abaduck

Seth, what does this site need, technically, to be workable? In terms of bandwidth, server resources etc.? I have a 25/25 business FIOS connection, and any number of server boxes available. If it's technically feasible I'll host the site, or part of it, for free. Mike (15 years an IT pro before getting into firefighting!)

How many of our departments carry or use a 50 foot ground ladder??

Cap, as near as I can figure, 'Assetco' started as a means of outsourcing fleet maintenance etc. It then evolved into Assetco also training some hundreds of people as 'reserve firefighters' for use in civil emergency situations - natural disasters etc. Unstated but very probably in management minds was also the idea of using these Assetco people as scabs in the event of a strike. 'Retained' isn't really synonymous with 'volunteer'. It's more like paid-per-call. They get paid an annual bounty or retainer, they're obliged to respond to all calls during their duty hours, all tracked by computers with clocking-in and out, and they get paid union rates for time spent responding and training. They're considered part-time career firefighters, if that makes sense, and they join the union.

You hit the nail on the head. I'm NOT speaking as to this case, but the notion that a guy could come home from a tour in Iraq, greet his wife and kid - or kids - and not be able to go out for a beer or two to celebrate his return because he's *too young* and still considered an immature child when it comes to being allowed to buy a drink - that's just plain *dumb*. The first state to break ranks and introduce some sensible drinking laws will be *very* popular. (I was born and raised in Scotland, where you can be served alcohol in a private place (i.e. a home) at any age, you can drink beer and wine (but not spirits) in public - in a bar or restaurant - at 15, if you're with someone over 18, and the full drinking age is 18)

Well said Cap, the situation in London is pretty bad: LFB Support page on Facebook Yep no Taylor Law in UK; the only people banned from striking by law are police and armed forces; they're Crown Servants who have taken an oath. Which is as it should be in a free country; if you want a no-strike deal, negotiate a contract that includes one - don't impose it by law! The assetco guys don't operate the rigs day-to-day as far as I can figure, that's all done by the regular crews. They're just civilians trained as reserve FFs. And it's not just the 700 scabs, the management will probably attempt to crew rigs themselves. Which could be more entertaining than useful...

Excellent point, Chief. My personal opinion: the media are going to write stories; that's what they do. They can write them with our input, or without it. Which do you think is going to give the highest chance of some accuracy in what they write?

Think this is what you want: Original thread Good job!

Fine. Great. Let the mayor try running a major incident if he's so clever.

Cap, on the farm I quite agree; whether you're way out in the sticks, or just in a small town, you will be 'on your own' until the cops show up - may be minutes, may be hours, but you're on your own. So I fully support armed self-defence; that's common sense. But at least your farming inlaws HAVE a local sheriff. My point was concerning crime in general - rape, burglary, murder, the farming of illegal crops - hell even speeding. If there are areas where there's no fire service because people don't want to pay for it, aren't there areas where there's no law enforcement, because people won't pay for that? If you call 911 to report a rape, will you ever be told 'sorry, we can't help - your area isn't covered by any law enforcement' or even 'sorry, you haven't paid your $75 to the city PD, we can't send anyone'. No? Then why is LE considered more important than fire & rescue? How exactly does that work? If there's some law that mandates a law enforcement service exists, why isn't that extended to fire & rescue service? If EMS service is inadequate, it needs to be improved. As with fire or police, a longer response time is to be expected in rural areas - that's a trade-off you make when you move there. Having NO service at all is not a trade-off that should ever exist.

Firebuff, I'm comparing a rural area with an even more rural area. And I'm comparing two very different systems. You say that the in the Highlands, people have 'chosen to tax themselves'. That's not correct, the question and the choice doesn't arise. It's *absurd* that people can chose to be without fire service - or so it would be viewed in the UK, and pretty much any other first-world country. To me, it's as basic as police or ambulance. You wouldn't call 911 and ever hear the responses 'I'm sorry, the police won't come - the law isn't enforced in your area, but we hope you'll be OK' or 'I'm sorry, there is no EMS service, but I hope you don't bleed out...'. Why on earth should fire be any different? I'm sure there are quite a few people who would LIKE to opt-out - for there to be no law enforcement in their areas, other than the law of their own guns. I'm sure there are people who would love to know that their county doesn't provide child protection services, and they can raise their kids as abusively as they like. But that should NOT happen in a civilised country! All these arguments about tax and jurisdictional boundaries and so on are just BS in my view - it's someones responsibility to provide the basic emergency services, or if it isn't it damn well should be. Look, my politics are basically libertarian - I *like* small government, I like government not overstepping their bounds - but fire, police, and EMS are among the basic essential services EVERY government (at whatever level is dictated by national law) needs to provide for their citizens.

Well here's some more facts. I was born and raised in the Scottish Highlands. Fire protection there is provided by the Highlands & Islands Fire & Rescue Service. The main city, Inverness, has a population of around 50,000. The remaining 300,000 population is spread over 12,000 square miles of mainland, mountains, and dozens of Islands, big and small, more like Alaska than rural Tennessee! Now a lot of the area won't get a response within 8 minutes, but a good percentage will, and they ALL have fire protection. See: http://www.hifrs.org/Home/About-Us All UK fire protection is organised at the county or even regional level; there ARE no town, city, or village fire departments or fire districts. Oh and property taxes? Low - I have a small house up there and pay around $800 a year. Most of the cost of fire protection is paid from the equivalent of state & federal grants, because it's a basic government service - in a civilized country every citizen has fire protection. A serious question: are there areas in the USA where police will not respond to reports of a crime, because no law enforcement organization covers them? Another serious question: what happens to non-residents of a rural county such as we're discussing? Would no-one respond to a MVF if it happened to a visitor passing through, who hadn't paid their $75? Or extricate a non-resident involved in an MVA? I'm still astonished I'm having to ask such questions.

A lot of good points, none of which add up to not a heck of a lot. I'll give you two simple propositions: 1. Firefighters should never be put in that position; if a homeowner in that position calls 911 asking for fire service, they should be told 'Sorry, you don't have fire service'. 2. Proposition 1. above should NEVER happen in a first-world country that considers itself a superpower. If a community or city doesn't have fire service, the county or state or federal government should be REQUIRED to provide it. In a civilised country, no-one should EVER have to worry, before calling 911, 'have I paid my subscription?' or 'can I afford the bill?' or 'will they help me?'. Period. End of. No argument.

JBE, you're not alone. I read this, I had to double-take to check we were talking about an American department here; this sounds like something from the third world - or America 200 years ago. Isn't this how we got started? You put a plaque on your house to show which fire/insurance company you had paid to protect you? Have we not moved on? Aren't we supposed to be a superpower or something? What action would have been taken if there had been reports of persons trapped? This kind of scenario leads to people not calling us, or taking stupid risks to try to extinguish it themselves if they know or think that WE won't do our JOB... because they can't afford us. Will end in fatalities... "Mayor Crocker said... As an analogy, he said if an auto owner allowed their vehicle insurance to lapse, they would not expect an insurance company to pay for an unprotected vehicle after it was wrecked." Mayor Crocker, I suppose you also feel someone injured in an auto wreck should be left bleeding by the roadside if they haven't paid their medical insurance?

This is BS. I guess some lawyers are getting very creative. The issue that *could* arise is if you take and publish a photograph of a *copyrighted work* - a logo, a work of art etc. For instance, if someone hated KME rigs, created a website called kmesucks.com, and stole the official KME logo from the KME site and used it on their site... that *might* be a problem. But putting up photographs of trucks which bore the KME logo wouldn't be a problem; the fair use exemption there is so wide you could drive a truck through it. I'm *guessing* something similar is going on here - some twisted lawyers are somehow trying to claim that the facade of the NYSE building is somehow their copyrighted logo. It's BS, it's not going anywhere.

I'll bite, as this is an issue I feel strongly about. It's been a huge issue in the UK, with a lot of coverage in the press: http://www.facebook....st/128534046017 The British government produced an infamous poster, which inevitably produced a large variety of satirical responses. This one is from the journalists & photographers unions:

I'm no fan of the plea bargain system from either end; it may save money, but I don't think it offers justice - to victims, as in this case, OR to innocent.people who find themselves accused in other cases. With regard to the present case, if all else fails, hopefully the brothers and sisters in Corrections will do their bit, and make sure these aren't exactly the easiest seven years of this young punk's life...

Don't make the system more complex, make it far simpler. People seem to think the only thing they can do is tinker around the edges of property taxes, with exemptions and rebates and revaluations. I've said it before and I'll say it again: IMHO, the whole notion of property taxes is dumb and wrong and evil and unjust. The only individual taxes that are even approximately fair are taxes on income and taxes on spending, of those a tax on income is by far the fairest. Tax what someone earns, according to their ability to pay, don't tax what they own. That's not exactly hard to explain. Abolish property taxes and bring in a local income tax. Tax businesses on their profits, if you must, not on their real estate. Any real estate taxes are just city hall saying 'Guess what? You don't really own s*** around here, you're just renting it from us for as long as you can afford to pay our taxes'. How exactly is that fair? If that system was serving us well we wouldn't be having this conversation. Time to get a lot more imaginative.

From the report: "Due to ongoing litigation, the NIOSH investigator was unable to access the structure or interview building construction personnel." Does anyone else see a *huge* problem here? Try that attitude with the NTSB after an aircraft accident and you're going to jail. If investigators don't have the legal authority to force cooperation, they need it!

Hah. You want off-road, I'll give you real off-road! Aton Impulse I'm thinking about importing one, just for devilment! And to scare the living s**t out of Hummer drivers when they see *that* in their mirror. Of course I have a track record for weird vehicles as members of my department will know ;-)

There's no answer to that, at least not one that you wouldn't moderate!

Yes to all of the above, BUT... suspected BS in that video. A scary sign warning of smuggler vehicles traveling at 'high speed'? Now I'm no master criminal, but if I WAS engaged in some nefarious activity... would I decide to drive in a way that increased my chances of getting pulled over? They can't be that dumb... can they?

"Judge Nicholas Garaufis says the test discriminates against minority applicants.The ruling blocks the city's plan to hire 300 firefighters. The judge had previously ruled that two other written exams discriminated against aspiring black and Hispanic firefighters." This made my blood boil the first time around, and I'm pretty much incandescent now. How the heck can a WRITTEN test discriminate against 'minorities'? HOW? Can someone please explain this to me because I sure as hell don't begin to understand it. You're dumb or you're not. You prepare for the test or you don't. How can a judge sit there and say that? To even suggest it's POSSIBLE to create a written exam that somehow discriminates against 'minorities' is an appallingly racist thing to say! Madness. I've had to be VERY careful to avoid copious profanity and abuse in this post!

I beg to differ. In winter my gear lives in my hallway, and I don before responding. My usual POV is small - a rice burner, and a stick shift to boot. I've never had the slightest problem. I'm not a small guy - 5'11" 190lb - but I can believe a bigger guy might have problems. But 'impossible'? Definitely not. Mike

That's one way of tackling issues of recruitment & retention!

<snip> I wasn't there, it wasn't my job. But I will comment on the above. General Foch used to write, at the top of his battle plans, "Objective: Beat the Germans". This was to remind him not to lose sight of the point of the entire exercise in all the ensuing complexity. In the fire service, we say 'put the fire out and 90% of your problems go away'. If I recall my training correctly, putting the initial FAST to work is a legitimate tactic the IC MAY chose to employ. If manpower is critical, it may make the difference between getting a good knock on the fire, and being forced onto the back foot and getting significant extension. Which course poses the overall least risk to the members is a judgment for the IC. Or so I recall being taught.