Petition to save coastguard stations

[Steve Coppolo]

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.

 

Like I said, Bob, you haven't got a clue. But I suppose it's easy for you to come to the conclusions you do when it isn't your arse on the life boats and you aren't faced with the difference between pulling living souls, or stiffs, out of the water.

[seafoods]

Like I said, Bob, you haven't got a clue. But I suppose it's easy for you to come to the conclusions you do when it isn't your arse on the life boats and you aren't faced with the difference between pulling living souls, or stiffs, out of the water.

 

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

[big_cod]

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.

 

Steve you are right it was our man mr prescot who originally thought the idea up regarding the coastguard thing but after a massive backlash it didnt go ahead but the main critisism was buy you have guest it the torys and he we are 2 wrongs dont make a right unless you are a tory and lifes are at risk poor old mr nick clegg is going to get it after tommorow the tory bullet shield he stood before the election holding a banner saying if the torys put up the vat and if they gained power it would hit the low income familly more than most and here we are he is the perfect bullet stopper for mr cameron what did they do slash the flu warning and vachine before christmas to save a few pennys and here we are an epidemic on the cards good old mr cameron i would trust him more than i could throw him but half the lib dems are already saying that according to the telegraph.

 

 

paul.

Edited January 3, 2011 by big_cod

[Brian Carragher]

Question for Bob

 

Bob, you obviously have your own views on the cutbacks to coastguard services and despite some very good and strong counter argument and debate from other users of the marine community you still hold those same views

 

Given that at some time during your tenure as a RSA rep you will have an opportunity to give your views on the cutback proposals and reorganisation of the service as it relates to those of us who go to sea

 

How will you be able to square your own views and thoughts as against the majority who oppose cuts and realignement of service when you will be there to represent anglers and their interests

 

Will you be able to put aside your own thoughts and relay the thoughts and comments of the majority and leave your own personal thoughts aside to be able to best reflect the mood and thoughts of the majority of the RSA

[Bob Shotter]

Question for Bob

 

Bob, you obviously have your own views on the cutbacks to coastguard services and despite some very good and strong counter argument and debate from other users of the marine community you still hold those same views

 

Given that at some time during your tenure as a RSA rep you will have an opportunity to give your views on the cutback proposals and reorganisation of the service as it relates to those of us who go to sea

 

How will you be able to square your own views and thoughts as against the majority who oppose cuts and realignement of service when you will be there to represent anglers and their interests

 

Will you be able to put aside your own thoughts and relay the thoughts and comments of the majority and leave your own personal thoughts aside to be able to best reflect the mood and thoughts of the majority of the RSA

 

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.

 

I do find it frustrating when my views which are in line with the government on what are revised plans to those proposed by Mr Prescott and the last administration are referred to as clueless and your a laughing stock when the management of the MCA have backed the changes, further more I have yet to see any thing put up by you guys to rubbish the plans.

 

Since the announcement of the proposed changes we have had ‘Lives will be at risk’ because the loss of front line troops when the simple mathematics show that to be untrue, even when the brown stuff hit’s the fan there will be more controllers on hand because the current 18 control rooms with 70 staff that equates to 4 per control where as the two new main ones will have an estimated staff level of 15/18. As no one has answered the question of how many controllers have been needed at any of the worst times in the last, say twenty years I must assume you either agree with what I say or don’t have an answer.

 

Local knowledge is the next issue, yet it will be the same LOCAL RNLI or cliff rescue teams responding to emergencies, the amount of local staff needed in a coordinating control room will be little different than we have now and with improved technologies the local issue holds little water.

 

It did not work for the fire service is another suggestion and here it is claimed that the unfinished buildings have a computer system that dose not work. But the recent pictures I have seen would suggest they have as yet not been installed let alone had the problems worked on / resolved. While that situation remains unclear then yes I would like to know what the minister has to say about the system he has in mind for the MCA.

 

Other points have also been put up from power failure to a terrorist attacks, slower turn out times and even the Welsh language and ‘it has not been tried so it cant work‘. None of these have impo much creditability and most concerns can be resolved even if they haven’t already been considered.

 

I regret to say that you all must realise that this situation is unlikely to change, as the committee that will have approved these recommendations will take some persuading to change their mind and neither your arguments to date or a badly worded petition will do much to change that.

 

Tight Lines Bob

[Steve Coppolo]

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.

 

I do find it frustrating when my views which are in line with the government on what are revised plans to those proposed by Mr Prescott and the last administration are referred to as clueless and your a laughing stock when the management of the MCA have backed the changes, further more I have yet to see any thing put up by you guys to rubbish the plans.

 

Since the announcement of the proposed changes we have had ‘Lives will be at risk’ because the loss of front line troops when the simple mathematics show that to be untrue, even when the brown stuff hit’s the fan there will be more controllers on hand because the current 18 control rooms with 70 staff that equates to 4 per control where as the two new main ones will have an estimated staff level of 15/18. As no one has answered the question of how many controllers have been needed at any of the worst times in the last, say twenty years I must assume you either agree with what I say or don’t have an answer.

 

Local knowledge is the next issue, yet it will be the same LOCAL RNLI or cliff rescue teams responding to emergencies, the amount of local staff needed in a coordinating control room will be little different than we have now and with improved technologies the local issue holds little water.

 

It did not work for the fire service is another suggestion and here it is claimed that the unfinished buildings have a computer system that dose not work. But the recent pictures I have seen would suggest they have as yet not been installed let alone had the problems worked on / resolved. While that situation remains unclear then yes I would like to know what the minister has to say about the system he has in mind for the MCA.

 

Other points have also been put up from power failure to a terrorist attacks, slower turn out times and even the Welsh language and ‘it has not been tried so it cant work‘. None of these have impo much creditability and most concerns can be resolved even if they haven’t already been considered.

 

I regret to say that you all must realise that this situation is unlikely to change, as the committee that will have approved these recommendations will take some persuading to change their mind and neither your arguments to date or a badly worded petition will do much to change that.

 

Tight Lines Bob

 

Well, that didn't take long, did it? You haven't even 'represented' anyone yet, but you have managed to achieve the required level of arrogance already.

 

Please, do not EVER speak on my behalf, on any committee, about anything, because you really haven't got a clue.

Edited January 4, 2011 by Steve Coppolo

[seafoods]

Since the announcement of the proposed changes we have had ‘Lives will be at risk’ because the loss of front line troops when the simple mathematics show that to be untrue, even when the brown stuff hit’s the fan there will be more controllers on hand because the current 18 control rooms with 70 staff that equates to 4 per control where as the two new main ones will have an estimated staff level of 15/18.

 

So two MRCC's with 15/18 watchkeepers at each giving a maximum of 36 - which is actually likely to be 32 offers the UK more watchkeepers than the current 70 at eighteen locations? Not when I was at school, maths must be taught differently where you went to school

 

As no one has answered the question of how many controllers have been needed at any of the worst times in the last, say twenty years I must assume you either agree with what I say or don’t have an answer.

 

You're the one who wants to represent folk Bob, I suggest a freedom of information request - the only way to find that out is to analyse twenty years worth of real time computer printouts from the existing MRCC's and compare them.

 

Local knowledge is the next issue, yet it will be the same LOCAL RNLI or cliff rescue teams responding to emergencies, the amount of local staff needed in a coordinating control room will be little different than we have now and with improved technologies the local issue holds little water.

 

The 'same LOCAL RNLI or cliff rescue teams' will only be able to respond if the person receiving the mayday in Aberdeen knows where the casualty is in the UK and which teams to call out.

 

It did not work for the fire service is another suggestion and here it is claimed that the unfinished buildings have a computer system that dose not work. But the recent pictures I have seen would suggest they have as yet not been installed let alone had the problems worked on / resolved. While that situation remains unclear then yes I would like to know what the minister has to say about the system he has in mind for the MCA.

 

When you get a chance to ask him about the system he has in mind for the MCA can you also ask why he stated that the UK coastline is around 10,500 miles long, when it is actually about 19,500? Surely it couldn't be a deliberate attempt to mislead the British public into thinking the MCA have less to be responsible for than they actually do have, could it?

 

By the way did you spot the mistake on the MCA website in the link I posted yet?

[big_cod]

Well its front page news here at whitby the trawler boys are up in arms mr goodwill has gone into hideing coward unavailable for comment anybody who knows anything about the sea knows just how important these guys are .

 

 

http://www.whitbygazette.co.uk/news/local/...at_mp_1_2896016

 

paul.

[seafoods]

Well its front page news here at whitby the trawler boys are up in arms mr goodwill has gone into hideing coward unavailable for comment anybody who knows anything about the sea knows just how important these guys are .

 

 

http://www.whitbygazette.co.uk/news/local/...at_mp_1_2896016

 

paul.

 

They're not over the moon about it at Holyrood either, both the SNP and Labour - who after all are the two main parties in Scotland, are against it. Not a single LibDem or Conservative spoke against it. Roll on the Holyrood elections in May.

 

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/National/...by-salmond.html

[Bob Shotter]

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

 

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

 

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?

 

Tight lines Bob

Edited January 5, 2011 by Deene'0