Firefighters join in public sector strike

This Is Wiltshire: Brent Thorley Brent Thorley

FIREFIGHTERS in the town are the latest to join hundreds of other public sector workers in a one-day strike next week.

Yesterday the Fire Brigades Union announced that firefighters in services across England and Wales would join the strike on July 10 as part of a series of disputes with the Government over pay and other issues.

More than a million council staff, health workers, teachers and civil servants from across the country are expected to take industrial action on the same date.

The FBU in particular has been in an ongoing row over pensions stretching into last year, over proposals to increase the contributions firefighters make to their pensions, which the union says could cost £4,000 a year.

Brent Thorley, the south west FBU secretary, said: “Our main concern is over pensions, but the day of the strike does coincide with that of many other public workers who are planning to take industrial action on July 10.

“It’s disappointing. Obviously, if negotiations were going well with the Government we would not be announcing industrial action, so it is a bit of a Mexican stand-off.

“I think in Northern Ireland they are approaching a deal and in Scotland they are not striking because they are nearing an acceptable deal.

“It just seems like the Government in England and Wales, the Government in Westminster, is very reluctant to negotiate a fair deal with us.”

The FBU also objects to raising the retirement age to 60, making tough physical tests harder to pass.

On top of that it objects to proposals which could see firefighters who do not pass the tests being sacked and unable to claim their pension until they reach the national retirement age of 67.

The FBU strike will take place between 10am and 7pm and will be the 15th in the firefighters’ campaign. The union is expected to announce further action later this week.

The general secretary of the FBU, Matt Wrack, said: “The FBU has wanted to settle our dispute for a long time, but the Government at Westminster is simply not listening.

“We are therefore proud to take strike action alongside our colleagues in other unions on July 10.

“The fact that this Government has united so many workers to take strike action against them is a testament to the failure of their policies.

“They are destroying our public services and wrecking the lives of millions.

“If they won't listen and won’t negotiate, then this is the result and they should face more of the same if necessary.”

Other workers who have already announced that will take part in the strike on July 10 include civil servants in the Public and Commercial Services Union, council and school support workers in the GMB and Unison, and members of the National Union Of Teachers.

Comments (30)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:56am Thu 3 Jul 14

Blind Fury says...

Full support to you all.....about time this government listened to the frontline and treated them with more respect!!
Full support to you all.....about time this government listened to the frontline and treated them with more respect!! Blind Fury
  • Score: -10

7:45am Thu 3 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...

Would it be easier and less complicated for the Adver to publish a list of dates when the fire fighters are actually working?
Would it be easier and less complicated for the Adver to publish a list of dates when the fire fighters are actually working? Sandor Clegane
  • Score: 4

8:11am Thu 3 Jul 14

house on the hill says...

the public sector are being offered a better pension than 95% of the private sector even with the increases. Some people just dont know when they are well off. Millions of us had contracts with final salary pensions in that no longer exist. Sorry you are just greedy and out of touch with the realities of economics.

And as for the comment about "frontline" everyone is frontline in one way or another. without the water companies supplying water to the firemen or the coachbuilders making the fire engines they couldnt do their jobs. But why think about other people when you can be selfish hey? Sorry no sympathy.
the public sector are being offered a better pension than 95% of the private sector even with the increases. Some people just dont know when they are well off. Millions of us had contracts with final salary pensions in that no longer exist. Sorry you are just greedy and out of touch with the realities of economics. And as for the comment about "frontline" everyone is frontline in one way or another. without the water companies supplying water to the firemen or the coachbuilders making the fire engines they couldnt do their jobs. But why think about other people when you can be selfish hey? Sorry no sympathy. house on the hill
  • Score: 15

8:47am Thu 3 Jul 14

scottwichall says...

I think the best thing to do is make redundant any post who's owner is striking next week, and who's "services" we do not miss whilst they are on strike.

I suspect that would shrink the size of the public sector drastically, just leaving genuine front line workers, rather than the reams of management, 5 a day coordinators, daily nag managers, finger waving directors, prod nose team leaders etc that we are currently saddled with.

Oh, and if we stopped funding all the various "fake" charities which are in reality NGO's now, we could probably afford as a nation to make suitable provision for the aforementioned hard working front line staff.
I think the best thing to do is make redundant any post who's owner is striking next week, and who's "services" we do not miss whilst they are on strike. I suspect that would shrink the size of the public sector drastically, just leaving genuine front line workers, rather than the reams of management, 5 a day coordinators, daily nag managers, finger waving directors, prod nose team leaders etc that we are currently saddled with. Oh, and if we stopped funding all the various "fake" charities which are in reality NGO's now, we could probably afford as a nation to make suitable provision for the aforementioned hard working front line staff. scottwichall
  • Score: 18

10:13am Thu 3 Jul 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

They say they are striking because of the government failure to negotiate but I don't see much "negotiation" on the part of the unions either. For them it's either their way or the highway, effectively holding the country to ransom.
They say they are striking because of the government failure to negotiate but I don't see much "negotiation" on the part of the unions either. For them it's either their way or the highway, effectively holding the country to ransom. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 10

10:28am Thu 3 Jul 14

trolley dolley says...

Sandor Clegane wrote:
Would it be easier and less complicated for the Adver to publish a list of dates when the fire fighters are actually working?
Maybe they do, but it would be a very short list.

It is just an excuse for a day off.
[quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: Would it be easier and less complicated for the Adver to publish a list of dates when the fire fighters are actually working?[/p][/quote]Maybe they do, but it would be a very short list. It is just an excuse for a day off. trolley dolley
  • Score: 1

10:32am Thu 3 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
They say they are striking because of the government failure to negotiate but I don't see much "negotiation" on the part of the unions either. For them it's either their way or the highway, effectively holding the country to ransom.
Apart from the fact that nobody notices whether they're on strike or not.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: They say they are striking because of the government failure to negotiate but I don't see much "negotiation" on the part of the unions either. For them it's either their way or the highway, effectively holding the country to ransom.[/p][/quote]Apart from the fact that nobody notices whether they're on strike or not. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: -1

11:43am Thu 3 Jul 14

swindondad says...

IMHO these public sector strikes have little to do with pay / conditions but a whole lot more to do with making the current government look weak in the run up to next years elections. Do not be surprised to see the unions ramping up the pressure in the next 8 months.
IMHO these public sector strikes have little to do with pay / conditions but a whole lot more to do with making the current government look weak in the run up to next years elections. Do not be surprised to see the unions ramping up the pressure in the next 8 months. swindondad
  • Score: 14

11:46am Thu 3 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...

swindondad wrote:
IMHO these public sector strikes have little to do with pay / conditions but a whole lot more to do with making the current government look weak in the run up to next years elections. Do not be surprised to see the unions ramping up the pressure in the next 8 months.
Spot on.
[quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: IMHO these public sector strikes have little to do with pay / conditions but a whole lot more to do with making the current government look weak in the run up to next years elections. Do not be surprised to see the unions ramping up the pressure in the next 8 months.[/p][/quote]Spot on. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: 10

11:47am Thu 3 Jul 14

MrAngry says...

Fire fighters, teachers and council workers are different unrelated cases.

By colluding together and striking on the same day, this just comes across as an anti-government protest ahead of a general election.

The unions are more interested in politics than their own members.
Fire fighters, teachers and council workers are different unrelated cases. By colluding together and striking on the same day, this just comes across as an anti-government protest ahead of a general election. The unions are more interested in politics than their own members. MrAngry
  • Score: 11

12:48pm Thu 3 Jul 14

messyits says...

The fire service relies on fit and strong constitution in their frontline jobs to tackle the tasks they can face. They may put their lives at risk in numerous situations to save others--many have died trying to save others.
The fire service relies on fit and strong constitution in their frontline jobs to tackle the tasks they can face. They may put their lives at risk in numerous situations to save others--many have died trying to save others. messyits
  • Score: 4

12:58pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Davey Gravey says...

messyits wrote:
The fire service relies on fit and strong constitution in their frontline jobs to tackle the tasks they can face. They may put their lives at risk in numerous situations to save others--many have died trying to save others.
This!!
The troll won't like it though so expect some of these. 👎👎👎👎
[quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: The fire service relies on fit and strong constitution in their frontline jobs to tackle the tasks they can face. They may put their lives at risk in numerous situations to save others--many have died trying to save others.[/p][/quote]This!! The troll won't like it though so expect some of these. 👎👎👎👎 Davey Gravey
  • Score: -1

1:17pm Thu 3 Jul 14

house on the hill says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
They say they are striking because of the government failure to negotiate but I don't see much "negotiation" on the part of the unions either. For them it's either their way or the highway, effectively holding the country to ransom.
What you mean is holding the tax payers who pay their wages and pensions to ransom!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: They say they are striking because of the government failure to negotiate but I don't see much "negotiation" on the part of the unions either. For them it's either their way or the highway, effectively holding the country to ransom.[/p][/quote]What you mean is holding the tax payers who pay their wages and pensions to ransom!!!!! house on the hill
  • Score: 3

1:32pm Thu 3 Jul 14

messyits says...

The FBU in particular has been in an ongoing row over pensions stretching into last year, over proposals to increase the contributions firefighters make to their pensions, which the union says could cost £4,000 a year.
Effectively cutting their earnings--and having to work more years--or face the sack if at the greater age if they are not physically--or mentally fit.
The FBU in particular has been in an ongoing row over pensions stretching into last year, over proposals to increase the contributions firefighters make to their pensions, which the union says could cost £4,000 a year. Effectively cutting their earnings--and having to work more years--or face the sack if at the greater age if they are not physically--or mentally fit. messyits
  • Score: -2

1:47pm Thu 3 Jul 14

house on the hill says...

messyits wrote:
The fire service relies on fit and strong constitution in their frontline jobs to tackle the tasks they can face. They may put their lives at risk in numerous situations to save others--many have died trying to save others.
Interesting article on the BBC from September last year saying that more than 10% were deemed unfit when tested And they are not the only ones who risk their lives at work. As others have said you have a choice for what you choose to do as a job and if you cant stand the heat get out of the firehouse! Sorry but never understood people who moan about something they can change if they want to.
[quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: The fire service relies on fit and strong constitution in their frontline jobs to tackle the tasks they can face. They may put their lives at risk in numerous situations to save others--many have died trying to save others.[/p][/quote]Interesting article on the BBC from September last year saying that more than 10% were deemed unfit when tested And they are not the only ones who risk their lives at work. As others have said you have a choice for what you choose to do as a job and if you cant stand the heat get out of the firehouse! Sorry but never understood people who moan about something they can change if they want to. house on the hill
  • Score: 2

2:10pm Thu 3 Jul 14

messyits says...

hoth
The issue is not in line with your comments--I feel sure if you signed on to a job and pension that set an age to retire--then were asked to contribute £4000 more p.a and work on into an age you would possibly not be fit to continue--you would protest.
hoth The issue is not in line with your comments--I feel sure if you signed on to a job and pension that set an age to retire--then were asked to contribute £4000 more p.a and work on into an age you would possibly not be fit to continue--you would protest. messyits
  • Score: 1

2:23pm Thu 3 Jul 14

swindondad says...

messyits wrote:
hoth
The issue is not in line with your comments--I feel sure if you signed on to a job and pension that set an age to retire--then were asked to contribute £4000 more p.a and work on into an age you would possibly not be fit to continue--you would protest.
Changes in pension provision MUST be made to reflect the ever increasing life expectancy in this country.

No worker likes the idea of having to pay in more each month / work for longer / excepting a lower pension upon retirement but some combination of those three is inevitable unless of course the unions are advocating euthanasia at age 70 for their members.
[quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: hoth The issue is not in line with your comments--I feel sure if you signed on to a job and pension that set an age to retire--then were asked to contribute £4000 more p.a and work on into an age you would possibly not be fit to continue--you would protest.[/p][/quote]Changes in pension provision MUST be made to reflect the ever increasing life expectancy in this country. No worker likes the idea of having to pay in more each month / work for longer / excepting a lower pension upon retirement but some combination of those three is inevitable unless of course the unions are advocating euthanasia at age 70 for their members. swindondad
  • Score: 2

2:40pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...

messyits wrote:
hoth
The issue is not in line with your comments--I feel sure if you signed on to a job and pension that set an age to retire--then were asked to contribute £4000 more p.a and work on into an age you would possibly not be fit to continue--you would protest.
Was there anything in your contract, at the time of signing, that specifically enshrined that your pay, pension, retirement age and conditions would never change, at all, no matter how long you were employed for?

I know plenty of people who took pay cuts during the worst of Labour's recession, simply to ensure the companies that employed them could survive. Nobody liked doing it, but the choice - sadly - is either work with what's possible, resign or face redundancy.

In 2014, people can't seriously expect to retire on a very healthy pension aged just 55. While I'm sure we'd all like to spend 30 years being paid to do nothing, it's just not viable.
[quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: hoth The issue is not in line with your comments--I feel sure if you signed on to a job and pension that set an age to retire--then were asked to contribute £4000 more p.a and work on into an age you would possibly not be fit to continue--you would protest.[/p][/quote]Was there anything in your contract, at the time of signing, that specifically enshrined that your pay, pension, retirement age and conditions would never change, at all, no matter how long you were employed for? I know plenty of people who took pay cuts during the worst of Labour's recession, simply to ensure the companies that employed them could survive. Nobody liked doing it, but the choice - sadly - is either work with what's possible, resign or face redundancy. In 2014, people can't seriously expect to retire on a very healthy pension aged just 55. While I'm sure we'd all like to spend 30 years being paid to do nothing, it's just not viable. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: 1

2:52pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...

messyits wrote:
The fire service relies on fit and strong constitution in their frontline jobs to tackle the tasks they can face. They may put their lives at risk in numerous situations to save others--many have died trying to save others.
Nobody is suggesting it's not a dangerous profession, but let's get some actual figures and some perspective.

According to official government figures for the most recent full year (2012-2013) the number of firefighters killed in the line of duty during that year was: 1

In contrast, the number of farm workers killed occupationally was: 27.

For those involved in manufacturing industries it was: 14.

For construction workers it was: 42.

As far as I'm aware, none of those professions are allowed to retire at 55 and many will not even have pensions, let alone good ones.
[quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: The fire service relies on fit and strong constitution in their frontline jobs to tackle the tasks they can face. They may put their lives at risk in numerous situations to save others--many have died trying to save others.[/p][/quote]Nobody is suggesting it's not a dangerous profession, but let's get some actual figures and some perspective. According to official government figures for the most recent full year (2012-2013) the number of firefighters killed in the line of duty during that year was: 1 In contrast, the number of farm workers killed occupationally was: 27. For those involved in manufacturing industries it was: 14. For construction workers it was: 42. As far as I'm aware, none of those professions are allowed to retire at 55 and many will not even have pensions, let alone good ones. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: 6

3:03pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Hmmmf says...

Age is a complete red herring, and the FBU only embarrasses itself every time they mention it. 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, and the FBU only embarrasses itself every time they mention it. 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 Hmmmf
  • Score: 4

3:41pm Thu 3 Jul 14

messyits says...

In 2014, people can't seriously expect to retire on a very healthy pension aged just 55. While I'm sure we'd all like to spend 30 years being paid to do nothing, it's just not viable.

Most certainly they do if that is what they signed up for--with certainty they did not sign up to be told now they have to work longer and pay £4000 p.a more for the privilege--and of course the increase in age for state pensions--and ever increasing payments for that.
Your claims its down to labour shows how flawed your information is.
In 2014, people can't seriously expect to retire on a very healthy pension aged just 55. While I'm sure we'd all like to spend 30 years being paid to do nothing, it's just not viable. Most certainly they do if that is what they signed up for--with certainty they did not sign up to be told now they have to work longer and pay £4000 p.a more for the privilege--and of course the increase in age for state pensions--and ever increasing payments for that. Your claims its down to labour shows how flawed your information is. messyits
  • Score: -4

4:37pm Thu 3 Jul 14

knittynora says...

scottwichall wrote:
I think the best thing to do is make redundant any post who's owner is striking next week, and who's "services" we do not miss whilst they are on strike.

I suspect that would shrink the size of the public sector drastically, just leaving genuine front line workers, rather than the reams of management, 5 a day coordinators, daily nag managers, finger waving directors, prod nose team leaders etc that we are currently saddled with.

Oh, and if we stopped funding all the various "fake" charities which are in reality NGO's now, we could probably afford as a nation to make suitable provision for the aforementioned hard working front line staff.
The reams of management, 5 a day coordinators, daily nag managers, finger waving directors, prod nose team leaders etc that we are currently saddled with. are exactly the people who don't strike ever.
They are inside on the day pretending to offer a "normal service", while the front line staff who actually do provide the service are outside on strike because they are fed up with being used and abused.
[quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: I think the best thing to do is make redundant any post who's owner is striking next week, and who's "services" we do not miss whilst they are on strike. I suspect that would shrink the size of the public sector drastically, just leaving genuine front line workers, rather than the reams of management, 5 a day coordinators, daily nag managers, finger waving directors, prod nose team leaders etc that we are currently saddled with. Oh, and if we stopped funding all the various "fake" charities which are in reality NGO's now, we could probably afford as a nation to make suitable provision for the aforementioned hard working front line staff.[/p][/quote]The reams of management, 5 a day coordinators, daily nag managers, finger waving directors, prod nose team leaders etc that we are currently saddled with. are exactly the people who don't strike ever. They are inside on the day pretending to offer a "normal service", while the front line staff who actually do provide the service are outside on strike because they are fed up with being used and abused. knittynora
  • Score: -2

5:05pm Thu 3 Jul 14

MrAngry says...

messyits wrote:
In 2014, people can't seriously expect to retire on a very healthy pension aged just 55. While I'm sure we'd all like to spend 30 years being paid to do nothing, it's just not viable.

Most certainly they do if that is what they signed up for--with certainty they did not sign up to be told now they have to work longer and pay £4000 p.a more for the privilege--and of course the increase in age for state pensions--and ever increasing payments for that.
Your claims its down to labour shows how flawed your information is.
They didn't sign up for life though did they? The pension was one of the terms and conditions offered at the time but it was never offered for life. A fire fighter who signed up 20 years ago was offered a pension and a certain salary. If you are suggesting that the pension must remain unaltered are you also saying that the salary should have remained the same. Both are subject to review.

Alternatively, you could look at it from the employer's perspective. The cost of pension provision is rising. The employer could argue that it is making the same contribution to the pension, but that the return is now lower. Why should the employer pay more than previously agreed.

Unfortunately, most of us have had final salary pensions withdrawn. Why should the public sector be any different?

The unions will lose this battle in the long run. If they win in the short term, public services will become more expensive and will eventually get cut. This has already happened at SBC. Unions win generous pay rises and maintain pensions in the short term resulting in outsourcing and redundancies in the long term. Be careful what you wish for.
[quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: In 2014, people can't seriously expect to retire on a very healthy pension aged just 55. While I'm sure we'd all like to spend 30 years being paid to do nothing, it's just not viable. Most certainly they do if that is what they signed up for--with certainty they did not sign up to be told now they have to work longer and pay £4000 p.a more for the privilege--and of course the increase in age for state pensions--and ever increasing payments for that. Your claims its down to labour shows how flawed your information is.[/p][/quote]They didn't sign up for life though did they? The pension was one of the terms and conditions offered at the time but it was never offered for life. A fire fighter who signed up 20 years ago was offered a pension and a certain salary. If you are suggesting that the pension must remain unaltered are you also saying that the salary should have remained the same. Both are subject to review. Alternatively, you could look at it from the employer's perspective. The cost of pension provision is rising. The employer could argue that it is making the same contribution to the pension, but that the return is now lower. Why should the employer pay more than previously agreed. Unfortunately, most of us have had final salary pensions withdrawn. Why should the public sector be any different? The unions will lose this battle in the long run. If they win in the short term, public services will become more expensive and will eventually get cut. This has already happened at SBC. Unions win generous pay rises and maintain pensions in the short term resulting in outsourcing and redundancies in the long term. Be careful what you wish for. MrAngry
  • Score: 5

9:40pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Phantom Poster says...

messyits wrote:
In 2014, people can't seriously expect to retire on a very healthy pension aged just 55. While I'm sure we'd all like to spend 30 years being paid to do nothing, it's just not viable.

Most certainly they do if that is what they signed up for--with certainty they did not sign up to be told now they have to work longer and pay £4000 p.a more for the privilege--and of course the increase in age for state pensions--and ever increasing payments for that.
Your claims its down to labour shows how flawed your information is.
What do you mean "signed up for"? Maybe private industry has different concepts, but when you start a job and have worked through the probation period then your only guarantee of continued employment is for the notice period, which is usually one month.

"Jobs for life" and one pension scheme for your whole life is a pre-seventies concept.

If a firemen is not fit for his job at 55 then why doesn't he find another job? Plenty of people in private industry at that age have been made redundant with no cushy pension and have had to make the best of their lives.
[quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: In 2014, people can't seriously expect to retire on a very healthy pension aged just 55. While I'm sure we'd all like to spend 30 years being paid to do nothing, it's just not viable. Most certainly they do if that is what they signed up for--with certainty they did not sign up to be told now they have to work longer and pay £4000 p.a more for the privilege--and of course the increase in age for state pensions--and ever increasing payments for that. Your claims its down to labour shows how flawed your information is.[/p][/quote]What do you mean "signed up for"? Maybe private industry has different concepts, but when you start a job and have worked through the probation period then your only guarantee of continued employment is for the notice period, which is usually one month. "Jobs for life" and one pension scheme for your whole life is a pre-seventies concept. If a firemen is not fit for his job at 55 then why doesn't he find another job? Plenty of people in private industry at that age have been made redundant with no cushy pension and have had to make the best of their lives. Phantom Poster
  • Score: 7

9:53pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Phantom Poster says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
messyits wrote:
The fire service relies on fit and strong constitution in their frontline jobs to tackle the tasks they can face. They may put their lives at risk in numerous situations to save others--many have died trying to save others.
This!!
The troll won't like it though so expect some of these. 👎👎👎👎
I suppose it makes a change from you complaining about thumb twiddling.

Please look up the definition of troll and then think about your post.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: The fire service relies on fit and strong constitution in their frontline jobs to tackle the tasks they can face. They may put their lives at risk in numerous situations to save others--many have died trying to save others.[/p][/quote]This!! The troll won't like it though so expect some of these. 👎👎👎👎[/p][/quote]I suppose it makes a change from you complaining about thumb twiddling. Please look up the definition of troll and then think about your post. Phantom Poster
  • Score: 1

12:34am Fri 4 Jul 14

Davey Gravey says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
messyits wrote:
The fire service relies on fit and strong constitution in their frontline jobs to tackle the tasks they can face. They may put their lives at risk in numerous situations to save others--many have died trying to save others.
This!!
The troll won't like it though so expect some of these. 👎👎👎👎
I suppose it makes a change from you complaining about thumb twiddling.

Please look up the definition of troll and then think about your post.
That's still going on as the banned troll has a new account.
Thanks for the advice also but I know what an internet troll is and I have no need to rethink my post.
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: The fire service relies on fit and strong constitution in their frontline jobs to tackle the tasks they can face. They may put their lives at risk in numerous situations to save others--many have died trying to save others.[/p][/quote]This!! The troll won't like it though so expect some of these. 👎👎👎👎[/p][/quote]I suppose it makes a change from you complaining about thumb twiddling. Please look up the definition of troll and then think about your post.[/p][/quote]That's still going on as the banned troll has a new account. Thanks for the advice also but I know what an internet troll is and I have no need to rethink my post. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -1

1:02am Fri 4 Jul 14

Phantom Poster says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Phantom Poster wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
messyits wrote:
The fire service relies on fit and strong constitution in their frontline jobs to tackle the tasks they can face. They may put their lives at risk in numerous situations to save others--many have died trying to save others.
This!!
The troll won't like it though so expect some of these. 👎👎👎👎
I suppose it makes a change from you complaining about thumb twiddling.

Please look up the definition of troll and then think about your post.
That's still going on as the banned troll has a new account.
Thanks for the advice also but I know what an internet troll is and I have no need to rethink my post.
You're obsessed with ChannelX, aren't you?
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: The fire service relies on fit and strong constitution in their frontline jobs to tackle the tasks they can face. They may put their lives at risk in numerous situations to save others--many have died trying to save others.[/p][/quote]This!! The troll won't like it though so expect some of these. 👎👎👎👎[/p][/quote]I suppose it makes a change from you complaining about thumb twiddling. Please look up the definition of troll and then think about your post.[/p][/quote]That's still going on as the banned troll has a new account. Thanks for the advice also but I know what an internet troll is and I have no need to rethink my post.[/p][/quote]You're obsessed with ChannelX, aren't you? Phantom Poster
  • Score: 1

8:07am Fri 4 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...

messyits wrote:
In 2014, people can't seriously expect to retire on a very healthy pension aged just 55. While I'm sure we'd all like to spend 30 years being paid to do nothing, it's just not viable.

Most certainly they do if that is what they signed up for--with certainty they did not sign up to be told now they have to work longer and pay £4000 p.a more for the privilege--and of course the increase in age for state pensions--and ever increasing payments for that.
Your claims its down to labour shows how flawed your information is.
Nobody signs up for the same salary, pension and employment terms and conditions at the time they begin a job and expect all to be the same some 20 to 30 years later. That would be ludicrous, as you very well know.

And, even more obviously, of course there would not have been mention of increased retirement age or increased pension contributions when some people signed up many, many years ago. But, then, you also know that full well.

Things change. The nature of the job chages, the terms and conditions change. If you don't like it, you have three options: accept it, resign or be made redundant. Everything else is merely playing at it.

The public sector unions aren't interested in their members, their pensions or their terms. They're only interested in furthering the aims of their political puppet party.

Labour were in power for 10 long years before the devastating recession struck this country. Either they had absolutely no control at all over the economy and were incompetent, or they knew precisely what was going to happen and didn't care because they knew the Tories would have to clear up the mess... which they've now done in just four short years.

That you may not care for the facts and reality does not change it.
[quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: In 2014, people can't seriously expect to retire on a very healthy pension aged just 55. While I'm sure we'd all like to spend 30 years being paid to do nothing, it's just not viable. Most certainly they do if that is what they signed up for--with certainty they did not sign up to be told now they have to work longer and pay £4000 p.a more for the privilege--and of course the increase in age for state pensions--and ever increasing payments for that. Your claims its down to labour shows how flawed your information is.[/p][/quote]Nobody signs up for the same salary, pension and employment terms and conditions at the time they begin a job and expect all to be the same some 20 to 30 years later. That would be ludicrous, as you very well know. And, even more obviously, of course there would not have been mention of increased retirement age or increased pension contributions when some people signed up many, many years ago. But, then, you also know that full well. Things change. The nature of the job chages, the terms and conditions change. If you don't like it, you have three options: accept it, resign or be made redundant. Everything else is merely playing at it. The public sector unions aren't interested in their members, their pensions or their terms. They're only interested in furthering the aims of their political puppet party. Labour were in power for 10 long years before the devastating recession struck this country. Either they had absolutely no control at all over the economy and were incompetent, or they knew precisely what was going to happen and didn't care because they knew the Tories would have to clear up the mess... which they've now done in just four short years. That you may not care for the facts and reality does not change it. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: -1

8:54am Fri 4 Jul 14

Davey Gravey says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Phantom Poster wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
messyits wrote:
The fire service relies on fit and strong constitution in their frontline jobs to tackle the tasks they can face. They may put their lives at risk in numerous situations to save others--many have died trying to save others.
This!!
The troll won't like it though so expect some of these. 👎👎👎👎
I suppose it makes a change from you complaining about thumb twiddling.

Please look up the definition of troll and then think about your post.
That's still going on as the banned troll has a new account.
Thanks for the advice also but I know what an internet troll is and I have no need to rethink my post.
You're obsessed with ChannelX, aren't you?
No. I'm just fed up of one individual getting away with targeting peoples comments and getting away with it.
I'm one of the few he does this to. Gets banned then comes back as another alias. That's obsession for you not being a victim of it.
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: The fire service relies on fit and strong constitution in their frontline jobs to tackle the tasks they can face. They may put their lives at risk in numerous situations to save others--many have died trying to save others.[/p][/quote]This!! The troll won't like it though so expect some of these. 👎👎👎👎[/p][/quote]I suppose it makes a change from you complaining about thumb twiddling. Please look up the definition of troll and then think about your post.[/p][/quote]That's still going on as the banned troll has a new account. Thanks for the advice also but I know what an internet troll is and I have no need to rethink my post.[/p][/quote]You're obsessed with ChannelX, aren't you?[/p][/quote]No. I'm just fed up of one individual getting away with targeting peoples comments and getting away with it. I'm one of the few he does this to. Gets banned then comes back as another alias. That's obsession for you not being a victim of it. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -1

12:55pm Fri 4 Jul 14

messyits says...

Sandor Clegane wrote:
messyits wrote:
In 2014, people can't seriously expect to retire on a very healthy pension aged just 55. While I'm sure we'd all like to spend 30 years being paid to do nothing, it's just not viable.

Most certainly they do if that is what they signed up for--with certainty they did not sign up to be told now they have to work longer and pay £4000 p.a more for the privilege--and of course the increase in age for state pensions--and ever increasing payments for that.
Your claims its down to labour shows how flawed your information is.
Nobody signs up for the same salary, pension and employment terms and conditions at the time they begin a job and expect all to be the same some 20 to 30 years later. That would be ludicrous, as you very well know.

And, even more obviously, of course there would not have been mention of increased retirement age or increased pension contributions when some people signed up many, many years ago. But, then, you also know that full well.

Things change. The nature of the job chages, the terms and conditions change. If you don't like it, you have three options: accept it, resign or be made redundant. Everything else is merely playing at it.

The public sector unions aren't interested in their members, their pensions or their terms. They're only interested in furthering the aims of their political puppet party.

Labour were in power for 10 long years before the devastating recession struck this country. Either they had absolutely no control at all over the economy and were incompetent, or they knew precisely what was going to happen and didn't care because they knew the Tories would have to clear up the mess... which they've now done in just four short years.

That you may not care for the facts and reality does not change it.
Oh dear--please supply true facts--not your very warped version of claimed facts based on political beliefs.
[quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: In 2014, people can't seriously expect to retire on a very healthy pension aged just 55. While I'm sure we'd all like to spend 30 years being paid to do nothing, it's just not viable. Most certainly they do if that is what they signed up for--with certainty they did not sign up to be told now they have to work longer and pay £4000 p.a more for the privilege--and of course the increase in age for state pensions--and ever increasing payments for that. Your claims its down to labour shows how flawed your information is.[/p][/quote]Nobody signs up for the same salary, pension and employment terms and conditions at the time they begin a job and expect all to be the same some 20 to 30 years later. That would be ludicrous, as you very well know. And, even more obviously, of course there would not have been mention of increased retirement age or increased pension contributions when some people signed up many, many years ago. But, then, you also know that full well. Things change. The nature of the job chages, the terms and conditions change. If you don't like it, you have three options: accept it, resign or be made redundant. Everything else is merely playing at it. The public sector unions aren't interested in their members, their pensions or their terms. They're only interested in furthering the aims of their political puppet party. Labour were in power for 10 long years before the devastating recession struck this country. Either they had absolutely no control at all over the economy and were incompetent, or they knew precisely what was going to happen and didn't care because they knew the Tories would have to clear up the mess... which they've now done in just four short years. That you may not care for the facts and reality does not change it.[/p][/quote]Oh dear--please supply true facts--not your very warped version of claimed facts based on political beliefs. messyits
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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