Thanks MS, I would rather take credence from that report than from a newspaper, even though in this case they seem to have actually got their facts right. Allthough I will add the newspaper did not appear to have the timescales, so the comments about making things look worse than they are still stands, why use the full facts when missing some out makes a better story and actually makes things look worse than they are.
With regards to this comment
It may be assumed with some degree of confidence that the overall probability of a minor fire/smoke related occurrence for any given initiating cause will continue to be FREQUENT.
, since this report was issued how many changes have been made to alleviate some of these instances happening again, though I think I know the answer, which is sweet diddly squat (although from one post above they have removed the toaster
).