seafoods

How very true Stevie, and can I add that anyone who even pretends to represent RSA's and doesn't realise that this is a very dangerous manouvre should be shot , not sacked

No they wont - the current 18 are staffed by around 70 watchkeepers, the proposed 2 will be staffed by 32.

Your own statement quoted above should tell you all you need to know about the number of 'operatives' as you describe them Bob. If the 4 watchkeepers at Falmouth 'often' cannot handle routine comms traffic because they are 'busy' does this not make you think that there is actually a requirement for more rather than less watchkeepers? Do you honestly believe that the other MRCC's are any different? I am in the fortunate position of residing in an area where I can quite often hear transmissions from three MRCC's. I can sit in my coastguard mobile at Burrowhead and hear Liverpool, Belfast and Clyde, even out in the boat I can hear Liverpool and Belfast most of the time and all three some of the time. It is not unusual to hear at least one of them on any given day transmiting the same message you hear Falmouth transmiting - or indeed 'seelonce mayday' which is telling everyone to shut up because they are dealing with emergency. Any full time watchkeeper will tell you that the most 'laid back' folk when it comes to emergency situations are commercial fishermen. They will tell the coastguards 'Ive got a wee problem' when the water is half way up the engine block and the fishroom floorboards are floating around. People like that will often not regard their situation as an emergency and not want to 'bother' the coastguard if they hear the message you refer to. If a coastguard watchkeeper could talk to them the coastguard would regard it as an emergency - less watchkeepers will make it even more likely that lives will be lost.

I'll try and keep this simple too, the MCA didn't CAUSE the fastnet situation, they had to RESPOND to it - I hope lessons were learned but it wasn't the MCA who had to learn them. Currently overnight there are 18 MRCC's open with 4 watchkeepers in each - capable of responding to 72 simultaneous emergencies (one each) under the proposals there will be 32 watchkeepers between two MRCC's - capable of responding to 32 simultaneous emergencies. As far as I'm concerned halving the chances of someone hearing you and responding to your emergency is a serious reduction in frontline services.

I presume you meant me rather than Worms as it was me who posted about 70 watchkeepers - pretty much says it all about how much attention you pay to what others say imho. I'll try and keep it simple for you. Currently overnight there are around 70 watchkeepers capable of speaking to anyone - for any reason. If the proposals go ahead there will be less than half that amount of watchkeepers overnight. Going to be a lot of 'caller waiting' coming up on their screens so they cannot possibly give full and frank attention to every call they receive - there will be problems.

Sorry Wurzel, Didn't see this post before now. I was pointing out some of the things the existing coastguard equipment is capable of as it proves the downright lie the MCA website is carrying in the consultation document - which Bob has adopted as his mantra. Existing equipment is not 40 years old - it is a lie, the equipment has been frequently modernised - as has the MCA itself. Your home PC can set up a marine search plan can it? I don't think so, it needs the operator to, firstly have the correct programe and software, last known position and many other variables. The operator must also have extensive training in search planning - you have this? The hard fact is that currently round the UK there are around 70 coastguard watchkeepers on watch in 18 MRCC's - obviously capable of speaking to 70 people, whether by phone or VHF at the same time. If these plans get the go-ahead there will be less than half that amount of watchkeepers during darkness hours - is this miracle technology going to allow them to speak to two people each at the same time? No it isn't lives will be endangered and that's without even considering the local knowledge of those currently on watch

The same management that approved this on their website with the hidden gem of a 'deliberate mistake' in it http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga07-home/e..._operations.htm I'm sure it won't take you long to spot it.

Another wee job for the clever software, a mate was asking how many watchkeepers in the super MRCC's in Aberdeen and Solent will speak Welsh, same applies to the Gaelic really. Hope Aberdeen doesn't have 'technical issues', not too sure how many Doric speakers will be based at Solent or Dover (if they decide to keep it 24 hrs, it may be only Aberdeen and Solent)

You are correct Davey, Bob read on the MCA website that the existing technology is from the 1970's and is outdated, so he has adopted that as his mantra. Strange how sometimes folk will swallow what a government department says without questioning it and other times not believe a word that comes out of a government department. The existing MCA system can have a three way conversation between a mobile phone, a vhf radio and a landline - with even the vhf part silent to others. I'm not a techie but I don't think that type of technology was available to them in the 70's - somebody is being economical with the truth. As for all the local stuff being put on the MCA system before it is 'tested', that is a figment of Bob's imagination - even the MCA PR machine hasn't come up with that one.

Hi Wurzel, Davey B has already explained some of the problems with your thoughts on DSC, I will not go over them again. In addition to what Davey mentioned, I would add that DSC is currently not mandatory for the under 10 metre fleet, let alone pleasure users - this will not happen soon, it will take years. DSC is good - if you lnow how to use it, and if you actually have it, but most boats don't. An effective rescue service has to cater for all marine users, not just those who - because it is mandatory, actually have DSC facilities. Many DSC users actually turn the volume off because the continual calling and testing on it is seen as a nuisance - and this with only a very small proportion of marine users having it. Local weather can vary greatly in a very short distance and the teams on the ground assess it as required - I have previously, whilst on a coastguard job, had to phone a sector manager who had just given a weather report to the MRCC and tell him discreetly that it was completely different where I was - about 8 miles away as the crow flies. You need the correct 'eyes and ears' on the ground - the existing MRCC's know immediately which units to task - delays will happen if the MRCC's are reduced to the proposed level - any delay, no matter how small can cost lives.

Hi Wurzel, you reckon that the local run lifeboats will receive the same information - this is not what lifeboatmen and volunteer coastguards believe. Folk in a panic often revert to local names for places when shouting for help. If someone shouts a mayday at the moment and says they are sinking at portyerrock the watch officer in the MRCC at Liverpool knows where that is, knows which volunteer coastguard team to task and knows which lifeboat - be that RNLI or one of the many local charity ones - to request. The operations room staff in the current MRCC's do lots of visits to the various sectors in their patch, they get local volunteer coastguards to show them round and explain things like local names to them. If the proposed changes are made there will be two, not the three being reported, 24 hour stations to co-ordinate rescues during darkness hours. A watch officer in Aberdeen will have absolutely no chance of being familiar with local dialects and local place names for all of the area they are co-ordinating. They will be expected to co-ordinate rescues from northwest England, southern Scotland, Northern Ireland, the western isles, Orkney, Shetland, the whole east coast of Scotland and northeast England. They won't have a clue where portyerrock is and major delays will happen while they try to find out which area they are talking about - then they will have to check which coastguard teams, lifeboats etc are in that area before tasking the correct ones. I, and many others involved with maritime SAR, just can't see this working.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion Bob, including yourself, but for gods sake stop trying to justify something you know nothing about, this nonsense will put lives at risk if it goes ahead - I know, I'm a coastguard. It would be much better for everyone if you just went back to ruinining the Cornish RSA's future in your self appointed position as their representative and stopped interfering with something which could cost many RSA's, and other folk from around the UK, their lives.

You are quite at liberty to disagree Bob, freedom of choice is what our country fought for. It does not have cross party support and the idea was not dream't up by any administration, it was dream't up by some civil servant or other who was asked to find a way to save money from the DTI budget. The ones with 'far more knowledge of modern technology' have trialed this idea in a desktop excersise nothing more, and even that was without real time input from the chosen day of UK wide incidents. They were asked to trial it using an actual operations room with actual watch operators from an MRCC using real time input, this has not been done yet. It is untried technology with untried ideas and is unlikely to work.

Exactly the same post you put on WSF Bob, you were wrong there and you are wrong here. I am a volunteer coastguard - have been for over twenty years, I'm now Station Officer of my local team. We are co-ordinated from Liverpool MRCC - which is likely to be lost in these cuts. The watch officers at Liverpool have regular 'familiarity visits' where they spend days travelling different sectors of the area they co-ordinate, they know the area, they even know local place names (local names not on charts), they know exactly which team to task - this will be lost, delays will happen, lives will be lost. This is how folk in the real world are thinking Bob - coastguards and lifeboat crews so please refrain from posting your uninformed drivel to put folk off signing, LIVES WILL BE LOST if this goes ahead.

Cheers Paul, the more who sign it the better mate

Please sign the petition to try to stop the madness of reducing the Uk coastline from 18 to 3 full time coastguard rescue co-ordination centres http://www.petitiononline.com/ukcghq/petition.html

It would appear some folk only read the things they want to read, or the bits that fit with their personal line of thought. Can some of the cynics explain why they think anybody would be dumping good fish or 'high grading' whilst part of a scheme which gives them increased days at sea and more quota? They are allowed to land ALL they catch so why would they high grade?

Hi Steve, the 150 newton ones are what is mandatory for the fishing industry and will support a fully clothed adult - the right way up and face clear of the water. Automatic inflation ones are best just incase you enter the water while unconcious after and accident. 275 newton ones are what are worn by the rescue services such as the RNLI, they give better flotation and have the added advantage of a face screen - poly hood type of thing which prevents water ingress through waves or splashes. If affordability is not an issue you are best to upgrade to the best ones you can afford. Shaun

Excellent idea Elton, maybe you could consider making this one a sticky and it may save someones life. I completely agree with everything Brian says in his response to your post. The link below is to an excellent outfit who supply lifejackets among other things which may be of interest to member of the site. They offer a very helpful and friendly service. http://www.gaelforcemarine.co.uk/

It must be true, it's in the Sun!

Old hat Bob, offences prior to 2006. The industry wishes to see local management - ie UK management of stocks. Makes sense to listen to what the fishermen say, works not too badly in Scotland where voluntary real time closures was thought up by the industry to protect spawning stocks.

The Scottish Fishermens Federation has also thrown its weight behind HFW's campaign, Bertie Armstrong states in this weeks Fishing News.

They'll need to get their act together if this is anything to go by. http://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/Environment/N...cebycouncil.htm

I use it too Elton, only problem I've encountered is that anyone with microsoft office can't open anything you send them - I have to copy everything into office to send to my colleagues with steam driven computers.

It would buy the licence and the vessel, the boat they bought to replace it would need a licence so they'ld either have to buy a boat with a licence or buy a licence to suit the boat they bought. Would still be one less boat fishing either way. The very first round of decommisioning years back actually increased the effort on stocks. Guys who had old wrecks of boats with low horsepower got paid so much for them that they could afford to build new 'rule beaters' which only needed an under 10 metre licence but had as much horsepower as a 70 footer.