paul bennett wrote:
Fox wrote:Why would you say something like that?
Because I work with these people. That is how it is.
I run an insurance scheme for re-enacmtent groups, and I organise events so I'm not completely ignorant on the subject either.
paul bennett wrote:Risk limitation is one of the single biggest issues on the minds of the people running the venue. Guidance is seen as law, and suggestions from an insurer are often taken to be absolute decrees. Even if they dont ask for it up front, they will if anything goes wrong, as will the courts.
Of all which might be true, but I don't see how any of that stops you writing a risk assessment for a fire on the ground, or getting insurance on that basis.
paul bennett wrote:Stupid - yes.
Going to change - no.
Well, it certainly isn't goping to change if you start telling people that "insurance companies require it" or that they "won't listen" or "is a standard detail in all risk assessments"; none of which is true.
Herman has expressed the reasons well; they're to do with archeology, cosmetic damage and ease of control.
I'm not about to go about encouraging ground based fires at events, but isn't because insurance companies demand raised fireboxes as part of the risk assessment.