thanks for the swift resonse, ,,,, always room for conspiracy theories .. i guess the truth will emerge,, hopefully. are the fire safety certificates public domain or private?,, that would be interesting to know???regards furbs
There was a fella who ran in to save some stuff... by the time he'd run out the whole place was ablaze and I think he felt he was lucky to be alive. Search the Weston Mercury site for the story - it's most definitely there. He's the bearded ageing fella who (I believe) is also featured in the re-opening photos.
The issue with the Grand Pier appears, to me at least, to be the fact that by the time anybody knew the fire existed it had already been burning for several hours and had taken hold of the (largely) wooden pavilion. The idea that somebody with a fire extinguisher could have made a difference is, I believe, misguided. In the event I think that the complete lack of injuries or deaths makes it an outcome that I'd be happy with - things could have been much worse.
As for the ideas mooted around the forums that the owners could have torched it: well, consider this. If they were going to do that why didn't they do it in the spring when they bought it? Before they'd spent all that money on it? What would have been the point of installing go-karts, revamping the place, getting bar licences etc. if they knew they wanted to destroy it all? Surely better to do it BEFORE?? And assuming they wanted to wait the timing is completely wrong - it burned down just before the peak month, August, when the schools are on holiday. Surely any sensible person wanting to set up such a scam would wait until September or October, when things are quiet. They'd still have the whole winter to plan, rebuild etc., but would have an additional 6-8 weeks of takings... no economic sense in torching your asset just before your most profitable month.
Conspiracy theories don't help get the Grand Pier back on track. I think that the Michaels are doing a fantastic job in keeping things going, involving the residents and those further afield in the rebuilding process etc... I think that all the discussions we're having about pier designs so soon after the fire is a wonderful sign of how enthusiastic this inspiring brother and sister duo are to get things sorted... Birnbeck was left to rot for decades before anybody did anything about it, and let's not mention the Tropicana.
So, three cheers for Kerry and Michelle...
And for the record, in answer to the above, Kerry was on holiday in Spain when the pier burnt down but flew straight back, Michelle was in Weston -- folks are entitled to holidays, you know! Even pier owners.
sean, if you read the thread the question was answered earlier, ,and if i was going to burn down my pier... i would max the insurance, make sure there was a loss of earnings clause and do it after the two busiet weekends of my season... but thats just me sean.i dont recall blaming the michaels for the pier , i just ask a question, which , compared to some being ask , is relatively tame....regards furby
Surely the bigger question is why was the fire alarm system not linked directly to the Fire service? Doesn't it seem a bit dangerous, especially given the inherent dangers of a fire at the end of a pier? Was the keyholder then supposed to pass on the message? Why have a system which even if it works properly (as it clearly didn't in this case) is still going to mean that the fire service will take longer to get to any incident?
The other thing that still puzzles me is how come noone discovered the fire until 6.45? There used to be a security guard who went up the pier a couple of times during the night and clocked in at the far end, did he not see anything or was this practice stopped for some reason?
Fire Authorities do not like having remote fire detections systems directly connected to the Fire Brigade. The reason being that if there is a direct connection and a alarm call is received, then the onus to check out whether there is a fire, or not, is the responsibility of the Fire Authority. The same normally applies with burglar alarms. The Police do not want burglar alarms connected directly to their Police Information Rooms, because they (the Police) would have to check out every alarm call, false or not. When fire and burglar automatic alarm diallers started appearing in the 1960s, I used to sell them, there were an awful lot of false alarms, hence the Police and Fire Authority specifying that they wanted automatic systems to be vetted by third parties, who in turn would check out the situation, then contact the Police or Fire. The theory being that there would then be less chance of a false alarm callout. Which is what would, or should, have happened with the Grand Pier.
From memory, the Grand Pier's automatic alarm destination company was based in Essex? Also from memory, on the Points West tv programme, "someone" who had been an employee of that company was interviewed on tv and divulged that the alarm company received an alarm call and "did its bit" by telephoning mobile telephone numbers, within the specified allowable period of time, to raise the alarm. I haven't heard what happened next, and what action was taken by whom and when.
I was gutted when the pavilion went up in smoke - not only was it a lovely old piece of history but I have spent a lot of happy hours on it on and off over the past 30 years.
I am still mystified over this issue of the 'absent' key-holder - if the alarm monitoring company couldn't contact said key-holder, why didn't they do the sensible thing and contact the North Somerset fire brigade?????
This Daily Telegraph article (which was also carried on other web sites and in papers) is rather interesting: