.  What's the opposite of health and safety gone mad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smoke bombs burn at 750°c, flares at 1,500°c;

They can explode;

They are able to set off the stadium's fire detection systems thus causing an evacuation;

They're a serious health hazard to those with respiratory and other particulate triggered illness;

They prevent you seeing the game you've paid to see;

Occasionally they disrupt the game you've paid to see.

Flares also aren't legal in German (though some states adopt a laissez faire attitude,) and some clubs regularly get fined when they are let off, (WSC had an interesting article when Cologne sued one fan for the substantial costs they'd incurred following one incident.) Note that where 'flares' are legal (e.g. Norway) they are usually of a very specific type and one has to provide all sorts of paperwork before buying or using  (i.e. used in a specific part of the ground and have training for use in enclosed spaces, insurance cover at al.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have a word with yourself, or is this a troll post.

Christ they have banned vaping at most stadiums. But you think it is okay for pyros and flares to be under the control of boisterous fans?

It’s not a case of sanitising football. It’s a case of averting a major accident and incident.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Smoke bombs burn at 750°c, flares at 1,500°c;

They can explode;

They are able to set off the stadium's fire detection systems thus causing an evacuation;

They're a serious health hazard to those with respiratory and other particulate triggered illness;

They prevent you seeing the game you've paid to see;

Occasionally they disrupt the game you've paid to see.

Flares also aren't legal in German (though some states adopt a laissez faire attitude,) and some clubs regularly get fined when they are let off, (WSC had an interesting article when Cologne sued one fan for the substantial costs they'd incurred following one incident.) Note that where 'flares' are legal (e.g. Norway) they are usually of a very specific type and one has to provide all sorts of paperwork before buying or using  (i.e. used in a specific part of the ground and have training for use in enclosed spaces, insurance cover at al.)

 

 

That unsafe that a civilised European country, have deemed it safe? Even with insurance and training. 

Also in Norway I’m pretty sure that isn’t the case, you need to fill out an a4 form which is sent to, the club, the fire brigade, the police, the FA all to sign an agree.

Now all of those have to agree it is safe wouldn’t you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Cider-Head23 said:

They are rightly banned from football stadiums in this country. 

One thing I will say is the punishment for being caught with one, seems very harsh.

Surely a pyrotechnic offence should merit a fine not a FBO. 

Are you saying that those guilty of a pyrotechnic/ firework offence should be let off!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, handsofclay said:

Are you saying that those guilty of a pyrotechnic/ firework offence should be let off!

No as I've clearly written they should be fined, and you could look at say community service for example.

But surely imposing a football banning order and all that goes with that for smoke bomb/flare is a tad unfair. 

A fan subjected to an FBO is therefore 'a risk to society'.. I'm not sure you meet that description if you'd taken a pyro to a game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cider-Head23 said:

No as I've clearly written they should be fined, and you could look at say community service for example.

But surely imposing a football banning order and all that goes with that for smoke bomb/flare is a tad unfair. 

A fan subjected to an FBO is therefore 'a risk to society'.. I'm not sure you meet that description if you'd taken a pyro to a game. 

Sorry, it was my poor attempt at a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, WestMidsRed said:

Haven't people been seriously injured and killed by flares/pyros thrown by fans before? That's probably why they're a banned and for a good reason too. 

Yes, there was the poor sod at Cardiff who was killed by a flare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, AshtonPark said:

That unsafe that a civilised European country, have deemed it safe? Even with insurance and training. 

Also in Norway I’m pretty sure that isn’t the case, you need to fill out an a4 form which is sent to, the club, the fire brigade, the police, the FA all to sign an agree.

Now all of those have to agree it is safe wouldn’t you say?

No. In Norway the sale and control of these items is highly restricted unlike here where one can openly obtain all sorts. Many of the euro smoke bombs used are cold, they're a chemical reaction as opposed to combusting metals. Most fans wouldn't understand the difference between a smoke bombs and a flare let alone hot or cold.

If they're that safe I suppose you'd have no objection were you to let one off near me should I ram it down your trousers or throat?

I'm also amazed at the lack of consideration some fans display. Why would you endanger the health of your fellow supporter for the sake of a puff of coloured smoke. It has **** all to do with atmosphere which we had bags of years back without the need for such irritation.

Flares are also symbolic of the ****wits re-emerging these days, those who have little or no interest in, or knowledge of, football intent on ruining it for those of us who actually go to watch the match....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pommers65 said:

Don't seem to be banned from the play off games though...Plenty on show there after games when fans on the pitch at the end

I remember thinking that when I saw the flares on the pitch and the tv cameras clearly identifying the people running around holding said flares that they'll be lucky to get away without a banning order of some sort.

Yes I suppose they look good....but they are banned for a reason in this country. I just don't get the risk of a football banning order for 3 years in order to let off a smoke bomb/flare. But it takes all sorts I guess!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TRL said:

So was the cladding at grenfell by ours..until it wasn't 

Well, actually that is still deemed as safe to be used and there isn’t any plans to change that at the minute. 

With your logic there, you must trust what the government say, as flares are dangerous and banned by the government. There are no plans to ban the cladding used , so if the government are right about flares they must be right about the cladding?

Under your theory there, you would need to ban anything which could cause harm to anyone. Cars for example?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AshtonPark said:

Well, actually that is still deemed as safe to be used and there isn’t any plans to change that at the minute. 

Under your theory there, you would need to ban anything which could cause harm to anyone. Cars for example?

not really the cladding was proven not fit for purpose.

 

I would suggest what is the purpose of a flare, is it fit for purpose in a crowded stadium? 

 

Flares that generate heat and smoke in football stadiums, be it through fire or other measure can seriously **** someone up who has any sort of respiratory disease, of course we could insist they stay at home, or choose a day to bring flare when the wind is such that it won't blow in their direction, even though they could be anywhere in the 360 degrees of the flare.  Unless we are suggesting we limit fans with respiratory disease to one part  of the stadium so we can bring flares in.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TRL said:

not really the cladding was proven not fit for purpose.

 

I would suggest what is the purpose of a flare, is it fit for purpose in a crowded stadium? 

 

Flares that generate heat and smoke in football stadiums, be it through fire or other measure can seriously **** someone up who has any sort of respiratory disease, of course we could insist they stay at home, or choose a day to bring flare when the wind is such that it won't blow in their direction, even though they could be anywhere in the 360 degrees of the flare.  Unless we are suggesting we limit fans with respiratory disease to one part  of the stadium so we can bring flares in.

 

The cladding is still deemed safe by the government and you would pass any building regulations if you installed it.

You can’t have it both ways, either the government are right on things or they are wrong.

I personally feel they are wrong, where you feel they are right but you can’t bring in things like Grenfell where it is deemed ok by the government still. It doesn’t back up your ideas it just flaws it.

How do countries all over Europe and the world cope? It’s like people in this county have different lungs and internal systems to everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AshtonPark said:

The cladding is still deemed safe by the government and you would pass any building regulations if you installed it.

You can’t have it both ways, either the government are right on things or they are wrong.

I personally feel they are wrong, where you feel they are right but you can’t bring in things like Grenfell where it is deemed ok by the government still. It doesn’t back up your ideas it just flaws it.

How do countries all over Europe and the world cope? It’s like people in this county have different lungs and internal systems to everyone else.

If it is deemed safe why are  public buildings having it removed?  The government are always right until proved wrong then it is someone else fault entirely, be it previous government, or contractors.  My point don't believe because the government says its okay it is okay, which was the point you were making i.e. Norway.

 

That's okay then, we will copy every other country in the world and maybe next were we will see Man City's coach alight in the centre of Manchester, or respiratory deaths in football stadiums, just because others do it doesn't mean we should, stoning for adultery or it being illegal to forget your wife's birthday are just 2 i can think off which I wouldn't want us to copy :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, AshtonPark said:

The cladding is still deemed safe by the government and you would pass any building regulations if you installed it.

You can’t have it both ways, either the government are right on things or they are wrong.

I personally feel they are wrong, where you feel they are right but you can’t bring in things like Grenfell where it is deemed ok by the government still. It doesn’t back up your ideas it just flaws it.

How do countries all over Europe and the world cope? It’s like people in this county have different lungs and internal systems to everyone else.

Bang on, this Country went to the dogs many years ago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TRL said:

If it is deemed safe why are  public buildings having it removed?  The government are always right until proved wrong then it is someone else fault entirely, be it previous government, or contractors.  My point don't believe because the government says its okay it is okay, which was the point you were making i.e. Norway.

 

That's okay then, we will copy every other country in the world and maybe next were we will see Man City's coach alight in the centre of Manchester, or respiratory deaths in football stadiums, just because others do it doesn't mean we should, stoning for adultery or it being illegal to forget your wife's birthday are just 2 i can think off which I wouldn't want us to copy :)

Could you be any more extreme?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, TRL said:

If it is deemed safe why are  public buildings having it removed?  The government are always right until proved wrong then it is someone else fault entirely, be it previous government, or contractors.  My point don't believe because the government says its okay it is okay, which was the point you were making i.e. Norway.

 

That's okay then, we will copy every other country in the world and maybe next were we will see Man City's coach alight in the centre of Manchester, or respiratory deaths in football stadiums, just because others do it doesn't mean we should, stoning for adultery or it being illegal to forget your wife's birthday are just 2 i can think off which I wouldn't want us to copy :)

There is a difference between removing from public buildings as that seems to be the right thing and it being deemed unsafe by the government. As I said you could build a house and cover it in the cladding and it will still pass building regs. 

How many respiratory deaths have there been worldwide due to pyro? Before you run off and find someone in Brazil getting shot with a flare gun etc, I’m actually on about respiratory deaths.

How do 50000 people in stadiums abroad cope with whole stadiums full of it.

The more I’m thinking about it, the more I think your on a wind up.

as for your last point, any country that does that isn’t civilised, where countries for example like Norway are. 

Also, just to make you aware and I know it doesn’t do your argument any good. Normal flares, smokes are legal in Norway not just your cold ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, AshtonPark said:

There is a difference between removing from public buildings as that seems to be the right thing and it being deemed unsafe by the government. As I said you could build a house and cover it in the cladding and it will still pass building regs. 

How many respiratory deaths have there been worldwide due to pyro? Before you run off and find someone in Brazil getting shot with a flare gun etc, I’m actually on about respiratory deaths.

How do 50000 people in stadiums abroad cope with whole stadiums full of it.

The more I’m thinking about it, the more I think your on a wind up.

Deaths or no deaths there are plenty of stories out there of many people requiring hospitalisation due to smoke, I am sure the NHS can do without this type of influx on match day, and those who are effected certainly can do with out it, even more so if self employed

 

I am not going to post them here,as I am sure everyone is capable of searching.  It wasn't long ago a mate of mine was hospitalised in Eindhoven about this time last year due just this type of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...