Petition to save coastguard stations

[big_cod]

The next thing will be the ambulances privatize them then they wont pick you up if you cant pay the whole thing about this at the moment its about saving money not about saving lives its absolutly deplorable when you look at the whole picture but this goverment will stop at nothing in there drive for privatization not everything works private and is often is not in the interest of the public look at the shocking state the banks got in raped by the few who have done extremly well out of the banks and still are why the tax payer bailed them out thats privatization gone wrong where there is money there is corruption and greed .

 

paul.

[Bob Shotter]

Sorry, yes it was you Seafoods that I meant to address in my post no.62, don’t know quite why I typed Worms, good job then that I don’t work at one of your stations.

Now I fully understand what you’re saying with regard staff levels, but you have not answered my question and it is likely to be just the sort of question a politician might ask, so I say again. How often are seventy operatives engaged with the emergency services at the same time?

 

You see I often hear Falmouth tell callers that unless their call is an emergency then they will need to call later as they are busy.

 

Steve has mentioned the Fasnet situation in which some fifteen competitors lost their lives back in 1979. Now one thing is for sure and that is lessons would have been learned from this tragic event and it would be the sort of thing at the top of the MCA list when considering the necessary changes that the agency now face. With that in mind nothing you have posted thus far along with what I have even with my limited experienced in the way the operation is currently run, gives any indication that this emergency cover would be under threat. When you are complaining to politicians, who will probably like me, have a very limited knowledge of the subject then you will have to be able to convince them your right and there wrong and like it or not you have as yet failed on that count.

 

As for your sarcasm Davey all I have to say to you is I’m not a self appointed RSA rep. as you continually suggest. The MMO interviewed me along with half a dozen other applicants and thereafter appointed me.

 

One final point and that’s for Steve, go on then do give us your view of why the little? Venture of regionalised fire stations failed.

[seafoods]

Now I fully understand what you’re saying with regard staff levels, but you have not answered my question and it is likely to be just the sort of question a politician might ask, so I say again. How often are seventy operatives engaged with the emergency services at the same time?

 

I did try to keep it simple and ignore the obvious flaw in your question, they ARE an emergency service

 

You see I often hear Falmouth tell callers that unless their call is an emergency then they will need to call later as they are busy.

 

Steve has mentioned the Fasnet situation in which some fifteen competitors lost their lives back in 1979. Now one thing is for sure and that is lessons would have been learned from this tragic event and it would be the sort of thing at the top of the MCA list when considering the necessary changes that the agency now face. With that in mind nothing you have posted thus far along with what I have even with my limited experienced in the way the operation is currently run, gives any indication that this emergency cover would be under threat. When you are complaining to politicians, who will probably like me, have a very limited knowledge of the subject then you will have to be able to convince them your right and there wrong and like it or not you have as yet failed on that count.

 

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.

[SandTiger]

As for your sarcasm Davey all I have to say to you is I'm not a self appointed RSA rep. as you continually suggest. The MMO interviewed me along with half a dozen other applicants and thereafter appointed me.

 

Bless you. Don't let it go to your head now

[Steve Coppolo]

Steve has mentioned the Fasnet situation in which some fifteen competitors lost their lives back in 1979. Now one thing is for sure and that is lessons would have been learned from this tragic event and it would be the sort of thing at the top of the MCA list when considering the necessary changes that the agency now face. With that in mind nothing you have posted thus far along with what I have even with my limited experienced in the way the operation is currently run, gives any indication that this emergency cover would be under threat. When you are complaining to politicians, who will probably like me, have a very limited knowledge of the subject then you will have to be able to convince them your right and there wrong and like it or not you have as yet failed on that point.

 

One final point and that’s for Steve, go on then do give us your view of why the little? Venture of regionalised fire stations failed.

 

Bob, as seafoods has already said, halving the number of operatives will have a serious effect on front line services when the **** hits the fan. Do you have any idea of the number of emergency calls a simple house fire attracts, for example? Or the amount of conflicting information given by the scores of callers? Or the true value of local knowledge when sorting the crap from useful information, before bombarding front line crews with all the info they might need? And all this when minutes, sometimes seconds, make the difference between life and death?

 

You haven't got a clue, Bob, and are just blustering and bull5hitting your way through a subject you know absolutely nothing about. Sea anglers should be concerned that you want to represent them.

 

As for regional control centers, not regionalized fire stations like you say, FFS, it didn't come to anything because they couldn't make the software work - among a few other things.

 

As you are obviously someone who puts saving a pound note before saving a life, I can't take anything you say seriously.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Steve Coppolo

[Bob Shotter]

Bob, as seafoods has already said, halving the number of operatives will have a serious effect on front line services when the **** hits the fan. Do you have any idea of the number of emergency calls a simple house fire attracts, for example? Or the amount of conflicting information given by the scores of callers? Or the true value of local knowledge when sorting the crap from useful information, before bombarding front line crews with all the info they might need? And all this when minutes, sometimes seconds, make the difference between life and death?

 

You haven't got a clue, Bob, and are just blustering and bull5hitting your way through a subject you know absolutely nothing about. Sea anglers should be concerned that you want to represent them.

 

As for regional control centers, not regionalized fire stations like you say, FFS, it didn't come to anything because they couldn't make the software work - among a few other things.

 

As you are obviously someone who puts saving a pound note before saving a life, I can't take anything you say seriously.

 

If half the number can do the job with out endangering life then the idea is good apart that is from the half that loose their job and that is what this country has little choice in looking at in many areas including health service, police, armed forces and emergency services or do you think that is all spin.

 

So I’m still waiting for an answer to the question how many operatives are needed presumably the question has already been considered at government level.

 

tight lines Bob

[Steve Coppolo]

So I’m still waiting for an answer to the question how many operatives are needed presumably the question has already been considered at government level.

 

tight lines Bob

 

The number of 'operatives' they have now wasn't just plucked from thin air. It was based on very detailed and constantly revised risk assessments. The number they have now is what's deemed necessary to provide the best service possible with the money available. Any reduction of this number is a cut to services, plain and simple. Half the people simply can't provide the same level of service, so the service has to suffer because of cost cutting.

 

The politicians who landed us in the situation we now find ourselves will tell you something different, but why would you believe them? Did you know that every life in this country has a price tag attached? Front line service 'operatives' weigh up life/risk, politicians weigh up life/cost.

 

P.S. Paul, you might be interested to know that it was the last government who started the destruction of our public services. They called it 'modernisation'. This government is just taking over where they left off.

[Bob Shotter]

The number of 'operatives' they have now wasn't just plucked from thin air. It was based on very detailed and constantly revised risk assessments. The number they have now is what's deemed necessary to provide the best service possible with the money available. Any reduction of this number is a cut to services, plain and simple. Half the people simply can't provide the same level of service, so the service has to suffer because of cost cutting.

 

The politicians who landed us in the situation we now find ourselves will tell you something different, but why would you believe them? Did you know that every life in this country has a price tag attached? Front line service 'operatives' weigh up life/risk, politicians weigh up life/cost.

 

P.S. Paul, you might be interested to know that it was the last government who started the destruction of our public services. They called it 'modernisation'. This government is just taking over where they left off.

 

Sorry Steve but I have to come back again, we currently have 18? MCA stations around the coast, by reducing the number to two or three control rooms then it is possible to reduce the number of operatives that sit around doing nothing when others might well be busy. You must realise that these centres will have more staff than the current stations.

[seafoods]

You see I often hear Falmouth tell callers that unless their call is an emergency then they will need to call later as they are busy.

 

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.

[seafoods]

Sorry Steve but I have to come back again, we currently have 18? MCA stations around the coast, by reducing the number to two or three control rooms then it is possible to reduce the number of operatives that sit around doing nothing when others might well be busy. You must realise that these centres will have more staff than the current stations.

 

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