PDA

View Full Version : Fire safety- do I really need all these thngs?



mandarin
10-10-2009, 11:52 AM
Hi everyone,

Far be it for me to question fire regulations and advice, for my 3 room (maybe 4) HMO with shared kitchen and living room, do I really need all of the following:

- Smoke detectors, interlinked, mains wired in every room and each hallway
- Except kitchen which requires a heat detector, mains wired
- Emergency lights in all hallways and staircases
- Alarm system tested/air intake grills ceaned monthly keeping written records (I guess I can claim for monthly visits as a tax deduction)
- Control panel for fire protection system
- Break glass point

Oh, and the curcuit to use to be dedicated (segregated form all other circuits) by distance, conduit trunkin or cable type, and having a 72 hour battery back up.

Mainaly my decorator is jus about to start, but if I need to dig new electric trunking across every room... I need a rehink

If anyone can recomemnd a cost effective easy to use/install system (or part of a system) above it would be much appreciated?

Many thanks

red40
10-10-2009, 13:05 PM
Sounds about right, mandarin.

However, the smoke detection system and other fire precautions you mentioned would be risk based. Therefore to give an accurate answer would be impossible.

I wouldn't do anything without consulting your relevant local authority as they will carry out a risk assessment of the property, occupants, any hazards present, etc. If you do this they council have to consult with the local fire service and agree a schedule of works for your property. The good thing about doing it that way is that you get a fire spec that is upto date and the relevant parties agree.

Dont even think about the cost effective way, there isnt one! If you dont consult with the local authority, you may well be installing something that is no use and wasting your money.

Dont forget the fire doors (if applicable), the 30 minute protected escape route and sealing the back of the door frames to the wall linings, no point in fitting a fire door if there is a gap between the wall and frame.

johnny99
12-10-2009, 12:58 PM
Mandarin,

Take a look at the LACORS guidance:

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=19843

Case study D4 on page 41 looks as though it might be applicable to your property.

Assuming that the property is two-storey, it would suggest that you would probably need a smoke detection system covering each floor level in the hallway and also a smoke detector in the living room, with a heat detector in the kitchen. They would need to be mains powered with a battery back-up and all linked together. The guidance suggests that you shouldn't need a system with break glass points or a control panel. As red40 suggests, it is based on risk, so you would have to look at the property individually.

If it's two-storey, there probably won't be any requirement for emergency lights.

Again, based on the guidance, if it's two-storey, there's no requirement for a 30 minute protected escape route, unless the construction standards are poor, travel distances are long, or there are other higher risk factors present. So long as the doors are 'sound, well constructed and close-fitting conventional doors' you shouldn't have to replace them.

Have a look at the guidance, and see how it applies to your place.

I hope this helps.

Telometer
12-10-2009, 14:48 PM
Talk to your local authority. No other way. They all have different guidelines.

johnny99
12-10-2009, 20:06 PM
Talk to your local authority. No other way. They all have different guidelines.

The real point is that they shouldn't all have different guidelines. If a local authority is requiring standards which are different from those within the LACORS guide, then they would surely have to have good reasons for doing so.

The LACORS guidance is published by the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services, the Chief Fire Officers Association and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. It is forwarded by the Under Secretary of State with responsibility for housing and the Under Secretary of State with responsibility for fire safety. (Both positions within the Department for Communities and Local Government.)

The guide also says:


Gratitude is also owed to the following people who made up the project steering group and provided invaluable support for the project:
Andrew Chadney, London Fire and Rescue Authority
Andy Kippax, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
Brian Martin, Communities and Local Government
Elizabeth Brogan, National Landlords Association
Neil Coles, London Borough of Newham
Paul Dryden, Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service
Richard Drew, Westminster City Council
Richard Tacagni, LACORS
Rhian Blackman, Communities and Local Government
Tony Agar, London Fire and Rescue Authority

It then gives a very long list of other groups and individuals who contributed to the consultation.

In the light of this, if any local authority does use its own guidelines, rather than the HM Government approved LACORS guide, then they would surely have to have a very good justification for doing so.

Some of the things mentioned in Mandarin's original post appear to be above and beyond what is required in the LACORS guide for a shared house housing 3 or 4 people. Why should that be?

quarterday
14-10-2009, 07:43 AM
The regulations are being upped all the time; so in a nutshell even if the council might say its risk based now; for subsequent HMO licences it'll probably be mandatory.

So if you're going to put any of this kit in, you may as well go the whole hog and do all the work to a high standard. Before too long blocks of flats will have to have centralised panel smoke alarm systems. Emergency lighting doesn't actually cost very much; about seventy eighty quid each, fitted.

If you're going to be in the HMO business you've got to be prepared to invest in appropriate upgrading; smoke seals on the doors, self closing devices; the whole nine yards........

johnny99
14-10-2009, 16:11 PM
The regulations are being upped all the time; so in a nutshell even if the council might say its risk based now; for subsequent HMO licences it'll probably be mandatory.

The Housing Act 2004 and the sub-ordinate legislation would have to be amended for that change to happen.


So if you're going to put any of this kit in, you may as well go the whole hog and do all the work to a high standard. Before too long blocks of flats will have to have centralised panel smoke alarm systems. Emergency lighting doesn't actually cost very much; about seventy eighty quid each, fitted.

If you want to put things in place that are not required and require ongoing professional maintenance where they're not necessary, then that is your choice. Of course, if they are necessary, then that's a different matter.


If you're going to be in the HMO business you've got to be prepared to invest in appropriate upgrading; smoke seals on the doors, self closing devices; the whole nine yards........

Again, stuff that is not required in every circumstance. In fact, in some HMOs, smoke seals must not be fitted because they prevent the alarm going off when it is needed.

colinstone
19-10-2009, 11:29 AM
Mandarin,

Take a look at the LACORS guidance:

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=19843

Case study D4 on page 41 looks as though it might be applicable to your property.

Assuming that the property is two-storey, it would suggest that you would probably need a smoke detection system covering each floor level in the hallway and also a smoke detector in the living room, with a heat detector in the kitchen. They would need to be mains powered with a battery back-up and all linked together. The guidance suggests that you shouldn't need a system with break glass points or a control panel. As red40 suggests, it is based on risk, so you would have to look at the property individually.

If it's two-storey, there probably won't be any requirement for emergency lights.

Again, based on the guidance, if it's two-storey, there's no requirement for a 30 minute protected escape route, unless the construction standards are poor, travel distances are long, or there are other higher risk factors present. So long as the doors are 'sound, well constructed and close-fitting conventional doors' you shouldn't have to replace them.

Have a look at the guidance, and see how it applies to your place.

I hope this helps.

Certainly does. And how much off all that can I install myself? A few detectors, cable and trunking to pretty it all up and leave ends adjacent to consumer unit spare bay for sparky to connect - or connect it myself. Or does sparky get it the kit at such a discount that the cost is much the same.

I have to say that it all a complete load of b****cks. With dwellings getting inherently safer - furnishings, decrease in smoking/not allowed in lettings etc etc - yet the risk assessors must think houses are getting less safe. Still one cannot legislate against stupidity.

Localgovworker
21-10-2009, 15:23 PM
Talk to your local authority. No other way. They all have different guidelines.


I absolutely agree (well, I would, wouldn't I)

They should provide you with a schedule.

Not sure about fitting the fire system yourself - it needs doing to BS5839 and you need to be able to provide a certificate of design installation and commissioning - personally I'd get it done by an electrician.

bagpuss
23-10-2009, 20:46 PM
The trouble is that your council decides what constitutes an HMO, what needs to be in place based on their rules and then decides whether or not to grant you a license. Without the license you can't legally let your property, so, they have you over a barrel.

You may well have to jump through hoops but you have no real alternative.

Also, far more fires do occur in HMOs than family homes - that's the real reason there are so many fire regs. As far as the councils are concerned, it's all about safety for the tenants, not how much it will cost you, the landlord, in time and money.

Once it's done you can bask in the knowledge that your tenants are probably safer in their home than you are in yours (unless you too are a renter!)

mind the gap
24-10-2009, 21:17 PM
I have to say that it all a complete load of b****cks. With dwellings getting inherently safer - furnishings, decrease in smoking/not allowed in lettings etc etc - yet the risk assessors must think houses are getting less safe. Still one cannot legislate against stupidity.

On the contrary. The legislation is designed to mitigate the effects of stupidity (among other things). It is stupid to smoke in bed - but people do it. It is stupid to leave chip pans/frying pans unattended - but people do it. It is stupid not to have working smoke alarms in every habitable room - but most tenants would not pay for them themselves. HMOs are by definition occupied by people who are unrelated to each other - may not even know each other - and who cannot be relied upon to look out for one another in an emergency, as a family might. Councils know that many LLs are more interested in profit than in safety, hence the regulations. If the fire safety legislation for HMOs saved only one life, would it not be worth it?

This is not about you and what is convenient to you as a LL. Please grow up.

johnny99
27-10-2009, 22:28 PM
On the contrary. The legislation is designed to mitigate the effects of stupidity (among other things). It is stupid to smoke in bed - but people do it. It is stupid to leave chip pans/frying pans unattended - but people do it. It is stupid not to have working smoke alarms in every habitable room - but most tenants would not pay for them themselves. HMOs are by definition occupied by people who are unrelated to each other - may not even know each other - and who cannot be relied upon to look out for one another in an emergency, as a family might. Councils know that many LLs are more interested in profit than in safety, hence the regulations. If the fire safety legislation for HMOs saved only one life, would it not be worth it?

This is not about you and what is convenient to you as a LL. Please grow up.

Well firstly, I'm not sure that personal insults, such as 'please grow up' add anything to a perfectly valid discussion. Secondly, I'm not sure that mind the gap's post is completely accurate.

It certainly may be stupid to smoke in bed, but often, the approved level of fire protection in an hmo is not there to protect the stupid person. It's there to protect the others in the property who are perhaps not so stupid. Perhaps people should be allowed to make choices in their own home, which may affect themselves, even if they are stupid choices and even if it is a rented home.

It is not stupid not to have smoke detectors in every habitable room. (Sorry about the double negative) In many circumstances, according to the LACORS fire safety guide, and the relevant British Standards, and Building Regulations, etc. it is perfectly acceptable not to have detection in every habitable room in every HMO, depending on the level of risk. (I certainly don't have detection in every habitable room in my house. Does that make me stupid?)

Mind the gap, you say that 'If the fire safety legislation for HMOs saved only one life, would it not be worth it?' That is a very great over-simplification and emotional response to what is a very big question.

I think you miss the point that everything is a balance between cost and effectiveness. It would be easy to legislate to say that every HMO property must be provided with 2 hr fire protection to every wall, door and ceiling in every HMO, and every HMO must be fitted with fire sprinklers and a complete all singing, all dancing system of fire detectors. There must be no chip pans and no tenant must ever smoke in an HMO. That would undoubtedly save lives, but at what cost to society and the economy generally?

The result of that would be that the number of rented places for people who cannot afford to buy their own property would decrease, more people would end up without a roof over their heads, with all the consequences that that would bring. As I said it's about striking a sensible balance, not about spending whatever amount of money in the hope that it will save one life.

Let's keep this in perspective, please.

mind the gap
27-10-2009, 23:09 PM
Let's keep this in perspective, please.
Absolutely. If you look at OP's objections to fire safety precautions in his HMO, you will see that putting them in perspective was exactly what I was doing. His 'argument' against the regulations seemed to be that (i) they would cost him 'a fortune' and they were therefore excessive and unnecessary. It is a classic response for someone stuck in the egocentric stage, which is why I asked him to grow up. It wasn't an insult, so much as a suggestion/request.

Obviously, when it comes to fire safety measures, there has to be a balance, for practical reasons. I don't follow your 'drift' about stupidity (t drifted a bit too far for me to make head or tail of it), but I do not think we are too far apart, in the end. I would want to put as much space as possible between myself and OP, however and if I were a tenant, I would not want someone with that attitude to be my LL.:eek:

The number of properties available to rent woud be unlikely to decrease if more stringent fire safety regs were brought in - but it might just put off a few of the money-grubber LLs who see their rental properties as a cash cow and nothing else. Which wouldn't be a bad thing, now, would it?

johnny99
28-10-2009, 19:24 PM
Absolutely. If you look at OP's objections to fire safety precautions in his HMO, you will see that putting them in perspective was exactly what I was doing. His 'argument' against the regulations seemed to be that (i) they would cost him 'a fortune' and they were therefore excessive and unnecessary. It is a classic response for someone stuck in the egocentric stage, which is why I asked him to grow up. It wasn't an insult, so much as a suggestion/request.

Obviously, when it comes to fire safety measures, there has to be a balance, for practical reasons. I don't follow your 'drift' about stupidity (t drifted a bit too far for me to make head or tail of it), but I do not think we are too far apart, in the end. I would want to put as much space as possible between myself and OP, however and if I were a tenant, I would not want someone with that attitude to be my LL.:eek:

The number of properties available to rent woud be unlikely to decrease if more stringent fire safety regs were brought in - but it might just put off a few of the money-grubber LLs who see their rental properties as a cash cow and nothing else. Which wouldn't be a bad thing, now, would it?

I've thought long and hard about posting this reply, as I do not wish to enter any kind of slanging match with anyone. However, the idea that one individual can label another as 'someone stuck in the egocentric stage' and tell them to 'grow up' even if it is a 'suggestion' or a 'request' as a result of a couple of posts on a public forum is incredibly distasteful to me.

I am not 100% sure who it is that you are suggesting grows up. I thought initially that it was colinstone, but then as you refer to the OP (original poster, I presume that is.) it may be mandarin that is the subject of the 'grow up' request. Either way, they both have a perfect right to raise the issues that they have, in order to tap into the knowledge and experience of the contributors on this forum. The unfortunate truth is that many of us have experienced a local housing authority that is out of touch with the latest legislation and guidance, and as a result, they demand the provision of unnecessary and expensive requirements.

To ask a question regarding what is necessary to provide a reasonably safe environment for tenants without having to spend money unnecessarily is wholly justifiable. Anybody should feel free to raise such questions without fear of it resulting in, what I still consider to be, a personal insult.

I think perhaps that's a good place for me to leave it.

mind the gap
28-10-2009, 20:01 PM
I did not say that OP (colinstone) was stuck in the egocentric stage, only that his comment was typical of someone who was. That is not the same thing.

I can only reiterate that the request to 'grow up' was not intended as an insult. It was about adopting a maturer and less profit-driven approach to fire safety in rented property. You are obviously looking at what has been said from a different angle from me , so I agree it is perhaps best left at that.

colinstone
28-10-2009, 22:30 PM
Well, there does not appear to be any public stats to support the direction that the "risk assessments" are going????

Mighty reminiscent of the Tenancy Deposit Scheme. Just because 23% of tenants had issues, and 77% were therefore content, Prescott, suffering bulimia and stress, and his ODPM introduce the TDS.

Shame 23% of the population could not vote him out of office.

jeffrey
29-10-2009, 10:44 AM
Pedant's note: no members of the public, acting as such, ever vote MPs into Cabinet positions. That's the prerogative of the PM.

Darren Baird
29-10-2009, 17:32 PM
Again, stuff that is not required in every circumstance. In fact, in some HMOs, smoke seals must not be fitted because they prevent the alarm going off when it is needed.

I can't think of a HMO where smoke seals would NOT be required on fire doors. Their pupose is to prevent smoke spreading from risk rooms i.e. communal lounges, bed sits, kitchens etc in to the escape route, giving occupants longer to escape by keeping the escape route tenable for longer.

johnny99
29-10-2009, 21:15 PM
I can't think of a HMO where smoke seals would NOT be required on fire doors. Their pupose is to prevent smoke spreading from risk rooms i.e. communal lounges, bed sits, kitchens etc in to the escape route, giving occupants longer to escape by keeping the escape route tenable for longer.

Hi Darren,

If you have a look at the LACORS guide you will see that where the recommended level of smoke detection is LD3 + living room and kitchen (usually shared houses) smoke seals must not be fitted to the doors of rooms in which detectors are not required. In these cases, the fitting of seals to the doors would prevent the passage of smoke from the rooms without detectors into the protected areas, thus stopping the detectors in the circulation spaces from going off. Please have a look at paragraphs 21.3, case study D5 and case study D15 within the LACORS guide.

I hope that this clarifies the situation.

johnny99
30-10-2009, 07:22 AM
You could also have a look at the DASH guide which was prepared for Decent and Safe Homes East Midlands, and covers about 40 local authority areas. That guide contains a number of references to fire doors, where smoke seals are not required.

http://www.eastmidlandsdash.org.uk/firesafety.asp

Again, I hope this helps.

Darren Baird
03-11-2009, 13:00 PM
Hi Darren,

If you have a look at the LACORS guide you will see that where the recommended level of smoke detection is LD3 + living room and kitchen (usually shared houses) smoke seals must not be fitted to the doors of rooms in which detectors are not required. In these cases, the fitting of seals to the doors would prevent the passage of smoke from the rooms without detectors into the protected areas, thus stopping the detectors in the circulation spaces from going off. Please have a look at paragraphs 21.3, case study D5 and case study D15 within the LACORS guide.

I hope that this clarifies the situation.

Thanks I was aware of this. Firstly your original post referred to a HMO not a shared house. HMO's are accepted as being at higher risk due to the nature of the occupants. A shared house is generally accepted as lower risk but may come under the legal definition of a HMO and need a license. (See 35.1 of LACORS)

Secondly, I don’t necessarily agree with everything in the LACORS guide or the DASH document which I am also aware of. When LACORS came out there were some concerns over some of the recommendations, the omission of smoke seals as you describe was one of them. In short such documents are all guides and not the law. The legal requirement is to conduct a suitable and sufficient FRA and each premises irrespective of what you call it should be assessed on its own merits. An FRA may in certain cases recommend fire safety provisions over or under what LACORS recommends and the assessor should justify this in the FRA. What did we do before LACORS was on the scene?

johnny99
03-11-2009, 17:59 PM
Thanks I was aware of this. Firstly your original post referred to a HMO not a shared house. HMO's are accepted as being at higher risk due to the nature of the occupants. A shared house is generally accepted as lower risk but may come under the legal definition of a HMO and need a license. (See 35.1 of LACORS)

As you rightly note, a shared house is an HMO. You said in your previous post:


I can't think of a HMO where smoke seals would NOT be required on fire doors.

I was just pointing you towards an HMO where smoke seals are not required.


Secondly, I don’t necessarily agree with everything in the LACORS guide or the DASH document which I am also aware of. When LACORS came out there were some concerns over some of the recommendations, the omission of smoke seals as you describe was one of them. In short such documents are all guides and not the law. The legal requirement is to conduct a suitable and sufficient FRA and each premises irrespective of what you call it should be assessed on its own merits. An FRA may in certain cases recommend fire safety provisions over or under what LACORS recommends and the assessor should justify this in the FRA. What did we do before LACORS was on the scene?

Considering the signatories to the LACORS guide, whether or not any individual agrees or disagrees with it is surely irrelevant. It's the most comprehensively supported guidance around. The concerns you refer to, were surely not shared by LACORS, CIEH, CFOA, government ministers and the rest of the contributors.

Again, in respect of HMOs which are shared houses, I'm not aware of any legal requirement to carry out a fire risk assessment. I undertand that in shared houses, only the Housing Act applies, which doesn't legally require me to carry out a fire risk assessment.

What did we do before LACORS was on the scene. That's irrelevant. the LACORS guide is on the scene.

Darren Baird
04-11-2009, 16:44 PM
Johnny, with respect you have missed the point and I don’t think I could get my point across without typing reams of stuff. There are errors within LACORS and we are in a world now of fire risk assessments and my point was irrespective of what guidance is used you have to view every premises as you find it and make appropriate recommendations. Otherwise you just state what the guides say every time, which is not a true assessment of risk.

johnny99
04-11-2009, 20:33 PM
Darren,

I am really not sure what point it is that I've missed.

In an earlier post, I said that in some HMOs, smoke seals were not always required on every fire door in every circumstance. You responded saying that you could not think of an HMO where smoke seals would not be required, so I pointed out the relevant circumstances where smoke seals would not be required, in accordance with nationally recognised guidance.

Looking at the content of your last post, are you saying that this is an error in the LACORS guidance and presumably the DASH guidance as well?

Please tell me where any of my posts have not been totally accurate.

Darren Baird
04-11-2009, 22:42 PM
The purpose of the forum in my view is to inform and provide suggestions to comments raised. This point is just becoming a matter of opinion and would probably serve no purpose to other members. In my view (and others in the fire industry) there are errors in the LACORS guide.

johnny99
04-11-2009, 23:59 PM
The purpose of the forum in my view is to inform and provide suggestions to comments raised. This point is just becoming a matter of opinion and would probably serve no purpose to other members. In my view (and others in the fire industry) there are errors in the LACORS guide.

Darren,

I have indeed, tried in my posts to provide factual information and to provide suggestions relevant to the comments raised. The only reason that I continue with this debate is that you are querying my position from a factually incorrect standpoint. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me, if they are able to substantiate their disagreement. Who knows. A good argument, well presented, may even cause me to change my mind.

You say that this topic is becoming a matter of opinion, but everything I have stated in my posts is not just opinion, it is referenced to relevant guidance. If my position is not correct, then as a topic expert, please tell me exactly why, and maybe you will convince me. Please don't just say that the guidance which is approved by Parliament and published by the Local Authority Coordinators of Regulatory Services, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and the Chief Fire Officers Association has errors in it and expect me to disregard its content.

Is it an error that the LACORS guide states on 3 separate occasions that smoke seals are not required on certain fire doors? I suspect that this has been thought through by the authors and has been put in the guide because, based on risk, it is appropriate within the types of HMO within which it is recommended.

Darren Baird
05-11-2009, 11:01 AM
Johnny, I don't think I could change your mind, I am just saying that the LACORS or any other GUIDE no matter who has written it should not be taken as gospel. I have posted some opinions from the Fire Net forum which is used by respected fire safety professionals and lay persons from differing backgrounds, landlords, fire officers, fire consultants, building control offices etc. From the comments below you should be better informed as to the feeling out there when the guide was issued. The quotes are in blue for you, hope that helps, Darren



“Just had a very very quick scan and it seems to me like a backward step. Didn’t like the idea that on some 3 story prems smoke seals should not be fitted so that smoke in the room can get out activating the detectors in the escape routes. Poor old occupier. Looks like sacrificial rooms are back when an interlinked detector would save all the mess. Hope our service doesn’t adopt much of what I have read.”


“Big glaring error I spotted - requires fire blankets to BS 6575 which ceased to exist (as did new blankets to that standard) over 10 years ago in 1997, BS EN 1869 obviously escaped them!”

“Horrified at the inclusion of paragraph 21.3 as identified by memnon30. Wow. Table C2 in the lacors guide contradicts table 1 in the RRO sleeping guide. The latter deos not recognise LD3 as set out in BS5839, stating that in addition all rooms leading off escape routes should be provided with detectors.
Look at it from the landlords point of view.

If I don’t put detectors in rooms I also don’t need to put smoke seals on doors.
If I put detectors in rooms then I need to put smoke seals on doors as well.

I conclude that a house without smoke seals and with detectors in the escape routes only is as safe as a house with both installed, and safer than a house with smoke seals but no detectors in rooms.”

“The LACORS document has no legal standing and does not affect your legal duties in any way. The Fire Safety Order and the guidance on sleeping risks is the benchmark. Having carried out your risk assessment and determined your action plan, if you find that you cannot meet the benchmark standards as set out in the Sleeping guide you may then look at other National guidance documents for ideas on alternative approaches and if they appear to meet your requirements then you may adopt them and record the basis for your decision in your risk assessment, other guidance may include BS5588 part 1, CP3, the LACORS guidance etc.”


"The LACoRS guide is pants and has little appeal to the real world of fire safety in a social context (based on the 4 hours I have given it so far to read) It may be of use if you have buildings converted to provide flats or HMO's. Other than that it describes fire safety within dwellings which is outside the remit of the RRO.

BS5588 pt 1, the sleeping accomodation guide and common sense should prevail."

"The RRO applies in the common areas of your block and not the housing act. Risk assess in accordance with the RRO. Use the LACoRS document as a door wedge
"
"Must have been written by a Senior Fire Safety Officer. An Inspecting Officer would have been more appropriate.
If the guide is considered stupid by those who have to make sense of it then it must be considered a complete waste of taxpayer's money and the balloon who scribed it sacked.
Forgot. This is local government we are talking about. Squandering taxpayer's money is the norm and nobody is ever held to account."

johnny99
05-11-2009, 18:09 PM
Thanks for that Darren, I'm aware of that site, and I've also posted on there in the past. However, I'm not sure that opinions from another open internet forum constitute evidence of errors in Government approved guidance. (Except maybe the bit about the outdated fire blanket code, presuming that's correct. Although whether that's such a 'big, glaring error' is another question altogether.)

The rest of the quotes are only the opinions of individuals and who knows, as anyone can join such a forum, the posters that you have quoted may be as misguided as perhaps some people who read this forum, might think I am. I do find the last quote to be really annoying. When someone resorts to such personal insults (often anonymously) on a public forum, it always leaves me thinking that they probably lack the ability to make their point by rational argument.

While I've enjoyed the debate, as you say, we're probably never going to agree on this, so how about us sitting down and sharing a virtual beer in a virtual pub (I'll buy) and let's discuss something easier like peace in our time!!

Regards

johnny99

Darren Baird
06-11-2009, 10:58 AM
The beer idea sounds great particularly as it a virtual one and you are paying!! I wasn’t saying I necessarily agreed with all the comments, I was just giving you a flavor of the feeling out there. I actually know one of the fire officers named on the steering group personally and we have debated LACORS and the contents on several occasions.

Let’s hope on the next topic that comes up I can give you more definitive responses!

Darren
:confused: