Bleve I enjoy the discussion. You have some good points to make on fire risk assessment and you know that I am in sympathy with much of what you say. It is the continual sniping (I'm not sure you even realise you are doing it!) coupled with what Ray accurately pinpoints as the curt remarks you end posts with - your last one being a classic case in point - that are starting to be tedious and are sadly detracting from the otherwise excellent discussion we coudl be having on a very valid topic. Comments like "if you don't like it, then don't read it and don't respond to it" aren't helpful on a professional forum like this one either to be honest. To return to the topic in hand. I continue to say that I believe some fire risk assessments are simple and can probably be done by a NEBOSH Fire Cert holder provided they understand their limitations but others certainly cannot be. The important thing is to recognise the difference and know when to seek specialist help. My personal feeling is that this assessment of their own competence is s skill most reputable safety professionals learn to develop and make use of in many spheres of safety - not just that of fire.

Simon, I have little interest in other topics and as it is an open forum and I am a paying member for more years than I care to remember, I can post whatever subject matter or topic I wish. I equally find construction safety extremely boring and tediious but I dont gripe about it, I just do not bother to post. This site had become boring and mundane for months and for various reasons some of the site veterans have not bothered to post, myself included. I enjoy heated discussion and look forward to being challenged, sadly there are some of you who dont understand that concept and take offense at the slightest. To be honest the majority of these posts are repetative and the same topics/subjects and questions are thrown up time and time again.

I agree about the robustness of these debates and see no harm in continuing, all three on fire are really good. I wonder if anyone at IOSH would consider forming a register for fire risk assessors, or would that look like standing on other organisation's toes? I'm sure there would be interest from CMIOSH who already pay their subs and may see it as a benefit of membership?

Possibly but I think it wuold be good for those of us that have more than one string to our bow and provide a comprehensive H&S service. The way I see fire safety it's just another wing of health and safety as I go there as much as anywhere else (with limits of course). You are more specialised in fire safety and go much deeper into the subject, nowt wrong with that but perhaps prospective clients that need fra's may look at IOSH first. If I do a H&S Audit and find the client short of a few things inc. fra I offer to do it rather than recommend someone else.

Personal opinion Bleve, you are of course entitled to your views, opinions and subject matter. I just think your approach could be a little better refined! - again, personal opinion (also amplified by others). Heather, sorry to misquote you, and I agree the subject matter was interesting until it became truly exhausted - like my good self! Roll on Friday! Back in my hole I go.... All the best Simon

A register of fire risk assessors may be a good idea but I would worry about the limitations of such a register. Would it become the accepted practice that fire risk assessments were only sufficient if carried out by a person on this register leading to extra unnecessary expense for small businesses and charities where the simple nature of the premises does not require a specialist? Also would all members of this register turn down jobs that were really beyond their competence. Obviously I would like to think so but in reality I am not convinced that everybody operates to the same code of ethics.

I do not necessarily agree or advocate that a FRA must be carried out by a registered fire risk assessor nor do I say that the RP of a simple premises cannot carry out the FRA using guidance notes. I am saying beware that the guidance notes are not as simple in places as some make out Section 2.1. relating to fire and smoke spread in particular. It is important that we all in earnest recognise our limitations. I do think that the move away from prescriptive fire legislation is a good thing but also think that the law as it satnds is flawed. One of the main reasons that we have so few non domestic fire deaths is a testiment to the prescriptive legislation gone by, I would expect that the number of fires and fatalities will at some point in the near future increase above previous years as a direct result of the new regime. On the subject of fire risk perception and budgets as previously discussed, there are also fire related injuries and property loss to take into account and not just the use of fatality as a yard stick.

I havent posted anything lately on this site, however i am a regular viewer of threads of all types, even though the majority are not in my field of expertise, i find them interesting and i like to see fellow H&S bods having a good debate. I personnally feel that Bleve is so passionate about fire safety, and therefore expresses himself in a manner that a few others find offensive, i really do not believe that he intends to offend, im sure you are all aware that the majority of communication is facially expressions. I would bet a lot of money that you have all received and sent txt messages that were taken the wrong way by the recipitant or yourself, the same thing has happened to this interesting topic, please lighten up and let the debate continue!

Bleve, Interesting points about the changed fire safety regime, and its effects. I can say that I have been aware of the need to carry out FRA since 1997, and have put a lot of thought and effort into ensuring that the FRAs for my current employer are robust. And I agree that much of what we have in place is because of previous prescriptive regimes. However, we haven't seen the change in emphasis of duty as any kind of opportunity to relax what has been prescribed in the past. In our residential homes and hospices we have carried out exhaustive examinations of fire separation, compartmentalisation, detection and warning systems and means of escape; we have used this process to make improvements, if anything, as opposed to relaxing any of what went before. In the case of our retail premises the change in the law has allowed us to strengthen our fire provision immeasurably. In the past, any attempt to put, say, linked detection and alarm systems in a two floor three room Charity shop would have been met with the comment 'The fire officer said our domestic alarms (or even worse) were fine. Now that we do our own FRA and we unreservedly and absolutely have the responsibility, we get linked alarms, proper means of escape and so on. Not that we have finsihed the job, with 400 shops we have really only just started to get them straight, and some of our premises would be pretty poor places to be in the event of fire. The point is though, that the RR(FS)O has, in our case, brought about visible improvements over the previous prescriptive regime, and we, for one, have not thought of it for an instant as an excuse for relaxing or lowering standards, John