"Pure madness" - Anger over fire brigade's plans to stop responding to many calls

York Press: "Pure madness" - Anger over fire brigade's plans to stop responding to many calls "Pure madness" - Anger over fire brigade's plans to stop responding to many calls

FIREFIGHTERS are to stop attending many emergency call-outs, in a move branded "pure madness" by trade union officials.

North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service is consulting on plans to stop sending firefighters to automatic fire alarms (AFAs) between 8am and 6pm at premises where people do not sleep unless a fire has been confirmed. Currently, one fire engine attends such calls.

AFAs at premises where people sleep or which are a higher risk will be attended by only one crew, rather than the current two, and where repeated false alarms have been received at a building and the people responsible have been warned, crews may not attend.

In the past year, fire crews have attended more than 1,900 AFA calls that turned out to be false alarms, accounting for about 24 per cent of all incidents.

Steve Howley, secretary for the Fire Brigades Union, said management should consider how the proposals could affect insurance premiums and council tax for affected businesses, and whether it would be liable for losses caused by delayed response.

He said: "These proposals are pure madness and a recipe for disaster. A fire alarm is designed to detect fires and give early warning for people to leave the building, and for the fire service to attend quickly minimising the effects of fire in damage to property and loss of life. To simply ignore these systems and not respond unless a fire has been confirmed by a member of the public is crazy and dangerous.

"It would seem the service want to punish businesses that have had a number of false alarms by not attending any future alarms. This time maybe the call is real, as such is just playing with public safety, putting lives and property at greater risk."

Mr Howley said high risk properties, where there is more chance of a fire going undetected longer at night, included hospitals, hotels and care homes, and the changes were "playing with public and firefighter safety".

He said: "Every fire at a hospital or a care home in the past started off as an AFA."

Changes have also been proposed to special service calls such as traffic collisions, pumping flooded buildings, rescuing trapped animals or birds, and making buildings safe, which can currently be charged for - the consultation proposes scrapping charges for non-emergency special service calls, "where the aim is to protect and support public safety and wellbeing".

The consultation is open until September 5 at northyorksfire.gov.uk under the ‘IRMP Proposals’ link.

Clarification: An earlier version of this story said the changes to AFA responses would be overnight, not during the day. 

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:24pm Wed 2 Jul 14

York1900 says...

Here we go anther Service heading towards running as a private Service were money comes first and the real set up of the service to protect life and property is put as a secondary basis
Here we go anther Service heading towards running as a private Service were money comes first and the real set up of the service to protect life and property is put as a secondary basis York1900
  • Score: 24

5:31pm Wed 2 Jul 14

X5019c says...

Get to their website, click on IRMP Proposals, scroll down and click on the Feedback survey on Automatic Fire Alarms and tell them what you think.

Utter madness and very dangerous. I am surprised it is even legal.
Get to their website, click on IRMP Proposals, scroll down and click on the Feedback survey on Automatic Fire Alarms and tell them what you think. Utter madness and very dangerous. I am surprised it is even legal. X5019c
  • Score: 20

6:04pm Wed 2 Jul 14

nearlyman says...

24 % of all incidents false alarms ??? what a waste of time and money !
24 % of all incidents false alarms ??? what a waste of time and money ! nearlyman
  • Score: 4

6:07pm Wed 2 Jul 14

nearlyman says...

Looks like they shoud get their fire alarm systems sorted out.................
.try Advance Fire Services ! they seem to know what they are talking about.
Looks like they shoud get their fire alarm systems sorted out................. .try Advance Fire Services ! they seem to know what they are talking about. nearlyman
  • Score: -8

7:27pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Stevie D says...

Not attending AFAs at premises with a history of false alarms sounds like a sensible plan. If people are so careless and slapdash about maintaining their alarms properly that they repeatedly trigger false alarms, wasting vast sums of public money and putting other people's safety at risk by unnecessarily drawing on emergency resources, it's entirely fair that they have their AFAs ignored.

A valuable lesson for all those people who cry wolf.
Not attending AFAs at premises with a history of false alarms sounds like a sensible plan. If people are so careless and slapdash about maintaining their alarms properly that they repeatedly trigger false alarms, wasting vast sums of public money and putting other people's safety at risk by unnecessarily drawing on emergency resources, it's entirely fair that they have their AFAs ignored. A valuable lesson for all those people who cry wolf. Stevie D
  • Score: 12

7:29pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Silver says...

nearlyman wrote:
24 % of all incidents false alarms ??? what a waste of time and money !
But 76% are obviously real. So throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't it? Now if it was say 0.00001% actually needed the fire brigade I'd agree that they should stop but when you've got 3/4 of the time them being needed it shouldn't be stopped
[quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: 24 % of all incidents false alarms ??? what a waste of time and money ![/p][/quote]But 76% are obviously real. So throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't it? Now if it was say 0.00001% actually needed the fire brigade I'd agree that they should stop but when you've got 3/4 of the time them being needed it shouldn't be stopped Silver
  • Score: 18

7:50pm Wed 2 Jul 14

nottoooldtocare says...

Stevie D wrote:
Not attending AFAs at premises with a history of false alarms sounds like a sensible plan. If people are so careless and slapdash about maintaining their alarms properly that they repeatedly trigger false alarms, wasting vast sums of public money and putting other people's safety at risk by unnecessarily drawing on emergency resources, it's entirely fair that they have their AFAs ignored.

A valuable lesson for all those people who cry wolf.
.....and where repeated false alarms have been received at a building and the people responsible have been warned, crews may not attend.

So, if this is a hotel you and your family are staying in on holiday and the fire alarm goes off "again" and the fire service don't attend, even worse you suffer a loss. you will at least be comforted in the knowledge that the owners have learnt a lesson about crying wolf. Interesting thought!

Perhaps we should stop them attending RTA's after all you don't have to drive, or attending chemical spills, after all the companies should have plans in place etc. for me this is the thin end of a dangerous wedge. I hope those in power who may push this forward can sleep easily when a tragedy happens, and it will. I know I couldn't; as I would feel at least partly responsible, but then again I have a conscience.
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: Not attending AFAs at premises with a history of false alarms sounds like a sensible plan. If people are so careless and slapdash about maintaining their alarms properly that they repeatedly trigger false alarms, wasting vast sums of public money and putting other people's safety at risk by unnecessarily drawing on emergency resources, it's entirely fair that they have their AFAs ignored. A valuable lesson for all those people who cry wolf.[/p][/quote].....and where repeated false alarms have been received at a building and the people responsible have been warned, crews may not attend. So, if this is a hotel you and your family are staying in on holiday and the fire alarm goes off "again" and the fire service don't attend, even worse you suffer a loss. you will at least be comforted in the knowledge that the owners have learnt a lesson about crying wolf. Interesting thought! Perhaps we should stop them attending RTA's after all you don't have to drive, or attending chemical spills, after all the companies should have plans in place etc. for me this is the thin end of a dangerous wedge. I hope those in power who may push this forward can sleep easily when a tragedy happens, and it will. I know I couldn't; as I would feel at least partly responsible, but then again I have a conscience. nottoooldtocare
  • Score: 7

8:29pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Dave Ruddock says...

Personally, wonders if the Pay issue cutbacks be governments , councils. then the issue of (as thy say ) One engine to non residential call outs sounds wise, they can still call on reserves, ask anyone who needs the service but it was unavailable whist attending a false Alarm.
Personally, wonders if the Pay issue cutbacks be governments , councils. then the issue of (as thy say ) One engine to non residential call outs sounds wise, they can still call on reserves, ask anyone who needs the service but it was unavailable whist attending a false Alarm. Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -6

8:51pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Pinza-C55 says...

As said earlier it sounds like the fire service is being fattened up for privatisation.
Some of those old Fire Insurance plaques in Petergate may need to be spruced up before long.
As said earlier it sounds like the fire service is being fattened up for privatisation. Some of those old Fire Insurance plaques in Petergate may need to be spruced up before long. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 9

9:44pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Stevie D says...

nottoooldtocare wrote:
.....and where repeated false alarms have been received at a building and the people responsible have been warned, crews may not attend.

So, if this is a hotel you and your family are staying in on holiday and the fire alarm goes off "again" and the fire service don't attend, even worse you suffer a loss. you will at least be comforted in the knowledge that the owners have learnt a lesson about crying wolf. Interesting thought!

Remember that we're only talking about unauthenticated automatic alarms here. When the hotel manager picks up the phone and dials 999 and says "Sh1t, it's a real fire this time!" they'll send out a full complement of fire engines as normal. They aren't saying that they will let the place burn to the ground, just that if there's no evidence of an actual fire (because the alarm is known to cry wolf) there's no point in wasting time and money rushing to a non-fire.
[quote][bold]nottoooldtocare[/bold] wrote: .....and where repeated false alarms have been received at a building and the people responsible have been warned, crews may not attend. So, if this is a hotel you and your family are staying in on holiday and the fire alarm goes off "again" and the fire service don't attend, even worse you suffer a loss. you will at least be comforted in the knowledge that the owners have learnt a lesson about crying wolf. Interesting thought![/quote] Remember that we're only talking about [italic]unauthenticated automatic alarms[/italic] here. When the hotel manager picks up the phone and dials 999 and says "Sh1t, it's a real fire this time!" they'll send out a full complement of fire engines as normal. They aren't saying that they will let the place burn to the ground, just that if there's no evidence of an actual fire (because the alarm is known to cry wolf) there's no point in wasting time and money rushing to a non-fire. Stevie D
  • Score: 8

10:11pm Wed 2 Jul 14

AnotherPointofView says...

Silver wrote:
nearlyman wrote:
24 % of all incidents false alarms ??? what a waste of time and money !
But 76% are obviously real. So throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't it? Now if it was say 0.00001% actually needed the fire brigade I'd agree that they should stop but when you've got 3/4 of the time them being needed it shouldn't be stopped
The figures don't say that. It says that over 1900 AFA's were false alarms. It doesn't say how many AFA's were real. It just says that the 1900 false alarms accounted for 24% of ALL calls. It could be that 100% of AFA's were false or a lot lower figure. The figures are insufficient.

If people do have repeated false callouts through AFA's then why should public money be wasted on those who need to get their alarm system sorted (as Stevie D said above)? It's nothing to do with letting people/property burn. Just get your system sorted or get someone there to verify the alarm.
[quote][p][bold]Silver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: 24 % of all incidents false alarms ??? what a waste of time and money ![/p][/quote]But 76% are obviously real. So throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't it? Now if it was say 0.00001% actually needed the fire brigade I'd agree that they should stop but when you've got 3/4 of the time them being needed it shouldn't be stopped[/p][/quote]The figures don't say that. It says that over 1900 AFA's were false alarms. It doesn't say how many AFA's were real. It just says that the 1900 false alarms accounted for 24% of ALL calls. It could be that 100% of AFA's were false or a lot lower figure. The figures are insufficient. If people do have repeated false callouts through AFA's then why should public money be wasted on those who need to get their alarm system sorted (as Stevie D said above)? It's nothing to do with letting people/property burn. Just get your system sorted or get someone there to verify the alarm. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 4

10:19pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Whistlejacket says...

Stevie D wrote:
nottoooldtocare wrote:
.....and where repeated false alarms have been received at a building and the people responsible have been warned, crews may not attend.

So, if this is a hotel you and your family are staying in on holiday and the fire alarm goes off "again" and the fire service don't attend, even worse you suffer a loss. you will at least be comforted in the knowledge that the owners have learnt a lesson about crying wolf. Interesting thought!

Remember that we're only talking about unauthenticated automatic alarms here. When the hotel manager picks up the phone and dials 999 and says "Sh1t, it's a real fire this time!" they'll send out a full complement of fire engines as normal. They aren't saying that they will let the place burn to the ground, just that if there's no evidence of an actual fire (because the alarm is known to cry wolf) there's no point in wasting time and money rushing to a non-fire.
Note also that the article states that this policy will only apply to premises where people do not sleep overnight, so hotels, care homes, hospitals and the rest will still receive the normal response. The union spokesman knows this perfectly well, but is scaremongering by misrepresenting the proposals.
Apparently, many posters here have taken the bait.
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]nottoooldtocare[/bold] wrote: .....and where repeated false alarms have been received at a building and the people responsible have been warned, crews may not attend. So, if this is a hotel you and your family are staying in on holiday and the fire alarm goes off "again" and the fire service don't attend, even worse you suffer a loss. you will at least be comforted in the knowledge that the owners have learnt a lesson about crying wolf. Interesting thought![/quote] Remember that we're only talking about [italic]unauthenticated automatic alarms[/italic] here. When the hotel manager picks up the phone and dials 999 and says "Sh1t, it's a real fire this time!" they'll send out a full complement of fire engines as normal. They aren't saying that they will let the place burn to the ground, just that if there's no evidence of an actual fire (because the alarm is known to cry wolf) there's no point in wasting time and money rushing to a non-fire.[/p][/quote]Note also that the article states that this policy will only apply to premises where people do not sleep overnight, so hotels, care homes, hospitals and the rest will still receive the normal response. The union spokesman knows this perfectly well, but is scaremongering by misrepresenting the proposals. Apparently, many posters here have taken the bait. Whistlejacket
  • Score: 2

11:12pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Proudyorkshireman says...

Whistlejacket wrote:
Stevie D wrote:
nottoooldtocare wrote:
.....and where repeated false alarms have been received at a building and the people responsible have been warned, crews may not attend.

So, if this is a hotel you and your family are staying in on holiday and the fire alarm goes off "again" and the fire service don't attend, even worse you suffer a loss. you will at least be comforted in the knowledge that the owners have learnt a lesson about crying wolf. Interesting thought!

Remember that we're only talking about unauthenticated automatic alarms here. When the hotel manager picks up the phone and dials 999 and says "Sh1t, it's a real fire this time!" they'll send out a full complement of fire engines as normal. They aren't saying that they will let the place burn to the ground, just that if there's no evidence of an actual fire (because the alarm is known to cry wolf) there's no point in wasting time and money rushing to a non-fire.
Note also that the article states that this policy will only apply to premises where people do not sleep overnight, so hotels, care homes, hospitals and the rest will still receive the normal response. The union spokesman knows this perfectly well, but is scaremongering by misrepresenting the proposals.
Apparently, many posters here have taken the bait.
The quote states that premises with alarms going off will not be attended to during the day. People can still sleep during the day so the union are clearly not scaremongering in my opinion, they just want to prevent the fire service they clearly care about being privatised, as fire cover will be cut to a much higher degree if so
[quote][p][bold]Whistlejacket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]nottoooldtocare[/bold] wrote: .....and where repeated false alarms have been received at a building and the people responsible have been warned, crews may not attend. So, if this is a hotel you and your family are staying in on holiday and the fire alarm goes off "again" and the fire service don't attend, even worse you suffer a loss. you will at least be comforted in the knowledge that the owners have learnt a lesson about crying wolf. Interesting thought![/quote] Remember that we're only talking about [italic]unauthenticated automatic alarms[/italic] here. When the hotel manager picks up the phone and dials 999 and says "Sh1t, it's a real fire this time!" they'll send out a full complement of fire engines as normal. They aren't saying that they will let the place burn to the ground, just that if there's no evidence of an actual fire (because the alarm is known to cry wolf) there's no point in wasting time and money rushing to a non-fire.[/p][/quote]Note also that the article states that this policy will only apply to premises where people do not sleep overnight, so hotels, care homes, hospitals and the rest will still receive the normal response. The union spokesman knows this perfectly well, but is scaremongering by misrepresenting the proposals. Apparently, many posters here have taken the bait.[/p][/quote]The quote states that premises with alarms going off will not be attended to during the day. People can still sleep during the day so the union are clearly not scaremongering in my opinion, they just want to prevent the fire service they clearly care about being privatised, as fire cover will be cut to a much higher degree if so Proudyorkshireman
  • Score: 6

11:33pm Wed 2 Jul 14

WAG says...

Whistlejacket wrote:
Stevie D wrote:
nottoooldtocare wrote:
.....and where repeated false alarms have been received at a building and the people responsible have been warned, crews may not attend.

So, if this is a hotel you and your family are staying in on holiday and the fire alarm goes off "again" and the fire service don't attend, even worse you suffer a loss. you will at least be comforted in the knowledge that the owners have learnt a lesson about crying wolf. Interesting thought!

Remember that we're only talking about unauthenticated automatic alarms here. When the hotel manager picks up the phone and dials 999 and says "Sh1t, it's a real fire this time!" they'll send out a full complement of fire engines as normal. They aren't saying that they will let the place burn to the ground, just that if there's no evidence of an actual fire (because the alarm is known to cry wolf) there's no point in wasting time and money rushing to a non-fire.
Note also that the article states that this policy will only apply to premises where people do not sleep overnight, so hotels, care homes, hospitals and the rest will still receive the normal response. The union spokesman knows this perfectly well, but is scaremongering by misrepresenting the proposals.
Apparently, many posters here have taken the bait.
It is clear you have not read the document whistle jacket, otherwise you would realise the union leader is absolutely correct! It states sleeping risks including hospitals, care homes etc will get a reduced attendance on a night! These are vulnerable people who I would think require the correct number of fire engines without delay. I can remember a care home in Scotland catching fire during the night, a reduced attendance was in place like what is being proposed here and the results where tragic with a number of the residents losing their lives. People need to wake up and smell the coffee this is the thin end of the wedge and a pre cursor to major cuts to our fire service!!! Ok you may say until you dial 999 and waiting some considerable time your property burning down around you, then you will be shouting the fire service should of done something to help!!
[quote][p][bold]Whistlejacket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]nottoooldtocare[/bold] wrote: .....and where repeated false alarms have been received at a building and the people responsible have been warned, crews may not attend. So, if this is a hotel you and your family are staying in on holiday and the fire alarm goes off "again" and the fire service don't attend, even worse you suffer a loss. you will at least be comforted in the knowledge that the owners have learnt a lesson about crying wolf. Interesting thought![/quote] Remember that we're only talking about [italic]unauthenticated automatic alarms[/italic] here. When the hotel manager picks up the phone and dials 999 and says "Sh1t, it's a real fire this time!" they'll send out a full complement of fire engines as normal. They aren't saying that they will let the place burn to the ground, just that if there's no evidence of an actual fire (because the alarm is known to cry wolf) there's no point in wasting time and money rushing to a non-fire.[/p][/quote]Note also that the article states that this policy will only apply to premises where people do not sleep overnight, so hotels, care homes, hospitals and the rest will still receive the normal response. The union spokesman knows this perfectly well, but is scaremongering by misrepresenting the proposals. Apparently, many posters here have taken the bait.[/p][/quote]It is clear you have not read the document whistle jacket, otherwise you would realise the union leader is absolutely correct! It states sleeping risks including hospitals, care homes etc will get a reduced attendance on a night! These are vulnerable people who I would think require the correct number of fire engines without delay. I can remember a care home in Scotland catching fire during the night, a reduced attendance was in place like what is being proposed here and the results where tragic with a number of the residents losing their lives. People need to wake up and smell the coffee this is the thin end of the wedge and a pre cursor to major cuts to our fire service!!! Ok you may say until you dial 999 and waiting some considerable time your property burning down around you, then you will be shouting the fire service should of done something to help!! WAG
  • Score: 6

2:44am Thu 3 Jul 14

Magicman! says...

X5019c wrote:
Get to their website, click on IRMP Proposals, scroll down and click on the Feedback survey on Automatic Fire Alarms and tell them what you think.

Utter madness and very dangerous. I am surprised it is even legal.
Oh... the government will MAKE it legal, if it means they benefit from stocks and shares of private companies that take over these duties in the future.
[quote][p][bold]X5019c[/bold] wrote: Get to their website, click on IRMP Proposals, scroll down and click on the Feedback survey on Automatic Fire Alarms and tell them what you think. Utter madness and very dangerous. I am surprised it is even legal.[/p][/quote]Oh... the government will MAKE it legal, if it means they benefit from stocks and shares of private companies that take over these duties in the future. Magicman!
  • Score: 6

2:48am Thu 3 Jul 14

Magicman! says...

Stevie D wrote:
Not attending AFAs at premises with a history of false alarms sounds like a sensible plan. If people are so careless and slapdash about maintaining their alarms properly that they repeatedly trigger false alarms, wasting vast sums of public money and putting other people's safety at risk by unnecessarily drawing on emergency resources, it's entirely fair that they have their AFAs ignored.

A valuable lesson for all those people who cry wolf.
That's about the only sensible part of the ideas though.

A fire at a warehouse in the middle of nowhere (such as any of those in the belt of land between the A19 and A1079 between York and Selby/Goole) could have a small fire inside that triggers an AFA, the fire service don't attend, and by time anybody notices there is a fire it is then too late as it has changed from 'fire' to 'inferno'.... which would likely wipe out the business that was run from there.
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: Not attending AFAs at premises with a history of false alarms sounds like a sensible plan. If people are so careless and slapdash about maintaining their alarms properly that they repeatedly trigger false alarms, wasting vast sums of public money and putting other people's safety at risk by unnecessarily drawing on emergency resources, it's entirely fair that they have their AFAs ignored. A valuable lesson for all those people who cry wolf.[/p][/quote]That's about the only sensible part of the ideas though. A fire at a warehouse in the middle of nowhere (such as any of those in the belt of land between the A19 and A1079 between York and Selby/Goole) could have a small fire inside that triggers an AFA, the fire service don't attend, and by time anybody notices there is a fire it is then too late as it has changed from 'fire' to 'inferno'.... which would likely wipe out the business that was run from there. Magicman!
  • Score: 4

7:01am Thu 3 Jul 14

Y.I.P. says...

Seems a good idea to me,sometimes more danger to the public, from racing fire appliances than burning to death,
Seems a good idea to me,sometimes more danger to the public, from racing fire appliances than burning to death, Y.I.P.
  • Score: -5

9:49am Thu 3 Jul 14

Proudyorkshireman says...

Y.I.P. wrote:
Seems a good idea to me,sometimes more danger to the public, from racing fire appliances than burning to death,
Are you suggesting they should drive at mobility scooter speed? I'm pretty sure I've not read about anybody being injured by a fire appliance in North Yorkshire, unless you can enlighten us.........?
[quote][p][bold]Y.I.P.[/bold] wrote: Seems a good idea to me,sometimes more danger to the public, from racing fire appliances than burning to death,[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting they should drive at mobility scooter speed? I'm pretty sure I've not read about anybody being injured by a fire appliance in North Yorkshire, unless you can enlighten us.........? Proudyorkshireman
  • Score: 2

10:13am Thu 3 Jul 14

asd says...

Its always about money you actually think Goverment gives a **** about Joe public.Let me see, half way through NHS privatistion, Royal Mail privatistion,East coast mainline privatisation, trying to privatise air traffic control, we dont have a lot left to privatise so, maybe they are looking for quick profits as usual. Privatise, Fire service, Prisons which is actually happening so we would be left with Police and army maybe G4 could run army and police. Privatise Goverment as they are bunch of coin throwers. Ohh i forgot National grid sell that off too so , they can really screw us more
Its always about money you actually think Goverment gives a **** about Joe public.Let me see, half way through NHS privatistion, Royal Mail privatistion,East coast mainline privatisation, trying to privatise air traffic control, we dont have a lot left to privatise so, maybe they are looking for quick profits as usual. Privatise, Fire service, Prisons which is actually happening so we would be left with Police and army maybe G4 could run army and police. Privatise Goverment as they are bunch of coin throwers. Ohh i forgot National grid sell that off too so , they can really screw us more asd
  • Score: 4

10:47am Thu 3 Jul 14

Y.I.P. says...

Proudyorkshireman wrote:
Y.I.P. wrote:
Seems a good idea to me,sometimes more danger to the public, from racing fire appliances than burning to death,
Are you suggesting they should drive at mobility scooter speed? I'm pretty sure I've not read about anybody being injured by a fire appliance in North Yorkshire, unless you can enlighten us.........?
yep I certainly could enlighten you pal butttttttttttt
[quote][p][bold]Proudyorkshireman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Y.I.P.[/bold] wrote: Seems a good idea to me,sometimes more danger to the public, from racing fire appliances than burning to death,[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting they should drive at mobility scooter speed? I'm pretty sure I've not read about anybody being injured by a fire appliance in North Yorkshire, unless you can enlighten us.........?[/p][/quote]yep I certainly could enlighten you pal butttttttttttt Y.I.P.
  • Score: -3

2:31pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Proudyorkshireman says...

Y.I.P. wrote:
Proudyorkshireman wrote:
Y.I.P. wrote:
Seems a good idea to me,sometimes more danger to the public, from racing fire appliances than burning to death,
Are you suggesting they should drive at mobility scooter speed? I'm pretty sure I've not read about anybody being injured by a fire appliance in North Yorkshire, unless you can enlighten us.........?
yep I certainly could enlighten you pal butttttttttttt
Aka you have absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever. I wonder if your house was on fire and your family was trapped, if you would maintain the same opinion.....?! Hmm, I doubt it
[quote][p][bold]Y.I.P.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proudyorkshireman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Y.I.P.[/bold] wrote: Seems a good idea to me,sometimes more danger to the public, from racing fire appliances than burning to death,[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting they should drive at mobility scooter speed? I'm pretty sure I've not read about anybody being injured by a fire appliance in North Yorkshire, unless you can enlighten us.........?[/p][/quote]yep I certainly could enlighten you pal butttttttttttt[/p][/quote]Aka you have absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever. I wonder if your house was on fire and your family was trapped, if you would maintain the same opinion.....?! Hmm, I doubt it Proudyorkshireman
  • Score: 3

5:24pm Thu 3 Jul 14

nearlyman says...

asd wrote:
Its always about money you actually think Goverment gives a **** about Joe public.Let me see, half way through NHS privatistion, Royal Mail privatistion,East coast mainline privatisation, trying to privatise air traffic control, we dont have a lot left to privatise so, maybe they are looking for quick profits as usual. Privatise, Fire service, Prisons which is actually happening so we would be left with Police and army maybe G4 could run army and police. Privatise Goverment as they are bunch of coin throwers. Ohh i forgot National grid sell that off too so , they can really screw us more
....yawn yawn !!! Wake up ...its 2014.....dinosaurs are supposed to be extinct.
[quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: Its always about money you actually think Goverment gives a **** about Joe public.Let me see, half way through NHS privatistion, Royal Mail privatistion,East coast mainline privatisation, trying to privatise air traffic control, we dont have a lot left to privatise so, maybe they are looking for quick profits as usual. Privatise, Fire service, Prisons which is actually happening so we would be left with Police and army maybe G4 could run army and police. Privatise Goverment as they are bunch of coin throwers. Ohh i forgot National grid sell that off too so , they can really screw us more[/p][/quote]....yawn yawn !!! Wake up ...its 2014.....dinosaurs are supposed to be extinct. nearlyman
  • Score: -2

7:10pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Y.I.P. says...

Proudyorkshireman wrote:
Y.I.P. wrote:
Proudyorkshireman wrote:
Y.I.P. wrote:
Seems a good idea to me,sometimes more danger to the public, from racing fire appliances than burning to death,
Are you suggesting they should drive at mobility scooter speed? I'm pretty sure I've not read about anybody being injured by a fire appliance in North Yorkshire, unless you can enlighten us.........?
yep I certainly could enlighten you pal butttttttttttt
Aka you have absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever. I wonder if your house was on fire and your family was trapped, if you would maintain the same opinion.....?! Hmm, I doubt it
yes I have and by the way?????????????
[quote][p][bold]Proudyorkshireman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Y.I.P.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proudyorkshireman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Y.I.P.[/bold] wrote: Seems a good idea to me,sometimes more danger to the public, from racing fire appliances than burning to death,[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting they should drive at mobility scooter speed? I'm pretty sure I've not read about anybody being injured by a fire appliance in North Yorkshire, unless you can enlighten us.........?[/p][/quote]yep I certainly could enlighten you pal butttttttttttt[/p][/quote]Aka you have absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever. I wonder if your house was on fire and your family was trapped, if you would maintain the same opinion.....?! Hmm, I doubt it[/p][/quote]yes I have and by the way????????????? Y.I.P.
  • Score: -2

10:11pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Silver says...

AnotherPointofView wrote:
Silver wrote:
nearlyman wrote:
24 % of all incidents false alarms ??? what a waste of time and money !
But 76% are obviously real. So throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't it? Now if it was say 0.00001% actually needed the fire brigade I'd agree that they should stop but when you've got 3/4 of the time them being needed it shouldn't be stopped
The figures don't say that. It says that over 1900 AFA's were false alarms. It doesn't say how many AFA's were real. It just says that the 1900 false alarms accounted for 24% of ALL calls. It could be that 100% of AFA's were false or a lot lower figure. The figures are insufficient.

If people do have repeated false callouts through AFA's then why should public money be wasted on those who need to get their alarm system sorted (as Stevie D said above)? It's nothing to do with letting people/property burn. Just get your system sorted or get someone there to verify the alarm.
If 24% are false alarms then surely the 76% may have been real alarms? I'm not an expert but when I see a sum saying x=false then sure y=real. I'll agree with the repeat calls but surely that means perhaps someone should check?
And don't the fire brigade offer free checks on those systems?
[quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Silver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: 24 % of all incidents false alarms ??? what a waste of time and money ![/p][/quote]But 76% are obviously real. So throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't it? Now if it was say 0.00001% actually needed the fire brigade I'd agree that they should stop but when you've got 3/4 of the time them being needed it shouldn't be stopped[/p][/quote]The figures don't say that. It says that over 1900 AFA's were false alarms. It doesn't say how many AFA's were real. It just says that the 1900 false alarms accounted for 24% of ALL calls. It could be that 100% of AFA's were false or a lot lower figure. The figures are insufficient. If people do have repeated false callouts through AFA's then why should public money be wasted on those who need to get their alarm system sorted (as Stevie D said above)? It's nothing to do with letting people/property burn. Just get your system sorted or get someone there to verify the alarm.[/p][/quote]If 24% are false alarms then surely the 76% may have been real alarms? I'm not an expert but when I see a sum saying x=false then sure y=real. I'll agree with the repeat calls but surely that means perhaps someone should check? And don't the fire brigade offer free checks on those systems? Silver
  • Score: 0

3:06pm Fri 4 Jul 14

BrotherWalfrid says...

People need to seriously wake up and smell the coffee with this one!!!- why on earth would a Fire Brigade be wanting to reduce the amount of calls in attends?? - it's pure and simple - because it gives them justification to cut fire engines and cut firefighters !!!! This by the way is a public service that YOU pay for through your council taxes. Are your council taxes being cut??!!
The issue here is that you can massage any figures you want but in this case it is too dangerous and it increases risk.
The Fire Service is being reduced Nationally so think about this carefully?- Yes you may get 1 Fire Engine attend an incident that may be a false alarm. But when it isn't a false alarm that Fire Engine will only have 3 or 4 firefighters on board instead of 5 or 6. This seriously reduces the operational capabilities of that crew. And whereas the 2nd Fire Engine might of been 5-6 minutes behind the first one, it will now be 10-12 minutes away... And the 3rd and 4th Fire Engines (if it is a large incident) another 10-20 minutes away. In that time lives are lost and property is destroyed !!!!
This isn't a case of a Trade Union scare mongering or Firefighters wanting to Strike...... It is a case of Public Safety being put at risk and people need to realise that !!!
People need to seriously wake up and smell the coffee with this one!!!- why on earth would a Fire Brigade be wanting to reduce the amount of calls in attends?? - it's pure and simple - because it gives them justification to cut fire engines and cut firefighters !!!! This by the way is a public service that YOU pay for through your council taxes. Are your council taxes being cut??!! The issue here is that you can massage any figures you want but in this case it is too dangerous and it increases risk. The Fire Service is being reduced Nationally so think about this carefully?- Yes you may get 1 Fire Engine attend an incident that may be a false alarm. But when it isn't a false alarm that Fire Engine will only have 3 or 4 firefighters on board instead of 5 or 6. This seriously reduces the operational capabilities of that crew. And whereas the 2nd Fire Engine might of been 5-6 minutes behind the first one, it will now be 10-12 minutes away... And the 3rd and 4th Fire Engines (if it is a large incident) another 10-20 minutes away. In that time lives are lost and property is destroyed !!!! This isn't a case of a Trade Union scare mongering or Firefighters wanting to Strike...... It is a case of Public Safety being put at risk and people need to realise that !!! BrotherWalfrid
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree