Sergio,

I have been watching this thread since you first raised your question, I couldnt understand what it was that you were really asking.

The actual definition of the word Arson is "the crime of intentionally starting a fire in order to damage or destroy something".

So I do get the designer, consultants, installers and duty holder need to comply with all appropriate fire risk assessments with regards type and location of building etc

So are you really asking how a Duty Holder prevents any potential criminal from accessing or being on or near their property? 

So when does a loyal and long serving employee suddenly become an arsonest (Criminal)? When their job appraisal doesnt go the way they want, when they dont get a bonus, and with "Red Mist" in their eyes, deliberately set fire to something that gets out of control. So what would be your suggested "Legal Mandate" to prevent that?

GTB

I have to agree. Short of banning all living things from a building there is nothing much you can do to 100% prevent the potential events described.

After all, for example, if CCTV cameras did actually prevent crime, then no criminal activity would exist by now. Fact is, they only record crime rather than prevent it. Same goes for introducing ever more meaningless regulations - they merely provide more laws to break.

Tinkering with legal aspects merely provides a gratuitous living for for those despicables who love to make a crisis out of a drama.

I have to agree. Short of banning all living things from a building there is nothing much you can do to 100% prevent the potential events described.

After all, for example, if CCTV cameras did actually prevent crime, then no criminal activity would exist by now. Fact is, they only record crime rather than prevent it. Same goes for introducing ever more meaningless regulations - they merely provide more laws to break.

Tinkering with legal aspects merely provides a gratuitous living for for those despicables who love to make a crisis out of a drama.

whjohnson said:

After all, for example, if CCTV cameras did actually prevent crime, then no criminal activity would exist by now. Fact is, they only record crime rather than prevent it.

I am inclined to agree, but if you are a miscreant, which property will you burgle: the one with CCTV (Ring doorbell, etc.) or the one without?

The same goes for burglar alarms, which is what we were told when we bought our house 20-odd years ago.

All that said, I do not see how you can legislate, or make any rules against arson short of criminal sanctions.