A simple 'its not a house or a fire exit' would have sufficed, my comment was not condescending nor treating you as some form of underling
No, I totally disagree. You may not be a git, apologies for that, but your comments were certainly condescending. Your comment "as a sparkie you should know.." implies that I do not know. Your comment "I personally......" is just another way of saying "this is how it should have been done".
You do underline my criticism in your reply though. You agree with me...."but as you haven't supplied the info we can only assume"... this was my very point if not made too articulately. You appear to suggest that I am at fault for not providing information as opposed to your wrong assumptions.
If you wanted to be instructive whilst not being condescending then maybe your reply could have said that Approved Document B (Fire Safety), Schedule 1, specifies that escape routes should be sufficiently protected from the effects of fire where necessary, and follow that up with a question on the application in the photographs.
Would I ask permission to fit fire retardant material in a high risk area, no. In this case, with use of a few hours a week, with a duplicate escape route and knowing that they only used upstairs for large funerals and weddings, the risk was low, so I asked the client. Would I expect you to know any of that, no of course not, which is why you should have asked.
I am not commenting on what you have done, are doing or will do, so your attempts at defending your comments by all those things isn't really relevant. I am commenting on the reply you made to my post and that only.
I don't need an apology everyone has a view and even contradictory views are all valid, I just hope that anyone reading this exchange will think twice before offering "advice" without knowing the full facts and to think hard about the delivery of said "advice".
