FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: idlefire on February 03, 2014, 11:08:04 PM
-
LFB recently initiated a policy of charging for attendance at false alarms and West Yorkshire F&RS is set to follow suit in April 2014.
If my understanding is correct these policies are based on Section 18C (3) (d) of the Localism Act 2011 which prescribes that charges can only be made if “there is a persistent problem with false reports of fire at the premises that are made as a direct or indirect result of warning equipment under common control having malfunctioned or been misinstalled.”
LFB definition of a “persistent problem” appears to be a flat rate of 10 false alarms within a 12 month period, yet WYF&RS appears to believe that a flat rate of 3 false alarms within a 12 month period is a “persistent problem”.
However, nationally recognised standards and guidance (i.e. BS 5839-1:2013 & HTM 05-03-H) offers guidance on “acceptable level of false alarms” based on the number of devices on a fire alarm system.
So, who’s right?
:-\
-
Check out http://fire.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=6207.0 on this subject.
-
Well at least they'll turn up where as in Kent they won't unless its a confirmed fire or signs of a fire...even in care and nursing homes
-
LFB recently initiated a policy of charging for attendance at false alarms and West Yorkshire F&RS is set to follow suit in April 2014.
If my understanding is correct these policies are based on Section 18C (3) (d) of the Localism Act 2011 which prescribes that charges can only be made if “there is a persistent problem with false reports of fire at the premises that are made as a direct or indirect result of warning equipment under common control having malfunctioned or been misinstalled.”
LFB definition of a “persistent problem” appears to be a flat rate of 10 false alarms within a 12 month period, yet WYF&RS appears to believe that a flat rate of 3 false alarms within a 12 month period is a “persistent problem”.
However, nationally recognised standards and guidance (i.e. BS 5839-1:2013 & HTM 05-03-H) offers guidance on “acceptable level of false alarms” based on the number of devices on a fire alarm system.
So, who’s right?
:-\
Well the definitive answer has to be BS 5839-1 or for hospitals HTM guidance. The others are policies from individual brigades. I think many brigades are looking at those who are charging under the Localism Act and waiting to see if there is any sort of challenge.
We had a site that gave 300-400 calls per year. However, this site had about 50 different buildings. Before we took action we collected more precise information on which buildings caused the problems we were then able to take action on the correct building within the site, ultimately it was against the same RP but you have to go prepared.
-
I think your confusion false alarms and calling the fire brigade when your alarm goes off. Have your false alarms don't waste the fire service time on them
-
Sorry Footieboy, I don't intend to patronise but, it's not always quite as simple as you suggest.
HTM 05-03-B prescribes:
"It is essential that when an alarm of fire occurs in patient access areas, the fire and rescue service is summoned immediately".
and
"Avoidance of UwFS should never take precedence over the need for effective detection and early warning in the event of fire".
HTM 05-03-H prescribes that healthcare facilities:
"should ensure that a delay in calling the fire service only occurs for alarms generated in areas that pose no threat to patients".
It should also be noted that HTM 05-03-B also recognises that:
"Healthcare premises, predominantly hospitals, are often considered to be a major source of UwFS to which fire and rescue services are summoned. This does not necessarily reflect on the standards of fire alarm systems in healthcare premises, or on the standards of maintenance and control that exist".
-
Sorry Footieboy, I don't intend to patronise but, it's not always quite as simple as you suggest.
HTM 05-03-B prescribes:
"It is essential that when an alarm of fire occurs in patient access areas, the fire and rescue service is summoned immediately".
and
"Avoidance of UwFS should never take precedence over the need for effective detection and early warning in the event of fire".
HTM 05-03-H prescribes that healthcare facilities:
"should ensure that a delay in calling the fire service only occurs for alarms generated in areas that pose no threat to patients".
It should also be noted that HTM 05-03-B also recognises that:
"Healthcare premises, predominantly hospitals, are often considered to be a major source of UwFS to which fire and rescue services are summoned. This does not necessarily reflect on the standards of fire alarm systems in healthcare premises, or on the standards of maintenance and control that exist".
The HTM documents say a lot of things in them. If I quote some at the hospital fire officer I am told we don't need to do that it's only guidance. Face to face training springs to mind. ???
-
HTMs are only enforced on the private sector.
-
It is only guidance but has stood the test of time but some hospitals have been non co operative in reducing UwFS for years now. They need to look at their systems both AFA and management and reduce their UwFS to a reasonable level.
-
I have to admit you have a point Footieboy, but what about hospitals that have successfully reduced their false alarms/UwFS?
Take for example a trust that employs 15,000 people and has well over 20,000 actuation points on their fire alarm system (excluding sprinkler heads). Is West Yorkshire's 3, or London's 10, grace attendances really appropriate when both HTM and BS 5839-1 consider the rate of their false alarms to be at an acceptable level?
Last week I attended a minuted branch meeting of NAHFO at which a senior officer of WYF&RS (AM Ian Bitcon) conceeded that he expected that WYF&RS would enevitably be challenged in the courts, and inevitably lose, over this policy.
At the same meeting WYF&RS took the stance that they would not agree, as required by HTM, to call filtering being applied to patient access areas in hospitals.
As a rate payer I have to question the wisdom of all this and wonder just exactly who advised the Fire Committee on this matter.
-
The defintion of persistent is only part of the issue. Who is going to determine whether the system has malfunctioned or been misinstalled. I suppose a leading fireman in LFB who happens to be a world authority on electronic systems, nuclear physics, astrophysics biophysics and most other earth sciences.
-
No Colin, dead simple, no fire, no sign of fire, must be a false alarm. It is then up to the RP to sort out the fire alarm system. Simple, one size fits all.
-
No Colin, dead simple, no fire, no sign of fire, must be a false alarm. It is then up to the RP to sort out the fire alarm system. Simple, one size fits all.
But from a charging point of view not necessarily always a false alarm due to warning equipment under common control having malfunctioned or been misinstalled.
If the trigger of the alarm is caused by phenomena similar to that a detector is designed to react to (which wouldn't always be a fire) and the detector type is appropriate to the area, then it's not malfunction or misinstallation.
If the burning toast doesn't trigger the (correctly) positioned heat head in the kitchen and triggers the (correctly) positioned smoke head in the corridor because the kitchen door was wedged to allow trays of drinks through, then it's not malfunction or misinstallation.
The malicious or accidental operation of a correctly located single action manual call point is not malfunction or misinstallation.
-
I have to admit you have a point Footieboy, but what about hospitals that have successfully reduced their false alarms/UwFS?
Take for example a trust that employs 15,000 people and has well over 20,000 actuation points on their fire alarm system (excluding sprinkler heads). Is West Yorkshire's 3, or London's 10, grace attendances really appropriate when both HTM and BS 5839-1 consider the rate of their false alarms to be at an acceptable
I have had figures quoted at me of over 2000 heads over a large site that means we can have 19ish false alarms. Having then sat down and looked at the system more closely it turned out that there were 3 systems - one had 950 heads, one had 750 and the other had 350. Unfortunately, the system with 350 were giving 90% of the activations.
The other points are that what actually happens in a hospital when the alarms operate. My experience is nothing at all, staff carry on as normal. I have never been to a ward where staff have prepared any patients for movement. Why? because they know it is the toaster that has set the alarm off and the management like that the fire service will come and give the all clear.
In one private hospital the procedure was that the senior person present would decide if an emergency ambulance was called to transfer anybody being operated on to the local A&E. They also called the fire service. The hospital manager was adamant that staff weren't qualified to assess whether there was a fire, but I asked how many times they have called a an ambulance to the 25 calls we had attended? None was the reply. The reason is the ambulance service will charge us and there wasn't a fire so we didn't need them. So why do they need the fire service?
-
Dinnertime, good point well made.
Although, I do wonder if, at 3 o'clock in the morning, the LFB Leading Fireman that Colin intoduced me to in his earlier post will be competent enough (i.e. "has sufficient training and experience or knowledge and other qualities") to determine if the fire alarm is a single system or a number of systems all linked together.
-
AnthonyB,
When challenged with the exact same toast scenario the senior officer from WYF&RS, who addressed the NAHFO meeting I attended, suggested it would be chargeable as long as the toast was still edible :-\ God help us!!!
-
Oh dear....
But it's still not malfunction or misinstallation, lets hope some RP's have the bottle to take it to Court and get some common sense in place.
I'm not at all suggesting that non equipment causes of false alarms be ignored, but as the Act has been quite prescriptive in when charging is allowed then that's what the FA should stick to or get it changed.
-
Idol, if you want someone who can count to 3 you will need a sub-officer. For second order differential calculus and Einstein's theory of special relativity it has to go up to a station officer. But guess which service the DO who actually taught Einstein all he knew came from???????????
-
Idol, if you want someone who can count to 3 you will need a sub-officer. For second order differential calculus and Einstein's theory of special relativity it has to go up to a station officer. But guess which service the DO who actually taught Einstein all he knew came from???????????
Ammmmm Firefighter?
-
AnthonyB,
When challenged with the exact same toast scenario the senior officer from WYF&RS, who addressed the NAHFO meeting I attended, suggested it would be chargeable as long as the toast was still edible :-\ God help us!!!
When I became a Leading firefighter, sorry a crew manager. I asked the question of when does the burnt toast go from being a FAGI to an FDR1. The answer was if you get there and the toast is in the bin it's a fire. If the toast has been eaten then it is a False alarm with good intent. I have never worked in WYF&RS. If someone can give a better definition go ahead. ;D
-
Toast which is produced as a result of control burning in FAGI. That which was produced as a result of an uncontrolled burning is FDR1.
Bread which has been burnt is not toast. One can eat toast. One cannot eat burnt bread.
Now that is complicated a little as some people like their bread lightly toasted whereas some, like me, like toast well browned. So it is all down to the definition of when does toast become burn bread?
-
In one Brigade the instruction was where there's smoke there's fire. It did wonders for the number of fires the brigade attended which co incidentally was one of the measures for government funding.
-
In one Brigade the instruction was where there's smoke there's fire. It did wonders for the number of fires the brigade attended which co incidentally was one of the measures for government funding.
Your right, in the days of that perverse funding method it was if in doubt it is a fire. But from what I remember there had to be damage to something other than the item first ignited.
-
Minor detail, especially when money is concerned!
-
Gents,
Back in the day when I was a lad, a fire wasn't a fire unless there was physical ignition involved; I seem to recall an FDR1 actually needed an "item first ignited" to be recorded.
Has this changed or are fraudulent FDR1's now common place to satisfy the politicians and their bean counters?
-
The FIA says "The incoming Localism Bill will give fire authorities the power to charge a commercial property owner if they consistently attend false fire alarms which have been set off by malfunctioning or "misinstalled" warning equipment.
Is the Oic able to decide that the false alarm was due to malfunctioning or "misinstalled" equipment?
-
The FIA says "The incoming Localism Bill will give fire authorities the power to charge a commercial property owner if they consistently attend false fire alarms which have been set off by malfunctioning or "misinstalled" warning equipment.
Is the Oic able to decide that the false alarm was due to malfunctioning or "misinstalled" equipment?
I would think the F&RS would Tom, especially if it had to persistently attend false alarms in a premises. I don't think the OIC would have to concern himself with the technicalities of the installation. All he/she would have to establish is that it did not operate because it was actuated by heat of smoke which is what he would normally do anyway.
If there were persistent false alarms and all or most were not caused by a fire then all the F&RS would have to do is charge on the basis that the cause must have been because of a malfunction or mis-installation. Doesn't matter which one as long as there was no evidence of actuation by heat or smoke.
-
NT I put the same argument to CT and his response was,
Tam, if challenged in court is that what they will say. I have no idea what malfunctioned your honour but I know it malfunctioned. A false alarm is no a system malfunction, Tam, it is more commonly the case that the system functioned entirely correctly or as the technology was bound to perform , so there is nothing for the fire alarm engineer to work out.
Tam, the point is that very commonly it is not known if there was human intervention or an environmental cause or electromagnetic interference or steam that has long ago dispersed or someone having a cigarette illicitly, or an electrical storm in the area. Malfunctions of equipment causing false alarms are rare and often impossible to prove (unless you have been to lots of fires in England, and then you will be a world authority). But all these other causes such as human stupidity or lack of control of premises which is the cause of most false alarms cannot be charged for, so it is all so much hot air really.
and I think he has a strong point.
-
NT I put the same argument to CT and his response was,
Tam, if challenged in court is that what they will say. I have no idea what malfunctioned your honour but I know it malfunctioned. A false alarm is no a system malfunction, Tam, it is more commonly the case that the system functioned entirely correctly or as the technology was bound to perform , so there is nothing for the fire alarm engineer to work out.
Tam, the point is that very commonly it is not known if there was human intervention or an environmental cause or electromagnetic interference or steam that has long ago dispersed or someone having a cigarette illicitly, or an electrical storm in the area. Malfunctions of equipment causing false alarms are rare and often impossible to prove (unless you have been to lots of fires in England, and then you will be a world authority). But all these other causes such as human stupidity or lack of control of premises which is the cause of most false alarms cannot be charged for, so it is all so much hot air really.
and I think he has a strong point.
One will never know until it is challenged in court Tom. Should the charge be £200 or so for the turnout is it likely that someone will challenge it through the courts? More likely to get someone it to check it over and sort it out.
-
NT I put the same argument to CT and his response was,
Tam, if challenged in court is that what they will say. I have no idea what malfunctioned your honour but I know it malfunctioned. A false alarm is no a system malfunction, Tam, it is more commonly the case that the system functioned entirely correctly or as the technology was bound to perform , so there is nothing for the fire alarm engineer to work out.
Tam, the point is that very commonly it is not known if there was human intervention or an environmental cause or electromagnetic interference or steam that has long ago dispersed or someone having a cigarette illicitly, or an electrical storm in the area. Malfunctions of equipment causing false alarms are rare and often impossible to prove (unless you have been to lots of fires in England, and then you will be a world authority). But all these other causes such as human stupidity or lack of control of premises which is the cause of most false alarms cannot be charged for, so it is all so much hot air really.
and I think he has a strong point.
One will never know until it is challenged in court Tom. Should the charge be £200 or so for the turnout is it likely that someone will challenge it through the courts? More likely to get someone it to check it over and sort it out.
Not unless it has already gone through the appeal court?
-
WIth regard to the cost bear in mind that LFB was charging £260 per appliance per hour for special services, if this was charged for turnout in Central London the bill could easily reach the £1000 mark.
Playing Devil's advocate, if the FB is turned out to an alarm caused by steam or smoking, and CT's comment was that the system did not malfunction held sway, could the FB classify it as a False Alarm Malicious?
-
I agree NT and I finished saying we will have to wait and see. I believe the first case should be interesting because of the use of certain words,
1. Take "persistent problem" what does it mean, once a week once a month, once a year, take any number from one to a hundred?
2. Also direct or indirect does this means an ARC can be prosecuted?
From the Localism Act 2011 section 10/18c (items a to d has to apply).
This section applies to a report of fire if -
(a)the report is of fire at premises that are not domestic premises,
(b)the report is false,
(c)the report is made as a direct or indirect result of warning equipment having malfunctioned or been misinstalled, and
(d)there is a persistent problem with false reports of fire at the premises that are made as a direct or indirect result of warning equipment under common control having malfunctioned or been misinstalled.
-
Yes it should be interesting.
1. Looking at the history it would seem that "persistent problem" means whatever the local fire authority decides, WYFRS 3, London 10 etc. it could be fun particularly if the old CFOA guidance is cited.
2. I would think that the direct or indirect was put in to cover ARCs so that the get out of 'we didn't call you the ARC did' is not available. Having said that it could probably apply if the false alarms can be shown to be due to a fault etc. in the ARC's equipment.
Also going back to CT's point, I wonder whose responsibility it would be to prove that the warning equipment had malfunctioned etc. and I assume there is a right of appeal which could also be interesting.
-
The other points are that what actually happens in a hospital when the alarms operate. My experience is nothing at all, staff carry on as normal. I have never been to a ward where staff have prepared any patients for movement. Why? because they know it is the toaster that has set the alarm off and the management like that the fire service will come and give the all clear.
not in the hospital I work in they don't...the ward staff check the cause of the alarm immediately the continuous fire alarm sounds and the internal fire team are bleeped by switchboard and instructed to attend the location of the alarm by voice alert.
-
According to the Wise one, CT term, CLG stance is that persistent is more than once.
-
The other points are that what actually happens in a hospital when the alarms operate. My experience is nothing at all, staff carry on as normal. I have never been to a ward where staff have prepared any patients for movement. Why? because they know it is the toaster that has set the alarm off and the management like that the fire service will come and give the all clear.
not in the hospital I work in they don't...the ward staff check the cause of the alarm immediately the continuous fire alarm sounds and the internal fire team are bleeped by switchboard and instructed to attend the location of the alarm by voice alert.
If they find it to be a false alarm, do they silence and reset and then Call the fire service and tell them they aren't needed?
-
According to the Wise one, CT term, CLG stance is that persistent is more than once.
Jokar,
Please can you reference the CLG stance to which you refer?
Also, did the "Wise one" not leave DCLG and subsequently retire?
-
DD
The clinical site manager who is at the assembly point (main entrance) awaiting the fire service, with high viz jacket on and risk register will get the message of type of incident, it is the CSM's call if the fire service are stood down or not and the CSM can silence the alarm if it is a known false alarm...but not reset ...the duty electrician is the only person that can reset
-
DD
The clinical site manager who is at the assembly point (main entrance) awaiting the fire service, with high viz jacket on and risk register will get the message of type of incident, it is the CSM's call if the fire service are stood down or not and the CSM can silence the alarm if it is a known false alarm...but not reset ...the duty electrician is the only person that can reset
Nice to see you have procedures in place, I think in essence that is what F&RS want. We as a service don't ask for anything more, but until we started being stronger with our hospitals they were happy that we turned out twice a week.
-
Hi DD, Of course an old cynic would say "not getting stronger" but trying to attend less calls to justify shedding firefighters and closing fire stations. Fully agree that RP's should be avoiding, where possible, nuisance activation of their fire alarm sytems but does not attending hospitals and nursing homes come under that old label of "Rendering humantarian services" and assisting in advising in reducing unwanted alarms. Not sure that it's getting tougher but less sympathetic in some cases. I was recently told by a fire officer that the brigade is now a business and had to be run as such......not sure that will bode well with an elderly person in a care home in his or her twilight moments of life, whose taxes help pay for the very buildings and fire appliances these people work in and use would understand that sentiment.
Don't think for one minute I don't understand the burden placed upon the service caused by false alarms but a blanket policy of non-attendance such as in ourlocal FS just doesn't seem to fit well with most people who for years have admired and enjoyed the comfort of their presence in a moment of uncertainty. Gosh, I'm rambling on here, but I feel better for it
-
Hi DD, Of course an old cynic would say "not getting stronger" but trying to attend less calls to justify shedding firefighters and closing fire stations. Fully agree that RP's should be avoiding, where possible, nuisance activation of their fire alarm sytems but does not attending hospitals and nursing homes come under that old label of "Rendering humantarian services" and assisting in advising in reducing unwanted alarms. Not sure that it's getting tougher but less sympathetic in some cases. I was recently told by a fire officer that the brigade is now a business and had to be run as such......not sure that will bode well with an elderly person in a care home in his or her twilight moments of life, whose taxes help pay for the very buildings and fire appliances these people work in and use would understand that sentiment.
Don't think for one minute I don't understand the burden placed upon the service caused by false alarms but a blanket policy of non-attendance such as in ourlocal FS just doesn't seem to fit well with most people who for years have admired and enjoyed the comfort of their presence in a moment of uncertainty. Gosh, I'm rambling on here, but I feel better for it
Glad you feel better for a ramble. There isn't anyone more cynical than me, I can assure you. Fortunately I work in a brigade that will attend residential care/sheltered housing and domestic premises. We do have the option of non attendance at hospitals but only after negotiations and we haven't refused yet. What we have done is reduce attendances at my local hospital by 90%.
Surely you don't expect us to attend the call to an office block that doesn't know the code or can't find the key to their alarm panel so can't silence it, or the shop where the key holder won't attend because it is dark, or the multi storey car park that has a manual system installed and the local yobs keep setting it off and the security guard won't attend because he is scared of them but will call us because there is 5 of us. All these are real examples of the misuse of the service.
There you go I can ramble on with the best of you ;D ;D
-
DD I would agree that the examples you give are misuse of the service, but surely there are better ways of dealing with the problem than a blanket ban on attending automatic fire alarms.
-
What about prosecuting for not starting to evacuate?
I can't see what fining the likes of hospitals will do to alleviate the problem. It won't hit anyones pocket except the taxpayer. Much better to fine the CEO personally. That should get things moving.
-
Idlefire; you are correct on both counts, yes he did leave CLG and then a year later retired form the LFB. His words were "persistent as defined in CLG speak is more than one", reference material?
-
DD I would agree that the examples you give are misuse of the service, but surely there are better ways of dealing with the problem than a blanket ban on attending automatic fire alarms.
Mike, read my previous posts, my service doesn't have a blanket ban. I disagree with the brigades that have a blanket ban. But ultimately I work for a service that has policies that I have to work with, whether I agree or disagree.
We do occasionally after lots of effort remove premises from a response unless there is a confirmed fire. I personally haven't ever done this, I haven't needed to, I have spent time with companies advising and training staff and still responding whist this takes place. When they are ready they they can be left to manage their system.
Coincidentally, I have today been approached today by a company that has been taken off response who have just had a new Fire warning system, if they show that they can manage their system we are looking at reinstating response.
-
What about prosecuting for not starting to evacuate?
I can't see what fining the likes of hospitals will do to alleviate the problem. It won't hit anyones pocket except the taxpayer. Much better to fine the CEO personally. That should get things moving.
NT - I have to agree that you have a fair point.
However, I'm fairly certain that "not starting to evacuate", in itself, does not constitutes an prosecutable offence.
As always I stand to be corrected.
-
Idlefire; you are correct on both counts, yes he did leave CLG and then a year later retired form the LFB. His words were "persistent as defined in CLG speak is more than one", reference material?
Jokar,
At the risk of underwhelming CT, I sat at the knighted Knight's table for a short period of time and had the privilege of learning a phenomenal amount, first hand, from “the Wise one”.
However, as an unreferenced source, I would have to say the words attributed to him here would not have any great bearing in a Court of law and; I personally think this is where LFB and/or WYF&RS are heading.
-
What about prosecuting for not starting to evacuate?
I can't see what fining the likes of hospitals will do to alleviate the problem. It won't hit anyones pocket except the taxpayer. Much better to fine the CEO personally. That should get things moving.
NT - I have to agree that you have a fair point.
However, I'm fairly certain that "not starting to evacuate", in itself, does not constitutes an prosecutable offence.
As always I stand to be corrected.
Probably not Idle - until someone is hurt.
-
Idol, did you sup with a long spoon?
-
Idol, did you sup with a long spoon?
Sorry Colin but the Official Secrets Act 1989 prevents me from answering your question.
You could always try a FOI request, but the names will most probably be redacted to protect the innocent. ;)
-
FOI requests should be reserved for much more interesting things like how much does it cost an FRS to lose a determination.
-
Idlefire
Agree with your thought
ps
Time they renamed your station, does no favours ;D
davo
ex WYP H & S/fire person
-
Idlefire
Agree with your thought
ps
Time they renamed your station, does no favours ;D
davo
ex WYP H & S/fire person
Davo, I never thought anybody would have made the link. :o
You're time spent with the Rozzers clearly wasn't wasted. ;)
-
FOI requests should be reserved for much more interesting things like how much does it cost an FRS to lose a determination.
Not unless you're a historian or a narcissist showcasing former glories. ;)
Seriously though, I personally salute those who seek determinations (including you Colin, but only when you're not being smug about it), FRSs that are brave enough to agree to them and the Secratary of State for being impartial enough to, where necessary, rule against a FRS.
Whichever way a determination eventually goes it gives our industry a national perspective of what is considered reasonable in the circumstances, win or lose it's public money well spent.
Unfortunately, other than the Courts, there doesn't appear to be any impartial determination mechanism for challenging LFB/WYFR&S policies on charging for attendance at false alarms (which differ significantly).
-
What about prosecuting for not starting to evacuate?
I can't see what fining the likes of hospitals will do to alleviate the problem. It won't hit anyones pocket except the taxpayer. Much better to fine the CEO personally. That should get things moving.
NT - I have to agree that you have a fair point.
However, I'm fairly certain that "not starting to evacuate", in itself, does not constitutes an prosecutable offence.
As always I stand to be corrected.
Probably not Idle - until someone is hurt.
NT
"And you may ask yourself
Am I right?...Am I wrong?
And you may tell yourself
MY GOD!...WHAT HAVE I DONE?
Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...." >:(
[Talking Heads - Once in a Lifetime]
-
I wasnt being smug, Idyllic one. Merely pondering the waste of taxpayers money. Even many of the armchair experts here found some difficulty in understanding why the FRS ever proceeded.
-
What about prosecuting for not starting to evacuate?
I can't see what fining the likes of hospitals will do to alleviate the problem. It won't hit anyones pocket except the taxpayer. Much better to fine the CEO personally. That should get things moving.
NT - I have to agree that you have a fair point.
However, I'm fairly certain that "not starting to evacuate", in itself, does not constitutes an prosecutable offence.
As always I stand to be corrected.
Probably not Idle - until someone is hurt.
NT
"And you may ask yourself
Am I right?...Am I wrong?
And you may tell yourself
MY GOD!...WHAT HAVE I DONE?
Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...." >:(
[Talking Heads - Once in a Lifetime]
Idle. Are you ranting again?
-
What about prosecuting for not starting to evacuate?
I can't see what fining the likes of hospitals will do to alleviate the problem. It won't hit anyones pocket except the taxpayer. Much better to fine the CEO personally. That should get things moving.
NT - I have to agree that you have a fair point.
However, I'm fairly certain that "not starting to evacuate", in itself, does not constitutes an prosecutable offence.
As always I stand to be corrected.
Probably not Idle - until someone is hurt.
NT
"And you may ask yourself
Am I right?...Am I wrong?
And you may tell yourself
MY GOD!...WHAT HAVE I DONE?
Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...." >:(
[Talking Heads - Once in a Lifetime]
Idle. Are you ranting again?
NT,
I was definitely not ranting; you will note that there were more words than expletives in my post.
I was just trying to be cool by profoundly quoting lyrics (words) of a Talking Heads (a rock & roll band, probably from before your time) track (song) that went some way to expressing my frustrations regarding the subject matter of your post.
For the record, I have seen stable door legislation first hand and; I have to say that I still have difficulties reconciling how I/we were, in some part, held responsible for the tragic events of 11th May 1985.
I hope this helps you contexulalise my last post.