Merseyside FRS

[jokar]

I have heard today that the above FRS is undertaking a reactive policy only to the RR(FS)O in that they are responding after an incident has occurred and have no proactive policy.  Does anyone know if this is correct?

[nearlythere]

This would be the expected approach by a run down organisation. The reason behind FP W/P Regs is to remove the cost and responsibility for employee safety from the publc service and place it on the owner/employer. There is the slight possibility that high life risk buildings may be policed.  
Some time is the future there will be a tragic incident involving multi fatalities and the type of premises concerned will be the subject of new legislation where certification and policing by a public safety body will be required.
Remember Woolworths, Flixborough, The Stardust Night Club, Mayesfield Leisure Centre etc.

[Martin Burford]

Nealy...
As a retired FPO....your absolutely right.....the RRO is a disaster of tragic proportions waiting to happen!
Conqueror

[MrH]

All new legislation is under H & S, their approach is always reactive rather than proactive

The role of FRS is  now prosecution of survivors!!!

[CivvyFSO]

No, it will be the prosecution of the person who has failed in his responsiblity to protect relevant persons.

[Redone]

Any advance on a Care home being first in the dock then?  Unsuitable buildings, high dependancy residents, minimal staffing levels...  loads of these throughout the UK, statistically a good chance I'd say.

[messy]

Redone: I'll raise you to a medium size Hotel

A single staircase building four, five or six floors (maybe with some crappy over-the-roof alternative). Perhaps more refugee than touristy type occupants and run by management who cannot afford an expensive fire consultant.

And in any case why bother with fire safety? The  annual visit by the local FRS has gone and it now gets 'audited' every 10 (or so).

[val]

There is nothing inherently wrong with the legislation. Indeed it presents the opportunity for massive improvements in fire safety as the hotels and care homes actually have to assess the risk the have under their roofs and act on those findings.

What is true is that the government want fire services, (operational and fire safety) to cost less. Senior managers are being remunerated at a frankly disgusting rate to push through these savings and fire safety inspectors are a much easier and less controversial taget than removing fire engines from my market town.

There is a duty to enforce and relevant sections within CLG have pushed for a proactive inspection policy...the Treasury however,  couldn't care less how many people die in fires. If there is a 10% increase...so what, it is still a small fraction of road deaths or death through avoidable infection in hospitals.

The legislation would work...but only if properly and proactively enforced. Its not rocket science.

[Redone]

Agree with you Val, but fires will happen, the most vunerable will perish, and some poor sole who's given their life to providing care will be punished.

Many, many small to medium homes are not cost effective on current staffing levels, increase them to be capable of implementing the emrgency plan 'without fire service intervention' they will and are closing, not being sold as a business but being demolished and flats being built, and good caring managers are leaving the industry.

I guess this is progress, we had law and order, now we have rules and regulations, but they are not realistic.

The non-prescriptive risk-based approach of the guides means that no particular method of fire protection is emphasised.  It is assumed that most buildings will not conform to the guidance provided in Approved Document B to the Building Regulations in England and Wales, but that it is not reasonable to expect such buildings to undergo substantial (and expensive) new work, if the Government really cared for the most vunerable, they would have approved loans for the fitting of sprinkler systems for care homes as the USA have.

Rose Park - so what, what do residents contribute to Gordons coffers!!

[AM]

Redone: I'll raise you to a medium size Hotel

A single staircase building four, five or six floors (maybe with some crappy over-the-roof alternative). Perhaps more refugee than touristy type occupants and run by management who cannot afford an expensive fire consultant.

And in any case why bother with fire safety? The  annual visit by the local FRS has gone and it now gets 'audited' every 10 (or so).

And I'll raise you a pre 5588 shopping centre.

[val]

Rescuers tackle fire at care home
Douglas View Care Centre in Hamilton.

I know that it is very early to be making comments and I am very pleased that there seem to be no very serious injuries, but the comment below from Brian Sweeney suggests that the principle of not needing to rely on the fire and rescue service didn't work too well.


Strathclyde Fire and Rescue chief officer Brian Sweeney said: "This was a very, very serious and well-developed fire.

"About 60 people were trapped in bedrooms and corridors, some were unconscious.

I have recently been considering the 'you must not rely on the FRS approach' as it really doesn't work in practise. Could this mean that a public service may have to actually live up to its percieved role...what would the cost benefit analysis throw up? Adequate staff in all care homes or maintaining a few extra pumps on the run?

[CivvyFSO]

The legislation would work...but only if properly and proactively enforced. Its not rocket science.

Got to agree with that. The whole self-compliance thing only works if as a FRS we are show that we have teeth and WILL bite. It works for the HSE, it should work for us so long as it is enforced correctly.

It has been made quite clear to me during inspections that the RRO is more well known than any older legislation. Many companies have gone and done their risk assessments with no intervention from the fire service. I am sure that anyone working for a Fire Professionals company will admit that the amount of people using them for their risk assessments has increased rapidly since the advent of the RRO?

[nearlythere]

The legislation would work...but only if properly and proactively enforced. Its not rocket science.

Got to agree with that. The whole self-compliance thing only works if as a FRS we are show that we have teeth and WILL bite. It works for the HSE, it should work for us so long as it is enforced correctly.

It has been made quite clear to me during inspections that the RRO is more well known than any older legislation. Many companies have gone and done their risk assessments with no intervention from the fire service. I am sure that anyone working for a Fire Professionals company will admit that the amount of people using them for their risk assessments has increased rapidly since the advent of the RRO?

Civvy
Anything will work if it is policed properly. If policed properly it will be made to work. This will not.
Just to prolong my rant I would suggest that the single biggest killer in this country is cigarette smoking. If the government cared one iota they would ban it. But look at the revenue it is generating for the Chancellor.

[CivvyFSO]

Nearlythere,

How will the RRO not work? Has it dropped standards somehow?

New buildings are generally now built to a good standard, so fire certification would be almost a waste of time. It is not like the RRO came in and all of a sudden people ripped out their protected staircases and alarm systems. Anywhere that used to have a certificate will already be of a reasonable standard, and now the smaller premises that were exempt have guidance on what to do.

IMO 1971 act served its purpose, WP regs started to look after the smaller end of businesses if applied properly, RRO is a natural progression and IMO it can be seen working already. If I find somewhere that is sub-standard it is my job to ensure it is brought up to a standard through enforcement/action plans etc, and I keep at it until it is safe. By the time it is all done I have decreased the risk substantially.

[jokar]

Anywhere that used to have a certificate will already be of a reasonable standard, and now the smaller premises that were exempt have guidance on what to do.

Thats except in Lancashire of course where the FRS have prosecuted hotel owners with certificates and made them upgrade.

What is missing of course is that the predominance of FRS IO's is on property protection aka FPA 1971 and not on the risk that abounds in any one premises.  Once we get over that hurdle then RR(FS)O will work very well.

But back to the topic question, does anyoneknow anything?