L4

[Wiz]

You really don't like it when someone is as sarcastic as you, do you Toddy!

For someone who could be a real help on this forum, you invariably come over as unhelpful, arrogant and sarcastic. Shame!

[facades]

Agreed

[nearlythere]

Hear Hear!

[colin todd]

I wasnt aware you had it in you to be as arcastic as me Wiz.  I must have missed the sarcasm. Which post was it and I will read it again.

[Wiz]

I strive only to treat others as they treat me.

I have obviously failed to meet your high standards.

I can try a bit harder, if you wish!

[Big A]

Speaking as an employee of an organisation that Lord Todd derides and scorns on this board more than any other, I would like to register a vote of thanks for his witty and well-written posts. (Derbyshire Carol is class). They usually make me smile. As I used to attempt to write policy documents I know how frustrating it is when a guidance document is received as the latest religious text to be analysed.

Having said that I take the point about specifications of fire alarms coming before design and I fear it may be something else that FRSs will be blamed for. Our enforcement notices usually say something like: your fire warning arrangements are sh**, an L99 system should sort it aht.

Happy Christmas

[colin todd]

Big A, thank you for your words of support, which mean almost as much to me as the pussy cat salt and pepper set I got from my wee girl for Christmas.

In return, I must be gracious enough to admit, the cart before the horse approach to fire alarm design is not the fault of the FRS.  It has always been a major philosophical problem, and lies with M&E consutlants and other specifiers. A reference to Category on an EN is just a steer, though I agree, for some Categories, it wont mean much without additional info.