Please read and support your firefighters!!!!

[DJKillaQueen]

The sooner we get there the better (It really could be the difference between life or death).

I totally accept this. It's common sense.

With regards to night cover....again I don't know enough about calls out vs cover at night to know who is right but am I right in thinking there already is reduced cover at night compared to day?

Pilgrim, I totally agree that taking kit home as opposed to leaving it at the station is inpractical (especially for those that rely on public transport). Surely as well, the time taken to travel between stations isn't so great that much would be saved in withdrawing the need for those journeys.

These are the kinds of details that the union should be publicising.

[Ladymuck]

600

[DJKillaQueen]

Is that the number of fire engines on night cover LM? :)

[Ladymuck]

Tres drole your Maj!

[Moflo]

Pilgrim is right about the standbys. The cover has been reduced on all shifts, mainly because of the removal of the 27 appliances. Some stations that had two appliances now only have one, that means if they are called to an incident, night or day, and it need two appliances then they have to wait for an appliance from another station, this may cause delays depending on how many appliances are in use at that time. If the station had the correct amount of appliances then this wouldn't happen. The reason for the standbys is because there are not enough ff's to cover all shifts in all stations. I think this is correct, I am sure Brum will let us know if I have anything wrong?

[DJKillaQueen]

Ok so there is already a fluid movement of ff cover. I must say the non return of those 27 fire engines seems like a 'let's see if they can mamage without them' tactic to me.

[Moflo]

Exactly right DJKQ, problem is when they are needed they will not be there, 7 days out of 10 they may not be needed but what about the other three days when they are? Someone will pay the price. Yesterday there was a bad incident in Poplar, fire broke out in a block of flats, 10 appliances from 6 different stations, that then leaves short cover in other areas. This happens often but with fewer appliances it will happen more and more. FF's are not opposed to shift changes, they are realisitic and know that work patterns change, the oposition is because they know, and this has been born out, that these sort of cuts will endanger lives. I feel it is not a matter of if but a matter of when!

[DJKillaQueen]

I don't think there's any evidence yet that someone died in a fire or almost died because of a shortage of engine cover...that's just hypothesis, but as you say, the surplus cover is designed for those rarer incidents that do need a larger response. And the closer you trim to the bone the more likely that the surplus cover will not be enough.

That's the argument that the union need to have...and they need to back it up with data, and a couple of 'what if' scenarios that are based on reality...for example, what if 7/11 happened again? In that respect London can argue it is a special case because of the heightened risks, although rare, of serious incidents.

When you see FFU leaders on TV taking all their time to criticise management (and vice versa of course) the real issues get lost. The public IS interested in the real issues. The are not interested in leaders (be they FFU or LFB) having slanging matches about each other.

[Moflo]

I take your point on that! Obviously we aren't privvy to the negotiations that go on and only hear the negatives from both sides. I am sure that this will be resolved and hopefully soon. But I do not think that the remarks and treatment that Mr. Coleman is metering out is helpful to the situation. His complete disreguard is poisoning. Boris hasn't helped matters much either!! Do I hear a more sympathetic tone in your voice DJKQ? I hope so! No one wants a satisfactory resolve in this than the ff's and their families! Can I send you a "I support Firefighters" wristband?? >:D

[brum]

Last week a firefighter friend of mine in Cleveland turned up as part of a crew to a house fire with people trapped. His was the only appliance to arrive as the original call was to rubbish on fire. There were only 4 in the crew, he was driver. Two entered the house with one supplying the water. He saw 2 faces through the smoke at a bedroom window. As the only person left, and without any time to don his his protective clothing (drivers normally dress on arrival) he pitched a ladder, broke through the glass and saved them just in time. He sustained cuts to his hands requiring stitches. If a second crew had arrived, he would not have had to risk his own safety to carry out this rescue.

My point? That insufficient resources (fewer fire appliances) will mean that more lives are put at risk - both public and firefighters.

Though sorry, I've still no stats or 'bullet points' to prove my point!

[Marmora Man]

brum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Last week a firefighter friend of mine in

> Cleveland turned up as part of a crew to a house

> fire with people trapped. His was the only

> appliance to arrive as the original call was to

> rubbish on fire. There were only 4 in the crew, he

> was driver. Two entered the house with one

> supplying the water. He saw 2 faces through the

> smoke at a bedroom window. As the only person

> left, and without any time to don his his

> protective clothing (drivers normally dress on

> arrival) he pitched a ladder, broke through the

> glass and saved them just in time. He sustained

> cuts to his hands requiring stitches. If a second

> crew had arrived, he would not have had to risk

> his own safety to carry out this rescue.

>

> My point? That insufficient resources (fewer fire

> appliances) will mean that more lives are put at

> risk - both public and firefighters.

>

> Though sorry, I've still no stats or 'bullet

> points' to prove my point!

But as the original call was to a rubbish on fire - logic demands that no matter how many appliances that particular force had, the call centre would still have only sent one appliance manned with four people. I do not deny the bravery of the individual - but the incident does not make a case for, or against, reducing / maintaining or increasing the number of appliances.

[Moflo]

H I think the point maybe that if appliances are removed from service at any given time only one appliance will be able to go to an incident thereby jeopardising the life of public and crew. A house fire would normally have two appliances reporting. You obviously do not believe this or what a firefighter is telling you, thats up to you. I certinly would not want to put it to the test and hope that the removal of these applliances is not permanent.

[Huguenot]

"His was the only appliance to arrive as the original call was to rubbish on fire."

Nothing to do with shift changes or cuts then?

*scratches ear*

[Marmora Man]

Hugenot - you're using logic again in this debate. You know that's not fair.

Emotions, ideology and concern about vague, unsubstantiated future threats to cuddly animals and children are OK - don't spoil their fun with logic, rational analysis of their case using facts and statistics.

[Santerme]

The other thing this is doing is causing internal strife in the Brigade.

My brother, who did a 72 hour on call shift the other week, btw...he sleeps in one of the station houses so not awake all the time is finding relationships breaking down between senior and middle management.

This has divisive and unfortunate effects which will last long into the future whatever the outcome.

[Brian Adams]

DJKILLAQUEEN! To be honest, It is very difficult for anyone to prove either way whether the LFB needs all machines or not as only time can tell.

What FFs can say is that we do not want to take that risk with london's residents. We can easily say that any job that costs lives are further reasons for MORE fire engines in those areas but the management would say that these incidents are rare........but how much is 1 life worth?

We are not against change but changes must be made in places that do not effect the attendance at rescues. There are many non emergency appliances that can be removed at this time to make savings.

Some will say that the amount of savings that the LFB want to make is MORE than they are asked to make, so we really need to see the figures to work out where savings can be made.

We know "No change is not an option" but leave fire Engines alone until all avenues have been looked at.

[brum]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "His was the only appliance to arrive as the

> original call was to rubbish on fire."

>

> Nothing to do with shift changes or cuts then?

>

> *scratches ear*

As I said, my point was about the effect of being under-resourced at an incident. There are many occasions when this already happens, such as from receiving incorrect details of an incident at the time of call, as is what happened in Cleveland last week. Londoners are lucky that there are relatively fewer occasions of under-resourcing. This will change if there are fewer fire appliances available for calls. Surely this is common sense?

[brum]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hugenot - you're using logic again in this debate.

> You know that's not fair.

>

> Emotions, ideology and concern about vague,

> unsubstantiated future threats to cuddly animals

> and children are OK - don't spoil their fun with

> logic, rational analysis of their case using facts

> and statistics.

Fantastic contribution to the debate. Original and witty too!

[Marmora Man]

Brum,

When your posts are based on logic, reasonable argument and backed by relevant evidence I'll accord you appropriate respect, as I was doing back on page one of this thread.

Since page 1 I have become progressively more disappointed with the quality of response from firefighters and their supporters. Thus my latest response has descended to a lower level.