Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
SEVERE ALERT!
Comments
-
Imagine if you can, that a fire starts near your house whilst you are asleep. An alert might just give you time to get out and save your life. If you turn off the sound, you will miss the alertHuskaris said:
An alert without the settings override on is definitely the answer.Stu_of_Kunming said:
A fair point I hadn’t considered, an alert without the sound override then.Chizz said:
Appropriate? Maybe.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I think it’s far more likely it just makes people turn their alerts off entirely, which could be very dangerous if there is ever a real imminent threat where they are.ME14addick said:
Perhaps an alert might just make those who don't care or that it won't happen to me, think just that little bit more about their actions.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I find it hard to believe there’s an adult in the country that doesn’t understand how fires are started.ME14addick said:
It's a national emergency right now and it's clear many don't understand that just one spark can start a devastating fire, so it's fully justified.Huskaris said:
Ok then by that rationale, let's send out an alert to everyone saying they should get their prostate examination. If it saves one life, it's worth it right?swordfish said:
Oh the irony. The people choosing to block such alerts, and there's only been one so far, are acting irresponsibly.ME14addick said:I really don't understand the outcry from some about the alert. It's not as if they happen frequently. It's the first time it's been used nationally since the test.
People all over social media saying they have turned off alerts. Why would you do that when an alert could save your life.
If that one prevents the outbreak of one wildfire, then it was worth it.
Why not send one out saying that you should do regular exercise? It shows that it will extend your quality of life, and has serious co-morbidity issues. People are often too stupid to realise this too, it would save lives.
The line should be drawn somewhere, I don't particularly care about this, but I would expect the alerts to be something I imminently need to know, that's all, and I really support that system to be clear!
Just because a message is important, does not mean it should be using the severe alert mechanism which to my mind was not set up for this purpose.It’s far more likely they simply don’t care, or, more likely, think “it won’t happen to me/us”Something that entirely overrides the settings of your phone seems somewhat OTT for a non- imminent threat. As others have said, in this instance, an SMS would seem far more appropriate.
Significantly more expensive? Almost certainly.
Easier to ignore? Yes.
More attention grabbing? No.
A nationwide SMS system would require the Government to obtain, maintain and process an enormous database of people's mobile numbers (and we can guess what the public opinion of that would be), creating substantial data-protection, security and data-sharing obligations.
Emergency Alerts achieves the same basic objective without the Government needing to possess that database at all.
Proportionate and doesn't undermine the severe alert system.
I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.
If the poor people of Stourbridge had been asleep when the devastating fires started, an alert might have given them time to get out before their house was engulfed in flames. Fire spreads with frightening speed.
If you've turned off your alerts and the first thing you know is that your smoke alarms are going off, because your house is on fire, it may be too late to get to safety. Alerts are there for your safety, if you choose to turn them off, you may not get information in time to act.
I really don't get the refusal to accept something that is designed to save lives. Darwinism in action perhaps. It's not as if this is happening all the time.
There are unfortunately many idiots who don't understand how dangerous the conditions are right now. If it makes just a few more change their thinking, it's worth it.
5 -
A localised imminent threat with a localised alert is exactly the right thing to do.ME14addick said:
Imagine if you can, that a fire starts near your house whilst you are asleep. An alert might just give you time to get out and save your life. If you turn off the sound, you will miss the alertHuskaris said:
An alert without the settings override on is definitely the answer.Stu_of_Kunming said:
A fair point I hadn’t considered, an alert without the sound override then.Chizz said:
Appropriate? Maybe.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I think it’s far more likely it just makes people turn their alerts off entirely, which could be very dangerous if there is ever a real imminent threat where they are.ME14addick said:
Perhaps an alert might just make those who don't care or that it won't happen to me, think just that little bit more about their actions.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I find it hard to believe there’s an adult in the country that doesn’t understand how fires are started.ME14addick said:
It's a national emergency right now and it's clear many don't understand that just one spark can start a devastating fire, so it's fully justified.Huskaris said:
Ok then by that rationale, let's send out an alert to everyone saying they should get their prostate examination. If it saves one life, it's worth it right?swordfish said:
Oh the irony. The people choosing to block such alerts, and there's only been one so far, are acting irresponsibly.ME14addick said:I really don't understand the outcry from some about the alert. It's not as if they happen frequently. It's the first time it's been used nationally since the test.
People all over social media saying they have turned off alerts. Why would you do that when an alert could save your life.
If that one prevents the outbreak of one wildfire, then it was worth it.
Why not send one out saying that you should do regular exercise? It shows that it will extend your quality of life, and has serious co-morbidity issues. People are often too stupid to realise this too, it would save lives.
The line should be drawn somewhere, I don't particularly care about this, but I would expect the alerts to be something I imminently need to know, that's all, and I really support that system to be clear!
Just because a message is important, does not mean it should be using the severe alert mechanism which to my mind was not set up for this purpose.It’s far more likely they simply don’t care, or, more likely, think “it won’t happen to me/us”Something that entirely overrides the settings of your phone seems somewhat OTT for a non- imminent threat. As others have said, in this instance, an SMS would seem far more appropriate.
Significantly more expensive? Almost certainly.
Easier to ignore? Yes.
More attention grabbing? No.
A nationwide SMS system would require the Government to obtain, maintain and process an enormous database of people's mobile numbers (and we can guess what the public opinion of that would be), creating substantial data-protection, security and data-sharing obligations.
Emergency Alerts achieves the same basic objective without the Government needing to possess that database at all.
Proportionate and doesn't undermine the severe alert system.
I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.
That’s not what happened though, is it. Using the alerts incorrectly is very dangerous, imo.4 -
Prostate examinations aren't nationally urgent though, and only affect the person concerned anyway.Huskaris said:
Ok then by that rationale, let's send out an alert to everyone saying they should get their prostate examination. If it saves one life, it's worth it right?swordfish said:
Oh the irony. The people choosing to block such alerts, and there's only been one so far, are acting irresponsibly.ME14addick said:I really don't understand the outcry from some about the alert. It's not as if they happen frequently. It's the first time it's been used nationally since the test.
People all over social media saying they have turned off alerts. Why would you do that when an alert could save your life.
If that one prevents the outbreak of one wildfire, then it was worth it.
Why not send one out saying that you should do regular exercise? It shows that it will extend your quality of life, and has serious co-morbidity issues. People are often too stupid to realise this too, it would save lives.
The line should be drawn somewhere, I don't particularly care about this, but I would expect the alerts to be something I imminently need to know, that's all, and I really support that system to be clear!
Just because a message is important, does not mean it should be using the severe alert mechanism which to my mind was not set up for this purpose.
Some idiot having a portable bbq on tinderbox grass or carelessly dropping a cigarette can cause an inferno, because the ground is so dry and combustible at the moment. Which isn't the case normally. That fire could cause horrendous damage and loss of life.
The only query I would have with the system, is that there perhaps should be a "quiet" alert option for warnings like this which aren't of the severity on an actual fire or flood. Maybe have the warning on the screen, but without the siren noise.1 -
Spot on. I can't see why anyone wouldn't think this a good idea.ME14addick said:
Imagine if you can, that a fire starts near your house whilst you are asleep. An alert might just give you time to get out and save your life. If you turn off the sound, you will miss the alertHuskaris said:
An alert without the settings override on is definitely the answer.Stu_of_Kunming said:
A fair point I hadn’t considered, an alert without the sound override then.Chizz said:
Appropriate? Maybe.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I think it’s far more likely it just makes people turn their alerts off entirely, which could be very dangerous if there is ever a real imminent threat where they are.ME14addick said:
Perhaps an alert might just make those who don't care or that it won't happen to me, think just that little bit more about their actions.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I find it hard to believe there’s an adult in the country that doesn’t understand how fires are started.ME14addick said:
It's a national emergency right now and it's clear many don't understand that just one spark can start a devastating fire, so it's fully justified.Huskaris said:
Ok then by that rationale, let's send out an alert to everyone saying they should get their prostate examination. If it saves one life, it's worth it right?swordfish said:
Oh the irony. The people choosing to block such alerts, and there's only been one so far, are acting irresponsibly.ME14addick said:I really don't understand the outcry from some about the alert. It's not as if they happen frequently. It's the first time it's been used nationally since the test.
People all over social media saying they have turned off alerts. Why would you do that when an alert could save your life.
If that one prevents the outbreak of one wildfire, then it was worth it.
Why not send one out saying that you should do regular exercise? It shows that it will extend your quality of life, and has serious co-morbidity issues. People are often too stupid to realise this too, it would save lives.
The line should be drawn somewhere, I don't particularly care about this, but I would expect the alerts to be something I imminently need to know, that's all, and I really support that system to be clear!
Just because a message is important, does not mean it should be using the severe alert mechanism which to my mind was not set up for this purpose.It’s far more likely they simply don’t care, or, more likely, think “it won’t happen to me/us”Something that entirely overrides the settings of your phone seems somewhat OTT for a non- imminent threat. As others have said, in this instance, an SMS would seem far more appropriate.
Significantly more expensive? Almost certainly.
Easier to ignore? Yes.
More attention grabbing? No.
A nationwide SMS system would require the Government to obtain, maintain and process an enormous database of people's mobile numbers (and we can guess what the public opinion of that would be), creating substantial data-protection, security and data-sharing obligations.
Emergency Alerts achieves the same basic objective without the Government needing to possess that database at all.
Proportionate and doesn't undermine the severe alert system.
I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.
If the poor people of Stourbridge had been asleep when the devastating fires started, an alert might have given them time to get out before their house was engulfed in flames. Fire spreads with frightening speed.
If you've turned off your alerts and the first thing you know is that your smoke alarms are going off, because your house is on fire, it may be too late to get to safety. Alerts are there for your safety, if you choose to turn them off, you may not get information in time to act.
I really don't get the refusal to accept something that is designed to save lives. Darwinism in action perhaps. It's not as if this is happening all the time.
There are unfortunately many idiots who don't understand how dangerous the conditions are right now. If it makes just a few more change their thinking, it's worth it.
4 -
I don't know if you are in the country at the moment, but everywhere is tinder dry after weeks of no rain and excessively high temperatures.Stu_of_Kunming said:
A localised imminent threat with a localised alert is exactly the right thing to do.ME14addick said:
Imagine if you can, that a fire starts near your house whilst you are asleep. An alert might just give you time to get out and save your life. If you turn off the sound, you will miss the alertHuskaris said:
An alert without the settings override on is definitely the answer.Stu_of_Kunming said:
A fair point I hadn’t considered, an alert without the sound override then.Chizz said:
Appropriate? Maybe.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I think it’s far more likely it just makes people turn their alerts off entirely, which could be very dangerous if there is ever a real imminent threat where they are.ME14addick said:
Perhaps an alert might just make those who don't care or that it won't happen to me, think just that little bit more about their actions.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I find it hard to believe there’s an adult in the country that doesn’t understand how fires are started.ME14addick said:
It's a national emergency right now and it's clear many don't understand that just one spark can start a devastating fire, so it's fully justified.Huskaris said:
Ok then by that rationale, let's send out an alert to everyone saying they should get their prostate examination. If it saves one life, it's worth it right?swordfish said:
Oh the irony. The people choosing to block such alerts, and there's only been one so far, are acting irresponsibly.ME14addick said:I really don't understand the outcry from some about the alert. It's not as if they happen frequently. It's the first time it's been used nationally since the test.
People all over social media saying they have turned off alerts. Why would you do that when an alert could save your life.
If that one prevents the outbreak of one wildfire, then it was worth it.
Why not send one out saying that you should do regular exercise? It shows that it will extend your quality of life, and has serious co-morbidity issues. People are often too stupid to realise this too, it would save lives.
The line should be drawn somewhere, I don't particularly care about this, but I would expect the alerts to be something I imminently need to know, that's all, and I really support that system to be clear!
Just because a message is important, does not mean it should be using the severe alert mechanism which to my mind was not set up for this purpose.It’s far more likely they simply don’t care, or, more likely, think “it won’t happen to me/us”Something that entirely overrides the settings of your phone seems somewhat OTT for a non- imminent threat. As others have said, in this instance, an SMS would seem far more appropriate.
Significantly more expensive? Almost certainly.
Easier to ignore? Yes.
More attention grabbing? No.
A nationwide SMS system would require the Government to obtain, maintain and process an enormous database of people's mobile numbers (and we can guess what the public opinion of that would be), creating substantial data-protection, security and data-sharing obligations.
Emergency Alerts achieves the same basic objective without the Government needing to possess that database at all.
Proportionate and doesn't undermine the severe alert system.
I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.
That’s not what happened though, is it. Using the alerts incorrectly is very dangerous, imo.
The fact that there are so many fires at the moment, more already than there were in the whole of 2025, makes it an emergency.
When I see the Fire & Rescue Services endorsing the use of the alert system on this occasion, I bow to their greater knowledge.2 -
I agree, but not having the siren detracts from the importance of the message and right now, it's incredibly important.killerandflash said:
Prostate examinations aren't nationally urgent though, and only affect the person concerned anyway.Huskaris said:
Ok then by that rationale, let's send out an alert to everyone saying they should get their prostate examination. If it saves one life, it's worth it right?swordfish said:
Oh the irony. The people choosing to block such alerts, and there's only been one so far, are acting irresponsibly.ME14addick said:I really don't understand the outcry from some about the alert. It's not as if they happen frequently. It's the first time it's been used nationally since the test.
People all over social media saying they have turned off alerts. Why would you do that when an alert could save your life.
If that one prevents the outbreak of one wildfire, then it was worth it.
Why not send one out saying that you should do regular exercise? It shows that it will extend your quality of life, and has serious co-morbidity issues. People are often too stupid to realise this too, it would save lives.
The line should be drawn somewhere, I don't particularly care about this, but I would expect the alerts to be something I imminently need to know, that's all, and I really support that system to be clear!
Just because a message is important, does not mean it should be using the severe alert mechanism which to my mind was not set up for this purpose.
Some idiot having a portable bbq on tinderbox grass or carelessly dropping a cigarette can cause an inferno, because the ground is so dry and combustible at the moment. Which isn't the case normally. That fire could cause horrendous damage and loss of life.
The only query I would have with the system, is that there perhaps should be a "quiet" alert option for warnings like this which aren't of the severity on an actual fire or flood. Maybe have the warning on the screen, but without the siren noise.0 -
0 -
I don't think you read what I wrote, at all.ME14addick said:
Imagine if you can, that a fire starts near your house whilst you are asleep. An alert might just give you time to get out and save your life. If you turn off the sound, you will miss the alertHuskaris said:
An alert without the settings override on is definitely the answer.Stu_of_Kunming said:
A fair point I hadn’t considered, an alert without the sound override then.Chizz said:
Appropriate? Maybe.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I think it’s far more likely it just makes people turn their alerts off entirely, which could be very dangerous if there is ever a real imminent threat where they are.ME14addick said:
Perhaps an alert might just make those who don't care or that it won't happen to me, think just that little bit more about their actions.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I find it hard to believe there’s an adult in the country that doesn’t understand how fires are started.ME14addick said:
It's a national emergency right now and it's clear many don't understand that just one spark can start a devastating fire, so it's fully justified.Huskaris said:
Ok then by that rationale, let's send out an alert to everyone saying they should get their prostate examination. If it saves one life, it's worth it right?swordfish said:
Oh the irony. The people choosing to block such alerts, and there's only been one so far, are acting irresponsibly.ME14addick said:I really don't understand the outcry from some about the alert. It's not as if they happen frequently. It's the first time it's been used nationally since the test.
People all over social media saying they have turned off alerts. Why would you do that when an alert could save your life.
If that one prevents the outbreak of one wildfire, then it was worth it.
Why not send one out saying that you should do regular exercise? It shows that it will extend your quality of life, and has serious co-morbidity issues. People are often too stupid to realise this too, it would save lives.
The line should be drawn somewhere, I don't particularly care about this, but I would expect the alerts to be something I imminently need to know, that's all, and I really support that system to be clear!
Just because a message is important, does not mean it should be using the severe alert mechanism which to my mind was not set up for this purpose.It’s far more likely they simply don’t care, or, more likely, think “it won’t happen to me/us”Something that entirely overrides the settings of your phone seems somewhat OTT for a non- imminent threat. As others have said, in this instance, an SMS would seem far more appropriate.
Significantly more expensive? Almost certainly.
Easier to ignore? Yes.
More attention grabbing? No.
A nationwide SMS system would require the Government to obtain, maintain and process an enormous database of people's mobile numbers (and we can guess what the public opinion of that would be), creating substantial data-protection, security and data-sharing obligations.
Emergency Alerts achieves the same basic objective without the Government needing to possess that database at all.
Proportionate and doesn't undermine the severe alert system.
I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.
If the poor people of Stourbridge had been asleep when the devastating fires started, an alert might have given them time to get out before their house was engulfed in flames. Fire spreads with frightening speed.
If you've turned off your alerts and the first thing you know is that your smoke alarms are going off, because your house is on fire, it may be too late to get to safety. Alerts are there for your safety, if you choose to turn them off, you may not get information in time to act.
I really don't get the refusal to accept something that is designed to save lives. Darwinism in action perhaps. It's not as if this is happening all the time.
There are unfortunately many idiots who don't understand how dangerous the conditions are right now. If it makes just a few more change their thinking, it's worth it.
If there's a fire nearby moving towards my house, that would be an emergency. Full sirens, full everything.
Telling me that the grass is dry, is not an emergency, but is something that could be communicated, but shouldn't be done with full sirens.
The issue you will have when people receive false severe alert notifications like yesterday is that people will turn them off, and then when a real emergency happens, they won't hear it. That's the risk with what happened yesterday.
It's not Darwinism manifest, it is boy who cried wolf manifest.
People might have shift work and be sleeping, they might be in the cinema or in a situation where noises like that are incredibly inconvenient. Situations where if a fire is moving towards you, I would be incredibly keen to know that, and would not consider it an inconvenience.
Sending an alert to say not to have a BBQ or whatever it was will lead to people turning them off, that's more dangerous. Send them out if you want, but not overriding people's sound settings.
That's balanced and pragmatic. Again, I don't understand how a rational person can disagree with that.10 -
I despair, no point in discussing with you further.Huskaris said:
I don't think you read what I wrote, at all.ME14addick said:
Imagine if you can, that a fire starts near your house whilst you are asleep. An alert might just give you time to get out and save your life. If you turn off the sound, you will miss the alertHuskaris said:
An alert without the settings override on is definitely the answer.Stu_of_Kunming said:
A fair point I hadn’t considered, an alert without the sound override then.Chizz said:
Appropriate? Maybe.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I think it’s far more likely it just makes people turn their alerts off entirely, which could be very dangerous if there is ever a real imminent threat where they are.ME14addick said:
Perhaps an alert might just make those who don't care or that it won't happen to me, think just that little bit more about their actions.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I find it hard to believe there’s an adult in the country that doesn’t understand how fires are started.ME14addick said:
It's a national emergency right now and it's clear many don't understand that just one spark can start a devastating fire, so it's fully justified.Huskaris said:
Ok then by that rationale, let's send out an alert to everyone saying they should get their prostate examination. If it saves one life, it's worth it right?swordfish said:
Oh the irony. The people choosing to block such alerts, and there's only been one so far, are acting irresponsibly.ME14addick said:I really don't understand the outcry from some about the alert. It's not as if they happen frequently. It's the first time it's been used nationally since the test.
People all over social media saying they have turned off alerts. Why would you do that when an alert could save your life.
If that one prevents the outbreak of one wildfire, then it was worth it.
Why not send one out saying that you should do regular exercise? It shows that it will extend your quality of life, and has serious co-morbidity issues. People are often too stupid to realise this too, it would save lives.
The line should be drawn somewhere, I don't particularly care about this, but I would expect the alerts to be something I imminently need to know, that's all, and I really support that system to be clear!
Just because a message is important, does not mean it should be using the severe alert mechanism which to my mind was not set up for this purpose.It’s far more likely they simply don’t care, or, more likely, think “it won’t happen to me/us”Something that entirely overrides the settings of your phone seems somewhat OTT for a non- imminent threat. As others have said, in this instance, an SMS would seem far more appropriate.
Significantly more expensive? Almost certainly.
Easier to ignore? Yes.
More attention grabbing? No.
A nationwide SMS system would require the Government to obtain, maintain and process an enormous database of people's mobile numbers (and we can guess what the public opinion of that would be), creating substantial data-protection, security and data-sharing obligations.
Emergency Alerts achieves the same basic objective without the Government needing to possess that database at all.
Proportionate and doesn't undermine the severe alert system.
I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.
If the poor people of Stourbridge had been asleep when the devastating fires started, an alert might have given them time to get out before their house was engulfed in flames. Fire spreads with frightening speed.
If you've turned off your alerts and the first thing you know is that your smoke alarms are going off, because your house is on fire, it may be too late to get to safety. Alerts are there for your safety, if you choose to turn them off, you may not get information in time to act.
I really don't get the refusal to accept something that is designed to save lives. Darwinism in action perhaps. It's not as if this is happening all the time.
There are unfortunately many idiots who don't understand how dangerous the conditions are right now. If it makes just a few more change their thinking, it's worth it.
If there's a fire nearby moving towards my house, that would be an emergency. Full sirens, full everything.
Telling me that the grass is dry, is not an emergency, but is something that could be communicated, but shouldn't be done with full sirens.
The issue you will have when people receive false severe alert notifications like yesterday is that people will turn them off, and then when a real emergency happens, they won't hear it. That's the risk with what happened yesterday.
It's not Darwinism manifest, it is boy who cried wolf manifest.
People might have shift work and be sleeping, they might be in the cinema or in a situation where noises like that are incredibly inconvenient. Situations where if a fire is moving towards you, I would be incredibly keen to know that, and would not consider it an inconvenience.
Sending an alert to say not to have a BBQ or whatever it was will lead to people turning them off, that's more dangerous. Send them out if you want, but not overriding people's sound settings.
That's balanced and pragmatic. Again, I don't understand how a rational person can disagree with that.
The Fire & Rescue Services are very pleased that this alert went out, that's good enough for me. They have a very tough job at the moment and anything that can lessen the load is a good thing.
Anyone would think that these alerts are an everyday occurence, they aren't.4 -
Thanks for that.ME14addick said:
I despair, no point in discussing with you further.Huskaris said:
I don't think you read what I wrote, at all.ME14addick said:
Imagine if you can, that a fire starts near your house whilst you are asleep. An alert might just give you time to get out and save your life. If you turn off the sound, you will miss the alertHuskaris said:
An alert without the settings override on is definitely the answer.Stu_of_Kunming said:
A fair point I hadn’t considered, an alert without the sound override then.Chizz said:
Appropriate? Maybe.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I think it’s far more likely it just makes people turn their alerts off entirely, which could be very dangerous if there is ever a real imminent threat where they are.ME14addick said:
Perhaps an alert might just make those who don't care or that it won't happen to me, think just that little bit more about their actions.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I find it hard to believe there’s an adult in the country that doesn’t understand how fires are started.ME14addick said:
It's a national emergency right now and it's clear many don't understand that just one spark can start a devastating fire, so it's fully justified.Huskaris said:
Ok then by that rationale, let's send out an alert to everyone saying they should get their prostate examination. If it saves one life, it's worth it right?swordfish said:
Oh the irony. The people choosing to block such alerts, and there's only been one so far, are acting irresponsibly.ME14addick said:I really don't understand the outcry from some about the alert. It's not as if they happen frequently. It's the first time it's been used nationally since the test.
People all over social media saying they have turned off alerts. Why would you do that when an alert could save your life.
If that one prevents the outbreak of one wildfire, then it was worth it.
Why not send one out saying that you should do regular exercise? It shows that it will extend your quality of life, and has serious co-morbidity issues. People are often too stupid to realise this too, it would save lives.
The line should be drawn somewhere, I don't particularly care about this, but I would expect the alerts to be something I imminently need to know, that's all, and I really support that system to be clear!
Just because a message is important, does not mean it should be using the severe alert mechanism which to my mind was not set up for this purpose.It’s far more likely they simply don’t care, or, more likely, think “it won’t happen to me/us”Something that entirely overrides the settings of your phone seems somewhat OTT for a non- imminent threat. As others have said, in this instance, an SMS would seem far more appropriate.
Significantly more expensive? Almost certainly.
Easier to ignore? Yes.
More attention grabbing? No.
A nationwide SMS system would require the Government to obtain, maintain and process an enormous database of people's mobile numbers (and we can guess what the public opinion of that would be), creating substantial data-protection, security and data-sharing obligations.
Emergency Alerts achieves the same basic objective without the Government needing to possess that database at all.
Proportionate and doesn't undermine the severe alert system.
I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.
If the poor people of Stourbridge had been asleep when the devastating fires started, an alert might have given them time to get out before their house was engulfed in flames. Fire spreads with frightening speed.
If you've turned off your alerts and the first thing you know is that your smoke alarms are going off, because your house is on fire, it may be too late to get to safety. Alerts are there for your safety, if you choose to turn them off, you may not get information in time to act.
I really don't get the refusal to accept something that is designed to save lives. Darwinism in action perhaps. It's not as if this is happening all the time.
There are unfortunately many idiots who don't understand how dangerous the conditions are right now. If it makes just a few more change their thinking, it's worth it.
If there's a fire nearby moving towards my house, that would be an emergency. Full sirens, full everything.
Telling me that the grass is dry, is not an emergency, but is something that could be communicated, but shouldn't be done with full sirens.
The issue you will have when people receive false severe alert notifications like yesterday is that people will turn them off, and then when a real emergency happens, they won't hear it. That's the risk with what happened yesterday.
It's not Darwinism manifest, it is boy who cried wolf manifest.
People might have shift work and be sleeping, they might be in the cinema or in a situation where noises like that are incredibly inconvenient. Situations where if a fire is moving towards you, I would be incredibly keen to know that, and would not consider it an inconvenience.
Sending an alert to say not to have a BBQ or whatever it was will lead to people turning them off, that's more dangerous. Send them out if you want, but not overriding people's sound settings.
That's balanced and pragmatic. Again, I don't understand how a rational person can disagree with that.
The Fire & Rescue Services are very pleased that this alert went out, that's good enough for me. They have a very tough job at the moment and anything that can lessen the load is a good thing.
Anyone would think that these alerts are an everyday occurence, they aren't.
All I'm trying to say is the way that you view things, and even the way I view things, is not necessarily the way that the "average person" views things.
You might be happy to receive non critical alerts like this, a lot of people won't, and it will end up being counter productive.
I was in a bar last night, and most people were bemused as to why they were getting the message and raising their eyebrows, myself included to be clear.
Once more, this is a non-imminent threat, but is incredibly important, I completely agree with you.
The shrill alarm should be reserved for imminent threats.
6 -
Sponsored links:
-
For once (feels like personal growth for me!) I can see both sides of this one.
Reckon it's an agree to disagree situation.
For me it's a wait and see how these are used in the future4 -
1 -
At least it's got people talking about it, that can only be a good thing.Huskaris said:
Thanks for that.ME14addick said:
I despair, no point in discussing with you further.Huskaris said:
I don't think you read what I wrote, at all.ME14addick said:
Imagine if you can, that a fire starts near your house whilst you are asleep. An alert might just give you time to get out and save your life. If you turn off the sound, you will miss the alertHuskaris said:
An alert without the settings override on is definitely the answer.Stu_of_Kunming said:
A fair point I hadn’t considered, an alert without the sound override then.Chizz said:
Appropriate? Maybe.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I think it’s far more likely it just makes people turn their alerts off entirely, which could be very dangerous if there is ever a real imminent threat where they are.ME14addick said:
Perhaps an alert might just make those who don't care or that it won't happen to me, think just that little bit more about their actions.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I find it hard to believe there’s an adult in the country that doesn’t understand how fires are started.ME14addick said:
It's a national emergency right now and it's clear many don't understand that just one spark can start a devastating fire, so it's fully justified.Huskaris said:
Ok then by that rationale, let's send out an alert to everyone saying they should get their prostate examination. If it saves one life, it's worth it right?swordfish said:
Oh the irony. The people choosing to block such alerts, and there's only been one so far, are acting irresponsibly.ME14addick said:I really don't understand the outcry from some about the alert. It's not as if they happen frequently. It's the first time it's been used nationally since the test.
People all over social media saying they have turned off alerts. Why would you do that when an alert could save your life.
If that one prevents the outbreak of one wildfire, then it was worth it.
Why not send one out saying that you should do regular exercise? It shows that it will extend your quality of life, and has serious co-morbidity issues. People are often too stupid to realise this too, it would save lives.
The line should be drawn somewhere, I don't particularly care about this, but I would expect the alerts to be something I imminently need to know, that's all, and I really support that system to be clear!
Just because a message is important, does not mean it should be using the severe alert mechanism which to my mind was not set up for this purpose.It’s far more likely they simply don’t care, or, more likely, think “it won’t happen to me/us”Something that entirely overrides the settings of your phone seems somewhat OTT for a non- imminent threat. As others have said, in this instance, an SMS would seem far more appropriate.
Significantly more expensive? Almost certainly.
Easier to ignore? Yes.
More attention grabbing? No.
A nationwide SMS system would require the Government to obtain, maintain and process an enormous database of people's mobile numbers (and we can guess what the public opinion of that would be), creating substantial data-protection, security and data-sharing obligations.
Emergency Alerts achieves the same basic objective without the Government needing to possess that database at all.
Proportionate and doesn't undermine the severe alert system.
I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.
If the poor people of Stourbridge had been asleep when the devastating fires started, an alert might have given them time to get out before their house was engulfed in flames. Fire spreads with frightening speed.
If you've turned off your alerts and the first thing you know is that your smoke alarms are going off, because your house is on fire, it may be too late to get to safety. Alerts are there for your safety, if you choose to turn them off, you may not get information in time to act.
I really don't get the refusal to accept something that is designed to save lives. Darwinism in action perhaps. It's not as if this is happening all the time.
There are unfortunately many idiots who don't understand how dangerous the conditions are right now. If it makes just a few more change their thinking, it's worth it.
If there's a fire nearby moving towards my house, that would be an emergency. Full sirens, full everything.
Telling me that the grass is dry, is not an emergency, but is something that could be communicated, but shouldn't be done with full sirens.
The issue you will have when people receive false severe alert notifications like yesterday is that people will turn them off, and then when a real emergency happens, they won't hear it. That's the risk with what happened yesterday.
It's not Darwinism manifest, it is boy who cried wolf manifest.
People might have shift work and be sleeping, they might be in the cinema or in a situation where noises like that are incredibly inconvenient. Situations where if a fire is moving towards you, I would be incredibly keen to know that, and would not consider it an inconvenience.
Sending an alert to say not to have a BBQ or whatever it was will lead to people turning them off, that's more dangerous. Send them out if you want, but not overriding people's sound settings.
That's balanced and pragmatic. Again, I don't understand how a rational person can disagree with that.
The Fire & Rescue Services are very pleased that this alert went out, that's good enough for me. They have a very tough job at the moment and anything that can lessen the load is a good thing.
Anyone would think that these alerts are an everyday occurence, they aren't.
All I'm trying to say is the way that you view things, and even the way I view things, is not necessarily the way that the "average person" views things.
You might be happy to receive non critical alerts like this, a lot of people won't, and it will end up being counter productive.
I was in a bar last night, and most people were bemused as to why they were getting the message and raising their eyebrows, myself included to be clear.
Once more, this is a non-imminent threat, but is incredibly important, I completely agree with you.
The shrill alarm should be reserved for imminent threats.1 -
It’s ok to disagree on things, there’s not always a black and white right and wrong.ME14addick said:
I despair, no point in discussing with you further.Huskaris said:
I don't think you read what I wrote, at all.ME14addick said:
Imagine if you can, that a fire starts near your house whilst you are asleep. An alert might just give you time to get out and save your life. If you turn off the sound, you will miss the alertHuskaris said:
An alert without the settings override on is definitely the answer.Stu_of_Kunming said:
A fair point I hadn’t considered, an alert without the sound override then.Chizz said:
Appropriate? Maybe.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I think it’s far more likely it just makes people turn their alerts off entirely, which could be very dangerous if there is ever a real imminent threat where they are.ME14addick said:
Perhaps an alert might just make those who don't care or that it won't happen to me, think just that little bit more about their actions.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I find it hard to believe there’s an adult in the country that doesn’t understand how fires are started.ME14addick said:
It's a national emergency right now and it's clear many don't understand that just one spark can start a devastating fire, so it's fully justified.Huskaris said:
Ok then by that rationale, let's send out an alert to everyone saying they should get their prostate examination. If it saves one life, it's worth it right?swordfish said:
Oh the irony. The people choosing to block such alerts, and there's only been one so far, are acting irresponsibly.ME14addick said:I really don't understand the outcry from some about the alert. It's not as if they happen frequently. It's the first time it's been used nationally since the test.
People all over social media saying they have turned off alerts. Why would you do that when an alert could save your life.
If that one prevents the outbreak of one wildfire, then it was worth it.
Why not send one out saying that you should do regular exercise? It shows that it will extend your quality of life, and has serious co-morbidity issues. People are often too stupid to realise this too, it would save lives.
The line should be drawn somewhere, I don't particularly care about this, but I would expect the alerts to be something I imminently need to know, that's all, and I really support that system to be clear!
Just because a message is important, does not mean it should be using the severe alert mechanism which to my mind was not set up for this purpose.It’s far more likely they simply don’t care, or, more likely, think “it won’t happen to me/us”Something that entirely overrides the settings of your phone seems somewhat OTT for a non- imminent threat. As others have said, in this instance, an SMS would seem far more appropriate.
Significantly more expensive? Almost certainly.
Easier to ignore? Yes.
More attention grabbing? No.
A nationwide SMS system would require the Government to obtain, maintain and process an enormous database of people's mobile numbers (and we can guess what the public opinion of that would be), creating substantial data-protection, security and data-sharing obligations.
Emergency Alerts achieves the same basic objective without the Government needing to possess that database at all.
Proportionate and doesn't undermine the severe alert system.
I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.
If the poor people of Stourbridge had been asleep when the devastating fires started, an alert might have given them time to get out before their house was engulfed in flames. Fire spreads with frightening speed.
If you've turned off your alerts and the first thing you know is that your smoke alarms are going off, because your house is on fire, it may be too late to get to safety. Alerts are there for your safety, if you choose to turn them off, you may not get information in time to act.
I really don't get the refusal to accept something that is designed to save lives. Darwinism in action perhaps. It's not as if this is happening all the time.
There are unfortunately many idiots who don't understand how dangerous the conditions are right now. If it makes just a few more change their thinking, it's worth it.
If there's a fire nearby moving towards my house, that would be an emergency. Full sirens, full everything.
Telling me that the grass is dry, is not an emergency, but is something that could be communicated, but shouldn't be done with full sirens.
The issue you will have when people receive false severe alert notifications like yesterday is that people will turn them off, and then when a real emergency happens, they won't hear it. That's the risk with what happened yesterday.
It's not Darwinism manifest, it is boy who cried wolf manifest.
People might have shift work and be sleeping, they might be in the cinema or in a situation where noises like that are incredibly inconvenient. Situations where if a fire is moving towards you, I would be incredibly keen to know that, and would not consider it an inconvenience.
Sending an alert to say not to have a BBQ or whatever it was will lead to people turning them off, that's more dangerous. Send them out if you want, but not overriding people's sound settings.
That's balanced and pragmatic. Again, I don't understand how a rational person can disagree with that.
.4 -
People don’t help themselves. Back in the sixties and seventies when my dad was a senior officer in the London Fire Brigade responsible for fire prevention , 20% of home fires were apparently caused by cigarettes not being extinguished properly. People smoking in bed and falling asleep was common or carelessly discarding cigarettes without checking they were no longer alight being just two examples.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I find it hard to believe there’s an adult in the country that doesn’t understand how fires are started.ME14addick said:
It's a national emergency right now and it's clear many don't understand that just one spark can start a devastating fire, so it's fully justified.Huskaris said:
Ok then by that rationale, let's send out an alert to everyone saying they should get their prostate examination. If it saves one life, it's worth it right?swordfish said:
Oh the irony. The people choosing to block such alerts, and there's only been one so far, are acting irresponsibly.ME14addick said:I really don't understand the outcry from some about the alert. It's not as if they happen frequently. It's the first time it's been used nationally since the test.
People all over social media saying they have turned off alerts. Why would you do that when an alert could save your life.
If that one prevents the outbreak of one wildfire, then it was worth it.
Why not send one out saying that you should do regular exercise? It shows that it will extend your quality of life, and has serious co-morbidity issues. People are often too stupid to realise this too, it would save lives.
The line should be drawn somewhere, I don't particularly care about this, but I would expect the alerts to be something I imminently need to know, that's all, and I really support that system to be clear!
Just because a message is important, does not mean it should be using the severe alert mechanism which to my mind was not set up for this purpose.It’s far more likely they simply don’t care, or, more likely, think “it won’t happen to me/us”2 -
The Stourbridge fire seems rather strange to me.🤔
Several homes catching fire ‘more or less’ all at once, with fairly significant distance between them and at first sight no discernible spread pattern?
0 -
I assume you consider yourself to be in the 3% group…….lucky you.🧐IdleHans said:
Remember, 97% of people are morons who ARE stupid enough to need to be told.Huskaris said:
Yes exactly.ME14addick said:I really don't understand the outcry from some about the alert. It's not as if they happen frequently. It's the first time it's been used nationally since the test.
People all over social media saying they have turned off alerts. Why would you do that when an alert could save your life.
If the alerts are going to save my life, or inform me of an imminent danger, or a hyper localised issue, great.
If the alerts are going to tell me things that I'm not stupid enough to need to be told, I'm not interested and understand why others wouldn't be either.
Didn't realise we could turn them off, if there's another one like this I'll be turning mine off. It's not what I am interested in receiving.
Anyway, if these alerts bother you that much I imagine you can just reply Unsubscribe and you'll get no more
0 -
Everywhere is tinder dry and very combustible, it only takes a spark for a fire to start, embers are often carried a long way from the seat of the fire.SoundAsa£ said:The Stourbridge fire seems rather strange to me.🤔
Several homes catching fire ‘more or less’ all at once, with fairly significant distance between them and at first sight no discernible spread pattern?Some properties burn and others remain untouched because embers exploit vulnerabilities. If a home has flammable materials, debris, or openings that let embers in, it ignites. If it has fire‑resistant design, clean surroundings, and no easy ignition points, it often survives, even in the same neighbourhood and under the same fire conditions.
With regard to the alerts, one of the Chief Fire Officers was on tv yesterday, saying that it was the Fire Services that called for the alerts to be sent. That's a good enough reason for me, they are having a very busy time and put their lives on the line.
2 -
I was in the gym at the time. Quite funny to see everyone turning round looking at everyone else thinking "whose fucking phone is that?"2
-
I can’t believe how worked up right wingers seem to be getting about this and the disposable bbq rule. Feels like a (very) desperate attempt to criticise Burnham. Quite revealing in its own way.11
-
Sponsored links:
-
I was wrong, the alarm continued to go off on peoples phones throughout. Mine, twice in the theatre and once more on the tube. My wifes phone had the alert twice. It didn't really bother me but I do think it was all a little bit too dramatic.charltonkeston said:We’re in a theatre and they are going off all over the place. Hopefully we won’t have the performance interrupted by them. It’s not as if any one is lighting bbq’s in here.
0 -
Far from it. In fact I was just on my way out to some parched heathland with a disposable barbecue and a box of cook's matches when I got the alert. Phew!SoundAsa£ said:
I assume you consider yourself to be in the 3% group…….lucky you.🧐IdleHans said:
Remember, 97% of people are morons who ARE stupid enough to need to be told.Huskaris said:
Yes exactly.ME14addick said:I really don't understand the outcry from some about the alert. It's not as if they happen frequently. It's the first time it's been used nationally since the test.
People all over social media saying they have turned off alerts. Why would you do that when an alert could save your life.
If the alerts are going to save my life, or inform me of an imminent danger, or a hyper localised issue, great.
If the alerts are going to tell me things that I'm not stupid enough to need to be told, I'm not interested and understand why others wouldn't be either.
Didn't realise we could turn them off, if there's another one like this I'll be turning mine off. It's not what I am interested in receiving.
Anyway, if these alerts bother you that much I imagine you can just reply Unsubscribe and you'll get no more
What I perhaps should have said was that 97% of people sometimes do moronic things.0 -
IdleHans said:
Far from it. In fact I was just on my way out to some parched heathland with a disposable barbecue and a box of cook's matches when I got the alert. Phew!SoundAsa£ said:
I assume you consider yourself to be in the 3% group…….lucky you.🧐IdleHans said:
Remember, 97% of people are morons who ARE stupid enough to need to be told.Huskaris said:
Yes exactly.ME14addick said:I really don't understand the outcry from some about the alert. It's not as if they happen frequently. It's the first time it's been used nationally since the test.
People all over social media saying they have turned off alerts. Why would you do that when an alert could save your life.
If the alerts are going to save my life, or inform me of an imminent danger, or a hyper localised issue, great.
If the alerts are going to tell me things that I'm not stupid enough to need to be told, I'm not interested and understand why others wouldn't be either.
Didn't realise we could turn them off, if there's another one like this I'll be turning mine off. It's not what I am interested in receiving.
Anyway, if these alerts bother you that much I imagine you can just reply Unsubscribe and you'll get no more
What I perhaps should have said was that 97% of people sometimes do moronic things.
I would say 100% - we are all capable of doing moronic things, just some more often than others!3 -
His name is BURNthemhamcharente addick said:I can’t believe how worked up right wingers seem to be getting about this and the disposable bbq rule. Feels like a (very) desperate attempt to criticise Burnham. Quite revealing in its own way.0 -
Same thing happened to us....but we were in a pub.ArmchairAddick said:I was in the gym at the time. Quite funny to see everyone turning round looking at everyone else thinking "whose fucking phone is that?"0 -
We used to get these alerts all the time in British Columbia but they were generally targeted to a specific area.
They were often used when a suspect was on the loose - it would give a description and a car Reg plate. Quite effective I thought.0 -
0 -
I've got a feeling this was seen as reason to test the system and it seemed to work. But it is good that the subject gets discussed as we don't want wildfires caused by recklessness.1
