Firefighters - An Overrated Job?

C_Mababejive

Mancunian wrote: »

no firefighters are cool.....just overrated by most people.

watch for example how the audience react if a firefighter appears on deal or no deal. Wouldnt do that for any other profession I think not even a squaddie who risked his life daily in afganistan.

AND firefighters get all the women,,,,gggggrrrrrr and I dont (nothing to do with my ugly face :rotfl:)

I dont think there is much truth in that but if so,it says more about how shallow some women are...

wik

~~~ not all women want firefighters...lol when I was a teenager my dad banned me from ever dating one!! and several (whistles) years later I still doing what he said.... lol

paddyrg

Mancunian wrote: »

AND firefighters get all the women,,,,gggggrrrrrr and I dont (nothing to do with my ugly face :rotfl:)

I know, impossible to fathom why some women would rather date men whose job is centred around staying physically fit and helping the community than internet forum whiners. Women, eh?

martinthebandit

paddyrg wrote: »

I know, impossible to fathom why some women would rather date men whose job is centred around staying physically fit and helping the community than internet forum whiners. Women, eh?

I struggle to understand it myself

yangptangkipperbang

martinthebandit wrote: »

I hope you note that the water was 'more than ankle deep' but it doesn't say how much more than ankle deep it was, and I don't know either.

Most of the other news media reported it as being 3 ft deep, the BBC called it "shallow"..................

At the time a fire brigade spokesman commented that they were only trained in water upto ankle depth - this produced a comment in one newspaper as to what sort of training was actually given to work in water of this depth !

After the huge amount of negative publicity the fire brigade spokesman then did a quick U turn:

" Let us be clear, the decisions taken at the Walpole Lake incident had nothing to do with health and safety or the depth of the water.

"On arrival at the scene, the officer and crews saw a body face down and submerged in the water, who we now know to be Mr Simon Burgess.

"That person was unresponsive and showing no visible signs of life. Based on this assessment, they prepared for the arrival of one of the service's specialist water rescue unit to undertake a dignified retrieval of the individual from the water.

"Our officers and staff clearly stated, that if they saw any signs of life and the individual could be saved, they would have gone in to the water and followed rescue procedures." (BBC report)

Note the weasel words: "and followed rescue procedures" - ie: not do anything as the water was too deep ????

Don't misunderstand me - I am not criticising the firemen per se - BUT, I am criticising the "armchair" experts who dream up and then enforce these stupid rules - this will NOT be someone in the HSE, or someone manning a fire engine but a middle/senior ranking officer in the fire service who clearly has lost touch with reality.
BUT, there again can you blame them when these middle ranking officers are now being charged with manslaughter if a fireman dies at a fire.

"Lunatics" and "asylum" spring to mind..............

pollypenny

I hope OP never needs the help of firefighters! (roll eyes, please)

bap98189

Is it really a bad thing if our fire-fighters spend most nights asleep? I would rather they did as that means there haven't been any fires or car accidents.

The point is they are there on standby for when they are needed. I look on fire-fighters as being like an insurance policy - if you don't use it that's generally a good thing.

lemontart

people would demand inquires cut backs and lot more if any of the emergency services do not respond at a ring of a phone or pick up that phone within 30 seconds to deal with any emergency beit gas. fire or other, Yes there are times when we twiddle our thumbs when quite (I work for an emergency service) but we now do a lot of other jobs in between calls in my role when on nights so do not get the chance - but when that phone rings we are there for you and act quickly to ensure you and yours are protected.

I am not front line but deal with the engineers, police and fire and rescue services daily and if it was not for those men and women waiting for your call for help being there 24 hrs a day 365 a year being ready to pick up the pieces I am sure we would read a lot more horror stories and daily mail articles about delays causing them as you do not have the staff on duty or have to get some one to come out of their home drive to work to get the fire engine or ambulance before setting out to help.

So what if they watch tv, play pool when waiting, all that matters is that they are there for people when needed no matter what time it is and yes with h&s rules saying they do not do this that or the other there are many who do and have paid the ultimate price so please do not get me started on that. We should be thankful that we have those folk willing able and there as some have said as an insurance policy, peace of mind etc.

Pennywise

There's a court case at the moment where some senior fire officers are in the dock after a team of firefighters were sent into a building despite there being no-one trapped inside, and unfortunately died. It will probably be used as a test case and provide precedent as to just how far H&S should dictate the actions of the emergency services.

It has to be a balancing act.

The fire service was started by insurance companies to mitigate fire damage. If the fire service are to be prevented from entering buildings if there is no one inside, then that kind of goes against the original purposes of the service. They are limited as to how much good they can do if they stay outside and just pour water in. It's a bit of a cop-out really. Surely, the skill should be reading the situation and sending in personnel "if" on balance, the risks are low enough and the personnel have the right equipment and an escape route. And also, weighing up the risks against the consequences - i.e. it may be worth sending in some personnel if it's relatively safe to do so and it's likely to prevent damage/loss. Surely, that's been the skill of senior officers over the years and why they were promoted in the first place?

What about the risks of not going in to a building - i.e. letting the fire worsen may cause greater risk, i.e. explosions, etc. A few years ago, there was a brigade photographer hit by an exploding gas cylinder (I think?) - he wasn't in the building - he was taking photos from an allegedly safe location. Putting personnel into that building "may" have allowed them to cool the cylinders and prevent the explosion and resultant death.

Hopefully the court case may give some clarity as to justification of taking risks. The emergency services must be allowed to take calculated risks, i.e. comparing risks against outcomes and decisions made after proper consideration of the balance, not by the black and white of the rule book. Personnel should only be reprimanded if they have been grossly negligent or reckless - they should have the discretion to do what they think is right in each event.

spike7451

My local fire station,like a lot of smaller stations over here,are part time,so not only do the firefighter have to do their day job,they also can't work more than a certain distance travel from the station in case the's a shout.I know a couple of them,a few weeks ago,one of them had been to a fire all night then was in work at 6am the same day..And during the 12th Fortnight,they really earn their pay!