24-hour fire strike on in Swindon as national dispute heats up

Firefighters pictured outside Drove fire station on a previous strike against proposed changes to their pensions

Firefighters pictured outside Drove fire station on a previous strike against proposed changes to their pensions

First published in News by , Reporter

FIREFIGHTERS will be taking to the picket lines again on Thursday as their pension dispute with the Government shows no sign of ending.

The 24-hour action, starting at 9am, will see staff from Swindon, Stratton and Westlea stations take part in the national strike.

This is the latest industrial action by the Fire Brigades’ Union protesting against plans for them to pay higher pension contributions, work into their late 50s before retiring and face being sacked if their fitness declines as they get older.

Brent Thornley, the FBU’s south west secretary, said: “Every time we have returned from strikes we have met with the Government but negotiations don’t seem to go forward.

“We want to sort this out properly through proper discussions but it feels like the Government wants to challenge the union rather than work with it.

“Since the last strike, a few weeks ago, we have got nowhere and this is the reason we have decided to strike again as this is a critical period and we need to have proper discussions.

“As it stands I don’t see any resolution to the dispute.

“Thankfully, we’ve had good positive support from the public, which is important. It is nice to feel that they are behind us and I believe one of the reasons they are is because they face similar problems in their jobs.”

The union’s members also intend to strike for seven hours, to highlight the dispute, from 10am on Saturday, June 21.

Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service is currently finalising its contingency plans for both days of action.

“By walking out for 24 hours, which will be the longest strike action so far, the FBU is clearly out to cause the maximum disruption,” said Simon Routh-Jones, the region’s chief fire officer.

“As I have said before, the union’s dispute is with the Government, yet the impact of these strikes is entirely on individual services and the communities we are here to protect.

“As on previous occasions, we will be making every effort to provide the best possible emergency response for people in Wiltshire and Swindon, but we will be operating with reduced resources and this will have an effect.

“During the strike periods, we will still respond to 999 calls, but it may take us a little longer than usual to arrive and, with larger premises, we may send a smaller attendance than usual in the first instance.”

For more information about the fire service cover available during the strikes visit www.wiltsfire.gov.uk

Comments (37)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:11am Tue 10 Jun 14

The Real Librarian says...

Another triumphant performance from the Government.

What is the view of our local MP's on this issue? Where do they stand.

Its an election year. We should know their views on everything.
Another triumphant performance from the Government. What is the view of our local MP's on this issue? Where do they stand. Its an election year. We should know their views on everything. The Real Librarian
  • Score: -2

9:49am Tue 10 Jun 14

stfcdod says...

The Real Librarian wrote:
Another triumphant performance from the Government.

What is the view of our local MP's on this issue? Where do they stand.

Its an election year. We should know their views on everything.
I'm not at all surprised that the talks are getting nowhere. This is mainly due to the intransigence of the FBU. Why should we have to subsidise the huge pensions they get when only 55 years old?
[quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: Another triumphant performance from the Government. What is the view of our local MP's on this issue? Where do they stand. Its an election year. We should know their views on everything.[/p][/quote]I'm not at all surprised that the talks are getting nowhere. This is mainly due to the intransigence of the FBU. Why should we have to subsidise the huge pensions they get when only 55 years old? stfcdod
  • Score: 20

10:15am Tue 10 Jun 14

ChannelX says...

The problem with the Union is that they won't accept things have 'moved forward' until they've got exactly what they want.

Like so many people, these days, they confuse 'democracy' with 'getting what I want'.

It's clearly ludicrous to potentially be paying people large pensions for c.35 years - sometimes longer than their entire working lives.
The problem with the Union is that they won't accept things have 'moved forward' until they've got exactly what they want. Like so many people, these days, they confuse 'democracy' with 'getting what I want'. It's clearly ludicrous to potentially be paying people large pensions for c.35 years - sometimes longer than their entire working lives. ChannelX
  • Score: 28

10:41am Tue 10 Jun 14

Davey Gravey says...

I fully support the fire fighters.
Maybe if people listened to them and read about it they may too?
People seem to read the headlines only before going off on one.
I fully support the fire fighters. Maybe if people listened to them and read about it they may too? People seem to read the headlines only before going off on one. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -17

11:18am Tue 10 Jun 14

ChannelX says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
I fully support the fire fighters.
Maybe if people listened to them and read about it they may too?
People seem to read the headlines only before going off on one.
If you're prepared to pay additional taxes in order to fund people receiving bigger pensions than most people once they turn 55 years old, that's fine.

However, many people resent those such as yourself who seem to believe you should be able to impose your ideologies on everyone else.

Most working people in this country will never achieve a pension as large as firefighters, nor receive it for anywhere near as long. Part of the reason for that is due to having to pay so much tax to fund generous public sector pensions. And you think that's reasonable?
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: I fully support the fire fighters. Maybe if people listened to them and read about it they may too? People seem to read the headlines only before going off on one.[/p][/quote]If you're prepared to pay additional taxes in order to fund people receiving bigger pensions than most people once they turn 55 years old, that's fine. However, many people resent those such as yourself who seem to believe you should be able to impose your ideologies on everyone else. Most working people in this country will never achieve a pension as large as firefighters, nor receive it for anywhere near as long. Part of the reason for that is due to having to pay so much tax to fund generous public sector pensions. And you think that's reasonable? ChannelX
  • Score: 15

11:24am Tue 10 Jun 14

Phantom Poster says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
I fully support the fire fighters.
Maybe if people listened to them and read about it they may too?
People seem to read the headlines only before going off on one.
So you're basically saying that if someone disagrees with you then unlike you they don't know the facts! What a condescending ****
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: I fully support the fire fighters. Maybe if people listened to them and read about it they may too? People seem to read the headlines only before going off on one.[/p][/quote]So you're basically saying that if someone disagrees with you then unlike you they don't know the facts! What a condescending **** Phantom Poster
  • Score: 23

11:27am Tue 10 Jun 14

Davey Gravey says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
I fully support the fire fighters.
Maybe if people listened to them and read about it they may too?
People seem to read the headlines only before going off on one.
So you're basically saying that if someone disagrees with you then unlike you they don't know the facts! What a condescending ****
That's not what I'm saying at all. Good day to you too.
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: I fully support the fire fighters. Maybe if people listened to them and read about it they may too? People seem to read the headlines only before going off on one.[/p][/quote]So you're basically saying that if someone disagrees with you then unlike you they don't know the facts! What a condescending ****[/p][/quote]That's not what I'm saying at all. Good day to you too. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -16

11:54am Tue 10 Jun 14

ChannelX says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Phantom Poster wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
I fully support the fire fighters.
Maybe if people listened to them and read about it they may too?
People seem to read the headlines only before going off on one.
So you're basically saying that if someone disagrees with you then unlike you they don't know the facts! What a condescending ****
That's not what I'm saying at all. Good day to you too.
Not nice when people insult you, is it Mr Gravey? Looks like you just got a dose of your own medicine.

BTW, Phantom Poster was correct, that's EXACTLY what you were saying.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: I fully support the fire fighters. Maybe if people listened to them and read about it they may too? People seem to read the headlines only before going off on one.[/p][/quote]So you're basically saying that if someone disagrees with you then unlike you they don't know the facts! What a condescending ****[/p][/quote]That's not what I'm saying at all. Good day to you too.[/p][/quote]Not nice when people insult you, is it Mr Gravey? Looks like you just got a dose of your own medicine. BTW, Phantom Poster was correct, that's EXACTLY what you were saying. ChannelX
  • Score: 14

12:10pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Davey Gravey says...

ChannelX wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Phantom Poster wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
I fully support the fire fighters.
Maybe if people listened to them and read about it they may too?
People seem to read the headlines only before going off on one.
So you're basically saying that if someone disagrees with you then unlike you they don't know the facts! What a condescending ****
That's not what I'm saying at all. Good day to you too.
Not nice when people insult you, is it Mr Gravey? Looks like you just got a dose of your own medicine.

BTW, Phantom Poster was correct, that's EXACTLY what you were saying.
Still trolling and hitting those thumbs eh ringer, tim newroman, CHANNELx, etc, etc.
Not even going to bother with you. Happy Tuesday.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: I fully support the fire fighters. Maybe if people listened to them and read about it they may too? People seem to read the headlines only before going off on one.[/p][/quote]So you're basically saying that if someone disagrees with you then unlike you they don't know the facts! What a condescending ****[/p][/quote]That's not what I'm saying at all. Good day to you too.[/p][/quote]Not nice when people insult you, is it Mr Gravey? Looks like you just got a dose of your own medicine. BTW, Phantom Poster was correct, that's EXACTLY what you were saying.[/p][/quote]Still trolling and hitting those thumbs eh ringer, tim newroman, CHANNELx, etc, etc. Not even going to bother with you. Happy Tuesday. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -10

12:17pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Davey Gravey says...

I made an observational comment. Couldn't care less i f people agree with me or not. There was nothing contained in the comment to suggest otherwise. Couldn't care less of people abuse me too. It looks a bit silly abusing someone for an opinion they do not have though.
I made an observational comment. Couldn't care less i f people agree with me or not. There was nothing contained in the comment to suggest otherwise. Couldn't care less of people abuse me too. It looks a bit silly abusing someone for an opinion they do not have though. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -11

12:29pm Tue 10 Jun 14

mrwoo says...

Anyone with a shiny helmet and a long hose deserves a bigger pension in my humble opinion!
Anyone with a shiny helmet and a long hose deserves a bigger pension in my humble opinion! mrwoo
  • Score: 9

12:34pm Tue 10 Jun 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

The problem is that by keeping and paying for expensive Old firefighters, we put ourselves at risk, do we want fit, strong, healthy firefighters or do we want health and safety conscious, pre-retirement age firefighters?
If we listen to the firefighters and Unions, people will die in Swindon
The problem is that by keeping and paying for expensive Old firefighters, we put ourselves at risk, do we want fit, strong, healthy firefighters or do we want health and safety conscious, pre-retirement age firefighters? If we listen to the firefighters and Unions, people will die in Swindon A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: -5

12:39pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Ollie Dognacky says...

ChannelZero and his alter-egos still stalking Davey Gravey I see 👀
ChannelZero and his alter-egos still stalking Davey Gravey I see 👀 Ollie Dognacky
  • Score: 0

12:41pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Hmmmf says...

A.B-C wrote:
If we listen to the firefighters and Unions, people will die in Swindon

That's what they want you to believe. The truth is active firefighters will still have to pass the required fitness tests, so there'll be no increase in 'risk' as you're suggesting.
[quote][p][bold]A.B-C[/bold] wrote: If we listen to the firefighters and Unions, people will die in Swindon[/quote] That's what they want you to believe. The truth is active firefighters will still have to pass the required fitness tests, so there'll be no increase in 'risk' as you're suggesting. Hmmmf
  • Score: 12

12:43pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Davey Gravey says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The problem is that by keeping and paying for expensive Old firefighters, we put ourselves at risk, do we want fit, strong, healthy firefighters or do we want health and safety conscious, pre-retirement age firefighters?
If we listen to the firefighters and Unions, people will die in Swindon
The union and fire fighters don't want to be an ageing service. It's part of their complaint.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: The problem is that by keeping and paying for expensive Old firefighters, we put ourselves at risk, do we want fit, strong, healthy firefighters or do we want health and safety conscious, pre-retirement age firefighters? If we listen to the firefighters and Unions, people will die in Swindon[/p][/quote]The union and fire fighters don't want to be an ageing service. It's part of their complaint. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -12

12:50pm Tue 10 Jun 14

ChannelX says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Phantom Poster wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
I fully support the fire fighters.
Maybe if people listened to them and read about it they may too?
People seem to read the headlines only before going off on one.
So you're basically saying that if someone disagrees with you then unlike you they don't know the facts! What a condescending ****
That's not what I'm saying at all. Good day to you too.
Not nice when people insult you, is it Mr Gravey? Looks like you just got a dose of your own medicine.

BTW, Phantom Poster was correct, that's EXACTLY what you were saying.
Still trolling and hitting those thumbs eh ringer, tim newroman, CHANNELx, etc, etc.
Not even going to bother with you. Happy Tuesday.
Er, you just did 'bother with me'.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: I fully support the fire fighters. Maybe if people listened to them and read about it they may too? People seem to read the headlines only before going off on one.[/p][/quote]So you're basically saying that if someone disagrees with you then unlike you they don't know the facts! What a condescending ****[/p][/quote]That's not what I'm saying at all. Good day to you too.[/p][/quote]Not nice when people insult you, is it Mr Gravey? Looks like you just got a dose of your own medicine. BTW, Phantom Poster was correct, that's EXACTLY what you were saying.[/p][/quote]Still trolling and hitting those thumbs eh ringer, tim newroman, CHANNELx, etc, etc. Not even going to bother with you. Happy Tuesday.[/p][/quote]Er, you just did 'bother with me'. ChannelX
  • Score: 3

12:52pm Tue 10 Jun 14

ChannelX says...

Ollie Dognacky wrote:
ChannelZero and his alter-egos still stalking Davey Gravey I see 👀
How ironic, I Too / Empty Car Park / Still About... and still 'following' me (as you people like to put it).
[quote][p][bold]Ollie Dognacky[/bold] wrote: ChannelZero and his alter-egos still stalking Davey Gravey I see 👀[/p][/quote]How ironic, I Too / Empty Car Park / Still About... and still 'following' me (as you people like to put it). ChannelX
  • Score: 6

1:15pm Tue 10 Jun 14

stfcdod says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Phantom Poster wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
I fully support the fire fighters.
Maybe if people listened to them and read about it they may too?
People seem to read the headlines only before going off on one.
So you're basically saying that if someone disagrees with you then unlike you they don't know the facts! What a condescending ****
That's not what I'm saying at all. Good day to you too.
Not nice when people insult you, is it Mr Gravey? Looks like you just got a dose of your own medicine.

BTW, Phantom Poster was correct, that's EXACTLY what you were saying.
Still trolling and hitting those thumbs eh ringer, tim newroman, CHANNELx, etc, etc.
Not even going to bother with you. Happy Tuesday.
Argument lost I believe.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: I fully support the fire fighters. Maybe if people listened to them and read about it they may too? People seem to read the headlines only before going off on one.[/p][/quote]So you're basically saying that if someone disagrees with you then unlike you they don't know the facts! What a condescending ****[/p][/quote]That's not what I'm saying at all. Good day to you too.[/p][/quote]Not nice when people insult you, is it Mr Gravey? Looks like you just got a dose of your own medicine. BTW, Phantom Poster was correct, that's EXACTLY what you were saying.[/p][/quote]Still trolling and hitting those thumbs eh ringer, tim newroman, CHANNELx, etc, etc. Not even going to bother with you. Happy Tuesday.[/p][/quote]Argument lost I believe. stfcdod
  • Score: 9

1:26pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Davey Gravey says...

stfcdod wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Phantom Poster wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
I fully support the fire fighters.
Maybe if people listened to them and read about it they may too?
People seem to read the headlines only before going off on one.
So you're basically saying that if someone disagrees with you then unlike you they don't know the facts! What a condescending ****
That's not what I'm saying at all. Good day to you too.
Not nice when people insult you, is it Mr Gravey? Looks like you just got a dose of your own medicine.

BTW, Phantom Poster was correct, that's EXACTLY what you were saying.
Still trolling and hitting those thumbs eh ringer, tim newroman, CHANNELx, etc, etc.
Not even going to bother with you. Happy Tuesday.
Argument lost I believe.
Not trying to win an argument. Which argument would that be?
[quote][p][bold]stfcdod[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: I fully support the fire fighters. Maybe if people listened to them and read about it they may too? People seem to read the headlines only before going off on one.[/p][/quote]So you're basically saying that if someone disagrees with you then unlike you they don't know the facts! What a condescending ****[/p][/quote]That's not what I'm saying at all. Good day to you too.[/p][/quote]Not nice when people insult you, is it Mr Gravey? Looks like you just got a dose of your own medicine. BTW, Phantom Poster was correct, that's EXACTLY what you were saying.[/p][/quote]Still trolling and hitting those thumbs eh ringer, tim newroman, CHANNELx, etc, etc. Not even going to bother with you. Happy Tuesday.[/p][/quote]Argument lost I believe.[/p][/quote]Not trying to win an argument. Which argument would that be? Davey Gravey
  • Score: -6

1:29pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Davey Gravey says...

The thumb fiddler is working overtime today. I find the desperation of it hilarious. Does make me chuckle
The thumb fiddler is working overtime today. I find the desperation of it hilarious. Does make me chuckle Davey Gravey
  • Score: -13

2:01pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Phantom Poster says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
The thumb fiddler is working overtime today. I find the desperation of it hilarious. Does make me chuckle
My god, you are so full of your own self importance! Do you honestly think that people are so obsessed by your posts that they are going to spend time and effort trying to fiddle the thumbs vote (which mo-one else really cares about).

Here's a suggestion - you get a lot of negative votes because your views are unpopular. There you are - a nice simple explanation with no need for paranoia.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: The thumb fiddler is working overtime today. I find the desperation of it hilarious. Does make me chuckle[/p][/quote]My god, you are so full of your own self importance! Do you honestly think that people are so obsessed by your posts that they are going to spend time and effort trying to fiddle the thumbs vote (which mo-one else really cares about). Here's a suggestion - you get a lot of negative votes because your views are unpopular. There you are - a nice simple explanation with no need for paranoia. Phantom Poster
  • Score: 12

2:17pm Tue 10 Jun 14

KeyboardWarri0r says...

I can see both sides, I'm not sure what age firefighters are being asked to work to, but upto 60 people should be able to cope with fairly demanding work. How about trying to split the service and create a new service, the younger ones deal with the fires and intense heat and extrememly difficult conditions where they save lives, and the older firefighters attend car crashes and other things etc. Perhaps it is putting a lot of strain on people aged 55-60 to be able to carry fully grown dead weight adults out of burning buildings in extreme heat, but I have no doubt they could do a lot of the work required.

I have to say I don't resent them being able to retire at 55, I've never needed them, but if I ever did I would want someone capable of the job, and anyone who does resent this, wouldn't if their lives or their families lives are saved by one.
I can see both sides, I'm not sure what age firefighters are being asked to work to, but upto 60 people should be able to cope with fairly demanding work. How about trying to split the service and create a new service, the younger ones deal with the fires and intense heat and extrememly difficult conditions where they save lives, and the older firefighters attend car crashes and other things etc. Perhaps it is putting a lot of strain on people aged 55-60 to be able to carry fully grown dead weight adults out of burning buildings in extreme heat, but I have no doubt they could do a lot of the work required. I have to say I don't resent them being able to retire at 55, I've never needed them, but if I ever did I would want someone capable of the job, and anyone who does resent this, wouldn't if their lives or their families lives are saved by one. KeyboardWarri0r
  • Score: 1

2:21pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Davey Gravey says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
The thumb fiddler is working overtime today. I find the desperation of it hilarious. Does make me chuckle
My god, you are so full of your own self importance! Do you honestly think that people are so obsessed by your posts that they are going to spend time and effort trying to fiddle the thumbs vote (which mo-one else really cares about).

Here's a suggestion - you get a lot of negative votes because your views are unpopular. There you are - a nice simple explanation with no need for paranoia.
Instant multiple up and down voting gives the game away. You've noted it yourself previously. The rest of your post again is a wrong assumption about me. Never mind, I suppose I'll cope. Lol
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: The thumb fiddler is working overtime today. I find the desperation of it hilarious. Does make me chuckle[/p][/quote]My god, you are so full of your own self importance! Do you honestly think that people are so obsessed by your posts that they are going to spend time and effort trying to fiddle the thumbs vote (which mo-one else really cares about). Here's a suggestion - you get a lot of negative votes because your views are unpopular. There you are - a nice simple explanation with no need for paranoia.[/p][/quote]Instant multiple up and down voting gives the game away. You've noted it yourself previously. The rest of your post again is a wrong assumption about me. Never mind, I suppose I'll cope. Lol Davey Gravey
  • Score: -9

2:22pm Tue 10 Jun 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The problem is that by keeping and paying for expensive Old firefighters, we put ourselves at risk, do we want fit, strong, healthy firefighters or do we want health and safety conscious, pre-retirement age firefighters?
If we listen to the firefighters and Unions, people will die in Swindon
The union and fire fighters don't want to be an ageing service. It's part of their complaint.
No they want to get a nice taxpayers funded pension and retire early! to that I say dream on!
Scrap the Fire service and let it be run by a private company: this could be covered by a private insurance scheme, with a fee to be paid when calling in, just like we do for boiler / plumbing cover.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: The problem is that by keeping and paying for expensive Old firefighters, we put ourselves at risk, do we want fit, strong, healthy firefighters or do we want health and safety conscious, pre-retirement age firefighters? If we listen to the firefighters and Unions, people will die in Swindon[/p][/quote]The union and fire fighters don't want to be an ageing service. It's part of their complaint.[/p][/quote]No they want to get a nice taxpayers funded pension and retire early! to that I say dream on! Scrap the Fire service and let it be run by a private company: this could be covered by a private insurance scheme, with a fee to be paid when calling in, just like we do for boiler / plumbing cover. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: 2

2:36pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Phantom Poster says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Phantom Poster wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
The thumb fiddler is working overtime today. I find the desperation of it hilarious. Does make me chuckle
My god, you are so full of your own self importance! Do you honestly think that people are so obsessed by your posts that they are going to spend time and effort trying to fiddle the thumbs vote (which mo-one else really cares about).

Here's a suggestion - you get a lot of negative votes because your views are unpopular. There you are - a nice simple explanation with no need for paranoia.
Instant multiple up and down voting gives the game away. You've noted it yourself previously. The rest of your post again is a wrong assumption about me. Never mind, I suppose I'll cope. Lol
I've never once noted anything about the thumbs system. Frankly I tend not to even notice they are there.

As you don't know how many simultaneous users are on the Adver web siite and what buffering of data might be involved, your deduction has absolutely no technical merit.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: The thumb fiddler is working overtime today. I find the desperation of it hilarious. Does make me chuckle[/p][/quote]My god, you are so full of your own self importance! Do you honestly think that people are so obsessed by your posts that they are going to spend time and effort trying to fiddle the thumbs vote (which mo-one else really cares about). Here's a suggestion - you get a lot of negative votes because your views are unpopular. There you are - a nice simple explanation with no need for paranoia.[/p][/quote]Instant multiple up and down voting gives the game away. You've noted it yourself previously. The rest of your post again is a wrong assumption about me. Never mind, I suppose I'll cope. Lol[/p][/quote]I've never once noted anything about the thumbs system. Frankly I tend not to even notice they are there. As you don't know how many simultaneous users are on the Adver web siite and what buffering of data might be involved, your deduction has absolutely no technical merit. Phantom Poster
  • Score: 4

2:38pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Davey Gravey says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The problem is that by keeping and paying for expensive Old firefighters, we put ourselves at risk, do we want fit, strong, healthy firefighters or do we want health and safety conscious, pre-retirement age firefighters?
If we listen to the firefighters and Unions, people will die in Swindon
The union and fire fighters don't want to be an ageing service. It's part of their complaint.
No they want to get a nice taxpayers funded pension and retire early! to that I say dream on!
Scrap the Fire service and let it be run by a private company: this could be covered by a private insurance scheme, with a fee to be paid when calling in, just like we do for boiler / plumbing cover.
Your second post contradicts your first one.
I'd rather see them retire younger and have the fit, strong healthy firefighters you mention in your first post.
I think they earn their early retirement.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: The problem is that by keeping and paying for expensive Old firefighters, we put ourselves at risk, do we want fit, strong, healthy firefighters or do we want health and safety conscious, pre-retirement age firefighters? If we listen to the firefighters and Unions, people will die in Swindon[/p][/quote]The union and fire fighters don't want to be an ageing service. It's part of their complaint.[/p][/quote]No they want to get a nice taxpayers funded pension and retire early! to that I say dream on! Scrap the Fire service and let it be run by a private company: this could be covered by a private insurance scheme, with a fee to be paid when calling in, just like we do for boiler / plumbing cover.[/p][/quote]Your second post contradicts your first one. I'd rather see them retire younger and have the fit, strong healthy firefighters you mention in your first post. I think they earn their early retirement. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -5

2:39pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Hmmmf says...

Just fyi: Professional firefighters' retirement age by EU country (Source: European Trade Union Institute):
Belgium: 60
Denmark: 60
Estonia: 65
Finland: 65-68
France: No later than 67
Germany: 60-62
Italy: average 58 or 53 with 38 years of service
Netherlands: 59
Norway: 60
Spain: 60

Age is a complete red herring. Under the Fire Brigades Pensions Act of 1925, the compulsory retirement age for firefighters of all ranks was 60. This was subsequently reduced in the 1990s to 55 for firefighters up to the rank of Station Officer, but firefighters who have joined the service since 2006 are *already* obliged to retire at 60 under the New Firefighters Pension Scheme... introduced by the last Labour Government.
Just fyi: Professional firefighters' retirement age by EU country (Source: European Trade Union Institute): Belgium: 60 Denmark: 60 Estonia: 65 Finland: 65-68 France: No later than 67 Germany: 60-62 Italy: average 58 or 53 with 38 years of service Netherlands: 59 Norway: 60 Spain: 60 Age is a complete red herring. Under the Fire Brigades Pensions Act of 1925, the compulsory retirement age for firefighters of all ranks was 60. This was subsequently reduced in the 1990s to 55 for firefighters up to the rank of Station Officer, but firefighters who have joined the service since 2006 are *already* obliged to retire at 60 under the New Firefighters Pension Scheme... introduced by the last Labour Government. Hmmmf
  • Score: 12

2:49pm Tue 10 Jun 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The problem is that by keeping and paying for expensive Old firefighters, we put ourselves at risk, do we want fit, strong, healthy firefighters or do we want health and safety conscious, pre-retirement age firefighters?
If we listen to the firefighters and Unions, people will die in Swindon
The union and fire fighters don't want to be an ageing service. It's part of their complaint.
No they want to get a nice taxpayers funded pension and retire early! to that I say dream on!
Scrap the Fire service and let it be run by a private company: this could be covered by a private insurance scheme, with a fee to be paid when calling in, just like we do for boiler / plumbing cover.
Your second post contradicts your first one.
I'd rather see them retire younger and have the fit, strong healthy firefighters you mention in your first post.
I think they earn their early retirement.
They should pay more towards their pension if they want to retire early, like the rest of the general population.
Yes we should keep a young and fit service but not at an extra cost.
No we certainly do not need pre -retirement firemen.
There is room for a compromise, failing that I think we could all be better off by scrapping this public service and let it be run by private companies just like the coast guards.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: The problem is that by keeping and paying for expensive Old firefighters, we put ourselves at risk, do we want fit, strong, healthy firefighters or do we want health and safety conscious, pre-retirement age firefighters? If we listen to the firefighters and Unions, people will die in Swindon[/p][/quote]The union and fire fighters don't want to be an ageing service. It's part of their complaint.[/p][/quote]No they want to get a nice taxpayers funded pension and retire early! to that I say dream on! Scrap the Fire service and let it be run by a private company: this could be covered by a private insurance scheme, with a fee to be paid when calling in, just like we do for boiler / plumbing cover.[/p][/quote]Your second post contradicts your first one. I'd rather see them retire younger and have the fit, strong healthy firefighters you mention in your first post. I think they earn their early retirement.[/p][/quote]They should pay more towards their pension if they want to retire early, like the rest of the general population. Yes we should keep a young and fit service but not at an extra cost. No we certainly do not need pre -retirement firemen. There is room for a compromise, failing that I think we could all be better off by scrapping this public service and let it be run by private companies just like the coast guards. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: 2

2:55pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Davey Gravey says...

@ A.Baron-Cohen. Rather than clog up the page with quotes i'll address you this way.
They have increased their pension payments like the rest of us.
Agree a compromise needs to be reached. Definitely think it should remain the great public service it is though.

@phantom poster. apologies,i thought you had picked up on the blatant thumb abuse previously. So many have i must have confused you with another person. sorry.
@ A.Baron-Cohen. Rather than clog up the page with quotes i'll address you this way. They have increased their pension payments like the rest of us. Agree a compromise needs to be reached. Definitely think it should remain the great public service it is though. @phantom poster. apologies,i thought you had picked up on the blatant thumb abuse previously. So many have i must have confused you with another person. sorry. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -7

2:55pm Tue 10 Jun 14

ChannelX says...

KeyboardWarri0r wrote:
I can see both sides, I'm not sure what age firefighters are being asked to work to, but upto 60 people should be able to cope with fairly demanding work. How about trying to split the service and create a new service, the younger ones deal with the fires and intense heat and extrememly difficult conditions where they save lives, and the older firefighters attend car crashes and other things etc. Perhaps it is putting a lot of strain on people aged 55-60 to be able to carry fully grown dead weight adults out of burning buildings in extreme heat, but I have no doubt they could do a lot of the work required.

I have to say I don't resent them being able to retire at 55, I've never needed them, but if I ever did I would want someone capable of the job, and anyone who does resent this, wouldn't if their lives or their families lives are saved by one.
Unless a very high percentage of each brigade is 50+, there would be absolutely no requirement for men aged 60 (or whatever) to be carrying bodies out of burning buildings.

There will always be a number of younger, stronger, healthier members of the brigade on hand to do that kind of work.

Then again, these days, there are plenty of 55 to 60 year olds who keep themselves in great shape... and plenty of 25 year old obese people who can barely manage to walk from the sofa to open to front door to get their pizza delivery.

As others have said, the 55 thing is a completely arbitrary number, dreamt up by yet another public sector union spoiling for a fight with a government they can't manipulate via their usual means (ie, not the Labour party).
[quote][p][bold]KeyboardWarri0r[/bold] wrote: I can see both sides, I'm not sure what age firefighters are being asked to work to, but upto 60 people should be able to cope with fairly demanding work. How about trying to split the service and create a new service, the younger ones deal with the fires and intense heat and extrememly difficult conditions where they save lives, and the older firefighters attend car crashes and other things etc. Perhaps it is putting a lot of strain on people aged 55-60 to be able to carry fully grown dead weight adults out of burning buildings in extreme heat, but I have no doubt they could do a lot of the work required. I have to say I don't resent them being able to retire at 55, I've never needed them, but if I ever did I would want someone capable of the job, and anyone who does resent this, wouldn't if their lives or their families lives are saved by one.[/p][/quote]Unless a very high percentage of each brigade is 50+, there would be absolutely no requirement for men aged 60 (or whatever) to be carrying bodies out of burning buildings. There will always be a number of younger, stronger, healthier members of the brigade on hand to do that kind of work. Then again, these days, there are plenty of 55 to 60 year olds who keep themselves in great shape... and plenty of 25 year old obese people who can barely manage to walk from the sofa to open to front door to get their pizza delivery. As others have said, the 55 thing is a completely arbitrary number, dreamt up by yet another public sector union spoiling for a fight with a government they can't manipulate via their usual means (ie, not the Labour party). ChannelX
  • Score: 6

3:17pm Tue 10 Jun 14

trolley dolley says...

Hmmmf wrote:
Just fyi: Professional firefighters' retirement age by EU country (Source: European Trade Union Institute):
Belgium: 60
Denmark: 60
Estonia: 65
Finland: 65-68
France: No later than 67
Germany: 60-62
Italy: average 58 or 53 with 38 years of service
Netherlands: 59
Norway: 60
Spain: 60

Age is a complete red herring. Under the Fire Brigades Pensions Act of 1925, the compulsory retirement age for firefighters of all ranks was 60. This was subsequently reduced in the 1990s to 55 for firefighters up to the rank of Station Officer, but firefighters who have joined the service since 2006 are *already* obliged to retire at 60 under the New Firefighters Pension Scheme... introduced by the last Labour Government.
Any fit person could be a fire fighter.

If the current bunch are not happy in the job then they should leave.

The ages given for fire fighters in other countries says it all.

Our fire fighters are a bunch of moaning public servants who need to stop acting like militant shop stewards.

You have lost all my respect, I now see you for what you are, just in it for the money.

It is time for the government to privatise the lot.
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: Just fyi: Professional firefighters' retirement age by EU country (Source: European Trade Union Institute): Belgium: 60 Denmark: 60 Estonia: 65 Finland: 65-68 France: No later than 67 Germany: 60-62 Italy: average 58 or 53 with 38 years of service Netherlands: 59 Norway: 60 Spain: 60 Age is a complete red herring. Under the Fire Brigades Pensions Act of 1925, the compulsory retirement age for firefighters of all ranks was 60. This was subsequently reduced in the 1990s to 55 for firefighters up to the rank of Station Officer, but firefighters who have joined the service since 2006 are *already* obliged to retire at 60 under the New Firefighters Pension Scheme... introduced by the last Labour Government.[/p][/quote]Any fit person could be a fire fighter. If the current bunch are not happy in the job then they should leave. The ages given for fire fighters in other countries says it all. Our fire fighters are a bunch of moaning public servants who need to stop acting like militant shop stewards. You have lost all my respect, I now see you for what you are, just in it for the money. It is time for the government to privatise the lot. trolley dolley
  • Score: 18

8:19pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Ollie Dognacky says...

Oh now you're using that login 😴

Still not got any hobbies then 😆
Oh now you're using that login 😴 Still not got any hobbies then 😆 Ollie Dognacky
  • Score: -1

10:30pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Howler72 says...

KeyboardWarri0r wrote:
I can see both sides, I'm not sure what age firefighters are being asked to work to, but upto 60 people should be able to cope with fairly demanding work. How about trying to split the service and create a new service, the younger ones deal with the fires and intense heat and extrememly difficult conditions where they save lives, and the older firefighters attend car crashes and other things etc. Perhaps it is putting a lot of strain on people aged 55-60 to be able to carry fully grown dead weight adults out of burning buildings in extreme heat, but I have no doubt they could do a lot of the work required.

I have to say I don't resent them being able to retire at 55, I've never needed them, but if I ever did I would want someone capable of the job, and anyone who does resent this, wouldn't if their lives or their families lives are saved by one.
You would then have to employ 2 sets of crew at any one time to cater for each scenario which would be twice the cost. When we do our job, we could get a shout for anything, we can't guarantee when the fires and the RTC's occur. I understand what you are trying to say though, it just wouldn't work.
[quote][p][bold]KeyboardWarri0r[/bold] wrote: I can see both sides, I'm not sure what age firefighters are being asked to work to, but upto 60 people should be able to cope with fairly demanding work. How about trying to split the service and create a new service, the younger ones deal with the fires and intense heat and extrememly difficult conditions where they save lives, and the older firefighters attend car crashes and other things etc. Perhaps it is putting a lot of strain on people aged 55-60 to be able to carry fully grown dead weight adults out of burning buildings in extreme heat, but I have no doubt they could do a lot of the work required. I have to say I don't resent them being able to retire at 55, I've never needed them, but if I ever did I would want someone capable of the job, and anyone who does resent this, wouldn't if their lives or their families lives are saved by one.[/p][/quote]You would then have to employ 2 sets of crew at any one time to cater for each scenario which would be twice the cost. When we do our job, we could get a shout for anything, we can't guarantee when the fires and the RTC's occur. I understand what you are trying to say though, it just wouldn't work. Howler72
  • Score: -2

10:38pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Howler72 says...

trolley dolley wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
Just fyi: Professional firefighters' retirement age by EU country (Source: European Trade Union Institute):
Belgium: 60
Denmark: 60
Estonia: 65
Finland: 65-68
France: No later than 67
Germany: 60-62
Italy: average 58 or 53 with 38 years of service
Netherlands: 59
Norway: 60
Spain: 60

Age is a complete red herring. Under the Fire Brigades Pensions Act of 1925, the compulsory retirement age for firefighters of all ranks was 60. This was subsequently reduced in the 1990s to 55 for firefighters up to the rank of Station Officer, but firefighters who have joined the service since 2006 are *already* obliged to retire at 60 under the New Firefighters Pension Scheme... introduced by the last Labour Government.
Any fit person could be a fire fighter.

If the current bunch are not happy in the job then they should leave.

The ages given for fire fighters in other countries says it all.

Our fire fighters are a bunch of moaning public servants who need to stop acting like militant shop stewards.

You have lost all my respect, I now see you for what you are, just in it for the money.

It is time for the government to privatise the lot.
Over generalising and assuming everyone has the same opinion. Also, the retirement ages in other countries does not 'say it all'. It says just that, nothing more. Put that 1 item of data alongside other data I.e. Number of incidents, types of incidents, losses of life etc, THEN make your sweeping statement!I A very poor post.
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: Just fyi: Professional firefighters' retirement age by EU country (Source: European Trade Union Institute): Belgium: 60 Denmark: 60 Estonia: 65 Finland: 65-68 France: No later than 67 Germany: 60-62 Italy: average 58 or 53 with 38 years of service Netherlands: 59 Norway: 60 Spain: 60 Age is a complete red herring. Under the Fire Brigades Pensions Act of 1925, the compulsory retirement age for firefighters of all ranks was 60. This was subsequently reduced in the 1990s to 55 for firefighters up to the rank of Station Officer, but firefighters who have joined the service since 2006 are *already* obliged to retire at 60 under the New Firefighters Pension Scheme... introduced by the last Labour Government.[/p][/quote]Any fit person could be a fire fighter. If the current bunch are not happy in the job then they should leave. The ages given for fire fighters in other countries says it all. Our fire fighters are a bunch of moaning public servants who need to stop acting like militant shop stewards. You have lost all my respect, I now see you for what you are, just in it for the money. It is time for the government to privatise the lot.[/p][/quote]Over generalising and assuming everyone has the same opinion. Also, the retirement ages in other countries does not 'say it all'. It says just that, nothing more. Put that 1 item of data alongside other data I.e. Number of incidents, types of incidents, losses of life etc, THEN make your sweeping statement!I A very poor post. Howler72
  • Score: -4

7:21am Wed 11 Jun 14

stfcdod says...

Howler72 wrote:
trolley dolley wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
Just fyi: Professional firefighters' retirement age by EU country (Source: European Trade Union Institute):
Belgium: 60
Denmark: 60
Estonia: 65
Finland: 65-68
France: No later than 67
Germany: 60-62
Italy: average 58 or 53 with 38 years of service
Netherlands: 59
Norway: 60
Spain: 60

Age is a complete red herring. Under the Fire Brigades Pensions Act of 1925, the compulsory retirement age for firefighters of all ranks was 60. This was subsequently reduced in the 1990s to 55 for firefighters up to the rank of Station Officer, but firefighters who have joined the service since 2006 are *already* obliged to retire at 60 under the New Firefighters Pension Scheme... introduced by the last Labour Government.
Any fit person could be a fire fighter.

If the current bunch are not happy in the job then they should leave.

The ages given for fire fighters in other countries says it all.

Our fire fighters are a bunch of moaning public servants who need to stop acting like militant shop stewards.

You have lost all my respect, I now see you for what you are, just in it for the money.

It is time for the government to privatise the lot.
Over generalising and assuming everyone has the same opinion. Also, the retirement ages in other countries does not 'say it all'. It says just that, nothing more. Put that 1 item of data alongside other data I.e. Number of incidents, types of incidents, losses of life etc, THEN make your sweeping statement!I A very poor post.
An even poorer post if I may say. Hmmmf gave you some facts(I assume they are correct) and you just ignore them. Not a very strong argument at all.
[quote][p][bold]Howler72[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: Just fyi: Professional firefighters' retirement age by EU country (Source: European Trade Union Institute): Belgium: 60 Denmark: 60 Estonia: 65 Finland: 65-68 France: No later than 67 Germany: 60-62 Italy: average 58 or 53 with 38 years of service Netherlands: 59 Norway: 60 Spain: 60 Age is a complete red herring. Under the Fire Brigades Pensions Act of 1925, the compulsory retirement age for firefighters of all ranks was 60. This was subsequently reduced in the 1990s to 55 for firefighters up to the rank of Station Officer, but firefighters who have joined the service since 2006 are *already* obliged to retire at 60 under the New Firefighters Pension Scheme... introduced by the last Labour Government.[/p][/quote]Any fit person could be a fire fighter. If the current bunch are not happy in the job then they should leave. The ages given for fire fighters in other countries says it all. Our fire fighters are a bunch of moaning public servants who need to stop acting like militant shop stewards. You have lost all my respect, I now see you for what you are, just in it for the money. It is time for the government to privatise the lot.[/p][/quote]Over generalising and assuming everyone has the same opinion. Also, the retirement ages in other countries does not 'say it all'. It says just that, nothing more. Put that 1 item of data alongside other data I.e. Number of incidents, types of incidents, losses of life etc, THEN make your sweeping statement!I A very poor post.[/p][/quote]An even poorer post if I may say. Hmmmf gave you some facts(I assume they are correct) and you just ignore them. Not a very strong argument at all. stfcdod
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Wed 11 Jun 14

trolley dolley says...

The retirement ages are not generalisations, they are listed for each country.

I am sure the "Number of incidents, types of incidents, losses of life etc", would be very comparable to the UK.

I would suggest Howler72 that you look at the excuses being given by our bunch of militants for retiring early on big pensions and ask why don't all the other countries have a problem.

The answer is;

No commitment to the job.
Greed.
Complacency.
The retirement ages are not generalisations, they are listed for each country. I am sure the "Number of incidents, types of incidents, losses of life etc", would be very comparable to the UK. I would suggest Howler72 that you look at the excuses being given by our bunch of militants for retiring early on big pensions and ask why don't all the other countries have a problem. The answer is; No commitment to the job. Greed. Complacency. trolley dolley
  • Score: 2

7:22pm Wed 11 Jun 14

GANGWARILY says...

Greedy Militants with no job commitment? Really? May I ask how much contributions each month do the bloggers on this site pay towards their own "private" pension "as a percentage" of their monthly salary? Don't include National Insurance contributions, they are separate so don't count. I'd be interested to hear. The FB lads pay on average 15%. As other pension schemes, they have had considerable increases over the past few years, and has not been an issue. They pay their fair share.

Earlier comments " Fire-fighters... Are only in it for the money". Yes I totally agree, because it's a job and they would expect to get paid for doing that job. All those bloggers out there, are you employed? If so, why? For the love of the job or the money to pay your bills?

OK someone mentioned "Scrap the Fire service and let it be run by a private company: this could be covered by a private insurance scheme, with a fee to be paid when calling in, just like we do for boiler / plumbing cover. OK, well what about the "Let the Fire Service be run by private companies?" Look at London FB, they opted to use a private company to supply vehicles, equipment and training services ... who subsequently went bust. Then what do you do?

The Private Insurance scheme then.. just like plumbers. OK, how easy is it to get a decent price for emergency plumbing work on Christmas/New Years Day or at 3am. Private Fire Services are just that, private and therefore out to make a profit. Charges would be potentially incredible. Remember, at the moment, you pay about £63 a year already for a 365 day a year unlimited service within your council tax.

Lets not go back to the Victorian days when Fire Plates issued by insurance companies adorned the walls of business. When the Fire Brigade turned up, if no plate could be seen, they returned back to the station leaving the building to burn. Austerity... Money is tight for everyone, would we now be expected to pay more for this service? Car insurance premiums increased so that policy holders can be rescued in a timely fashion when required by 21 year old fresh faced and muscle bound heros!!!! You already pay for this service in your council tax! (Less the 21 yr olds but remember they are all more than capable).

Another blogger mentioned that on retiring at 55, fire fighters are then claiming their "fat" pension for a further 30+ years... longer than they had actually been employed. Sorry. You will find, sadly, this is wrong. On average, FFs croak rather sooner than that. Probably due to all that fine living (wine, women and snooker).

I am not a fire fighter, but I do know one. I don't consider him to be a liar and especially not a greedy militant, with no job commitment. Quite the opposite actually. Just like teachers, nurses and other public service workers, they are worried that they are being unfairly targeted by the Government's Austerity plan. Unfortunately their only route is for strike action. Take Note - Government Minister for Local Councils (who the Fire Service have to deal with regarding this Pensions Dispute) ) Brandon Lewis do not listen. Minister Brandon was caught out today on BBC News regarding recycling issues.

I can't wait for the abuse to come rolling in from all those Swindon Adver bloggers.. Should they strike? Probably no however they have said that they will attend major incidents whilst on strike. It's the only course of action available when the other side of the negotiating table won't listen and fails to even correspond.

Are they right to defend their pension contracts or do they just sit back, take it and be taken advantage of? If you are unhappy about a decision, then you should be at least able to challenge. This is what the Fire Fighters are doing.

And finally, remember my first question? How much are you paying in to your own private pension scheme each month?
Greedy Militants with no job commitment? Really? May I ask how much contributions each month do the bloggers on this site pay towards their own "private" pension "as a percentage" of their monthly salary? Don't include National Insurance contributions, they are separate so don't count. I'd be interested to hear. The FB lads pay on average 15%. As other pension schemes, they have had considerable increases over the past few years, and has not been an issue. They pay their fair share. Earlier comments " Fire-fighters... Are only in it for the money". Yes I totally agree, because it's a job and they would expect to get paid for doing that job. All those bloggers out there, are you employed? If so, why? For the love of the job or the money to pay your bills? OK someone mentioned "Scrap the Fire service and let it be run by a private company: this could be covered by a private insurance scheme, with a fee to be paid when calling in, just like we do for boiler / plumbing cover. OK, well what about the "Let the Fire Service be run by private companies?" Look at London FB, they opted to use a private company to supply vehicles, equipment and training services ... who subsequently went bust. Then what do you do? The Private Insurance scheme then.. just like plumbers. OK, how easy is it to get a decent price for emergency plumbing work on Christmas/New Years Day or at 3am. Private Fire Services are just that, private and therefore out to make a profit. Charges would be potentially incredible. Remember, at the moment, you pay about £63 a year already for a 365 day a year unlimited service within your council tax. Lets not go back to the Victorian days when Fire Plates issued by insurance companies adorned the walls of business. When the Fire Brigade turned up, if no plate could be seen, they returned back to the station leaving the building to burn. Austerity... Money is tight for everyone, would we now be expected to pay more for this service? Car insurance premiums increased so that policy holders can be rescued in a timely fashion when required by 21 year old fresh faced and muscle bound heros!!!! You already pay for this service in your council tax! (Less the 21 yr olds but remember they are all more than capable). Another blogger mentioned that on retiring at 55, fire fighters are then claiming their "fat" pension for a further 30+ years... longer than they had actually been employed. Sorry. You will find, sadly, this is wrong. On average, FFs croak rather sooner than that. Probably due to all that fine living (wine, women and snooker). I am not a fire fighter, but I do know one. I don't consider him to be a liar and especially not a greedy militant, with no job commitment. Quite the opposite actually. Just like teachers, nurses and other public service workers, they are worried that they are being unfairly targeted by the Government's Austerity plan. Unfortunately their only route is for strike action. Take Note - Government Minister for Local Councils (who the Fire Service have to deal with regarding this Pensions Dispute) ) Brandon Lewis do not listen. Minister Brandon was caught out today on BBC News regarding recycling issues. I can't wait for the abuse to come rolling in from all those Swindon Adver bloggers.. Should they strike? Probably no however they have said that they will attend major incidents whilst on strike. It's the only course of action available when the other side of the negotiating table won't listen and fails to even correspond. Are they right to defend their pension contracts or do they just sit back, take it and be taken advantage of? If you are unhappy about a decision, then you should be at least able to challenge. This is what the Fire Fighters are doing. And finally, remember my first question? How much are you paying in to your own private pension scheme each month? GANGWARILY
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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