Author Topic: Significant Findings??? (Read 23472 times)

PhilB · « **Reply #15 on:** July 02, 2005, 05:06:21 PM »

1.No Colin, I'm afraid you miss the point..but I feel I will never convince you so there we are! Please read the ACOP again it may enlighten you.
2.No it is not dead Colin...MHSW Regs will still be there along with confussion. I never suggested a plan must be included, please refer to my earlier comments. My confidence in the new guidance???....not that good!!!

3. I hope you are not inferring that I am one of those people!!! Unfortunately I am selling nothing for personal gain...unlike some... I do have a suitable template that I share with many ...free of charge.........perhaps I could include a CD and charge £100........I'm just very concerned to see that many people clearly do not understand the fire RA process, and that is what the safety of relevant persons will soon depend on.

colin todd · « **Reply #16 on:** July 02, 2005, 06:28:14 PM »

I dont need to read the ACOp Phillip-I lecture on it regularly.
2. The fire bits of the Management regs will be repealed so this will all be a non issue.
3 Safety of people will not depend on recording a load of spurious info. It will depend on people looking at fire safety in a professional way and on the professionalism of inspecting officers, which generally will coninue to improve notwithstanding your deprecation of SFSOs.

PhilB · « **Reply #17 on:** July 02, 2005, 06:53:56 PM »

1.So do I
2. But SFs will still exist and be defined differently.
3. I have never suggested spurious info should be recorded....just more info than is done so using the PAS. Yes it will depend on effective enforcement. So SFSOS should send there staff on FRA courses that look at a variety of methodologies...not just PAS79 so that inspecting officers can differentiate beteween deficient and suitable & sufficient assessments.

colin todd · « **Reply #18 on:** July 02, 2005, 10:40:08 PM »

And where will the SFSOs find such courses I wonder.............

PhilB · « **Reply #19 on:** July 03, 2005, 09:35:03 AM »

There's quiet a good one not far from where I live...spookily enough!

colin todd · « **Reply #20 on:** July 03, 2005, 03:02:34 PM »

Ah the agenda at last!

martyn brandrick · « **Reply #21 on:** July 04, 2005, 12:50:22 PM »

as risk assessments are a shift away from from the traditional, it will always throw up debate. however it is important that we have guidelines as it would be chaos. the guidelines for significant findings are they for all, in the place where risk assessments originate:- HASAWA, the management regs. Why is now ok to move on from perfectly good and may i say comprehensive guidence that some of us have been using in a tried and tested manner. would it not be better to utilise the guidence that is already there instead of inventing new and watered down guidence thus lowering the bar.

i fear colin that as for pas and your take on risk assessments it would be imposssible for you to see that other methods are already out there. these methods prove beyond doubt what significant findings, suitable and sufficient , preventative and protective measures etc are. they are comprehensive and why should we leave them, just because they are old. we are leaving the best piece of fire safety legislation behind one that has proved itself beyond doubt to reduce deaths in certain premises.

i myself will be in 20 years time, standing up and saying 'we told you so' as we are dumbing down standards making self regulation the way forward and putting the sfpos in between a rock and a hard place. the consultants they will be on easy street clouding judgements and making a fast buck. who picks up the pieces?

people like phil are only in it for one thing, the safety of persons resorting the premises,that is his agenda. possibly not the same as others.

colin todd · « **Reply #22 on:** July 04, 2005, 10:30:30 PM »

Party, I agree with most of the above, other than there is no evidence whatsoever of what are the significant findings. Only a judge can decide. And as I have already said the PAS is not prescriptive. Anyone who has a structured ''method'' can comply. Unlike those who wish to sell a particular method, I think that all forms of structured approach are to be encouraged. And with all due respect to Phillip, who seems a nice enough chap, he is not a missionary living off charity. (Leastways, I assume not. ) He is, I imagine, the same as all of us. Doing a job to receive a salary at the end of the month, give some to Mrs Phillip, spend some on beer, keep an undefined number of little Phillips in the style to which they are accustomed and do his best to do a good job in return for the remuneration at the end of the month. Thats what we all do. (Well we don't all give the dosh to Mrs Phillip, but you know what I mean.)

martyn brandrick · « **Reply #23 on:** July 06, 2005, 08:48:30 AM »

Significant findings:- MHSW regs. ACOP page 10 para 25.

Is it a record of the preventative and protective measures in place to control the risks (a plan, dependant on size of premises).

A record of significant findings does not necessarily mean that the assessment was suitable and sufficient. If the record also includes workings to show how the significant findings were reached together with an identification of the main sources of information and key facts and opinions considered management is in a better position to judge whether it is suitable and sufficient.

these two together go hand in hand to show the significant findings.

Then from these two indications of what further action, if any needed to reduce the risks.

That would be significant findings to me

colin todd · « **Reply #24 on:** July 06, 2005, 08:53:44 AM »

was that a statement or a question.

martyn brandrick · « **Reply #25 on:** July 06, 2005, 12:31:52 PM »

statement of an interpretation.

colin todd · « **Reply #26 on:** July 06, 2005, 06:46:15 PM »

News:

Author Topic: Significant Findings??? (Read 23472 times)