My pint entirely. If we weren't trying to write guides for all premises, but instead was writing guidance about risk, surely the principles would apply universally.
The only additional guidance required would then be to provide examples of situations and the appropriate assessment of their risk, together with detailed expalanation of how the assessment had been derived and what factors are considered as significantly influencing the outcome.
I'm still struggling with understanding why the process seems to ignore that fact that we are stiving for an arena in which fire risks are adequately managed, but we're hell bent on writing guidance based upon building use and preconcieved ideas of the risks therein.
Surely we're in danger of not providing the appropriate tools to the "Responsible Person" to allow them to take full responsibility for managing their risk!
I'm not in the fire service so perhaps that's my weakness..................I've not been programmed into the mindset that offices and shops have one type risk, whilst facories, sports stadia, hotels and hospitals have others!
I'm still in the perhaps niaive belief that the incidence of uncontrolled fire constitutes a hazard. The environment in which the fire may occur will determine the likelihood that the hazard may occur, and the severity of the outcome once the hazard has occurred, it turn giving the magnitude of risk.
Surely, if guidance is being produced on the basis of the environment in which a fire may occur, some assessment of the likelihood and potential severity and hence risk MUST be preconceived.
How is it possible to then expect the "Responsible Person" to take responsibility for the preconceptions of the guidance authors?
Either I'm missing something BIG TIME and should perhaps consider growing potatos in Norfolk as a career, the emperor has aquired a fantastic new set of clothes and I'm just not on message or my brilliance is so blinding that the powers that be will soon be declaring a nuclear incident in my immediate vicinity!!!???!!!
