Petition to save coastguard stations

[seafoods]

Hi Seafoods

 

Looking at >>>> http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga07-home/e..._operations.htm

I assume you refer to this sentence ‘This region covers some 1.25 million square nautical miles of sea and over 10.5 thousand nautical miles of coastline.’

 

As you have just challenged the information all I can say is that this is what the mapping authority for the United Kingdom, the Ordnance Survey has to say, The record of the coastline of the main island, Great Britain, as 11,072.76 miles rounding to 11,073 miles (17,820 km). If the larger islands are added the coastline, as measured by the standard method at Mean High Water Mark, rises to about 19,491 miles (31,368 km).

 

I pointed that one out earlier Bob - don't you agree that, as the islands are part of the UK and certainly form enough of the coastline, they are important enough to be counted as part of it? Reckon the MCA used to think the islands were important - they did site Stornoway MRCC and Shetland MRCC on them after all.

 

 

 

Or is it the number of stations reported as 19 when it should be 18

 

There are 19 but Thames is responsible for only a certain area of the river, not at sea so 18 is also correct when refering to the coastline

 

If you refer to another mistake then please point it out.

 

I refer to the mistake that has the Moray Firth on the west coast rather than where it actually is, on the north east coast

 

Can I ask in return if you have read the Q & A put up by the MCA here >>>> http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga07-home/s...ltation-q_a.htm.

And what is your response?

 

Yes I have read it, the questions are loaded - not real world questions. The Chief Coastguard will get the pleasure of answering some real ones face to face.

 

Tight lines Bob

Edited January 5, 2011 by seafoods

[Bob Shotter]

Hi Worms

 

Yes I do agree that all of the islands are a part of the UK

 

As for the Moray Firth I did not know it’s location, being from down south, so would not have looked at that, different of course if I were in a control room situation but then I would expect to have been trained and up to speed on locations within a given watch area..

 

As for the Q & A your response sounds most interesting, I trust you will keep us all informed., also do you not think the minister and his team should be questioned in a similar manor, it is after all they that will make final decision with regard the changes.

[seafoods]

Hi Worms

 

Yes I do agree that all of the islands are a part of the UK

 

As for the Moray Firth I did not know it’s location, being from down south, so would not have looked at that, different of course if I were in a control room situation but then I would expect to have been trained and up to speed on locations within a given watch area..

 

So we are agreed they are being economical with the truth and pretending that the coastline they have to watch over is only about half the size it really is. I would expect whoever put the website together to have had some training also, in fact I would have thought at least some geographical knowledge of UK coastline would be considered essential. If the person who put the web page together missed glaring errors such as we are discussing I would expect their line manager to notice. If the high heid yins haven't noticed these errors do you still trust them to make major decisions which could endanger the lives of all who use our seas and coastline?

 

As for the Q & A your response sounds most interesting, I trust you will keep us all informed., also do you not think the minister and his team should be questioned in a similar manor, it is after all they that will make final decision with regard the changes.

 

I'm sure the minister and his mates will have plenty of awkward questions to answer before they can consider this over.

[SandTiger]

Hi Brian

 

I will have no problem with backing the views of RSA even if, as in this case I'm opposed to the general view why else do you think I suggested putting a letter together for the minister setting out your concerns and asking for his comments.

 

Okay, Bob, that's twice you've brought it up so do it please, on behalf of RSA. Maybe you would even be good enough to post it here before sending it off?

[Steve Coppolo]

Okay, Bob, that's twice you've brought it up so do it please, on behalf of RSA. Maybe you would even be good enough to post it here before sending it off?

 

Not on my behalf, please. I don't want Bob writing letters to politicians on my behalf, thanks.

 

If you write, Bob, tell the minister that you are writing on behalf of yourself and all the members of your new .org.co.uk.

[SandTiger]

Not on my behalf, please. I don't want Bob writing letters to politicians on my behalf, thanks.

 

If you write, Bob, tell the minister that you are writing on behalf of yourself and all the members of your new .org.co.uk.

Bob has stated that he is democratic and as a Rep, will democratically support the wishes of the masses, despite his own personal view. That is after all, what a good leader is all about?

 

The majority view is clear and against Bob's POV. Therefore, an excellent opportunity presents its self.

 

Whilst Bob supports the ConDem Government, he must nonetheless, provide a persuasive argument against the proposed changes and post it here for dissemination.

 

Let's just call it The Credibility Factor.

 

Get typing Bob.

Edited January 5, 2011 by SandTiger

[Jaffa]

The coastguard, just like every other emergency service, is an insurance policy. The best and cheapest insurance policy that the tax payer will ever have. Their job is to respond when someone is in distress and to save lives. The more of them there are, the quicker they can respond and the more lives they are able to save.

 

What people have to realise is, arriving too late is no better than not arriving at all when there is a life risk. Personally, I couldn't care less what the coastguards do for most of their time, as long as they can respond effectively when they are needed. Emergency services should never be run like businesses.

 

As for suggestions that management know better than the troops at the sharp end, utter garbage.

 

With all due respect Steve,

 

Your merging of the concerns of Fire service staff with that of the coastguard just looks like personal interests coming to the fore.

 

The coastguard / Fire Fighters/service/Police/ Ambulance all developed in their own higgledy-piggledy way in response to real needs but if i understand your view they now have a life of their own which over-rides their purpose?

 

Suppose i believe a Coastguard station in Shetland is really important (its 200 miles North of Aberdeen and dealing with lives and traffic that is hugely important to the UK economy and environment imho) but also can't see the sense in keeping open a local fire-station that does 4 call-outs a year while theres a huge station within 5 miles. There will maybe be pointless Coastguard stations that are doing little as well.

 

Lumping them in a " cause" serves who exactly?

 

Chris

[Steve Coppolo]

With all due respect Steve,

 

Your merging of the concerns of Fire service staff with that of the coastguard just looks like personal interests coming to the fore.

 

The coastguard / Fire Fighters/service/Police/ Ambulance all developed in their own higgledy-piggledy way in response to real needs but if i understand your view they now have a life of their own which over-rides their purpose?

 

Suppose i believe a Coastguard station in Shetland is really important (its 200 miles North of Aberdeen and dealing with lives and traffic that is hugely important to the UK economy and environment imho) but also can't see the sense in keeping open a local fire-station that does 4 call-outs a year while theres a huge station within 5 miles. There will maybe be pointless Coastguard stations that are doing little as well.

 

Lumping them in a " cause" serves who exactly?

 

Chris

 

First of all, Chris, I really don't understand your way of thinking, so your post makes little sense to me.

 

Second, I don't know of any small fire station that only responds to 4 incidents a year. Do you? I don't think you do. The vast majority of small fire stations in the sticks are retained, anyway.

 

Lastly, serves who? The public, Chris, that's who. Even those who happen to live in remote areas.

[Bob Shotter]

Hi once again to you all and it looks like I have touched a raw nerve there Steve, didn’t realise you were a fireman though you did drop enough hints. I wont go on about the failed call centres or how disappointed the public where, that the

F B union actually considered holding a strike on bonfire night, as that would be off topic.

 

So to the debate at hand and your reply firstly Seafoods.

A lay man would/could be excused for agreeing with you that the mistakes on the MCA web site do not bode well or give any degree of confidence, but we both know that the guy who wrote the article is not a programmer but just one of the field workers in the MCA media department. Yes it should have been picked up and the management will have to answer that one.

 

None the less the fact remains that the current 18/19 MRCC stations cover the entire coast line irrespective of the distance and from the information given in the consultation document and the associated Q & A, an emergency can currently have two overlapping stations working together. The basic maths on that is we now have eight operatives working in two stations some miles apart on rescue coordination, as apposed to 15 operatives working in the same room with more up to date equipment, now I know which I would prefer.

 

Davey when I first mentioned writing to the minister I did say that I would post a copy along with any reply, as I firmly believe in being open and transparent.

 

Further more I’m open to changing my mind should the evidence be there to support your fears. This then leaves me with the dilemma in how to word a letter in which the points I listed in post 85 have been answered in the Q&A section here >>> http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga07-home/s...ltation-q_a.htm

As it stands I can only remind the minister of a strong amount of distrust. Steve C suggested I do it in relation to

RSA-UK which regrettably is not yet running and would with the voting system be the only certain way to know if your claim of a majority with in a small group of RSA is indeed correct. Believe me I have spoken to many who don’t post here that support these changes.

 

If there are any points you feel might help persuade the minister to think again then let’s have them out in the open. That would be far more productive than resorting to name calling would it not?

 

Tight Lines Bob

[seafoods]

So to the debate at hand and your reply firstly Seafoods.

None the less the fact remains that the current 18/19 MRCC stations cover the entire coast line irrespective of the distance and from the information given in the consultation document and the associated Q & A, an emergency can currently have two overlapping stations working together. The basic maths on that is we now have eight operatives working in two stations some miles apart on rescue coordination, as apposed to 15 operatives working in the same room with more up to date equipment, now I know which I would prefer.

 

We don't have operatives we have watchkeepers and the 15 you refer to (and would prefer) will be responsible for half the UK coastline. They will, in effect, be covering the work done by 9 existing MRCC's so instead of the 15 you would prefer, the current setup gives you 36 - now I know which I prefer from these options. There is much more I could say, but would be wasting my time as you obviously believe 'less is more' To anyone with the slightest knowledge of SAR work the Q & A is a farce - the important questions are not asked, the answers they give to their own questions invite more questions than they provide answers for.

 

 

RSA-UK which regrettably is not yet running and would with the voting system be the only certain way to know if your claim of a majority with in a small group of RSA is indeed correct. Believe me I have spoken to many who don’t post here that support these changes.

 

Actually Bob that is extremely hard to believe - even the average housewife is against these changes nevermind regular sea users. Everyone who uses the sea for work or pleasure that I have spoken to is completely against this, as are all the folk who do neither that I've spoken to. These are real world folk right enough.

 

 

By the way Bob, why don't you ask the minister if he has bothered his 4rse asking the volunteer CRO's whether they want 'more responsibilities', whether they will happily give up more of their free time - whether indeed he has asked their bosses in their full time work if they will allow them more time off work to excersise their 'more responsibilities'. The Q&A says it will happen - who asked the volunteers?