FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: SidM on October 24, 2008, 10:01:32 AM
-
Case Study D8: Bedsit-type HMO of 3 or 4 storeys
Fire detection & Alarm System
Grade A LD2. The guidance then goes onto state that where there is cooking facilities within the bedsit then apart from a heat detector an "additional Drade D, non-intelinked smoke alarm" is required. If the Grade A system already installs a detector in the bedroom, why do you need an additional non-interlinked detector?
-
To give earlier detection and warning in the bedroom as it has a heat detector installed.
-
All written by people who, in all probability do not have detectors in bedrooms or kitchens at home but are happy to make other people do what they would not do in their own home.
-
Very good Colin, which is why your firm is re-writing the DASH guide but using the same benchmark standards as the LACORS guide. Or are you intending the good people of the east midlands to have different standards?
The difference, of course is that in a similar situation the Housing Act, using the HHSRS would probably come up with the same standards irrespective of the type of tenure. It is simply that Housing Officers tend not to enforce in owner occupied premises.
LACORS are now in the enviable position of half the country saying that the standards are too low and a 'still angry scotsman' saying the standards are too high.
Let me see....does that mean they have pitched it somewhere in the middle?
-
No they haven't, they have run on tramlines of detection in every room regardless of risk. On a point of accuracy, the DASH guide is not being re-written as such, but the good people of the East Midlands will be properly served by risk-based guidance. On a further point of accuracy, I am not angry, particularly as lots of people want training on the LACORS guidance. On a final point of accuracy, the HHSRS would not result in smoke detectors in every bedroom of a single family dwelling house, nor do those who seek to impose it on others have it in their own houses. Funny that.
-
Has any research ever been undertaken to quantify the benefits or otherwise of installing a smoke detector in every bedrom for the purpose of protecting the occupant of the room in case of fire? If not then its high time some was done so that this argument can be quantified and benchmarks reviewed.
At the moment some brigades are enforcing this in hotels and guest houses, requirng the replacement of heat detectors for smoke detectors, in other areas they work to BS5829 part 1 2002 and accept that the detector in rooms is only there for the protection of the escape routes and so a heat detector and fire door will do fine working in tandem unless the occupant of the room is disabled.
The lacors guide requires detection everywhere in some cases.
Until somebody can show through research and analysis for all propery types whether:
1- people are dying in the room of origin or not ( easy- if the statistics are good enough)
2- Whether a detector would operate early enough to enable escape whilst conditions remain tenable (this bits easy by modelling)
3- Whether people are likely to wake up as a result of inhalation of smoke or the noise of a fre in their room without provision of detectors(perhaps depends on the degree of intoxication etc)
4- Whether the additional unwanted signals in hotels would bring a system into disrepute or whether this could be controlled (eg just place a self contained detector in the room or work to a double knock system with staff alert)
Without proper research we will keep going round in circles on this one and published guidance will reflect opinion of the writer rather than fact.
Another thread current at the moment covers the benefits of installing smoke detectors in disabled rooms and the possible reasons for this- ie disabled persons may take longer to respond to an alarm and so earlier warning is necessary (earlier than a heat detector???) and, more to the point - may be offered assistance by a manager as a result of the alarm. But there is also the point that as there are few disabled rooms the number of unwanted signals is unlikely to rise as a result of this policy.
It seems to me that provision of smoke detection in all bedrooms in a HMO is much more likely to lead to unwanted signals and bring the system into disrepute/ vandalism than in a hotel where staff should be available to manage the event and deal with it wth minimum disruption to guests.
-
Has any research ever been undertaken to quantify the benefits or otherwise of installing a smoke detector in every bedrom for the purpose of protecting the occupant of the room in case of fire? If not then its high time some was done so that this argument can be quantified and benchmarks reviewed.
At the moment some brigades are enforcing this in hotels and guest houses, requirng the replacement of heat detectors for smoke detectors, in other areas they work to BS5829 part 1 2002 and accept that the detector in rooms is only there for the protection of the escape routes and so a heat detector and fire door will do fine working in tandem unless the occupant of the room is disabled.
The lacors guide requires detection everywhere in some cases.
Until somebody can show through research and analysis for all propery types whether:
1- people are dying in the room of origin or not ( easy- if the statistics are good enough)
2- Whether a detector would operate early enough to enable escape whilst conditions remain tenable (this bits easy by modelling)
3- Whether people are likely to wake up as a result of inhalation of smoke or the noise of a fre in their room without provision of detectors(perhaps depends on the degree of intoxication etc)
4- Whether the additional unwanted signals in hotels would bring a system into disrepute or whether this could be controlled (eg just place a self contained detector in the room or work to a double knock system with staff alert)
Without proper research we will keep going round in circles on this one and published guidance will reflect opinion of the writer rather than fact.
Another thread current at the moment covers the benefits of installing smoke detectors in disabled rooms and the possible reasons for this- ie disabled persons may take longer to respond to an alarm and so earlier warning is necessary (earlier than a heat detector???) and, more to the point - may be offered assistance by a manager as a result of the alarm. But there is also the point that as there are few disabled rooms the number of unwanted signals is unlikely to rise as a result of this policy.
It seems to me that provision of smoke detection in all bedrooms in a HMO is much more likely to lead to unwanted signals and bring the system into disrepute/ vandalism than in a hotel where staff should be available to manage the event and deal with it wth minimum disruption to guests.
Yes there is research on the subject. That is why the CLG changed their support for detectors in bedrooms in new dwellings.
You are right about the inconsistent views of F&RS on this for hotels. We are currently pursuing a determination from the CLG for one case.
In answer to your questions, there are statistics on this. It depends now whether you are talking hotels or HMOs as the two are very different. Also, it cannot be assumed that the physical state of a room occupant would be such that a smoke detector would be any different.
Yes you are right about false alarms and disabled rooms, etc. However, do not bother some enforcing officers with facts, evidence and statistics as it confuses them.
-
In answer to your questions, there are statistics on this. It depends now whether you are talking hotels or HMOs as the two are very different. Also, it cannot be assumed that the physical state of a room occupant would be such that a smoke detector would be any different.
Thanks Colin- I would very much appreciate it if you can give me a pointer as to where details of the statistice or research may be found? I have seen the work done to inform the 2006 update to ADB but could find little relevant to this aspect there?
-
Go back to the 1980s and you will find BRE research on deaths within bedrooms of origin in hotels and boarding houses. And you only need to look at statistics to see that nowadays no one dies in the bedroom of fire origin, so smoke detectors in the rooms can only be to protect people who dont die anyway. HMOs are different, and a significant number of deaths do occur in the room of fire origin. Any suggestion as to why would be censored by Messey's Thought Police, cos people out of their heads on drugs and alcohol are just as important to society as a Chief Fire Officer. (In fact, people out of their heads on drugs and alcohol probably ARE chief fire officers.)
-
The provision of detection will not stop a person dying either accidentally or any other way from fire wwherever thet reside but it will potentially keep the other residents alive in hotels, hostels or HMO's.
-
Go back to the 1980s and you will find BRE research on deaths within bedrooms of origin in hotels and boarding houses. And you only need to look at statistics to see that nowadays no one dies in the bedroom of fire origin, so smoke detectors in the rooms can only be to protect people who dont die anyway. HMOs are different, and a significant number of deaths do occur in the room of fire origin. Any suggestion as to why would be censored by Messey's Thought Police, cos people out of their heads on drugs and alcohol are just as important to society as a Chief Fire Officer. (In fact, people out of their heads on drugs and alcohol probably ARE chief fire officers.)
and this could take us back to the debate of smoke or heat detection in hotel bedrooms. Some FRS are requiring heat detctors to be replaced with smoke. They are missing the point of why the detection is provided in the room in my opinion.
Yes I know the person in the room is a relevant person and in a new installation smoke would of course be preferred but heat detection has not lead to a fire death in a hotel to date. Surley money could be more wisely spent reducing risk that actually exits, fitting strips and seals for example.
-
I am still intrigued as to how a certificate for a BS 476 door can still be valid if you cut bits out of it to retrofit S&S.
-
Philllllllllllllllllllip!!!!!!! All these years I have waited for you to say something sage, wise and ever so sensible. What you have said is so worth waiting for!!!!!! You have it bang on!!!!! Wish you told the boys that when they came to your former centre of whateveriness.
-
I am still intrigued as to how a certificate for a BS 476 door can still be valid if you cut bits out of it to retrofit S&S.
Yes, but why would I care?
-
Wee B, I have no idea whether you care or not. What concerns me is that a good close fitting door to BS 476 is an acceptable door. Cut it up to fit S&S and it may be that no longer. Which is best, or is there no difference?
-
All written by people who, in all probability do not have detectors in bedrooms or kitchens at home but are happy to make other people do what they would not do in their own home.
Colin I'm not sure I understand your point .
Firstly I dont have a fire alarm system to BS 5839 part 6 system in my house. I simply have two battery operated domestic type detectors. Why do I not have for instance mains powered interlinked smoke detection for in each room? The answer is that I have total control of what goes on in my own home.
In a HMO or hotel no single person has total control of what goes on in those premises (not even the landlord). If one resident does something which put others at risk is it not right to expect those other residents to be afforded reasonable protection from the actions of the irresponsible resident?
I know of no fire officer that I work with who is of the opinion that smoke detection is provided in a bedroom or bedsit solely to protect the occupant. AFD is provided to protect the MOE.
Can any one point me to any conclusive research where it has been proven that you don't need to have AFD in bedrooms or risk rooms?. Can anyone point me to research that proves that even if a fire occurs undetected and spreads into the escape routes the AFD in the escape routes will activate well before those routes become untennable.
I accept that a fire officer asking for heat detection to be changed to smoke detection in say hotel bedrooms would be wrong, and onerous but to suggest no AFD is required at all is ludicrous
-
http://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/consultations/partB/BD2538__D2_V2__Final_Report_226779_for_publication.pdf
-
I think that research was about domestic fire detectors in homes and not what MR is discussing. The stats used, define dwellings as buildings occupied by households, excluding hotels, hostels and residential institutions.
-
And the detector that wakes me up in a house aint good enough if i'm in a hmo? I suppose there are those pesky fire doors.....
-
Go back to the 1980s and you will find BRE research on deaths within bedrooms of origin in hotels and boarding houses. And you only need to look at statistics to see that nowadays no one dies in the bedroom of fire origin, so smoke detectors in the rooms can only be to protect people who dont die anyway. HMOs are different, and a significant number of deaths do occur in the room of fire origin. Any suggestion as to why would be censored by Messey's Thought Police, cos people out of their heads on drugs and alcohol are just as important to society as a Chief Fire Officer. (In fact, people out of their heads on drugs and alcohol probably ARE chief fire officers.)
and this could take us back to the debate of smoke or heat detection in hotel bedrooms. Some FRS are requiring heat detctors to be replaced with smoke. They are missing the point of why the detection is provided in the room in my opinion.
Yes I know the person in the room is a relevant person and in a new installation smoke would of course be preferred but heat detection has not lead to a fire death in a hotel to date. Surley money could be more wisely spent reducing risk that actually exits, fitting strips and seals for example.
I am in the early stages of dealing with a large student accomodation block that for years has had no AFD in the 100 plus bedrooms. The F and RS have served notice to get them installed. This will cost them over £40K. I am thinking there could be other options open to them following a suitable and sufficient FRA?
-
http://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/consultations/partB/BD2538__D2_V2__Final_Report_226779_for_publication.pdf
Thanks for the link Wee B - it beats me where you keep conjuring them up from.
Now then. Is it deliberate or a faux pas that in the references on page 66 they quote BS5839 part 1 1988 and don't mention the 2002 version?
If anybody has a copy of Pezolt,VJ & Van Cott,HP, “Arousal from sleep by emergency alarms: implications from the scientific
literature”, NIST report NBSIR 78-1484 (HEW), 1978 I would be very interested in offering to buy, beg, borrow or steal.
-
wee brian you may be right but that research did not answer the question MR asked, if it had included premises MR spoke of, then it may have come up with different conclusions.
-
I am in the early stages of dealing with a large student accomodation block that for years has had no AFD in the 100 plus bedrooms. The F and RS have served notice to get them installed. This will cost them over £40K. I am thinking there could be other options open to them following a suitable and sufficient FRA?
Hi William - From your description I bet that must be either the fire service college or one of the fire service training hostels? ;)
-
The reason fire detectors were installed in rooms off escape routes was b, ecause of some evidence that IN LONG CORRIDORS WITH DOORS HAVING NO INTUMESCENT STRIPS a corridor could be smoke logged before corridor smoke detectors operate. The use of stand alone smoke detectors in rooms, or smoke detectors rather than heat detectors CAN ONLY BE TO PROTECT OCCUPANTS OF THE ROOM. This is made clear, or we thought we had made it clear, in BS 5839-1 and BS 5839-6. If all the MR chums he works with fail to understand this, no wonder we are in such a mess.
And fire does not really care too much about the semantics of what a property is called. If its ok for your home, it will be ok in a property that looks like your home. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, probably best to feed it stale bread, not steak and chips.
-
And fire does not really care too much about the semantics of what a property is called. If it’s ok for your home, it will be ok in a property that looks like your home. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, probably best to feed it stale bread, not steak and chips.
As a chum of MR I agree with most of your comments and only wish I could get hold of a copy of this 1980's research you speak of it would be more relevant to this discussion. However I would not accept most HMO's as "property that looks like your home" the control and layout is in most cases quite different. Therefore I would suggest the statistical research WB spoke of is of little relevance in this situation.
-
MR, battery smoke alarms are a Grade F system to BS 5839 Part 6.
-
Out of interest, how many people discussing this have actually been and inspected HMOs?
Im not just talking the nice ones either.
-
PS. My question is not intended to be patronising, im just interested.
thanks
-
Yes wearing all three hats. ( but not at the same time)
I have inspected many under the former legislation as an inspecting Officer over 30 years.
I have attended and investigated a number of fires in HMOs.
I have served a number of prohibitions on those that put people in danger ( though under former legislation)
I have been witness in a coroners court following a fatality in a HMO
As a consultant I have carried out risk assessment and design services owners and architects in respect of HMOs.
Why do you ask?
-
Hi Kurnal
Thank you for your reply.
I am not questioning anybodys ability, quite clearly you are in a very good position to offer an informed opinion.
The reason why I ask.......
I listen to arguments based on BRE research and assumption based solutions and I can see very good reasoning behind their arguments. The problem I see is that generally (and I am not saying all) HMOs are habited by persons that fall into our high risk groups.
Surely enhancing AFD is a good thing when we know that we have our fire deaths in these premises.
Classic example.
The other week I attended an HMO following a fire. This was a slow developing fire caused by a fault in an immersion heater within a bedsit.
The two occupants were extremely lucky and were awoken by the angels looking down on them. Fitted within the HMO was a part 1 L2 within the common parts and a heat detector within the bedsit.
In my opinion this was very close to two fatalities.
Had detection been fitted in line with the LACORS guide I am certain this close call would not have happened.
There was very little heat involved within this fire, but clearly alot of smoke was produced.
The AFA did not activate untill the lobbied entrance to the bedsit was opened.
I cannot ever see where heat detection would be adequate on its own in situations like this. Im sure the housing officer will be taking this one up.
Just my personal opinion of course but using my own experience in line with recommendations.
-
The reason fire detectors were installed in rooms off escape routes was b, ecause of some evidence that IN LONG CORRIDORS WITH DOORS HAVING NO INTUMESCENT STRIPS a corridor could be smoke logged before corridor smoke detectors operate. The use of stand alone smoke detectors in rooms, or smoke detectors rather than heat detectors CAN ONLY BE TO PROTECT OCCUPANTS OF THE ROOM. This is made clear, or we thought we had made it clear, in BS 5839-1 and BS 5839-6. If all the MR chums he works with fail to understand this, no wonder we are in such a mess.
And fire does not really care too much about the semantics of what a property is called. If its ok for your home, it will be ok in a property that looks like your home. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, probably best to feed it stale bread, not steak and chips.
Mr Todd
I made the classic mistake of not reading your previous posts properly.
I misinterpreted your comments and thought you were referring to interlinked detection and not standalone detection
Standby for a hasty Russel Brand / Jonathan Ross-esque apology! Sorry about that.
Having read your comments again I totally agree with you .
At the end of the day a resident in a HMO has control over his / her individual room / bedsit.
So long as the landlord has provided measures to warn other residents of a fire occuring should we really be asking for standalone smoke detectors as well?. (Afterall the occupant who has control over their own destiny if they decide to smoke in bed and set their room alight isn't that their own fault).
I think it boils down to HMG's desire to drive down fire deaths. Many guides recommend that standalone detectors as well as interlinked HD be installed in HMOs / Bedsit scenarios. Is it over burdensome to expect landlords to comply with this or should we be saying that the occupant must be given best possible warning.
So no mess at all I assure you Mr Todd, some inspecting officers are really very good at their jobs and some have even been brave enough to go on your courses too.
I know you Scottish folk are tight but down here we give our ducks fresh bread. They go quackers for it.
-
Yes FSO I can relate to similar incidents - but conversely I can remember a number of near misses where the smoke alarms failed to operate due to the wrong type of smoke (eg the sort of smoke you get from a smouldering fire in a washing machine where ionising detectors were installed).
Important to remember though that invariably we are are only talking of detection provided for the purpose of protecting the escape routes and in these enviroments smoke detectors in the bedroom are unusual.
The document to which Wee Brian pointed us earlier gave the clear view that on a cost benefit approach extending smoke detectors to rooms in domestic property through Building Regulations is not a winner.
But as both you and TW point out HMOs present a very different risk profile, and often house vulnerable people.
The vulnerability may be very different to that of a non ambulant person though. BS5839 identifies the need for smoke detection in disabled rooms to ensure the earliest detection of fire and to maximise their opportunity to escape. Is this relevant to other types of vulnerability - for example persons with a drug or alcohol habit living in a doss house where there is probably nobody to help them if the smoke detector operates whilst they are out of their head?
I dont know if the Lacors committee researched these issues before they produced their guidance. I see both sides of the argument and that persons in their own home should be allowed to be the masters of their own destiny.
On the other hand though I remain interested to find and read any research into peoples reactions to fire whilst asleep- whether for the average fire in a bedroom they are likely to be woken as a result of exposure to the effects of the fire - inhalation of smoke and fumes.elevated temperature, noise any quicker or more slowly than a typical smoke detector.
If anybody has a copy of Pezolt,VJ & Van Cott,HP, “Arousal from sleep by emergency alarms: implications from the scientific literature”, NIST report NBSIR 78-1484 (HEW), 1978 please share the findings of this with me.
-
Good old google!
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire78/PDF/f78005.pdf
-
At the end of the day a resident in a HMO has control over his / her individual room / bedsit.
Not in my example im afraid MR.
On this occasion it was the landlords equipment that caused the fire.
How could that be different in a hotel? Even PAT tested equipment goes pop sometimes.
I really do feel, regardless of any stats or research, that there should be SD within hotel rooms. That may be interlinked into the part 1 system or stand alone to run alongside a HD. Whatever way people wish to achieve it.
The same with HMOs, I fully understand that we are only looking for protecting means of escape and our level of enforcement stops there.
However, with the other head on......If you (as a landlord) have any form of equipment (even light fittings) within a dwelling, I would seriously recommend SD within the rooms. ALARP>>> I think it is reasonable.
Of course the housing officer can insist on this.
Again just my opinion, but hey ho its friday afternoon.
-
Hi FSO
This is where risk assessment comes into play. Should we be looking for standalone detectors in all HMOs or Hotels? or just in some where it would benefit less abled residents or to address specific risks.
Good management and adequate maintenance I dare say may have prevented the fire you attended the other day, and this opens the debate to where and when you should consider AFD and the provision other fire precautions to lower risk.
I would suggest providing AFD purely on the basis that a light fitting may cause a problem is onerous, and instead ensuring all relevant electrical checks are carried out periodically undertaken in line with current regulations would be a better way forward, and would ensure the likelyhood of any problems occuring with such devices are greatly reduced.
But as you say it is a friday afternoon....
-
Good old google!
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire78/PDF/f78005.pdf
Thanks username. Why didnt it work for me? Is my pc just running google and yours is running gooooooooooooooooooooooooooogle? Or is it another case of less is more in the search engines. Thanks very much.
Sadly the report does not give us much help in terms of the likelihood that a person may autmatically wake up as a consequence of a fire in their room. Still theres a long list of references to check out.
-
Mr Retty, No need to apologise, though its very big of you to do so. You merely misread a post, and you could not claim any lewd act with my grand-daughter, cos i am not old enough to have one (but be careful what you say about Kurnal's great great grand-daughter).
You will find that the implication 0f BS 5839-6 is that HMO protection has 3 potential components: 1. Protection of the means of escape for those beyond the room of fire origin. Compulsory and critical. 2. Protection of a family in their own unit of accommodation, if it comprises more than one room. Essential. 3. Protection of an individual in the room of fire origin. Not a pre-requisite under Part 6, but sometimes appropriate and sometimes not. Thats what risk assessment is about. Look at it this way- if you are looking at a up market HMO for single professional people who commute to the city from guildford (as I have done--Dear FSO, I have probably seen more HMOs than Messey's chums have chewed pieces of gum, both acting on behalf of clients and on behalf of enforcing authorities), i am not too bothered about the risk of them dying from a fire in their own bedroom. On the other hand, if i looked at a run down HMO with mum and kids in a single room, in which she has a wee grill, I would be interested in a stand alone device.
When Part 6 was published in 1995, which i do appreciate was long before a lot of those engaged in this debate were involved with fire safety, enforcing authorities in a well known capital city, though not that of Scotland or NI, were highly critical of the concept of protection in the room of origin being based on risk assessment, as they advised me---being from a city where the enforcing authorities are into equality and diversity-- that (and I quote) those living in an HMO are always at the bottom end of society (who would believe that Guildford is only 33 minutes in the train from London?).
Mr Sutton, all the implications of the research were explained clearly to the world in the 1980s (so my mother tells me) and there is reference to them in BS 5839-1. The findings are also explained in more detail in the latest version of my book on BS 5839-1 (available to Buzzard at half price plus a double bushmills next week- watch this space to see if he puts his hand in his pcoket).
Mr Retty, The Board of the f&rs will be meeting next week to discuss you offensive suggestion that Scottish people are tight. Expect to be suspended without pay until next easter. I once did a course , sorry learning experience, for the Messeys, and told them scottish people are mean, before i realised that the course was being observed by the odd fire safety officer and 5 million equality and diversity people who told me i cant say scottish people are mean. They never did explain to me however why we always let other people go into the pub first. Anyhow, the reason you dont give stale bread to ducks in the midlands is to use it as missiles against the other motorists you insist on carving up and being selfish to in your wee urban motorways.
-
So you have written a book on BS 5839-1 you are full of surprises. ;)
-
No I have written 3 books on bs 5839-1. The new one is the 3rd edition.
-
Hey Colin its not a bad little earner is it. Now what conclusion should we draw from the fact that you had a hand in writing the BS and now you have added to your fortune by writing a third volume of "what we should have said".:)
Its a good job you weren't involved in writing the Bible. That has lasted several thousand years and has only had one major update in the form of the Authorised Version. (well alright I know!)
-
Its actually not a great earner. The conclusion you should draw is that a BS is not a text book, and there is a need for a text book. Think of it as a labour of love, to educate people, rather than train them to follow things blindly. Is this a novel concept for you.
-
No I am trying to pickup a few tips thats all. I find myself so often in hot water with Mrs K for my clumsy and insensitive choice of words (or perhaps telling the truth).
The concept of having a second chance to explain myself and to win favour for doing so seemed a very attractive prospect. Something like "No I meant to say that dress emphasises your slim posterior perfectly my dear and could you pass me another can of stella whilst you are up"
-
Kurnal. I am, of course, only to pleased to assist you in your would be writing career, though I would have to caution that there is not a huge market for titles such as "My memories of the Empire Palace Theatre fire in 1911". In any case, the circumstances of that fire (the correct ones, not those purveyed during your training all those decades ago at a well known English centre of somethingness) are outlined in my other recent new book, A Comprehensive Guide To Fire Safety, also published by BSI and also not a great earner, since, although it sells well, you will find in your new writing career that royalties in the publishing world are very low. Let me know when I can buy your first edition, so that I can leave it as a legacy to my children to flog on ebay once you are famous.
As you pointed out, so flatteringly, I myself have shed pounds from my posterior, so if Mrs Kurnal wants tips, I can give her some at the same time as I tutour you in your writing skills, since, as a man, I can multi task.
-
I would have to caution that there is not a huge market for titles such as "My memories of the Empire Palace Theatre fire in 1911".
On the contrary Colin I am already on the third edition of that one. Though to be fair that may have more to do with the Subtitle "A further account of a hot and steamy night".
-
I once did a course , sorry learning experience, for the Messeys, and told them scottish people are mean, before i realised that the course was being observed by the odd fire safety officer and 5 million equality and diversity people who told me i cant say scottish people are mean. They never did explain to me however why we always let other people go into the pub first.
It's true to say that our Equality & Diversity Dept -aka 'Social Engineering Dept' - is far bigger (and holds more importance) than our Fire Safety Engineering Dept - which perhaps does speak volumes about LFB's approach to providing the fire service for this great city.
Don't get me wrong, I reckon everyone should work/live in a fair society, free from bullying and all things nasty. But they way some of our managers 'manage' this area is beyond belief. I wish I could give examples of some of the over-the-top methods, but I wouldn't want to be mean!!
By the way, I am not sure that the plural of Messy would be Messeys. (But then I was educated in England so what do I know!!!)
-
Messey: I too can tell a few tales just from my one experience. For example, I said that a central heating system should be MAN enough for the job. Well, as you can imagine, I wanted the floor to swallow me up, such was my level of total shame and embarrassment. However, an awfully nice man from E&D gave me cups of tea and counselling to help me recover. He said it absolutely OK to say a system was MAN enough for the job. So I became confused of Surrey, but have never really recovered from the trauma of the whole experience.
By the way what was all this about LFB seving the "great city"? As far as I know Edinburgh is still served by the fine people of Lothian and Borders F&RS. The attendance times for LFB would be too long to get to Edinburgh and they dont have enough water in all the reservoirs in the City for the 45 pumps the Messeys use for a chimney fire.
The plural of Messy(sic) is Messeys. Trust me on this, I am a consultant. Dont worry about why, it just is.
-
Mr Retty, The Board of the f&rs will be meeting next week to discuss you offensive suggestion that Scottish people are tight. Expect to be suspended without pay until next easter. I once did a course , sorry learning experience, for the Messeys, and told them scottish people are mean, before i realised that the course was being observed by the odd fire safety officer and 5 million equality and diversity people who told me i cant say scottish people are mean. They never did explain to me however why we always let other people go into the pub first. Anyhow, the reason you dont give stale bread to ducks in the midlands is to use it as missiles against the other motorists you insist on carving up and being selfish to in your wee urban motorways.
Firstly - The issue of stale bread as missiles - point taken and you're quite correct. I always keep a loaf handy incase of road rage incidents. One week old hot cross buns however are the best form of ammunition.
Secondly I've been suspended until Easter and I'm a little short of cash. Have you any jobs going?
Thirdly I too have suffered great shame at the hands of our Equality and Diversity dept. I made the cataclismic mistake of pointing out that the running man fire exit sign in their office had fallen down.
They were quick to point out that it was actually a running person, not a running man, and furthermore it might actually be a running lady with short hair and a penchant for mens trousers running for the exit.
My unforgiveable behaviour has not been forgotten and a routine notice was promptly sent round the fire safety team asking all offices to refer to the sign as "evacuating genderless human entity" sign.
To this very day I still get dirty looks from the E&D staff. Must take some stale hot cross buns next time I visit them.
-
They were quick to point out that it was actually a running person, not a running man, and furthermore it might actually be a running lady with short hair and a penchant for mens trousers running for the exit.
I must object to the above posting in the strongest possible terms. Are you suggesting that the person featured in the exit signs may be a cross dresser? Do they not manufacture trousers particularly formed and tailored and marketed to meet the needs of female gender? And did you not also point out that the colour of such signs do not reflect our diverse ethnic mix?
(and why is it that well tailored garments maunufactured to cover the lower abdomen and legs of the female members of our diverse society are tailored to accentuate those aspects of the female form that particularly appeal to the eye of the male)
-
Prof
I always knew you enjoyed the crack
Must be the Bush mills!!
davo
-
Mr Retty, As a staunch christian, I find your use of buns related to the Resurrection of our Lord offensive. I will be making a further complaint. Expect to be suspended for a further period. Alas, we only employ people with sound knowledge of fire safety, so am unable to assist you--cant you get some extra time at your second (or third) jobs? Finally, I have always regarded the sign as a running woman without a skirt. It is the only thing that makes BS 5499 interesting.