DJKillaQueen

No, biscuits, but if you want cake I know a Geordie lass wot plays footie and would surely bake some ;-)

Awww but I don't like coffee......can I bring Tia Maria instead?

Was it the IPO that pursuaded them to leave?

I hear they are calling for a smaller admin team ;-) and less threads.

Sigh...H they think if they say it enough and pat each other on the back, their inability to present a good counter argument (beyond 'I know a fire fighter or two') will somehow vaporise. And yes I am getting stroppy as I always do with anyone that can't leave personal insult out of debate. It's ok to agree to disagree. No member of the public has to be a fire fighter to have a say on something they pay taxes to maintain. FFs don't pay my wages but I pay towards theirs. So if the service can be more productive and efficient then that's what I want, if it saves money then even better. I happen to believe that the presented shift changes will achieve this because it has done exactly that elsewhere. Some may not agree with me on that but it doesn't mean I'm wrong or that my view is not a valid one. For all the accusations that MM and H and I are derogatory to ffs (which we are not), I could also retort with 'pot calling kettle black' over the cynicism of a Nov 5th strike and a lack of gratitude for the unnaffordable pension we provide for them (because you wouldn't get that in the public sector buddies). Let's just accept there is never going to be any agreement on certain views expressed on this thread instead of trying to bully each other into agreeing. Too much 'I must have the last word' going on I'm afraid.

I blame the yummy mummys, that never post except when someone uses the term yummy mummy.

I totally agree LB and can't see why we can't go back to a B-TEC and HND system for courses that don't require degree length or status. I think may fee paying students would be happier with that too. And silverfox is right, many students incur further debt from living expenses. I worked all the time I was at University and was lucky enough to have free tuition and a full grant, but I still finished with an overdaraft of ?1500. That was 20 years ago. No way would be able to cope with the idea of finishing a degree with ?36k plus of debt now, unless I was studying medicine or law and had some realistic hope of repaying it.

what we are not prepared to do is have un-necessary changes forced upon us that will cost people their lives and property There is absolutely no evidence of this and in fact it is backed by the fact that accross other fire brigades where shift changes have been implemeted there has been no increased risk to the public....this point has been made again and again so can we please stop with the attempts to frighten the public with unproven assumption. Iain is correct in the points he makes.....the union are not interested in any kind of compromise whatever you may think spc...their behaviour over the last 16 months demonstrates that clearly. There is certainly a 'whiff' about it all and it's ffs themselves who are being drawn into the middle of it. I accept the points you make about Nov 5th but you are deluded if you think any of that action will make any difference to the LFB. You were offered the 11/13 compromise. Your union turned it down.

Hi spc...it's not true that negotiations were only offered in August. I posted a letter eariler than shows that the FBU knew about the proposed changes to shifts SIXTEEN MONTHS ago. So what was the Union doing during that time? The 90 day consultation was invoked with the rule 188 because the Union failed to come to any agreement. Can I suggest you do read the thread because the debate has been detailed and intense and many of the points you make have been covered and I don't want to repeat myself :)

Brilliant news Saila....make sure you get someone in there asap though.....so as not to have to go through this again. Best of luck.

It's good for reducing public spending and that's about all. And that is PER YEAR. I would never have got anywhere had my University education cost me ?36K before I'd even earned a penny from it. What world do these politicians live in? It will almost certainly put some students off and will make students think in some cases of only doing degrees that can realistically recoup the money, so it would be natural to expect closure of some courses or in worst case scenarios some smaller universities. On the latter it might not be a bad thing given the rise of degree courses that aren't worth the paper they are written on. Universities could of course increase the number of foreign students they accomodate and graduates in some professions could arguably charge more for their services in light of the debt they'll have to repay but the reality also is that many graduates won't ever earn the ?21k to start paying it back or may take lower paid jobs to escape paying it back. Whatever your background (apart from the very affluent) to be saddled with that much debt at age 22 is daunting.

There are reports that she is to be executed by hanging today. Will see if it happens or not.

Squatters may be reasonable sometimes, but they have no right to steal someone's property. And there is a distinction between a property that has been empty for years and one that has become recently empty (and the law makes provision for that difference). The action Saila's family are taking will enable them to be evicted within weeks not months so it should all be resolved shortly.

That's quite a pursuasive summary Iain until the final sentence. The public are not feasting on any 'public sector mob figures'. The public are simply asking a question of the reasoning behind the ffs dispute. Look at the RMT tube strike action of today for example. Their issue is the planned 800 job losses. We all know the tube network is crumbling, that it needs massive investment. We all know as well that ticket offices close in some stations for more than half the day because of no staff to open them.....and indeed many stations are not staffed at all for some parts of the day/ night. So there is sense to the union stance that further reduction in staff will affect an already understaffed (in their view) network (which the public may or may not agree with). Whereas the FFU stance is that if we give into these shift changes (which in themselves are sensible), what next? The public aren't stupid. They can tell the difference between various disputes and then make up their minds accordingly on which to genuinely support.

Anyone that dismisses consultation (he calls it an obsession remember) as a process but then criticises the council for ignorance deserves to be corrected Tom. Richfish has no interest whatsoever in being involved in any of the above as his subsequent post showed :) and I am merely responding to that.

I love cake....Iceland do nice ones if you can wait for them to defrost >:D

I'll be going....

:) At last Sean lol.....

Just to add that another reason why fires are falling is because new builds have far more fire safety aspects to them. Renewal of electrics (with higher minimum standards of fittings) and other fire hazards in our bouyant housing market over past decades has also negated the level of fires caused by faults in those things. And hopefully it is a downward trend that will continue. Ultimately that has meant that the contraction of the fire service over recent decades has been perfectly reasonable. Not a happy lot for those who lose their jobs, but nonetheless reasonable in a service that requires public money, and can not be offered as some argument for suggesting the aims of management are to destroy the Fire Service down the line in this dispute.

Brum, I get very irritated with the argument that 'we can't accept these changes because of the changes we might be asked to make in the future'. Surely any future changes would require seperate negotiation and may well be a cause that I support depending on the issues. In THIS dispute though there are no issues that threaten ffs or the public. And to be honest I wish those of you supporting the dispute would make your mind up as to what it's really about. The lack of clarity and as H says the shifting goal posts are why the FFU are losing the argument and debate....and the fire fighters themselves are being poorly led by bog standard union tactics and fodder. Yes the shift changes are sensible. Necessary, yes because they increase productivity and efficiency which in turn means better value for the public money spent on the service, and a better service. Both very important at a time of public spending cuts. And H (returning the compliment) has been absolutely spot on with his data, and the points he raises about improvements in efficiency are born out in evidence from similar shift changes brought in accross other fire services. For the FFU to oppose them (including the offered compromise of 11/13) says they don't want a more productive and efficient service (possibly because they think it will down the line lead to job losses).....they don't want the taxes used to employ them, provide them with expensive pensions, and so on to be more cost effective......? Obviously the average ff is not thinking in those machiavelian terms but from outside looking in (from which ever way you look at it)...any member of the public can be forgiven for concluding that self interest is at the core of this dispute, rather than it having anything to do with public service.

There are very good reasons for consultation richfish, mainly because if they don't consult they upset people when implementing seemingly the wrong solution (then to only be further accused of wasting money). It's an important and democratic process. Historically, but for public involvement there would have been no end of destruction and unpopular planning and transport schemes. After all, who better to consult with than those that live there, or use the junction and are best informed to say what the problems are. Similiarly....have you thought to contact the transport committee directly and express concern? No. You are the first to complain (as the misinformed view of your opening post shows) whilst taking no part in shaping the decisions made by your local conuncil, and expect them to 'by magic' identify problems and solutions. That junction also comes under TFL remit, which is why the planned improvements are part of the TFL round of annual funding. It's not a straightforward process of the council being able to do as they please, when they please. Nor is it a quick process.... but again, if you took any interest in how your local council works you might have known that. There's certainly room for a roundabout Kford, although loss of pavement may be opposed.

But there is no evidence that the public are at risk from any of this which has been one of the main points made by ffs in defence of their reluctance to agree with night time cover changes. H made the point that there are 48% less fires at night for various reasons which we all understand. Whether that in reality means fewer very busy nights with mostly non evental nights, or evenly spread incidents that just mean the night on night workload is less I don't know. Either way though, any change in need should mean there should be no issue with changing cover or shifts to reflect that. Historically in the modern era, all the big unions refuse change and fight tooth and nail to make it as difficult as possible for management to do anything, so that militancy in itself is no suprise. In this dispute, the union are not winning the debate, and they and ffs need to look at it again and understand why. Striking on November 5th is just wreckless. Ultimately though, the power is with management - whatever side anyone might fall on.

Actually the buses in Liverpool are newer and cleaner than those in London. And the weekly/ daily travelcards are the same price as those in London. What Liverpool doesn't have is an oyster card equivalent so single journey prices are comparitively higher. And a lower wage goes further in Liverpool than a higher wage in London :) I don't know either exactly why the Unions are being so stubborn in London. And London isn't that different to most industrial cities. All cities have the level of fire fighters and stations they require. The LFB are not trying to close stations or reduce the number of ffs here. It's simply a change to make the way the Fire Service works more efficient. It's worked elsewhere. I'm not going to jump onboard the bandwagon of anti fighters It's only a debate - some you win, and some you lose... :)

Oh and in those disputes the same old nonsense about public risk was spouted and lo and behold...now the shift changes are in place...productivity has gone up and no reduction in service or increased risk to the public. Kind of proves the point...the union have been consistently wrong in disputes in their claims on risk. The union line is so predictable it's laughable.

I didn't copy anything Kbabe...would you like to list the unwelcome strings attached to the LFC's offer of the 11/13 split? So that you actually back up your claim with some evidence? Because to be honest there's been more thsan enough claims and no data/ evidence provided by those supporting the strikes on this thread already.