[Sean Kelly]

Geoff if you think we do it for the money, you need your head checking, the deductions we have are massive, so why shouldn't we have a second job. We all have family's and children to support, A bit of jealousy springs to mind. Statistically you will be involved in 2 major fires in your life, let's see who you count on if your involved in one

[Sean Kelly]

Lazy work shy people them firemen.i think its disgusting what they get away with,they should be cleaning the streets instead of sitting on there backsides allday.

Go walk on a fire station with the same attitude see what they actually do all day.

[stuart mc]

Geoff if you think we do it for the money, you need your head checking, the deductions we have are massive, so why shouldn't we have a second job. We all have family's and children to support, A bit of jealousy springs to mind. Statistically you will be involved in 2 major fires in your life, let's see who you count on if your involved in one

see the armed forces that have to step in in event of strike action, they had their pension changed too, did you hear a peep from them, even though having their pension changed they still get leave cancelled and have to do fire courses then spend weeks on the road covering strikes, when they should be on leave or training for war

[robert mitchell]

No they dont , the armed forces are not covering the strikes - get your facts straight before posting .

The strike has been four hours so far not weeks.

Both my brothers are in the army and yes I have heard "a peep"  they are not happy but they do not have the legal right to strike .

They still get to retire from active service at 45 - not 60 like they are expecting us to.

Wht comment when you dont know the facts ?

An opinion based on rumour and tabloid bull is a pointless opinion .

[stuart mc]

4 hours so far they may not be stepping in on this occasion but they have done on many occasions, I have covered two different sets of strikes whilst serving, I lost 15 days post operational tour leave on the second time, that is leave that I should have had after being on tour for 6 months, I was flown back from that tour to do training with many others when I should have being doing my job in Bosnia, so the guys left behind were put at risk due to being short of manpower, and it was not cheap to fly us back either, the bill all footed by the taxpayer, the reason the military can't strike is because it risks lives, I put it to you that going on strike as a firefighter also puts lives at risk.

I have every sympathy your reason for taking action by the way, there is no way I would wanted to have served until I was 60 in the forces, and similarly I would not be to happy if I was a firefighter, I just thought I would point out that actions have an affect on others who through no fault of their own not only face danger away on operations but then have to do it when they return 

[Sean Kelly]

The army get a free pension and only have to do 22 years for a full pension or 12 years for half. And fair play to them my 6 best mates are in the forces and I was in the marines before I joined the fire service

[stuart mc]

by the way, most of the anti firemen comments on this thread are from wind up merchants, just ignore them

[robert mitchell]

The last firefighter strike was in 2002 , completely irrelevant now .

I have friends and family in forces and all of them have lost leave for allsorts of different reasons , they know what they are signing up for when they join.

The problem with forums is that people will say stuff they wouldn't have the guts to say to your face .

This post was obviously put on here to get a reaction .

[Sean Kelly]

by the way, most of the anti firemen comments on this thread are from wind up merchants, just ignore them

 

[home6442]

I cant see anything wrong with a cleaner or anybody who works 50 hours a week at minimum
wage paying taxes to pay for a fire fighter or teachers pension.
What else are plebs for.

[stuart mc]

The last firefighter strike was in 2002 , completely irrelevant now .

I have friends and family in forces and all of them have lost leave for allsorts of different reasons , they know what they are signing up for when they join.

The problem with forums is that people will say stuff they wouldn't have the guts to say to your face .

This post was obviously put on here to get a reaction .

I know when the last strikes were, I covered them and I trained for the proposed strikes in 2003 that never happened, trained for them when I should have been on leave, and there was no way I was trained to extent you lads were, so I am suggesting strikes risk lives, that is all.

and I am aware on why this post was started, he is notorious for it

[Neil Jones]

Majority of the people on this forum being faced with going into a burning building wouldn't have the bottle lets face it, neither would they having to serve in some of the most dangerous places in the world.
I certainly wouldn't want to, I'll stick to the safety of cleaning but what I won't do is make ridiculous comments from behind a computer screen.

I actually know a fireman who was off duty when he was walking his son home from school, a house went up in flames and he left the child with a neighbour and ran in the building and pulled a woman and young girl to safety. How many of us would just stand there and watch?

[rg1]

No they dont , the armed forces are not covering the strikes - get your facts straight before posting .

The strike has been four hours so far not weeks.

Both my brothers are in the army and yes I have heard "a peep"  they are not happy but they do not have the legal right to strike .

They still get to retire from active service at 45 - not 60 like they are expecting us to.

Wht comment when you dont know the facts ?

An opinion based on rumour and tabloid bull is a pointless opinion .

So what is the problem of retiring at 60?

[robert mitchell]

No they dont , the armed forces are not covering the strikes - get your facts straight before posting .

The strike has been four hours so far not weeks.

Both my brothers are in the army and yes I have heard "a peep"  they are not happy but they do not have the legal right to strike .

They still get to retire from active service at 45 - not 60 like they are expecting us to.

Wht comment when you dont know the facts ?

An opinion based on rumour and tabloid bull is a pointless opinion .

So what is the problem of retiring at 60?

Only a tiny percentage of people would be fit enough to do the job at sixty , the governments own research proves that .

And female firfighters have even less chance at that age .
We also pay the highest contributions  in the public sector to pay for retiring earlier.

The union have been negotiating now for more than two years and the government have ignored all the evidence , even there own .

Any extra risk during the strike is on the governments shoulders .

[Mr.G]

Good luck to them, I hope they get an result.

[Geoff]

by the way, most of the anti firemen comments on this thread are from wind up merchants, just ignore them

Agree.

[stuart mc]

by the way, most of the anti firemen comments on this thread are from wind up merchants, just ignore them

Agree.

[DG Cleaning]

Does anyone take the view that this strike could be the governments fault?
I really don't think firefighters enjoy losing pay but they have an agreement and now the government wants to change it.
I'm sure all other channels of negotiation were exhausted before it came to this.

[Panorama]

You won't get the chance to retire at 60, I will be sacked before then cause I can't maintain the standard that they want to set, which means the £320 a month I put into my pension ( going up to £370) won't be accessible till I'm 67 . Sacked on grounds of incapable to do the job

[Geoff]

by the way, most of the anti firemen comments on this thread are from wind up merchants, just ignore them

Agree.