FireNet Community
THE REGULATORY REFORM (FIRE SAFETY) ORDER 2005 => Guides and Legislation Links => Topic started by: Kelsall on April 24, 2012, 02:54:28 PM
-
The Scottish government want comment on two areas of guidance being reviewed after the Rose Park determination.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/04/5893/1
-
Kelsall, I bet old Eli will be putting pen to paper eh? Whatever happened to him.
-
Oh do behave!
Am i missing something here? I can't see where the draft revised guide is.
-
Try http://www.firelawscotland.org/v29713.html?pContentID=222 for the Care Homes Guide. Kelsall's link will give the questions to be addressed. I think! ???
-
Brian Try this one http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/04/5893
Colin, I went to the IFSM AGM the other day and very interesting it was too. 'Outrage' was the words used about an issue over a CPD event.
On a lighter note; Dr B wants his £50, as Scotland has declared they will be doing their own thing. Make sure you pay up, as he promised me a drink out of your money. :P
-
Kelsall, strange circles in which you move. Are you a qualified fire safety manager then? Did you see Eli there at all, I have lots of questions to ask him about various matters such as allegations (which I cannot confirm) that you can be a Warrington certificated FRA company, but then do FRAs outside the Warrington company scheme, having been appointed possibly on the basis of Warrington certification. I cant believe its right, but Willie says it is. If you see Eli can you ask him, because he was always critical of alleged shortcomings in other schemes.
-
Kelsall, what do you perceive Scotland are doing their own thing about. If my good friend Robert is short of a few quid, then of course I will be willing to slip him half a ton. Funnily enough, I am a great supporter of Help the Aged and similar charities.
-
20. The Scottish Government acknowledges the work of the Competency Council but thinks that it is necessary, given the importance of the findings of the Rosepark FAI, to undertake its own consultation exercise to establish whether there are specific issues with the use of risk assessor consultants in Scotland.
I think that is a bet won. But you may not!
I am a 'qualified' fire safety manager, I have been on an IFE approved training course; I must be qualified!
Give old Eli a call he will help you understand 'scope' 'competence' and 'robustness'. He did the same for BAFE but they ignored him.
-
This is not directed at you personally Kelsall but does being a 'qualified' fire safety manager and been on an IFE approved training course make someone capable of carrying out a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment?
I have seen the efforts of "qualified" people which certainly did not impress me. I have seen the efforts of "qualified" people which certainly did. The same goes for people who are considered, by themselves or others, competent.
Being "qualified" or "competent" does not make someone capable.
-
Can you be competent and incapable? Are we after sector competence then? I have read and reveiwed a large number of documents purporting to be an FRA some of which are poor, some of which are worse than that and occasionally you may find a gem. However, in a large number of cases the assessor is led by the methodology being used and perhaps it is that which needs dealing with and not individuals. I would say that if you gave a scenario to most competent fire safety professionals and asked them to write something on a blank piece of paper they would cover all points required, it seems to me that thought gets lost in the completion of a form.
-
Kelsall, I would be pleased to pay up a bet for a race that is not yet run, but then I would have to ask Robert for the money back when Scotland decides the exisiting scheme is fine, so best that Robert hang fire.
I am glad that you admire the IFE so much. Clearly, your judgement is better than I thought.
I cannot imagine why BAFE, representing just about everyone and anyone in the profession should be cavalier to ignore your voice in the wilderness. I cannot only assume that it is because the profession as a whole does not agree with you, which presumably makes the profession wrong.
I will ring old Eli when I get the chance. is his number by any chance the same as yours? Or is he to be found somewhere in Speyside?
-
Colin for a very intelligent man you are very easy to wind up! ;)
My user name anonymity to you is like a juicy worm to a perch; irresistible. :o
http://fire.org.uk/forum/index.php?action=mlist
There are 180 pages of members’ names; yet you concentrate on me, thanks Colin. You do make me feel special. :-*
I will see you at the SP205 launch party in my professional capacity and I will be spouting my company line on the scheme. Which, kind of illustrates why I need to use a forum name! I couldn’t call it weak and lacking in appropriate competence checks in public could I? :-X
Keep taking the bait Colin, it is easy fishing for me. :D
-
Kelsall, for an intelligent man, you are very naive to believe that everyone does not know who you are, or both of your reincarnations. How long will it be before you reinvent yourself again?
I will be glad to hear the official party line of your employer on 30 May.
-
Kelsall, for an intelligent man, you are very naive to believe that everyone does not know who you are, or both of your reincarnations.
Thanks to you Toddy, thanks to you!
I will probably change ID next week, just to see how long it is before you try and inform everyone why my posts should be ignored as I have a ‘vested’ interest.
Don’t you train the NSI auditors?
I look forward to seeing which certification bodies name is on CS Todd’s SP 205 certificate.
-
Getting back to the task in hand, I have read and reread this guidance and keep coming to the same conclusion. Why is it necessary? It is a design guide with some risk assessement and management bits. If that is the case then why not do the risk assessment bits from the design guide already in existence and have a management guide to include those other non technical bits? I appreciate the hard work of the members that have put this together but the more guidence produced seems to produce more guidance. It seems to be that this is almost "tablets of stone" and that for many existing premises almost impossible to comply with, it would be a very brave, perhaps foolhardy risk assessor to go aganist the design but how many buildings out there could fully comply?
-
Can you be competent and incapable? Are we after sector competence then? I have read and reveiwed a large number of documents purporting to be an FRA some of which are poor, some of which are worse than that and occasionally you may find a gem. However, in a large number of cases the assessor is led by the methodology being used and perhaps it is that which needs dealing with and not individuals. I would say that if you gave a scenario to most competent fire safety professionals and asked them to write something on a blank piece of paper they would cover all points required, it seems to me that thought gets lost in the completion of a form.
We can be considered "Competent" by virtue of our background or experience but we can still be "incapable". Trust me Jokar, I have seen many "competent" people who are totaly incapable.