And I don't see it as the FRS thinking that they will try it on and go for a determination 'just to see'. The chances are that they will have enforced SD in hotel rooms (Thinking they are doing the right thing, might I add) a number of times with no appeal being brought forward. It is the RP challenging the FRS that caused the whole case.
Whether they were right or wrong to do this people need to remember that the FRS gain nothing through prosecutions, and we gain nothing through enforcing stuff. We are not like the extinguisher saleman selling stuff that is not needed in order to line his own pockets. We are generally working on the side of caution, and the end purpose is to make places safer. At times misguided, yes. But if you explain to Joe Public that BS5839-1 pretty much says he is expendable when in a hotel I am sure that he would be on that FRS' side when it comes to SD regardless of what statistics you can show him.
CivvyFSO, I have no doubt that the F&RS had what they thought were the best intentions. In fact, they can use the 'public safety' argument to anything they may come up with. It is hard to argue against such an argument when put as a 'bare' statement. But should they be doing what they did in this case?
Surely, they should be enforcing failures to comply with existing recognised published 'authorative guidance' and not making up their own guidance, just because they think they know better? Or is this actually one of their many roles, and I have just misunderstood things?
There has always been too many people putting their oar in and stating 'how things should be done'. Is it right that the GLC, the ACFO, the WI, the YMCA, Fireman Sam and the teletubbies can all put forward their own ideas in contradiction to existing 'authortive guidance' and suggest that it should have equal validity? Such a plethora of contradictions make the whole issue confusing to those trying to comply.
We should all be working together to form one set of recommendations that are easy for everyone to understand and to comply with.
Also, I thought the smoke detectors in hotel bedrooms requirement was a pretty straight forward argument. I'm sure the F&RS service would be the first to complain about a high level of unwanted alarms caused by guests smoking and steam from bathrooms etc. Also if smoke detection in bedrooms is so critical, why does the F&RS not lobby for them to be fitted in domestic situations as well?
Personally, I feel the best compromise would be that all hotels would be required to have addressable fire alarm systems with smoke detectors and sounders in bedrooms, but the system would be configured so that the bedroom smoke detector only operated that bedroom sounder and also, of course, warned the hotel management to investigate. This would provide smoke detection coverage for the bedroom occupants but without unwanted alarms causing the whole hotel to be eveacuated. Simples!
