Fucking hell, they didn’t look like this when I was a fireman!

20 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

Yes

He’s a Lineker loving slag who has no understanding of the real damage immigration causes. He wants to see us overrun. The other firefighters who raised the issues are the same & are all lying. 

I think the funniest thing about ‘debating’ with RW is the way he goes around calling people stupid, naive, mongos & flatdicks - whilst failing to understand something as simple as a ship for construction workers needing different health & safety protocols to a ship for asylum seekers. 

What you failed to understand is it was redesigned to house 472 Asylum seekers. 
 

Any wonder why those names get thrown about?

 

So when it all gets signed off, like any housing should have to. Will the like of you and cheese be happy? If not why not? 

Edited August 2, 20232 yr by royal white

Just now, royal white said:

What you failed to understand is it was redesigned to house 472 Asylum seekers. 
 

Any you wonder why those names get thrown about.

 

So when it all gets signed off, like any housing should have to. Will the like of you and cheese be happy? If not why not? 

@London Wanderer just seen you’ve answered. 

How long will it take for the barge to sail to Rwanda?

9 minutes ago, royal white said:

@London Wanderer just seen you’ve answered. 

Glad you’ve got your answers 👍 priorities have to be speeding up applications & better targeting of traffickers. Not punishing asylum seekers. Time will tell if the barge can help with the first one. 

I’d have expected a bit more empathy from you towards the fire service on this one though. Wonder why that could be ? 😂

Safety rules for those trained in safety initiatives are probably quite different than for those who think paddling a boat across 22+ miles of busy shipping lanes is safe enough for them to risk.

4 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

Glad you’ve got your answers 👍 priorities have to be speeding up applications & better targeting of traffickers. Not punishing asylum seekers. Time will tell if the barge can help with the first one. 

I’d have expected a bit more empathy from you towards the fire service on this one though. Wonder why that could be ? 😂

How are they being punished? 

43 minutes ago, royal white said:

How are they being punished? 

I don’t think they necessarily are. Though daft policies like Rwanda could be argued as doing so. Experiences tend to be different, some good some bad.. I just think the priorities should be humane treatment, clearing the backlog and right to work over hostile environment policies. The focus of hostilities should be on the traffickers. What do you think?

And you keep dodging the fire service questions 😉 why do you think they’re lying? 

58 minutes ago, MickyD said:

Safety rules for those trained in safety initiatives are probably quite different than for those who think paddling a boat across 22+ miles of busy shipping lanes is safe enough for them to risk.

Not sure what your point is here.

Should we relax the safety rules because of the risks they’ve already taken? Expect them to be grateful for whatever they’re given? 

I’m more of the opinion that we should give them a bit of safety, warmth and hospitality after that journey. But I’m just a woke hippy with my head in the sand 🙂

6 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

I don’t think they necessarily are. Though daft policies like Rwanda could be argued as doing so. Experiences tend to be different, some good some bad.. I just think the priorities should be humane treatment, clearing the backlog and right to work over hostile environment policies. The focus of hostilities should be on the traffickers. What do you think?

And you keep dodging the fire service questions 😉 why do you think they’re lying? 

If they’re safe then surely they will be passed? Fire chiefs for decades have regularly said high rise flats are death traps yet they’re still used. 

2 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

Not sure what your point is here.

Should we relax the safety rules because of the risks they’ve already taken? Expect them to be grateful for whatever they’re given? 

I’m more of the opinion that we should give them a bit of safety, warmth and hospitality after that journey. But I’m just a woke hippy with my head in the sand 🙂

Isn’t that what they get?
 

The safety rules won’t be relaxed, surley any accom they are put in will have to or already have passed all the relevant tests? 

Edited August 2, 20232 yr by royal white

20 minutes ago, royal white said:

Fire chiefs for decades have regularly said high rise flats are death traps yet they’re still used. 

is this correct @MickyD

19 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

Not sure what your point is here.

Should we relax the safety rules because of the risks they’ve already taken? Expect them to be grateful for whatever they’re given? 

I’m more of the opinion that we should give them a bit of safety, warmth and hospitality after that journey. But I’m just a woke hippy with my head in the sand 🙂

I'm pretty sure his point is that safety regulations on the barge will likely be more stringent for civilian inhabitants living there permanently for 18 months minimum, than they would be for trained oil rig workers who lived on the barge for short stints, in less cramped conditions.

3 minutes ago, Cheese said:

I'm pretty sure his point is that safety regulations on the barge will likely be more stringent for civilian inhabitants living there permanently for 18 months minimum, than they would be for trained oil rig workers who lived on the barge for short stints, in less cramped conditions.

18 months minimum? Where have you got that from? 
 

Surely the regs will be similar to those applied when 472 asylum seekers lived on board? 

7 minutes ago, royal white said:

18 months minimum? Where have you got that from? 
 

Surely the regs will be similar to those applied when 472 asylum seekers lived on board? 

https://news.sky.com/story/arrival-of-first-asylum-seekers-on-bibby-stockholm-barge-delayed-12927313

It will be operational for at least 18 months, with Dorset Council given £2m in a funding package to meet the cost of providing services to residents.

As for the regs, I was trying to explain MickyD's point. Maybe I've misunderstood him.

 

Edited August 2, 20232 yr by Cheese

30 minutes ago, royal white said:

Isn’t that what they get?
 

The safety rules won’t be relaxed, surley any accom they are put in will have to or already have passed all the relevant tests? 

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. As I said in my last post. It varies. Sometimes they end to in safe accommodation with a quick application process. Sometimes they end up being told they’re being sent to Rwanda. Or have to wait 5 years for a decision with no right to work.

There were some hotels that weren’t very safe & some that were. No experience is the same.

I’ve nothing against it if the barge isn’t too overcrowded & helps speed up applications. Clearly there are issues that need addressing beforehand. 
 

Not sure what you mean by ‘what about all the other high rise flats’. Let’s make them safe too.

11 minutes ago, Cheese said:

https://news.sky.com/story/arrival-of-first-asylum-seekers-on-bibby-stockholm-barge-delayed-12927313

It will be operational for at least 18 months, with Dorset Council given £2m in a funding package to meet the cost of providing services to residents.

As for the regs, I was trying to explain MickyD's point. Maybe I've misunderstood him.

 

Sorry, I read it as the asylum seekers would be there for a min of 18 months each, which obviously isn’t the plan. 

 

3 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. As I said in my last post. It varies. Sometimes they end to in safe accommodation with a quick application process. Sometimes they end up being told they’re being sent to Rwanda. Or have to wait 5 years for a decision with no right to work.

There were some hotels that weren’t very safe & some that were. No experience is the same.

I’ve nothing against it if the barge isn’t too overcrowded & helps speed up applications. Clearly there are issues that need addressing beforehand. 
 

Not sure what you mean by ‘what about all the other high rise flats’. Let’s make them safe too.

That’s not what I said. 

5 minutes ago, royal white said:

Sorry, I read it as the asylum seekers would be there for a min of 18 months each, which obviously isn’t the plan.

Well unless we start properly processing them again, what's going to happen? Fly them to Rwanda after a few months? Move them to hotels? What is the plan?

Edited August 2, 20232 yr by Cheese

1 minute ago, Cheese said:

Well unless we start properly processing them again, what's going to happen? Fly them to Rwanda after a few months? Move them to hotels?

3-6 months is the plan, 9 maximum. 
 

Once all fire and safety checks have been passed will you be happy? 

4 minutes ago, royal white said:

That’s not what I said. 

“Fire chiefs for decades have regularly said high rise flats are death traps yet they’re still used.”

What did you mean by what about the other dodgy flats? Do we ignore the fire brigade on the barge concerns and crack on because other unsafe accommodation exists? Or did you mean the fire service were wrong because these ‘death traps’ haven’t had a fire yet?

You’ve gone to a lot of effort today to claim the fire brigade are wrong. A lot of what about this and what about that.

Wouldn’t the simplest thing be to just acknowledge the fire service’s concerns and make it a little less overcrowded? Not worth the risk surely?

6 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

“Fire chiefs for decades have regularly said high rise flats are death traps yet they’re still used.”

What did you mean by what about the other dodgy flats? Do we ignore the fire brigade on the barge concerns and crack on because other unsafe accommodation exists? Or did you mean the fire service were wrong because these ‘death traps’ haven’t had a fire yet?

You’ve gone to a lot of effort today to claim the fire brigade are wrong. A lot of what about this and what about that.

Wouldn’t the simplest thing be to just acknowledge the fire service’s concerns and make it a little less overcrowded? Not worth the risk surely?

I’m not saying they’re lying, they’ve voiced concerns for decades yet they regularly pass tests. The question should be is the testing wrong? Do the fire service and Health and safety need to get together and discuss? I don’t know the answers and I very much doubt you do. 
 

All I’ve said from the beginning is the kind of accommodation is more than suffice, obviously this was said knowing that all tests would be carried out before anyone is put on there. 
 

Has the fire Union bloke been on the barge? Reading this it doesn’t sound like he has.

 

Speaking on Sky News, Mr Selby added that the union's main concern was the plans to house 500 people on a barge designed to accommodate about 200. 

"That then raises significant fire safety concerns for us, and also concerns that, if a fire was to break out on the Bibby, could firefighters make the adequate rescues and access where necessary," he said.

"By increasing that occupancy, then we would expect certain measures and assessments to be made to ensure that those that were being accommodated there were safe, and that firefighters - if and when they were needed to make access to the Bibby - they were also safe, or as safe as they could be in doing so when attempting to rescue people."

4 minutes ago, royal white said:

I’m not saying they’re lying, they’ve voiced concerns for decades yet they regularly pass tests. The question should be is the testing wrong? Do the fire service and Health and safety need to get together and discuss? I don’t know the answers and I very much doubt you do. 
 

All I’ve said from the beginning is the kind of accommodation is more than suffice, obviously this was said knowing that all tests would be carried out before anyone is put on there. 
 

Has the fire Union bloke been on the barge? Reading this it doesn’t sound like he has.

 

Speaking on Sky News, Mr Selby added that the union's main concern was the plans to house 500 people on a barge designed to accommodate about 200. 

"That then raises significant fire safety concerns for us, and also concerns that, if a fire was to break out on the Bibby, could firefighters make the adequate rescues and access where necessary," he said.

"By increasing that occupancy, then we would expect certain measures and assessments to be made to ensure that those that were being accommodated there were safe, and that firefighters - if and when they were needed to make access to the Bibby - they were also safe, or as safe as they could be in doing so when attempting to rescue people."

Seems like a very reasonable concern to raise to me. From an expert in their field. 
 

Maybe it’s not quite at the ‘more than suffice’ level just yet. But with a bit less people it can be. And yes, hopefully the HSE & fire service will work together on this one.

Less cues for the treadmill then. It’s a win win. 

3 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

Seems like a very reasonable concern to raise to me. From an expert in their field. 
 

Maybe it’s not quite at the ‘more than suffice’ level just yet. But with a bit less people it can be. And yes, hopefully the HSE & fire service will work together on this one.

Less cues for the treadmill then. It’s a win win. 

Probably is a concern from behind a desk. Like I said it would be interesting to know if he’s been on the barge. 

48 minutes ago, royal white said:

3-6 months is the plan, 9 maximum. 
 

Once all fire and safety checks have been passed will you be happy? 

Let's pretend the "9 months maximum" isn't just another meaningless target - where do they go after that?

And no, I'll take no delight in immigrants being housed on a barge regardless, but it is what it is. I'd prefer the Home Office to function properly and process them efficiently, but Suella Braverman would rather use them as political pawns.

22 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Let's pretend the "9 months maximum" isn't just another meaningless target - where do they go after that?

And no, I'll take no delight in immigrants being housed on a barge regardless, but it is what it is. I'd prefer the Home Office to function properly and process them efficiently, but Suella Braverman would rather use them as political pawns.

I’d guess that’s the time I’m which they will be processed, so either they will be allowed to stay  or returned. 
 

What exactly is wrong with a barge? It’s practically a hotel  

I'd much rather our government and councils try to house some of our own homeless, veterans, young people with MH issues, victims of domestic abuse etc etc,