You Want People To Die!

Mandatory kidney sharing.  Double helmets and double seat belts.  5km/h speed limits.  All in the interests of public safety – oh and an expansion of the state.

Coming to a Parliament close to you.  Very soon apparently.

Brilliant video:

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to You Want People To Die!

  1. Adelagado

    What about fridges!

  2. .

    It isn’t enough that teachers at school wear safety vests. Kids should wear safety vests as well.

  3. Some History

    Excellent vid.

    You Want People To Die? is right up there with

    Don’t You Care?

    It’s For The Children™.

  4. C.L.

    Brilliant.
    The Two Helmet Bill.
    LOL!

  5. .

    Some History – you’re not helping.

  6. H B Bear

    Of course the Australian version is that the Great Barrier Reef will die.

  7. Jarrod

    Remy is brilliant…. for the uninitiated I recommend students united and raise the debt ceiling.

  8. Helen

    Yes, the video’s funny. Funny peculiar.

    But that’s actually been the reason for much legislation. To protect people from death and injury. Why? Well, ignoring humane reasons, because people dying and getting injured costs us all money. Lost productivity, hospital costs, welfare costs. (The husband of a friend of mine ended up in his 40s with major head and brain injuries after a car accident; she described the shock on walking into the ward in a big hospital full of mainly young men with incurable brain damage from similar accidents. Her husband never recovered and lived in a nursing home, at our cost, for another 20 years.).

    How about another video, showing people actually dying (Grenfell Tower and many more possible examples), with funky music and a sarcastic voice over listing the safety measures that were ignored or scammed and saying ‘Who knew people would die?’

  9. .

    What measures were ignored? They used the legislated ”nviromentally friendly” crap that turned the place into a deathtrap.

  10. Rebel with cause

    Grenfell is a great example of Milton Friedman’s point: people spending other people’s money on things for other people don’t really care what they are buying. Hence the flameable cladding.

  11. You want people to die.
    No I don’t.
    Then vote against euthanasia and abortion.
    Ummm, but, but, that’s not what I meant.

  12. Diogenes

    It isn’t enough that teachers at school wear safety vests.

    Only on yard duty. And only so mangalment can see that we are not AWOL, and the kids can quickly spot us if they are being peer conflicted.

  13. Entropy

    Dot is right Helen. The only reason the cladding was installed at the Grendel, Towers was for energy efficiency reasons because global warming will cause people to die!
    Well in this case an overdose of government policy killed them.

    In any case, your examples are quite likely policy decisions. That isn’t what this was about . Warren was bewailing cuts to some QANGO bunch of busybodies who make no diffence anyway, and the dishonest scumbag was trying to guilt people into keeping on funding it.

  14. Entropy

    Should have checked that:
    Dot is right Helen. The only reason the cladding was installed at the Grenfell Towers was for energy efficiency reasons because global warming will cause people to die!
    Well in this case the overdose of government policy killed them.

    In any case, your examples are quite likely sensible policy decisions. That isn’t what this was about . Warren was bewailing cuts to some QANGO bunch of busybodies who make no diffence anyway, and the dishonest scumbag was trying to guilt people into keeping on funding it.

  15. Entropy

    Adelagado
    #2427659, posted on June 30, 2017 at 12:04 pm
    What about fridges!

    I think he was just getting to that vexing and insufficient,y addressed risk at the fade out:

    “Crossing the street
    People look left and right,
    But never look up….”

  16. Leo G

    Surely Sen Cal Guy really represents Illinois.

  17. Helen

    Re Grenfell Tower, I understood the reason (or perhaps one of the reasons), was to prettify the exterior to make it look better because the surrounding area was gentrifying. If so, it wasn’t to help the people actually living in the tower. I’m not clear why the cladding on the exterior of the building (rather than the interior) would help with insulation anyway. If it was for insulation, and the aim was to cut the cost of heating, then that was a rational aim regardless of global warming pros and cons. I insulated my house to cut costs and make it warmer, nothing to do with GW. I didn’t put the insulation on the outside!
    Whatever the reason for adding cladding, that’s got nothing to with the issue of the regulation of fire safety standards of the material. And that’s what the video was about, satirising safety regulations. My point stands – that safety regulations save us all money. Think of the huge cost now ahead in Britain, removing and or replacing all the materials on all the buildings that don’t meet safety standards.
    Still it’s always interesting to see on an economics-oriented blog, that ideology trumps economics 101. (Bringing global warming into every debate is getting to be like mentioning the Nazis!)

  18. .

    Whatever the reason for adding cladding, that’s got nothing to with the issue of the regulation of fire safety standards of the material.

    Busted Helen, busted.

    You are an economic illiterate and were the first to invoke Godwin.

  19. Pingback: You Want People To Die! | Catallaxy Files | Cranky Old Crow

  20. Fat Tony

    Do we have 2 Helens commenting on this blog??

  21. Fat Tony

    Helen
    #2427834, posted on June 30, 2017 at 2:07 pm
    I’m not clear why the cladding on the exterior of the building (rather than the interior) would help with insulation anyway.

    Couple of points:
    1. Heat loss happens where there is a difference in temperature.
    2. The Grenfell building was made of concrete – inside & out.
    3. The only place that insulation could be placed is on the outside.
    4. The greatest temperature difference is the outer walls of the building and the outside environment.
    5. Generally, most heat loss occurs because of convection – the outside air moves past the building and warms up (taking heat from the building)

    See if you can make sense of it that way.

  22. Baldrick

    Surely Sen Cal Guy really represents Illinois.

    I hate Illinois Nazis

  23. Helen

    1. The posts here today so far are all from the same Helen, but I think there is another Helen who posts sometimes.

    2. Dot wrote ‘You are an economic illiterate and were the first to invoke Godwin’. Well, since I have never mentioned/invoked Godwin (whoever) in this thread or any other, the honours go to you as the first.

    3. Fat T0ny: I understand how insulation works. I have insulated a old unlined single brick house extension by putting insulation inside the walls and covering it with plasterboard; I didn’t put it on the outside. However I can understand why external cladding was used, easier than unit by unit, especially if appearance was also a factor. I’ve not read anywhere that double-glazed windows were also added for insulation, which would have been quite expensive.

    4. This article says that the cladding did meet regulations (but was a cheap version). So it seems that there’s a case for upgrading the fire safety regulations. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3804113/cladding-grenfell-london-tower-fire-chalcots-estate-camden-inquiry/

    5. Finally, no-one has engaged intelligently with my argument that the reasons for the cladding (appearance, insulation, global warming,whatever) are irrelevant to whether the cladding met existing fire regulation standards, or if they did, the event demonstrated that the regulations need to be improved to ensure that such easily combustible material is not used, and that there is an economic argument for this – in the long run its saves money (in this case it will likely include demolition of the tower, court and inquiry costs, compensation to those killed or injured, rehousing of those who survived, re-fitting other building with the same cladding – easily a billion or more, and probably most out of taxpayers’ pockets). I don’t count Dot’s ‘you are an economic idiot’ silliness. It’s economic common-sense. ‘For the want of a nail the kingdom was lost’.

  24. Yohan

    I just watched half a dozen of those Remy videos. Hilarious and very clever.

    Watch the Fake News one, reaction to tragedy, and the SNL parody.

  25. JohnA

    Helen #2427834, posted on June 30, 2017 at 2:07 pm

    Think of the huge cost now ahead in Britain, removing and or replacing all the materials on all the buildings that don’t meet safety standards.

    Except that you are hoist with your own petard here, because this represents a failure to adhere to standards ie. an enforcement problem, rather than a safety in design or construction problem.

    If you (generic) want standards to become more stringent, where they were previously considered adequate, you are in the sights of this video. You, as the proposer of tougher standards, need to evaluate the cost compared with the economic or social benefit of the change and convince the community with sound, logical argument. If the previous level of regulation was thoroughly and demonstrably inadequate, then it should be obvious, or a coronial inquest should be sufficient to bring that to light.(Even the Mining, Factory, child labour and slavery legislation can meet that level of scrutiny.)

    To illustrate: I still disagree with the use of air bags in cars because they impose heavier economic costs on the community than seat belts. The main reason the US went for air bags (aka “passive collision restraints”) was the crazy belief in the freedom of individuals to refuse to buckle up the seat belt (a putative “civil rights issue”). Somehow the idea of law enforcement and societal pressure to encourage the use of “active collision restraints” like seat belts was thought to be beyond the pale!

    So the highly complex design of the air bag system means it has to inflate explosively without puncturing eardrums but deflate quickly so you don’t suffocate when your face hits the pillow.

    And now after a collision, instead of replacing say a $300 seat belt we, via our insurers, get to replace a $3000 dashboard and steering column, because “you don’t want people to die, do you?”

  26. Tel

    It isn’t enough that teachers at school wear safety vests.

    Jeremy Clarkson was ahead of the game wearing two helmets (and if you look closely, two high-viz safety vests as well).

  27. Tel

    3. The only place that insulation could be placed is on the outside.

    I’m pretty sure that each individual owner of a flat could have chosen to place insulation on the inside if he/she had wanted to.

    Perhaps what you are saying is that the only place a collective central planned decision maker could place insulation was on the outside. Fine, that’s true, and then said central planned decision maker should have paid £5000 more to buy the fireproof insulation as approved for hi-rise. Given as how they were bypassing the decisions of all the individual residents and all that.

  28. Fat Tony

    Tel
    I’m pretty sure that each individual owner of a flat could have chosen to place insulation on the inside if he/she had wanted to.

    Look at it this way – the units are all concrete – concrete walls, concrete ceilings.
    Have a look at your place – how would you go about putting insulation on the inside?
    Obviously, you can do anything if you really want, but to do this to the interior of the all-concrete units would be rather difficult (expensive).
    And since the major heat loss is through the outside walls, this is the location for the most effective insulation. (Cost-benefit analysis).

    And I totally agree that the central planned decision maker should have paid £5000 more to buy the fireproof insulation as approved for hi-rise, and not the cheap, flammable non-approved Chinese stuff.

    It’s quite possible that some form of double glazing would have been more effective. Who knows? I don’t think the ones who authorised the external insulation were too concerned with efficiency/cost – probably more interested in having a monument they can point to with their wanking mates and say “I did that”.

  29. The aluminium faced panels have reflective light coloured surfaces facing outwards, and inwards towards the concrete. That can separate the internal and external environments to some degree. The windows though, from one report, were able to be opened, and it was a hot day for London. I’ve wondered why the burning external panels so easily caused internal fire on every floor. Was it equal in every unit?

  30. Leo G

    I’ve wondered why the burning external panels so easily caused internal fire on every floor.

    Low melting point of commercial polyethylene (110 Celsius). Imagine a shower of burning droplets flowing with the wind through open windows.

  31. Up The Workers!

    Double-helmets?

    They’re all the rage in Tasmania, where they are the only kind on sale (i.e. mostly side-by-side ones, but occasionally a rare back-to-front one for the politicians)

  32. .

    Forced poisoning! You mouth frothing loon.

Comments are closed.