Seems a lot of noise about 'nasty govt' when it comes to asking people to prove this status, and we wonder why scum like this seem to thrive...
Eh? The article is simply commenting on the report of Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services. What is your problem with the article or the report?
A headline meant to provoke. They should have made it clear there is a difference between firemen and women and the operational standards promoted and put in place by the brigade leaders themselves.
not going to go there, if you had picked up what I was hinting at then fair enough. Not for public debate as will end in a shitfest.
Shame on those folk for putting their lives on the line each time they go into a burning building. gotta loathe the Grauniad (eyes passim)
Did you read the article? It merely reports on an official report which is critical of the LFB management, not firefighters themselves. Or do you disagree with the Inspectorate’s report? If so, on what basis?
I have heard several interviews with service and ex-firemen. All have said the same: the management was as effective as it could be and the head woman should not be disciplined.
Unfortunately, after hearing months of evidence from everyone involved, the Inquiry disagreed with that. However, the Inquiry hasn't concluded yet, so the LFB might not be the only ones on the hook. Phase 2 of the hearings will commence in January to consider the design, construction, fire safety and local authority governance and property management issues raised by the disaster.
How is asking why he disagreed with either/both the article or the Inspectorate's report (it wasn't clear), "trolling"?
asking a question with the specific intention of expressing a difference of opinion for no other reason than one likes the sound of ones own voice,is to me, the epitome of trolling... you have form on this front.. other opinions are available..
Re: my first post - can we just respect each other's opinions on this and leave it there - I regret posting now - forget that I did.
Nope. Just interested to know why he disagrees with the article/report. But if you and your buddies prefer the forum to be the back slapping echo chamber it is rapidly becoming and contrary opinions are dismissed as trolling, then no prob. Enjoy
There is no echo chamber here, most saw Chris's point that the article was poorly written to imply firemen and women were the issue and they should have been clearer that the article was about organisational brigade level and not front line staff. There was no echo chamber in recognising that, just one person who refused to/didn't want to/or couldn't see the observation made. There was nothing confrontational in that opinion
i have very few buddies and none that would slap my back lest i slap their front... what this forum is rapidly becoming? as far as im aware its been the same (shit) forever.. as in bikes, fun , shit... if you are running for mayor, take it to a political forum... no one needs saving here.. apart from exige
Its all about hindsight. The coating had been used for years and no problems, all over the world. The model of containment with fire doors had worked OK in all (almost) other occasions and saves more lives than it costs. We can either take it as a tragedy (which is was) or look to blame anyone and everyone other than 'ourselves'. Its a plague of recent years. Virtue-signalling and accountability demands everywhere. But what shouldn't be done is blaming the service that risked their lives, and the management who followed the set, tried, tested and proven protocol on an occasion that simply had never happened before.
I’ve read the article three times now and can’t see that firefighters were being criticised by it. It states that in some cases they’re poorly trained but it merely quoted the report which lays the blame for that at management’s door and the use of a PFI training company.
