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

6 minutes ago, athywhite1958 said:

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, 

Councils and government are trying. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/homelessness-code-of-guidance-for-local-authorities/overview-of-the-homelessness-legislation#:~:text=Under the Homelessness Act 2002,authority must provide reasonable assistance.
 

More needs to be done for sure, but it’s nonsense to suggest asylum seeker’s are being treated preferably. 

But let’s go with your narrative then.

Where would the asylum seekers go if we only focused on “our own”?

Is it really that radical to suggest we support all vulnerable groups of people where necessary?

1 hour ago, royal white said:

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

Behind a desk? He’s a fire chief. That requires a certain amount of expertise and experience no? I think he knows more about fire safety than me or you. But you seem keen to discredit him. 
 

The sky news link says they have doubled the capacity from what it originally was. The fire chief raises concerns about narrow halls, fire exits and the risks to his officers during a rescue. There are lots of pictures available from the barge no?

Several firefighters involved in Grenfell now have terminal cancer due to exposure. That was a preventable disaster if safety concerns had been listened to.

He just wants people and his staff to be safe. It’s about thinking ahead to things being manageable if there was an incident. 
 

The govn should be working with him, not getting defensive and calling him politically motivated. 

3 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

Behind a desk? He’s a fire chief. That requires a certain amount of expertise and experience no? I think he knows more about fire safety than me or you. But you seem keen to discredit him. 
 

The sky news link says they have doubled the capacity from what it originally was. The fire chief raises concerns about narrow halls, fire exits and the risks to his officers during a rescue. There are lots of pictures available from the barge no?

Several firefighters involved in Grenfell now have terminal cancer due to exposure. That was a preventable disaster if safety concerns had been listened to.

He just wants people and his staff to be safe. It’s about thinking ahead to things being manageable if there was an incident. 
 

The govn should be working with him, not getting defensive and calling him politically motivated. 

Of course but if someone told me or anyone for that matter, that they were cramming 500 people into a barge fit for 200 then I would think it’s a risk. If someone had said the barge has passed safety tests all over the world and in some cases up to a maximum of almost 500 people then I wouldn’t be as quick to suggest it’s a death trap. 
 

Now health and safety have been on board and haven’t  brought up any fire safety dangers at present. I’m tending to side with them over the fire chief who hasn’t been on board (if he’s not). 

So long as these barges are safe I see no issue.

It’s got to be better than a cardboard box on the outskirts of Calais.

it boils down to processing.

Which needs some proper money thrown at it.

But, as has been pointed out, an efficient and successful system which filters out the good and bad would render the migrants almost worthless in a political bunfight.

Far better to keep them rudderless and piled up near voters.

37 minutes ago, royal white said:

Of course but if someone told me or anyone for that matter, that they were cramming 500 people into a barge fit for 200 then I would think it’s a risk. If someone had said the barge has passed safety tests all over the world and in some cases up to a maximum of almost 500 people then I wouldn’t be as quick to suggest it’s a death trap. 
 

Now health and safety have been on board and haven’t  brought up any fire safety dangers at present. I’m tending to side with them over the fire chief who hasn’t been on board (if he’s not). 

“A Home Office source confirmed reports that fire safety issues did lead to initial setbacks”. From Sky again. Looks like there were concerns that have been sorted. 

Has this barge been used before to house 500 before out of interest?

I really don’t think it’s a case of taking sides on this one. They are very genuine concerns, just listen to them and work with the fire service. But our government doesn’t have much of a track record of listening to public services over the past 12 years, so there are no surprises here. Just strange that you are lapping up their rhetoric after praising the expertise of fire chiefs only last week. 

6 minutes ago, Spider said:

So long as these barges are safe I see no issue.

It’s got to be better than a cardboard box on the outskirts of Calais.

it boils down to processing.

Which needs some proper money thrown at it.

But, as has been pointed out, an efficient and successful system which filters out the good and bad would render the migrants almost worthless in a political bunfight.

Far better to keep them rudderless and piled up near voters.

What? An en-suite room, with free wifi, free food, gym, TV room, transport into town, 24hr security, health service etc etc is better than a cardboard box? Have you seen the boxes in Calais? 

4 minutes ago, royal white said:

What? An en-suite room, with free wifi, free food, gym, TV room, transport into town, 24hr security, health service etc etc is better than a cardboard box? Have you seen the boxes in Calais? 

Aye. It’s free, and assuming it’s safe, there really should be no complaints.

That said, the daily bill is astronomical and I refuse to believe that it wouldn’t make sound economic sense to spend the money on a more efficient processing system.

I can only assume the political will to do so isn’t there. 

9 minutes ago, Spider said:

 

it boils down to processing.

Which needs some proper money thrown at it.

But, as has been pointed out, an efficient and successful system which filters out the good and bad would render the migrants almost worthless in a political bunfight.

1 hour ago, Cheese said:

I'd prefer the Home Office to function properly and process them efficiently, but Suella Braverman would rather use them as political pawns.

This is the reason we have issues. 

It is strange that they have struggled so much to clear the backlog. When all it takes is more staff & investment. But they’ve wasted so much money on failed policies like Rwanda
 

Why do you that is @royal white

2 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

“A Home Office source confirmed reports that fire safety issues did lead to initial setbacks”. From Sky again. Looks like there were concerns that have been sorted. 

Has this barge been used before to house 500 before out of interest?

I really don’t think it’s a case of taking sides on this one. They are very genuine concerns, just listen to them and work with the fire service. But our government doesn’t have much of a track record of listening to public services over the past 12 years, so there are no surprises here. Just strange that you are lapping up their rhetoric after praising the expertise of fire chiefs only last week. 

That’s why I said at present.

 

Let’s remember this fire chief you refer to isn’t a chief, he’s also heavily involved with the Labour Party so I’m guessing he will do whatever is possible to try and put a Tory idea under the spotlight. If he has been onboard and spotted the problems then fair enough. Im sure he will point them out to whoever is doing the signing off and the problem will be rectified. However my guess is he’s been no where near the barge. Happy to be proven wrong .

1 hour ago, London Wanderer said:

Councils and government are trying. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/homelessness-code-of-guidance-for-local-authorities/overview-of-the-homelessness-legislation#:~:text=Under the Homelessness Act 2002,authority must provide reasonable assistance.
 

More needs to be done for sure, but it’s nonsense to suggest asylum seeker’s are being treated preferably. 

But let’s go with your narrative then.

Where would the asylum seekers go if we only focused on “our own”?

Is it really that radical to suggest we support all vulnerable groups of people where necessary?

I agree to supporting all vulnerable groups (except those here illegally, my personal view) I work with homeless people and they cannot get accommodation because all the hotels and temporary accommodation are taken up mostly by foreign nationals, I can only speak for the Greater Manchester area

5 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

This is the reason we have issues. 

It is strange that they have struggled so much to clear the backlog. When all it takes is more staff & investment. But they’ve wasted so much money on failed policies like Rwanda
 

Why do you that is @royal white

I’m guessing you mean think that is? 
 

Probably a massive increase of people coming over, was anyone expecting/prepared for the massive increase over the last few years? 

Edited August 2, 20232 yr by royal white

1 minute ago, royal white said:

I’m guessing you mean think that is? 
 

Probably a massive increase of people coming over, was anyone expecting/prepared for massive increase the last few years? 

Well, we were told Brexit would effectively put an end to it.

So, fair point. No one was prepared for that to fail.

7 minutes ago, royal white said:

That’s why I said at present.

 

Let’s remember this fire chief you refer to isn’t a chief, he’s also heavily involved with the Labour Party so I’m guessing he will do whatever is possible to try and put a Tory idea under the spotlight. If he has been onboard and spotted the problems then fair enough. Im sure he will point them out to whoever is doing the signing off and the problem will be rectified. However my guess is he’s been no where near the barge. Happy to be proven wrong .

Why would he need to go on board. A look at  the plans of the  vessel would be all he would need to asses whether it was compliant with Fire Regulations.

2 minutes ago, Nowack said:

Why would he need to go on board. A look at  the plans of the  vessel would be all he would need to asses whether it was compliant with Fire Regulations.

So the health and safety guy hasn’t seen an issue, numerous other countries haven’t seen an issue. But Ben in his office (why would he have seen the plans?) sees an issue.

 

Ok then 👍

18 minutes ago, Spider said:

Aye. It’s free, and assuming it’s safe, there really should be no complaints.

That said, the daily bill is astronomical and I refuse to believe that it wouldn’t make sound economic sense to spend the money on a more efficient processing system.

I can only assume the political will to do so isn’t there. 

Personally I can’t see how it’s cheaper than hotels but hey Ho

2 minutes ago, royal white said:

Personally I can’t see how it’s cheaper than hotels but hey Ho

Hotels, barges, portakabins whatever.

My point is that if we process them within a month, the cost to keep them in these temporary accommodations comes right down.

It’s basics, this.

I just think they make good political fodder, and Braverman needs them to be causing a headache.

 

6 minutes ago, royal white said:

So the health and safety guy hasn’t seen an issue, numerous other countries haven’t seen an issue. But Ben in his office (why would he have seen the plans?) sees an issue.

 

Ok then 👍

If Welephant looks at the plans and they are not compliant then we have an issue. We have pretty comprehensive set of regulations which set out minimum escape widths, number of escape routes, smoke ventilation, maximum escape distance etc. If the plans indicate these are not met then they are not met. Someone has to take responsibility for this in the case of a fire, maybe this H&S guy you mention, and he would be pretty bold to go against the advise of the fire service.

1 minute ago, Nowack said:

 

If Welephant looks at the plans and they are not compliant then we have an issue. We have pretty comprehensive set of regulations which set out minimum escape widths, number of escape routes, smoke ventilation, maximum escape distance etc. If the plans indicate these are not met then they are not met. Someone has to take responsibility for this in the case of a fire, maybe this H&S guy you mention, and he would be pretty bold to go against the advise of the fire service.

I’m guessing he’s stuck to the guidelines as there would be a lot of shit coming his way if he didn’t.

What advice as he had off the fire service? 

4 hours ago, royal white said:

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. 

4 hours ago, Casino said:

is this correct @MickyD

No, not in my experience. A 15 storey block of high-rise in theory, ought to behave in exactly the same way as 15 terraced houses in a street. A fire in one ought to be contained to that floor/dwelling without affecting those above or below (flats) or next door (terrace). (Save for the unavoidable smell of smoke)

London Fire Brigade employ a “Stay put; we’ll come and get you” policy which is designed to ensure the exit staircase isn’t clogged with escaping inhabitants coming down as the firefighters are trying to go up. That way, anyone below the fire would be low risk and each floor above would decrease in urgency and therefore need for speedy rescue.

What they don’t account for is contractors strapping the equivalent of huge blocks of firelighters on the outside of the building which made all the in-built fire separation measures redundant.

4 hours 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 🙂

My point is they couldn’t give a fuck about H&S. 

Edited August 2, 20232 yr by MickyD

12 minutes ago, Nowack said:

 

If Welephant looks at the plans and they are not compliant then we have an issue. We have pretty comprehensive set of regulations which set out minimum escape widths, number of escape routes, smoke ventilation, maximum escape distance etc. If the plans indicate these are not met then they are not met. Someone has to take responsibility for this in the case of a fire, maybe this H&S guy you mention, and he would be pretty bold to go against the advise of the fire service.

I’m fairly sure this won’t be classed as ‘advice’ and more legislation. If the fire service say you aren’t allowed to inhabit this barge then you just aren’t allowed to inhabit it.

5 minutes ago, royal white said:

I’m guessing he’s stuck to the guidelines as there would be a lot of shit coming his way if he didn’t.

What advice as he had off the fire service? 

I am still trying to figure out who this H&S bloke is to be honest and I am also unsure as to whether this as a vessel rather than a building has a different set of regulations. The fire service have made a comment that they provided "advice and comment" which usually means that you really need to take a look at this because if you go ahead we may take enforcement. At the end of the day a responsible person will need to take responsibility and this may be your H&S person. 

2 hours ago, royal white said:

That’s why I said at present.

 

Let’s remember this fire chief you refer to isn’t a chief, he’s also heavily involved with the Labour Party so I’m guessing he will do whatever is possible to try and put a Tory idea under the spotlight. If he has been onboard and spotted the problems then fair enough. Im sure he will point them out to whoever is doing the signing off and the problem will be rectified. However my guess is he’s been no where near the barge. Happy to be proven wrong .

“Ben has served as a firefighter in Lincolnshire for 18 years and was elected to the executive council two years ago having previously served as brigade chair, brigade secretary, regional vice chair and regional secretary” 

I’d put my money on him being Labour. But who knows, I don’t think its particularly relevant here. What’s clear are his reasons and the concerns of the members appear pretty genuine. He’s motivated by keeping people & his staff safe, not political point scoring. 

2 hours ago, royal white said:

I’m guessing you mean think that is? 
 

Probably a massive increase of people coming over, was anyone expecting/prepared for the massive increase over the last few years? 

Aye, cheers. 
 

That would be a fair point. As I said, I’m not against the barge to accommodate arrivals if it’s not overloaded and is safe. And most importantly it helps clear the backlog. It’s so obvious Rwanda is a massive waste of money when all the experts are telling Sunak to focus on the backlog. The 2023 target is already set to fail. Which raises the  question as to whether they really are trying, or just being seen to try?

 Do you think they are making a good job of it? 

 

2 hours ago, athywhite1958 said:

I agree to supporting all vulnerable groups (except those here illegally, my personal view) I work with homeless people and they cannot get accommodation because all the hotels and temporary accommodation are taken up mostly by foreign nationals, I can only speak for the Greater Manchester area

Then we agree 👍

You’ll know more than me in regards to GM. Homelessness has been an issue long before increased numbers of channel crossings. We have to help them all surely. Not quite sure what the alternative is. What Covid showed is when there’s a need to, we can house them all. 

There’s been a lot of misinformation about the situation to be fair.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-uk-housing-48000-illegal-im-idUSKCN2592DV
 

 

I can't believe a thread that should've been about stalking pretty firepeople and then just good looking women in general has descended into yet another political row

3 hours ago, athywhite1958 said:

I agree to supporting all vulnerable groups (except those here illegally, my personal view) I work with homeless people and they cannot get accommodation because all the hotels and temporary accommodation are taken up mostly by foreign nationals, I can only speak for the Greater Manchester area

We can only determine if someone is here "illegally" if we process them properly. Which we aren't doing for purely political reasons. The Home Office are just sticking them in hotels or on a barge or on a flight to Rwanda, so at the next General Election the Government can say "Look at this lot costing you a fortune! Vote for us and we will be tough on Illegal Immigration!". Simple as that.