Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

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

Bruce Banner

Mandatory Evacuations.

Recommended Posts

Should authorities have the power to turn adults out of their houses because they (the authorities) think it's unsafe for whatever reason?

Is that really what it means? Didn't a bunch of people defy 'mandatory' things ahead of other incidents like katrina?

It's not IMHO unreasonable to say This is too big for us to deal with, so if you stay at home you can expect no help from the emergency services no matter what happens to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You always get some that say "I ain't going, it's my right". Then the flood water comes and they are on their roof. They telephone the emergency services and then they say "send a helicopter, it's my right".

How about the emergency services, who will already be pressed in such a time turn around and say "F**k you, you chose to stay". You get to choose your course of action, now live with the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should authorities have the power to turn adults out of their houses because they (the authorities) think it's unsafe for whatever reason?

NO! (unless your continued presence threatens national ssecurity or the safety of others around you)

Yet it often surprises me that so many otherwise sensible, educated and intelligent people are so quick to defend the 'right' of the police to turf people out of their homes in situations where they deem it necessary, e.g a domestic gun siege in a suburban house where some nutter is holed up with a shotgun threatening to kill himself, etc. Incidentally, in such situations, it always amuses me the level of overreaction the police make and deem it necessary to evacuate people outside their cordon/zone e.g man with sawn-off 12bore (max. useful range 50 metres) and yet people a 1/4 kilometre away being told to leave their homes.

AFAIK in cases involving the police (as opposed to the army) they usually advise/persuade you to leave but cannot force you to? Unless they resort to some indirect legal means such as by you staying you will be obstructing them in doing their duties?

Very simply, if one is advised to leave, declines and is subsequently hurt they shoukd have no rights to sue/seek compensation. I suppose its understandable, in this litigous society where people who should have exercised personal responsibility but after an event say plod didnt explain it properly to me, etc etc, that the PTB decide its just easier to turf everyone out equally from the outset - and avoid lawsuits after.

Any reason for this post? Been forcibly thrown out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO! (unless your continued presence threatens national ssecurity or the safety of others around you)

Yet it often surprises me that so many otherwise sensible, educated and intelligent people are so quick to defend the 'right' of the police to turf people out of their homes in situations where they deem it necessary, e.g a domestic gun siege in a suburban house where some nutter is holed up with a shotgun threatening to kill himself, etc. Incidentally, in such situations, it always amuses me the level of overreaction the police make and deem it necessary to evacuate people outside their cordon/zone e.g man with sawn-off 12bore (max. useful range 50 metres) and yet people a 1/4 kilometre away being told to leave their homes.

Essentially the Injin argument people are deeply prostate and deeply pro evil because of this.

AFAIK in cases involving the police (as opposed to the army) they usually advise/persuade you to leave but cannot force you to? Unless they resort to some indirect legal means such as by you staying you will be obstructing them in doing their duties?

You'll just get arrested and thus forced to leave..... tbh all you do is simply not answer the door when cops come to 'evacuate' your homes. 20-30 years ago when the HK police were as corrupt as the UK police force hurricane/typhoon evacuations used to happen in the Shanties and poorly build tenements. Police would call for an evac, the police would then loot the shantie homes. After a few times people simply ignored the police calls to evac and simply did not leave their homes pretending not to be in.

Its not as if they will be going house to house to check right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll just get arrested and thus forced to leave..... tbh all you do is simply not answer the door when cops come to 'evacuate' your homes.

Its not as if they will be going house to house to check right?

The problem is that you need at least some info from the police to know whats going on. Otherwise how are you to make your own guess/informed opinion as to the seriousness of the situation and whether or not you want to leave.

But of course to get this info you have to answer the front door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that you need at least some info from the police to know whats going on. Otherwise how are you to make your own guess/informed opinion as to the seriousness of the situation and whether or not you want to leave.

But of course to get this info you have to answer the front door.

Curtain twitch as they forcibly evacuate your neighbors 'for their safety'

Meh I live next door to two curtain twitchers, be careful though they see your curtain move they'll kick down your door and tase you.... for your own safety of course.... then plant a gun drugs or kiddie porn on you. Then white wash it at the IPPC and give out misleading press releases to make out you are the bad guy...

Could never happen..... could it? :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a case a few years ago in this country where an elderly couple phoned emergency services to report a fire and request a fire engine. After that they started to move their stuff out of the burning house. Unfortunately, the police arrived first and ordered them not to go into the house again for their own safety. The man, a retired army officer, argued with them and asked them to leave his property. He was physically restrained, arrested, and forced to watch while all his belongings were destroyed.

He subsequently sued the police for wrongful arrest and trespass, I'm not sure of of the final outcome, but the police argument was that it is their duty to save life and prevent injury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that really what it means? Didn't a bunch of people defy 'mandatory' things ahead of other incidents like katrina?

It's not IMHO unreasonable to say This is too big for us to deal with, so if you stay at home you can expect no help from the emergency services no matter what happens to you.

In the USA they have powers of arrest if a mandatory evacuation is ignored.

In my opinion, it is absolutely reasonable to deny help from the emergency services if an evacuation request is ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, just got a bee in my bonnet about being forced to do things "for my own good".

They don't do it for your own good, they do it because they own you and want to protect their investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the USA they have powers of arrest if a mandatory evacuation is ignored.

In my opinion, it is absolutely reasonable to deny help from the emergency services if an evacuation request is ignored.

They still get ignored though, I remembered one old guy ignoring the Mt. St. Helens evacuation and by the power of google:

Mt. St. Helens had remained dormant for 123 years. In March of 1980 scientists recorded seismic tremors from the mountain. State officials ordered the residents of the area to evacuate and warned people not to hike in the area. However, not everyone took heed to the warnings. Harry Truman, an elderly man living near the mountain, refused to vacate his home. Within minutes of the explosion he and his home, along with other people and homes, were virtually buried in mud.

http://www.platetectonics.com/book/page_3.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They still get ignored though, I remembered one old guy ignoring the Mt. St. Helens evacuation and by the power of google:

http://www.platetectonics.com/book/page_3.asp

If they could allow people to stay, and not be liable for looking after them at all, then i'd be for it.

Unfortunately, what i'd expect is that emergency services would still get slated for anyone that dies, family members would sue, papers would show all these heartbreaking images of 'the family that stayed'..

People expect to be shielded from their own stupidity these days. Maybe you could get a common sense certificate as a waiver?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Grauniad Live Blog:

For the first time ever, parts of the city have been served with a mandatory evacuation order. This affects low-lying areas of Manhattan, including one area just three blocks from where I am – plus parts of Brooklyn and all the Rockaways (a Long Island peninsula that falls within the New York city limits).
Hospitals and senior homes in the areas are being evacuated. But
this doesn't mean people are legally obliged to leave
, just that at the height of the storm, rescue services won't necessarily come to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the perfect recipe for the Daily X mouth foamer. With the authorities dammed if they do and dammed if they don't.

For example, in the case of the old guy wanting to rescue his possessions, how did the police know he was not mad, or was physically impaired (breathing difficulties) or whether he fully knew the risks (risk of gas explosion etc) ?

So you can see the line, it's either :

"Brave pensioner who fought in the war etc chest full of medals etc forced to watch his entire posessions destroyed by health and safety numpties"

or

"Brave pensioner overcome by fumes trying to rescue possessions. Despite knowing there was a risk of explosion and deadly fumes, the police stood by and let the frail old man entire the house, only for him to die as his wife watched."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the perfect recipe for the Daily X mouth foamer. With the authorities dammed if they do and dammed if they don't.

For example, in the case of the old guy wanting to rescue his possessions, how did the police know he was not mad, or was physically impaired (breathing difficulties) or whether he fully knew the risks (risk of gas explosion etc) ?

So you can see the line, it's either :

"Brave pensioner who fought in the war etc chest full of medals etc forced to watch his entire posessions destroyed by health and safety numpties"

or

"Brave pensioner overcome by fumes trying to rescue possessions. Despite knowing there was a risk of explosion and deadly fumes, the police stood by and let the frail old man entire the house, only for him to die as his wife watched."

Nanny State..... Bah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably some daft human rights spiel about how its governments duty to protect us from ourselves even when it conflicts with other human rights.

God i hate (EU) human rights, should be called "lawyers rights to fleece the taxpayer"

I had plenty of human rights before 1998 or whenever Bliar signed over our legislative sovreignty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The police could have asked him to sign a waiver that he was taking full responsibility for his actions and that it was against their advice. Job jobbed!

It's supposed to be dribble, not bah.

Anyway, if you want to when you dip into that no doubt vast str fund you have you can buy a house in the middle of nowhere, and when the place catches fire you can delay calling the authorities, storm in and grab your stuff without any fear of being restrained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should authorities have the power to turn adults out of their houses because they (the authorities) think it's unsafe for whatever reason?

No...they should allow you to sign a disclaimer to say...if there is blame they would be unable to claim. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No...they should allow you to sign a disclaimer to say...if there is blame they would be unable to claim. ;)

I'm sorry, but that's just silly.

A policeman turns up to a burning house. Outside is a person with their things inside, who may have just had a narrow escape.

Do you really think that person is going to be in any sort of fit state to judge whether it is safe or not to go back in ? Do you think that person appreciates there may be a gas explosion, or toxic fumes that may kill them in seconds ? Is that person going to be calm enough to assess the situation rationally while they are watching their house burning ?

In the heat of the moment and through lack of experience we all make decisions we may regret. You can replace things (less is more remember) but you can't replace peoples lives.

At the end of the day the police have to try to make their best judgement on what could turn out to be a dangerous situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 343 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.