Low Risk, High Price

In a matter of minutes

 KILLS

 and can 

turn you into one of these  

or  (if one of the FCCL team was involved )one of  these   really quickly................ 

Don't you think he has a look of BossHooch about him? 

But,  both of the above can  be prevented  by a teensy weensy addition to the family home of one or two of these

Sadly we have to report that a lady in Kippax died a few days ago  - she didn't have a smoke alarm.  

The incident postcode was LS25 7JE designated  by WYFRS own risk registers  a VERY LOW RISK area . 

Now the other thing to notice about this particular fire is the the time of the call to WYFRS 

5.16 PM

A time when people are about in the street, the nights are light and you would expect a fire to be  noticed fairly early on (the smokes a bit of a give away) 

This lady was rescued by crews from 

Castleford,   Rothwell   and   Garforth 

(3 engines for a persons reported housefire  remember) 

But sadly she  was pronounced dead at hospital  - we offer our sincere condolences to her family 

A report by the BBC can be found here and it seems the fire was caused by a discarded cigarette and also the property had no working smoke alarm.  Yet again this incident did not feature on the WYFRS incident log. 

Now the lady concerned WAS RESCUED ALIVE , BUT had this incident occured in January 2014 the scenario may have been different. From  then  Rothwell & Garforth will convert to the system of DAY CREWING.  This is when a station is staffed from 7am till 5pm, then the firefighters are at home ON CALL. 

So if they get a "shout" they have to leave home and get to the fire station - this takes 

5 minutes 

SO if this particular fire in a very low risk area had happened 10 months hence,  

2 of the three engines would have turned up 

5 minutes later than they did earlier this week. 

Yes we are happy that  Garforth and Rothwell were not closed completely - but what the fire authority Councillors failed to realise is that  day crewing actually significantly reduces cover and gives a much worse service  at arguably  the times (evenings) when cover is most needed. 

We wrote about the technical side of day crewing here in our post 

"So Whats New ? "-

it's an interesting read. 

Now,  we can excuse Councillors being 

un - knowledgeable about the  technical details 

of fire and rescue 

BUT 

these proposals were made by a chappie who is supposed to know what he is doing!!!!!

We have doubted his technical abilities before 

HERE                     

So What's New

So Whats New?

Well the Consultation Period is over (or is it?) . Following massive rejection of the proposals, WYF&RS have now watered down their plans  They can be found here->.  

A report of the consultation can also be found amongst the agenda of the meeting due to take place on Friday.( It can be found here)  from Page 91 onwards - but we have copied the relevant pieces:-

SUMMARY OF FORMAL REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 The Authority received  seven letters/emails 

(NOTE -Only SEVEN! -editor) 

of support or indications of no objection to the proposals.  These were from West Yorkshire Resilience Forum, Leeds City Council Safer and Stronger Scrutiny Committee, Humberside Fire and Rescue Service, North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service, (What about South Yorkshire Fire Service?-Editor) Kirklees Council and two residents from Marsden and Morley. (Must be officers? ed')

4.2 12,037 letters/emails of objection/concern from individuals, groups or organisations were received - 1,309 being unspecific in nature.  
Across the county 

45% of these relate to proposals in the Leeds district, 
22% within the Bradford district, 
13% in Wakefield district, 
9% in the Kirklees district 
and less than 

1% in the Calderdale district. 
This contrasts to a total 2,999 items of formal representation received following public consultation during September – December 2011 regarding seven proposals to change emergency cover in West Yorkshire.

Wow what an increase! We at FCCL wonder why?

4.3 There was a volume of correspondence that opposed changes in the districts of Bradford and Leeds.  258 letters/emails of objection/concern related to changes proposed across the  Bradford District and  14 letters/emails were received relating to  changes across the Leeds District. The issues of concern are captured under the relevant proposals below. 

4.4 Activity/responses relating directly to the eleven proposals was as follows (all figures  excluding responses by the Fire Brigades Union  and Fire Officers’ Association which are outlined at sections 4.15.1 and 4.15.2 below).

OUR FCCL RESPONSE IS OBVIOUSLY NOT WORTHY OF AN INDIVIDUAL MENTION!

It doesn't say, however, how many hits their web site had! 

We suspect the reason is, is because this site had many more! 

How many did FCCL Have? See here!

We do still have concerns about the way stakeholders were consulted! (See below). 

ONLY 100!

3 CONSULTATION ACTIVITY

3.1 Approximately 100 stakeholders were identified for direct contact,  including Members of Parliament; district, town and parish councils; neighbouring fire authorities and emergency services; local representative bodies; external employer and employee organisations and voluntary bodies. Representations 

were invited by 30 November 2012.

OK As we at FCCL Have already said, 100, in a county the size of West Yorkshire, IS NOT VERY MANY! and only an increase in 20 on last years!

 Click here to see  What we feel consultation with Stakeholders should be all about!

In the article found here , it comments that- 

"THOUSANDS of residents in more than 100 council wards across West Yorkshire will lose out on emergency response times if radical fire service cutbacks are carried out."

 100 council Wards would equal 300 councillors!

3.2 In recognition of the fact that it was not possible to communicate individually with 

all those who may wish to submit observations, the proposals were  also 

publicised via the internet and intranet, the print (See the links here, here and here and broadcast media. 
This year a consultation email account was provided and published to improve ease of 

communication for the public.  In addition, a consultation email account and 

hotline  was established in the  Public Information Office  for people seeking 

further information and assistance on the consultation process and timetable.

HOWEVER WE AT FCCL STILL HAVE CONCERNS

The new proposal now suggest that apart from the removal of appliances from some stations, Garforth, Rothwell and Morley, 

             are down graded to Day Crewing!

The

NATIONAL JOINT COUNCIL

FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY

FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES

Scheme of Conditions of Service

Sixth Edition 2004 (updated 2009) -

Describes Day Crewing as-

7.5 Day Crewing

Day Crewing is a duty system contained within firefighters' national 

terms and conditions, however, any move on to this system is 

voluntary, as it requires staff to live within  5 minutes of the station.  

Firefighters are suitably recompensed with an on-call allowance, 

turnout fees and rent/fuel allowance.  In theory, there are sufficient staff 

living within the 5 minute zone at all stations proposed to change to the 

Day Crewing system but further work is required to establish interest in 

working this duty system.

What this means is that, apart from all the additional costs and implementation problems, (as above) which they haven't mentioned!

On an evening, 

In MORLEY 

There will be a delay of 5 Minutes before an appliance can attend if there is an incident! 

WYF&RS Say- The response in the evening and at nights from 
Morley would be delayed by up to five minutes compared to its current performance due to firefighters responding from home and therefore, in some cases, the wholetime shift  Hunslet fire engine would respond faster into Morley’s area.

This is actually worse than the original proposals!-

Councillor Robert Finnigan (Morley Independants) has already e mailed us and shown his support!

And NOTHING is mentioned about the time increase in the revised proposals for!

GARFORTH and ROTHWELL

Back in 2004 WYF&RS tried to downgrade Garforth to Day Crewing (see link here) (and here)
This is what happened then!
Article can be found here!

Victory for Public Opinion!

We at FCCL feel that these new proposals are once again subject to further public consultation and urge every one concerned to immediately contact their  

Local Councillor 

to demand that this now takes place,

BEFORE NEXT FRIDAY'S AUTHORITY MEETING

YOU CAN FIND THE LINK TO CONTACT THEM

Here
or
MP'S
Ed Balls - Morley

George Mudie - East Leeds

Alec Shelbrooke-Elmet and Rothwell

Oh What a tangled Web!

Oh what a tangled web we weave,

When first we practise to deceive!

It has become apparent that In order to "Sell" their Cuts proposal to the Authority and Public, West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service, have not exactly been telling the truth. 

Data supplies to FCCL by WYF&RS Clearly shows that they have deliberately been massaging the figures

Information supplied by Front line Officers also supports this.

There have many comments left on the FCCL Blog regarding the "Deliberate v Accidental" reporting,

Here is what one Officer said to us recently

Senior management have given instructions to fire crews on how to record "deliberate or accidental" fires. 

Officers in charge of fire engines have been told to record such fires as bin fires, bonfires, rubbish fires and even shed fires as accidental, 

One senior officer has been telling operational fire crews that they cannot record a fire as deliberate unless it has been verified by a fire investigation officer,  or someone is seen lighting a fire by the crews. 

I am not sure how many bin fires, bonfires etc are lit by accident, I would guess very few - 

but statistics tell a different story. 

Are these the same statistics being used to close fire stations? 

Another comment left on the FCCL  blog said:-

 One West Yorkshire Fire Station has been informed by

management that it has reached it's monthly "allocated total"

 of deliberate fires, and that wherever possible the causes of

 these fires should be re-classified as unknown. 



Since when

was there an allocated total of any kind of

 fire?

If someone wanted to close a fire station, they would need to show it was not required any more. One way to try and show this would be to show that the amount of calls had dropped! 

-But if fire fire calls are still being received how could you do this?

EASY

Just send appliances from another station!

As an example, We at FCCL have been looking through the data supplied by WYF&RS. 

In the case of Gipton, which was ear-marked for closure last year, it has been noticed that there were in excess of 180 calls that were attended by appliances from Leeds Fire Station into the Burmantofts area, mainly to St James' Hospital.

Using the AA Route Planner - the favourite software of 

Mr Barnes, 

WYF&RS's  

Director of Corporate Resources

We concluded that the distance from 

Gipton Fire Station to the Hospital, was 1.80 miles 

whereas from 

Leeds Fire Station the distance was 2.80 miles.

As we all know seconds can make the difference  between life and death!

Another example was that of 

Garforth Fire Station 

being sent to 

Temple Newsam House! 

35 times!

again an AA Route planner was used.

Garforth to Temple Newsam 4.8 miles

Gipton to Temple Newsam 2.5 miles

Now don't forget, The Statistics don't lie

OR DO THEY?