I'm unclear how arson specific construction measures might differ from normal fire prevention - use of concrete rather than timber in stairwells, avoiding flammable finishes etc, and detection I would have thought would all be  similar to current practice already , for arson or any other kind of fire,  or are you suggesting a more 'anti-vandal' set of building regs for higher risk locations ?

nor am I clear to whom the additional mandate would need to be offered ? I'd have thought education authorities,health trusts etc already have the powers they need to specify bespoke fire resistant construction.

So I'd like a  bit more clarification of the original question.

mike.

I'm unclear how arson specific construction measures might differ from normal fire prevention - use of concrete rather than timber in stairwells, avoiding flammable finishes etc, and detection I would have thought would all be  similar to current practice already , for arson or any other kind of fire,  or are you suggesting a more 'anti-vandal' set of building regs for higher risk locations ?

nor am I clear to whom the additional mandate would need to be offered ? I'd have thought education authorities,health trusts etc already have the powers they need to specify bespoke fire resistant construction.

So I'd like a  bit more clarification of the original question.

mike.

Hi Mike

Think of a local school, during the day there are staff and children present lets call this state 1.  After lets say 5 pm there are no staff of children present, lets call this state 2.

Now if you were nefarious in nature would you chose state 1 or 2 to commit arson? 

Another scenario could be a local hotel which has large bins filled with recycle material like cardbord next to an outside wall.

yes, I know what arson is and how I would do it, - I'm not sure what the question you pose is, what sort  of 'mandate' do you have in mind - to allow who to do what, to whom, that they cant already do ?

Surely you are not suggesting such places as you  list should be manned 24/7 to remove state 2  as you put it ?

Mike.

Hi Mike

I was trying to highlight that fact that arson its becoming quite prevelant and that it should be mandated that a fire risk assessment be done on a regular basis lets say every 3 to 5 years or when a significant change to the building construction or the use of the building or a change is current events/fairs.  Another thing they need to make clear is the risk during occupation and non-occupation times.  There are also other things that should be addressed like the fact that hotels were attacked recently and bins were set on fire and then used to block fire exits at the rear of the hotel while there was a angry mob at the front of the hotel.  

www.theguardian.com/.../rioters-try-to-torch-rotherham-asylum-seeker-hotel-amid-far-right-violence

Sergio Fernandez said:

There are also other things that should be addressed like the fact that hotels were attacked recently and bins were set on fire and then used to block fire exits at the rear of the hotel while there was a angry mob at the front of the hotel.

Risk assessments need to be suitable and sufficient.

Terrorism and public disorder may well be relevant to high-profile events, and major infrastructure premises, as well as other types of premises, the activities in which may be subject of political disagreement etc, or may be affected because of their location (e.g. close to other premises with such risks, or in an area that is more likely to be affected).

Not that all workplaces need to consider such things, but some undoubtedly will.

Ah OK, you propose a change to the rules on risk assessments - though I think what you suggest is already more or less in place, perhaps driven more by insurance requirements, rather than politicians.

Of course it can be used to give you someone else to blame who is not the arsonist and allows insurers not to pay out if the manager's RA did not foresee the particular sequence of events, which sadly seems to be my experience of insurers ;-~

Of course compiling and reviewing a meaningful RA (*) is not without costs so that needs to be factored in.

M.

* boiler plate craptext is cheap but useless.

mapj1 said:

Ah OK, you propose a change to the rules on risk assessments

I'm not quite with you on that. The argument would possibly go along the lines whether it was reasonably foreseeable for people to demonstrate, or violently protest, against an activity in the place.

An analogous situation is demonstrations against businesses (including attacks on premises and harassment of staff) involved with animals (testing laboratories for example), where risk assessments have had to be revisited once campaigners' tactics become apparent.