PAS 79 available for public comment

[Eli]

On a further point of accuracy, concerned that somehow, unbeknown to me, there might be even a tiny morsel of truth that "the references just keep coming" I have word-searched for the organizations to which Eli refers, but can find none after the foreword, other than the cut and paste above. So, where are all these references??

So that everyone is aware, as also made clear in the draft, for impartiality, the stakeholder group that is steering the draft includes BAFE, FIA, IFE, IFSM and IFPO.

 An exaggeration agreed; thanks for the search. I could amend it but probably no need considering your subsequent post

[colin todd]

I will take that as a retraction and apology. The Foreword, which is jut a preamble and not part of the PAS is equally impartial.

You may now wish to retract and apologise for your suggestion that BAFE and FIA paid for all these mentions WHICH YOU NOW ADMIT DO NOT EVEN EXIST, particularly as, when I rang FIA today to ask for my share of this slush fund that you allege, they did not know what I was talking about and deny any collusion or payment in respect of the text.  Stangely, they seemed less than pleased that you should make such a scurrilous allegation.  Just as well that we do not know who you work for (Do we?) or it would hardly promote good working relationships with these bodies, assuming of course that whoever you work for does have any such relationship,which of course I am not in a position to know (Am I???) as you choose not to tell us.

By the way, you raised the subject of rules of the bulletin board.  There used to be a rule that you could not have two names..............

[Eli]

I will take that as a retraction and apology. The Foreword, which is jut a preamble and not part of the PAS is equally impartial.

You may now wish to retract and apologise for your suggestion that BAFE and FIA paid for all these mentions WHICH YOU NOW ADMIT DO NOT EVEN EXIST, particularly as, when I rang FIA today to ask for my share of this slush fund that you allege, they did not know what I was talking about and deny any collusion or payment in respect of the text.  Stangely, they seemed less than pleased that you should make such a scurrilous allegation.  Just as well that we do not know who you work for (Do we?) or it would hardly promote good working relationships with these bodies, assuming of course that whoever you work for does have any such relationship,which of course I am not in a position to know (Am I???) as you choose not to tell us.

By the way, you raised the subject of rules of the bulletin board.  There used to be a rule that you could not have two names..............

Amended, no apology no retractions; get your spoon and stir, but two key points need to be answered.

Why the special mention in the foreword (not part of the PAS according to you), for two bodies and no mention of anyone else by name at all?  That’s hardly impartial!

Did the author/s consult with the professional bodies and CBs over the text used for the references? It seems very heavy on text in some and very light in others. The Scottish government did consult and we all know they always get it right. I can’t speak for IFPO, IFSM, IFE or WCL but would be interested in their comments on the special mention given to BAFE and FIA in the foreword (not part of the PAS according to you)

I only have one name on the forum. .

Actually an apology to the other Forum users I should know better than to get dragged in to this again but like many others on this site I don’t believe Colin has the right to be right all the time. In my opinion he is wrong on this. Nothing personal apart form the narcissistic comment but that kind of fits your attitude and approach so I’ll leave that in.

Getting back to the PAS; as Kurnal says we should. Shouldn’t the advice given on competence match that of CLGs?  Shouldn’t the reader be directed to the responsible person’s advice given by CLG?  The Scottish government advice is different than the English governments’ advice so which one is right.

http://www.firelawscotland.org/fraregistration.html http://www.communities.gov.uk/fire/firesafety/firesafetylaw/

No mention of BAFE in either! Does anyone know if the Welsh have a fire safety section on their site or NI for that matter?

Do they give special mentions to BAFE and the FIA?

[Mr. P]

Gosh! Colin & Eli, are you trying to take the heat out of the phone tapping scandel? It's becoming a bit...

[nearlythere]

I'm very disappointed that my phone is not being tapped. Obviously not important enough.

[Tom Sutton]

There are a number of means by which the public can be assisted in selecting a competent fire risk assessor and/or a commercial company that carries out fire risk assessments.  At the time of writing, these include registration or certification schemes operated by the following bodies: ........etc.

PAS 79 targeted audience is fire risk assessors, is it likely that this advice will be in other documents targeted at RP's? I would sooner have one register with approved providers ( similar to the list in PAS 79) supplying the names for the register  but this would certainly be better than no advice at all or is it available in other guides.

[colin todd]

Thomas, To the best of my knowledge, PAS 79 is the only doc that (in its current draft) provides this wholly impartial and informative list.  The public  and the fire community will soon be benefited by the availability of several TPCBs offering certification of fire risk assessment companies. The final date for comment on the BAFE scheme is with us, and it is looking like, with some tweaking, a good scheme.  The cometence standard produced by the FRA Competence Council will help set a benchmark, so overall its all good news.

[Tom Sutton]

Thanks Colin sorry to go off thread but it seemed an important aspect and as you said its all good news. I also found the draft of SP 205 which makes interesting reading, new to me, but I imagine not to the rest of you guys that frequent this forum. http://www.bafe.org.uk/uploads/DOC4DD26521F409A.pdf just in case.

[Eli]

Thanks Colin sorry to go off thread but it seemed an important aspect and as you said its all good news. I also found the draft of SP 205 which makes interesting reading, new to me, but I imagine not to the rest of you guys that frequent this forum. http://www.bafe.org.uk/uploads/DOC4DD26521F409A.pdf just in case.

Tom the BAFE consultation is now over; I think it finished at the end of last month. I know it has finished however because I got my comments in on the last day

There will however be an end user guidance document aimed at the RP, to accompany the competence standard for fire risk assessors. It will contain generic and impartial advice on the way to appoint a fire risk assessor. This will hopefully expand on the concept of completing a due diligence process. A process which may partly rely on accredited certification of competent fire risk assessors or non accredited registers of fire risk assessors. It should hopefully give good practical advice on what to do when appointing an assessor who isn’t certificated or registered. Perhaps the PAS should direct people to this guidance document?

However in the current draft formats they are quite far apart, which is a shame as the end user may be confused by the different advice given.

[colin todd]

Odd, Eli, you should say they are far apart when:

1. Large chunks of the competence standard are copied word for word from PAS 79 (but then you knew that didn't you Eli because you have heard it said before).  There is no greater compliment than plagarism.

2. PAS 79 has a space for the competence standard to be inserted (but then you knew that didn't you Eli because you have heard it said before that it would).

[facades]

No greater compliment than palgarism !!!!!!! gud spellin 

[Davo]

To be fair to CT, I think he is trying to plug a gap between the CLG guides and 9999 level.

Its clearly aimed at small business who fancy a stab at FRA, I don't think its aimed at the FRAs who frequent this forum (tugs forelock )

davo

[Eli]

Odd, Eli, you should say they are far apart when:

1. Large chunks of the competence standard are copied word for word from PAS 79 (but then you knew that didn't you Eli because you have heard it said before).  There is no greater compliment than plagarism.

2. PAS 79 has a space for the competence standard to be inserted (but then you knew that didn't you Eli because you have heard it said before that it would).

 Ah Colin, you haven't read my post correctly (again)  I am talking about the draft guidance document for the RP; not the competence standard itself. You know the one as you felt the need to inform the competence council members via email that it was not to your liking. Probably because it didn’t use PAS 79 or the IFE guidance ‘wot’ you wrote.

‘Not the word of Todd. How dare they’

By the way; its not really plagiarism if you are on the editing team that put that section together.

Not sure what ‘ism’ it is! Answers on a post card please

[colin todd]

I think, Eli, you will find that some of those who used the excellent and sage words of PAS 79 were groups with which I had no involvement. They simply recognized good advice when they saw it.  Shame you dont. 

[Eli]

I think, Eli, you will find that some of those who used the excellent and sage words of PAS 79 were groups with which I had no involvement. They simply recognized good advice when they saw it.  Shame you dont. 

Too wooly; not specific enough and generally not hierarchical, would be my observation.

There is a lot of very good advice about selecting competent trades’ people out there; particularly about competent builders, all of which revolve around a decent due diligence process ie doing your home work. Please do re read PAS 79 and your own words for the IFE and see if the how to appoint is water tight, it’s not in my opinion and others too.

Colin you probably remember this old world war II saying

‘Time spent on reconnaissance is seldom if ever wasted’

How much does the PAS or IFE advice concentrate on reconnaissance and recording that reconnaissance? 

What’s your defence under the RRO? ‘

‘Well the guy told me he had suitable training, experience and qualifications to be doing the job’

That just won’t cut it Colin and you know it!