Firefighting is not a full-time occupation
Monday, November 1, 2010 It's normal, when writing about firemen, to pay tribute to the bravery of those who do such a potentially dangerous job for a living. I don't dispute that.
Why, then, do I have so little sympathy for the London firefighters who are on strike today and again on Bonfire Night and why - in my mind, at least - do they compare so unfavourably with the people who are my real heroes, the men of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution?
Personal experience has something to do with it. As a boy I enjoyed holidays in Cornwall and St David's in Pembrokeshire. I was fascinated by the lifeboat stations and the remarkable pictures and stories of volunteers leaving their day jobs at a moment's notice to risk and sometimes lose their lives in the most horrific storms. (We have all heard stories whereby several generations are lost and a whole community is devastated by a single tragic incident.)
Firefighters have a similar challenging job and I take my hat off to them but in comparison to lifeboatmen they are well paid and my attitude towards them changed, many years ago, when I published a 'behind the scenes' style feature in a student newspaper I was editing.
I was already aware that many firemen have second jobs. What I did not expect was to find a group of men so bored, sitting around all day, that they occasionally amused themselves by making hoax calls to other fire stations.
I don't want to sound too po-faced about this but it did make me think: do we really need full-time firefighters? To put it crudely, firemen are part-time workers, on stand-by but infrequently called into action.
Let them have their second jobs but let their second jobs be their main occupation with firefighting something they do as a sideline, rather like our lifeboatmen. Just a thought.
PS. If I can find the original article I'll post it here. I think it's in a box in my garage at home.
Reader Comments (3)
I'm normally of a mind to sack any public sector worker who gets uppity but have changed my views recently. I think that Cameron and co have so betrayed us that anyone who can cause them dicomfort, irritation or embarassment should be supported. Cameron is setting about systematically impoverishing the people of this country and decimating our armed forces whilst pouring untold millions into the coffers of corrupt foreign bodies like the EU and any 3rd world dictator who happens to chance along.
Even Kim Philby would probably have baulked at what he is doing. It's one thing to hand over a few secrets but I reckon Philby would have thought it going too far to emasculate the military and impoverish the population whilst handing their wealth over to corrupt foreigners and at the same time retaining Labour's repressive regime, the most authoritarian in Europe, which he said he would dismantle. Any sort of resistance to his antics should be supported.
I have no idea why he is doing these things, the actions he is taking seem to have very little to do with cutting the deficit and everything to do with debasing and demoralising this country. He is increasing spending on the repressive aspects of the bloated, bullying state (more "enforcement officers" of all descriptions) whilst cutting useful things like libraries. His actions certainly don't have the trademarks of someone who has the best interests of this country at heart.
Yes Stephen, I read Das Kapital too.
I lost respect for firefighters when they refused to go to people's homes to give advice in fire prevention if they had been smoking for a certain time before an appointment.
I'm afraid that if firefighters are too terrified to handle the aromatic smell of cigarette smoke then they would never attempt to go near a burning building with smoke billowing out. Therefore how much protection can we really expect from those in this job?