Author Topic: Firex 2016  (Read 12576 times)

Offline Messy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: Firex 2016
« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2016, 05:52:37 AM »
Oh, I see. Thanks for explaining your rationale

As for thick (educated in England) ex LFB IOs like me, when you said there was no definition of the word 'risk' in the FSO, I like everyone else present thought you had made a schoolboy type error. I am pleased that wasn't the case

I also wont buy coffee unless its Fair Trade. Sorry

Offline colin todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
  • Civilianize enforcement -you know it makes sense.
    • http://www.cstodd.co.uk
Re: Firex 2016
« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2016, 12:28:51 PM »
Davey, there is no definition of the word risk in the FSO.  I stand by that.  It says that risk is risk of.... It is merely a qualification of risk to what or whom.  That does not define risk, while DCLG guides all have the wrong and nonsensical defintion of risk  It is like saying the definition of a fireman is a man who is a fireman and that a London fireman is a fireman who works in London.  That would not tell you what a fireman was.  It is known as tautology. I hope that this helps and that though you have in the past been disparaging about my offer to assist you in fire safety matters, you cannot other than concede that I have been helpful to you in English useage.
Colin Todd, C S Todd & Associates