thats a cheap shot! when have i taken the position of 'this is what we joined for etc'
within my brigade role i dont think anyone could ever complain at the stance i took to widen the community safety agenda - i was one of the first to actively and regularly attend what were then crime and disorder meetings which became community safety partnership meetings and took a lead on youth issues - crime and disorder meetings! under the police act 2000 if i remember correctly - yet i went out on a limb and played an active part - not just attending meetings in name!
i think the documents i produce and the stance i took to move the fbu to adopt a position of community safety as opposed to community fire safety says enough in my defence - if that is 'we aint gonna change' im at a loss to find out what i need to do to put forward my position !!
thats the case (or part of the case) for the personal defence m'lord
ok to the issue - your reference to national framework ACTUALLY says
Integrated Risk Management Plans
1.2 Since April 2003 every Fire and Rescue Authority has been required to produce a local IRMP that sets out the authority's strategy, in collaboration with other agencies, for:
reducing the number and severity of fires, road traffic accidents and other emergency incidents occurring in the area for which it is responsible;
reducing the severity of injuries in fires, road traffic accidents and other emergency incidents;
reducing the commercial, economic and social impact of fires and other emergency incidents;
safeguarding the environment and heritage (both built and natural); and
providing value for money.
lets read that bit again?
'1.2 Since April 2003 every Fire and Rescue Authority has been required to produce a local IRMP that sets out the authority's strategy, in collaboration with other agencies, for: '
'a strategy in collaboration' - or are we working alone again? in my post i stated that there are others best placed to deliver and we will try to assist them - ASSIST them in a collaborative way, NOT do their job at the expense of the things that the government themselves have set targets for us to meet, and nowhere did i say we shouldnt be involved! conflict of agendas - not like the govt is it?
ok other agendas - govt agenda on health issues - should we be involved - damn right we should! i could even quote relevant bits of other legislation that have been ignored but i cant be bothered!
ok lets move on
1.3 of your beloved framework document
'The IRMP should identify the ways in which the authority can work in partnership with neighbouring authorities and other agencies to deliver improved public safety.' - again the partnership approach - so is there a strategy in terms of partnership approach - or are we off again on our good idea/initiative campaign. have they identified ways of working in partnership (and agreed them with the other authorities?)
your beloved document goes on to say - ' It must also set out the targets an authority will set itself and the standards it will apply to meet the specific pattern of local risk' GREAT - ok then what target reduction figure has been set in your brigade for reducing deaths and injuries in road accidents? - what is the strategy to deliver the target that has obviously been set?
move on 1.11
1.11 Most Fire and Rescue Authorities already have links with some local agencies and partnerships. Increasingly, authorities are also members of Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs). Authorities should actively seek to work jointly with local partners in health, social services, housing, education, the voluntary sector and other emergency services to reduce risk to the vulnerable groups in line with their IRMPs.
the last bit is in bold by the way, one of the many issues - having a policy first that offers protection to vulnerable people - where is that ? it may surprise you that i proposed a suite of policies be produced to cover all vulnerbale people and the child safety policy will become part of that suite - london have agreed to move it forward on behalf of cfoa in partnership with the fbu - does that sound as if we're (or i am) ignoring the nf doc!!
id rather you didnt quote parts of documents as being the whole basis of the document - it just means i have to write loads!!!
ok in finishing (cos i could go on, but youre probably bored) i support any activity that saves lives and reduces injuries (yes i even support the govt agenda on accident injury reductions!)
i dont support brigades who think they are the experts and the only ones who can deliver in isolation of other 'agencies/authorities' a whole variety of 'stuff' - we should and i agree must support other agencies/authorities
ok - so wheres the priority - dont forget we have government targets to reach - they were set by government - shouldnt we be doing everything we can to meet those targets and not spread ourselves too thin? or are you one of those who believe that fire deaths cannot be driven down any further - and even if you are - can we really sit back and pat ourselves on the back or is there work to be done to keep those levels as low as possible?
ok, enough is enough - we agree we should impact on all areas of safety - i believe in a collaborative way and that means we're not always the lead 'partners' - and it doesnt mean we ignore everything other than fires!
dave bev
