Thank god for people like our brave emergency services girls and boys. R.I.P.lads. My sincere respects to the family's and to all those who serve, both past and present. To the people who start these fires etc....I don't want to be banned again but I'm sure you get the message. Rob

Well, they would say that wouldn't they? Sorry, but I get a bit fed up when the suspects in a high profile case are acquitted that the immediate response is that there should be some inquiry into "why the case was ever brought". The case would have been brought because it was deemed by the CPS that there was a) evidence to support the charges, b) it was in the public interest to take the case, and c) there was a realistic prospect of conviction. If the evidence was so weak, the case would've been thrown out at "half-time" on a defence application of "no case to answer" - which is what happened for one of those charged. The fact that the judge allowed the other two to go to a jury decision would suggest that this wasn't some sort of flimsy investigation with little evidence. There's also comment on here about why the suspects were arrested and held. That is simply standard practice for an offence of this magnitude and follows the procedures laid down by PACE.

There is a separate H&S prosecution of the local authority (on bahalf of the fire service) - would it not have been better to do this first? i.e. before looking at the manslaughter charge. I guess that might be deemed prejudicial in some way though.

Corfield35303 The local authority plead guilty to the H&S charges earlier this year. However, I believe that they did not agree with some of the allegations made by the prosecution.

Away from this incident, I must just correct the assumption that firefighters only enter burning buildings where persons are believe trapped. That is patently not true. The main task of any structure is to keep the weather out. Roof, walls and to some extent, windows will resist water and thwart attempts of firefighting defensively (from the outside). Similarly, trying to extinguish a small fire inside a large building is not possible without going inside (with the necessary PPE & BA). So the vast majority of the bread and butter firefighting tasks carried out by the UK fire service every day are carried out 'offensively' - ie an internal attack. Whether to carry out offensive or defensive attacks is a very complicated matter and requires the use of a dynamic risk assessment. The quality of that assessment is central to all command decisions and ultimately, to the H&S of all concerned on the fireground. Unlike most tasks, a fire scene RA cannot be carried out in advance, so needs to be carried out in parallel with completing the task in a high octane, fast moving dynamic situation. The bigger and more complicated the fire/building, the more numerous are the considerations. It's clear that the understanding the risks improves with time as more information is received, so the early operations present most risk. Selecting the offensive mode is risky and will be opted when the gain is worth the risk. Having 'persons reported' is most likely likely to end in an offensive mode. But the situation needs to be monitored and adjusted constantly. This may not be from a cozy air conditioned office, with bright lights and an expresso machine, but from standing outside at night in the rain at the back of a vehicle with limited resources initially. Like any RA, the quality of the findings/decisions is only as good as the quality of the information coming in, and the competence of those analysing that information. The UK fire service have (in my opinion) dumb downed promotion standards in recent years and cut back on training due to budget cuts and to allow for other priorities (Home smoke detectors fitting and domestic FRAS for one). Many in the fire service are anxious that standards and competence levels are not currently at acceptable levels and, frankly, the fire service education, training, command - and above all, funding is a mess. It is these wider areas that need an independent inquiry rather than wasting resources on a pointless prosecution. I fear with budgets being squeezed more, training will suffer to keep stations open and fire service H&S will suffer. It would be rewarding to think that the legacy of this Warwickshire tragedy would be such an enquiry leading to safer working conditions. Sadly, this doesn't look likely

I started a similar thread unaware that this one had already kicked off. I think the prosecution was a brave or foolhardy decision. To prosecute fire officers for gross negligent manslaughter is a serious matter, decisions have to be taken on the ground and with hindsight they may not have been a good decisions - does this make it a criminal offence?