Helicoptor Crash at Vauxhal.

[the-e-dealer]

If an incident over stretched the services and people died because there weren't enough then that single incident would change everything.

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Minder what kind of argument is that? We need to

> keep open extra fire stations in case more

> helicopters crash into cranes. Either we need

> the extra stations to be reasonably safe or we

> don't need them. No one single incident changes

> anything.

[LondonMix]

First of all that hasn't happened and there is no reason to believe it would have happened even if certain elements of the emergency services were reduced in line with current projected needs.

Saying, look a helicopter has tragically crashed in central London in a very rare accident, therefore we can't cut any services is illogical.

You can argue that the gov't analysis for what level of emergency services London needs is wrong, but using this accident to oppose cuts is rediculous. Especially as any planning for minimum emergency service levels will never fall below what's needed to deal with a major terrorist event much less an accident like this.

[Sue]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

any planning for minimum

> emergency service levels will never fall below

> what's needed to deal with a major terrorist event

> much less an accident like this.

xxxxxxx

Let's hope so

[LondonMix]

I'm not saying the gov't might get it wrong but they won't plan for less than this. The question needs to focus on the detail of whether the gov't analysis is correct if you believe its wrong, why.