Posted By Steve Cartwright
I thought they were review a couple of years ago.

Posted By Bob Shillabeer
Is this just a bit of we'll ask the local fire chief what is his view on the tragedy of the fire and he has chosen to attack the new legislation as being bad (jumping on the anti safety theme which seems to prevail at the moment) because he can dodge his responsibility for ensuring the working practices his fire officers use almost daily by diverting the question away from the true target of how do we make a dangerous job more safer. He should be looking at why those officers were in the building and putting in place work methods that minimise the risk his men face. Remember his fire authority is now the enforcers of the new legislation not the body who arranges fire safety, but also one which must comply with it.

Posted By Mark Eden
Bob Shaun
We will have to wait for the full report of this terrible tragedy. But I would imagine that the crews from the local area knew of people using the premise for sleeping in the previous months - that is why they went in - to search and rescue. The Fire Service will risk their lives to save lives. I don't believe for a minute they were sent in willy nilly or on a whim.

Posted By pluto
The building regulations were looked at a couple of years ago and general fire safety legislation has overhauled in 2006.

Whatever the outcome of any investigation building construction and the regulations around them are a balance of safety vs cost. I believe that the government is far too influenced by business needs and allowed, and still allows buildings to be built knowing that any fire will result in a total loss with all the attendant impact on the environment, employment and in this case, lives. Insurance indemnifies the occupier/owner against any loss.

We design and build sacrificial buildings because they are cheap and occasionally, brave men and woman judge that there may be people inside and risk their lives. The government knows this equation and think that it is acceptable. Indeed, the only people in the universe who are not "relevant persons" and therefore do not need the safety considering, are firefighters and the government cynically removed this protection from the legislation at the behest of businesses, because they knew that the only way to do this was using sprinklers.

Posted By Bob Shillabeer
Hi Guys, You miss understand me. I was not saying the fire officers had no real reason for entering the building (as it happened there was no reason for them to do so, at least not live ones anyway) but the fact remains the fire chief has strayed from the reason for them going into the building to attack the creation (and reduction) of the long held view that the fire brigade knows best about fires. The new fire regulations state that it is the building operator who must take control of the safety features of the premises with the fire authority having the enforcement role. Quite right in my opinion because if the building operator did follow the fire certificate where one existed, remember not all premises had to have one and many did not take account of the fire risk, but must now do so.

My main point is why do officials in many walks of life try to diver attention from what may be thier failings by attacking some other area of safety. In this case he should be interested in what went wrong not attack a pice of legislation aimed at improving the system. When did you hear of any organisation being procecuted for failing to make suitable arrangements to manage the risk from fire???