Jump to content

Recommended Posts

While London Mayor Boris Johnson is being cheered over the Olympics and boosted in the polls, London?s Fire Brigade is being cut and dismantled.


The London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) has had its budget cut by ?29.5million next year and by a further ?35.3million the year after. In total: ?65 million.


With the cost of operating a fire station with one fire appliance at ?1.4m per year, this means 15 fire stations and appliances are at risk of closure. Up to 25 next year could close next year.


For context, there are just 112 fire stations in London. In just over a year 35% of London?s stations could be shut down.


Labour?s City Hall Fire spokesperson, Navin Shah, sent out a statement this week saying:


The mayor needs to come clean on fire brigade cuts. This isn?t just an academic debate about numbers, if there aren?t enough fire engines in London then they will not get to incidents on time. As we all know time is a crucial factor in saving people?s lives.


It is disgusting that the mayor and government are making these cuts.


So far, the Conservatives are refusing to elaborate much on what they would close. Mayor Boris Johnson previously ruled out frontline cuts to fire services, but will now u-turn on his promise.


The London Evening Standard has barely covered the issue, but broadly remained painfully silent.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25841-fire-cuts/
Share on other sites

First of all....to say the fire service is being dismantled is not true is it. It's interesting to note that the OP has c&p'd comments from a site called liberalconspiracy.org ......must be true then!!!!!


I would like to see the details of where the cuts are to be made before jumping to the mathematical conclusion that it will automatically close a proportionate number of stations etc. I'm sure some of the cuts will be met by efficiency savings rather than cuts to front line services.


Unfortunately we are seeing cuts everywhere, and accross all public sector services. The real question perhaps is whether the fire service should be immune, when the Police and other emergency services have had to endure cuts?


What the OP doesn't say for example is what percentage of cuts these are to the overall budget. There is an insight to local authority spending (including fire services) across the UK in this document from the Institute of Fiscal Studies (perhaps a little more objective than 'liberalconspiracy.org')....


http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2012/12chap6.pdf


I also read that the cost of false alarms to the fire service is 37m per year......so maybe some savings could be made there by better weeding out those.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25841-fire-cuts/#findComment-579928
Share on other sites

Everything one needs to know about London's Fire Service budget can be found here.....


http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/CorporatePublications.asp#Statement_of_Accounts


This document (published by the LFS itself) reports that London fire service was allocated ?437.3 million last year and came in under budget by 21 million or 5%


http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/Documents/Summary_of_Accounts_201011.pdf


So if we apply the figures in the OP....29 million is approx 6%. Well the fire service came un 5% under budget last year. 35 million the following years equates to a further cut of 8% for that year.


It's perfectly obvious from those figures that the first cut can be met. The second can be debated. But the claim that 35% of London's fire stations could go from a 14% cut in budget is just ridiculous and makes no sense based on the actual figures. But then why are we suprised that campaign groups and politicians mislead the public. It took me all of five minutes to find the real financial data. It's a pity the OP couldn't do the same research before posting the OP.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25841-fire-cuts/#findComment-579949
Share on other sites

Off at a tangent slightly, but re: liberalconspiracy.org - this is Sunny Hundal's site who is, or rather was, a very well known Lib Dem supporter who's only become a "progressive" since the formation of the coalition. Whether you agree with its politics or not is moot, but it's a well respected site by all of the political sides and IMHO shouldn't be dismissed because of the domain name!


Anyway, Moflo - get yourself and as many of your friends, family and colleagues out on A Future That Works demo on 20 October to help send your message to the Tories and the Mayor.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25841-fire-cuts/#findComment-579982
Share on other sites

It is a fact that London Fire Brigade is seeking to save more than ?65 million from its budget over the next two years and it has stated "given the amount we need to save, it would not be possible to achieve all of these savings from 'back office' functions."


It is also a fact that it is considering a number of options in order to save this money one of which is to cut 840 posts, 30 fire stations (representing a quarter of London's stations) and 30 fire engines to save ?45 million.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25841-fire-cuts/#findComment-580109
Share on other sites

Chippy, are you suggesting that the Fire Service should be exempt from making any savings? Hardly realistic at a time when government spending is above 50% of GDP and 25% above government income.


An option list doesn't mean that all or even any of the options listed will be implemented. It's usually the basis for discussion from which some form of compromise will occur.


As DJKQ has pointed out - the sevrice underspent by 5% (?21m) last year, so it doesn't appear that the service is stretched financially at present.


As was argued in the previous thread if Fire Services put even more emphasis on fire prevention rather than in standing by to respond to emergencies then costs and lives can be saved as has been demonstrated very clearly in Liverpool.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25841-fire-cuts/#findComment-580167
Share on other sites

MM - no, I am not suggesting anything. Do you actually read my posts or do just see my username and think "ah, here's something for me to disagree with" ?


I simply stated it is a fact that the LFB is considering an option that would cut fire fighters, fire engines and close a quarter of London's fire stations.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25841-fire-cuts/#findComment-580184
Share on other sites

And that would only be one option of many...so why not list other options too? Or are we going down the same road of alarmism that so many debates around public sector cuts go?


The figures I highlighted were published by the LFS themselves so it makes no sense now for them to claim they would have to cut so many personel and stations based on those figures. I suspect a bit of scaremongering is going on. That is why I believe nothing from public sector claims until I see quantifiable data to support it.


In this instance the LFS's own finacial reports don't support this level of impact from the proposed cuts. The only cut that will realisitcally impact is the second 8% cut. Well you don't have to be a star mathematician to get that 8% does not equate to closing a quarter of London's fire stations. If we do accept that then that means that some 68% of current LFS funding is not spent on fire stations and personnel to run them at all, or that a whooping 92% of funding pays for 75% of the stations currently in use - neither of which make no sense to me.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25841-fire-cuts/#findComment-580222
Share on other sites

The options are detailed in internal LFB documents so I don't know what the other options are (if the OP is a firefighter maybe they have more info?). However, right on time, today's Evening Standard and the BBC report them: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/one-thousand-london-fire-brigade-jobs-under-threat-in-major-costcutting-shakeup-8175051.html and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19682622 so I suspect that it is true.


"The figures I highlighted were published by the LFS themselves so it makes no sense now for them to claim they would have to cut so many personel and stations based on those figures" - maybe they've spent more than "all of five minutes" looking at "the real financial data" to conclude cutting so many personnel and stations needs to be considered as an option?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25841-fire-cuts/#findComment-580234
Share on other sites

The real financial data is in the public domain Chippy and there for all to see. They have to publish detailed annual accounts by law. And yes I did spend more than five minutes looking at it and nowhere can I see any proof that an 8% cut to their budget will be equal to the closure of a quarter of all fire stations in London. Now if you can provide me with financial data to support that claim then I'll stand corrected, but from what I can see it is simply is not true. So all I can conclude is scare mongering tactics, I presume, to get the public on side.


Edited to add that page 15 of this document....


http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/568234.pdf


....has a table that shows that fires and call outs have declined significantly over the last ten years and the evening standard article claims the cuts are being demanded in relation to this falling trend in incidents. That makes sense to me.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25841-fire-cuts/#findComment-580325
Share on other sites

CM said


"Well I guess I'll put more trust in the reports from The Standard and BBC which are based LFB documents and that clearly state they are considering an option that would see a quarter of stations close, rather than your analysis of the "real financial data."


My old history master used to drum into us that we must never rely on secondary sources when researching - DJKQ has gone to the primary source (and provided links to the primary sourcec) yet you refuse to consider this, preferring instead to rely on information processed and interpreted by The Evening Standard and the BBC - strange, except that their interpretation supports your world view.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25841-fire-cuts/#findComment-580369
Share on other sites

I'm also trying to make the point that I feel that the LFS are distorting the facts...aided by the media, and that the LFS's own published accounts are proof of distortion of the facts. The LBS boast in their annual report that they came in 5% under budget last year and yet now, an enforced 12% cut (across two years) is going to reduce the service by 25%? And when something doesn't make sense like that you have to ask why? Organisations are prone to deliberate exaggeration of the facts when fighting cuts, it's something we see all the time.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25841-fire-cuts/#findComment-580383
Share on other sites

Jeez, I am not refusing to consider anything!


Going round in circles here so for the last time again, read my posts - I have simply stated LFB is considering making cuts that it thinks will close a quarter of fire stations.


If you don't believe this is being considered or if you don't trust the Standard's or BBC's interpretation then fine, we'll just have to wait until the budget propopals are presented in the spring.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25841-fire-cuts/#findComment-580429
Share on other sites

The last time the subject came up, we were promised London would be burnt to the ground in 48 hours and that new shift patterns couldn't possibly work because all the Firemen would die or something.


London didn't burn to the ground, and the shift changes seem to have resulted in coming 5% under budget.


Can we be forgiven for not believing the claims from the unions this time as well?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25841-fire-cuts/#findComment-580433
Share on other sites

Chippy, has it occurred to you that LFB saying they are considering closing 25% of fire stations may be either (i) a headline grabbing statement designed to aid their bargaining position or (ii) an admission that rationalisation may be a good idea? Either way, that fact alone is not a basis to say that cuts cannot or should not be made.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25841-fire-cuts/#findComment-580434
Share on other sites

1 of 3

I am a Fire fighter in London and here are some simple facts for you all. If you want to find them for yourselves go on the LFB website and look up the minutes of the Authority meetings.


Over 80% of the over all budget is spent on people (wages etc), less than 20% is spent on buildings and equipment etc (over 90% for the operational side).


The budget has been cut by 3-5% every year in real terms for the last 5 years.


Most of these saving have been made from reducing "backroom staff" and functions or through efficiency saving, reducing sickness, overtime payments etc.


?50,000.000 of LFB reserves were taken by Boris in the last year and given to the Police.


Only 10% of Ff?s time is spent going out on calls, we spent twice that on community safety work.


The rest of the time is spent training, testing equipment, cleaning and fire prevention work etc.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25841-fire-cuts/#findComment-580483
Share on other sites

2 of 3

The amount of fires are down, yes, but the damage caused is up, insurance claims are rising year on year and not just because of inflation, this is a hidden cost you pay higher insurance premiums instead of tax (by the way we don?t just do fires).


Attendance times are up (you are waiting longer for the help you need).


Injuries to Ffs are up as fires are more developed by the time we get there.


The new shift is a joke, even senior managers can see it is not working and does not provide the efficiency saving they said it would, There are a couple of station still working the old shift and their efficiency is the same as everyone else, but their sickness, lateness etc is down.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25841-fire-cuts/#findComment-580484
Share on other sites

3 of 3

As a taxpayer I am all for saving money and I believe there are ways of saving money, but that is not by cutting the service we provide the public. If we were managed properly by people who knew what they were talking about; and not by politicians we could save millions year on year.


In London we wasted ?30M on a firehouse that does not work and nationally ?500M (yes half a billion) of a fire control scheme that will never come in; even though people in the know told them they were a bad idea.


Look up Assetco the company that owned every fire engine and all the equipment in the LFB, who sold the lot for ?2, yes ?2 a few weeks ago. How the contract has not worked and is costing London taxpayer money.


All our training has been out sourced to a private company, new fire stations are being built using PFI, even though the government themselves say in the long term these schemes cost you a lot more and are less efficient, but it is only way the government will allow you to do it.


I could go on, but I won?t, it?s your service, you pay for it, if you don?t want to protect it that?s your choose. I just hope you don?t live to regret it.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25841-fire-cuts/#findComment-580485
Share on other sites

Well by your own logic, if we don't waste ?530m on technology that doesn't work, we can make all those cuts to funding without damaging fire cover or personnel?


That's the problem with FBU logic - it's not logical.


BTW, the fact that we've had cuts in the past is no logic for not having cuts now. That's more of a whinge than a reason.


Also, if the stations who have not changed their shifts have seen sickness and lateness reduce, then surely that means that before this year there was more malingering and skiving? Not a great advert for the service, and evidence in itself that things needed sorting out.


Most of your arguments are disconnected headlines designed to 'shock', but the reality is that it's all partial and misinformation.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25841-fire-cuts/#findComment-580502
Share on other sites

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Well by your own logic, if we don't waste ?530m on

> technology that doesn't work, we can make all

> those cuts to funding without damaging fire cover

> or personnel?


That's right reducing cost does not have to involve cutting services. I and I guess most people would be more than happy to pay less for the same service, are you saying you want to pay more for less?

>

> That's the problem with FBU logic - it's not

> logical.


I did not mentioned the FBU, this is what I have seen having been a Ff for 26 years, but if the bosses had taken notice of what the FBU was saying the ?530M, plus a load of other amounts would not of been wasted, not that I'm saying the FBU are always right, who is, but they are experts in the field of fire fighting, you can't always believe what you read in the papers or see on the news about unions including the FBU.

>

> BTW, the fact that we've had cuts in the past is

> no logic for not having cuts now. That's more of a

> whinge than a reason.


I'm not saying because we have had cuts already (even though they have been in the wrong areas) we can't have cuts now, what I am saying is we have aready made cuts in the areas the government say we can cut now, so the only real area left to cut is the front line, instead of saving money by better management.

>

> Also, if the stations who have not changed their

> shifts have seen sickness and lateness reduce,

> then surely that means that before this year there

> was more malingering and skiving? Not a great

> advert for the service, and evidence in itself

> that things needed sorting out.


You would have to understand how the different shift systems work to understand how wrong you are, but I'm not sure I could explain it to you.

>

> Most of your arguments are disconnected headlines

> designed to 'shock', but the reality is that it's

> all partial and misinformation.


None of what I have said was designed to shock, the only thing shocking is it's true. All I have done is to try and put the other side of the arguement and how I feel savings can be made without cutting services. The LFB can make saving and still provide the service we all want, but the problem lies with the way it is managed and not with the so called "malingering and skiving" men and women who work hard every day trying to make the system work for everyones benefit.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25841-fire-cuts/#findComment-580573
Share on other sites

It's nothing to do with the shift systems.


You explicitly said that sickness and lateness had dropped for the stations that DIDN'T change to the new system.


So nothing has changed except they're suddenly not sick and actually turn up to work.


How do you account for that? Remember - you can't mention the new shift systems in your answer because these guys have not been subject to it.


Regarding the FBU, all unions have an explicit responsibility to improve the salaries, terms, working conditions and perks of their employees. That's how they get members.


It doesn't take a genius to see that increasing salaries, holidays and perks for firefighters can be in direct conflict with trying to create a more efficient, better structured and more appropriate fire service.


That's why they only give one side of the story.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25841-fire-cuts/#findComment-580681
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...