Labour mention their Fire campaign and how it continues to protect Rutland's Fire Service
in a leaflet delivered this week.
They refer to retaining the second appliance at Oakham.
I attended a very poor scrutiny meeting at Rutland County Council and the
Fire Officer said the main reason they are considering removing the
appliance is because they can not recruit enough retained staff to run it.
This could explain why the station manager is also a retained officer. Pay must be poor
because like many other officers he also ran his own business.
I find the double taxation option by Rutland Tories suggesting the council fund it at
a cost of £75,000 a year, over the next two years rather daft. Who will operate it
the Chief Fire Officer has said publicly it is often not available due to lack of staff.
I hope Labour are not supporting Rutland County Council offer to pay.
There is a lot of scaremongering about the state of Leicestershire and Rutland Fire Service.
It can cope without this appliance, Of course like all local people I am very grateful and very supportive of our Fire Officers. Although I believe the real issue here is not the loss of the engine
it's the loss of retained crew who are paid and the loss of additional pay to those who are
full time and retained. Like the Station Manager who is also one of our newest Town Councillors.
Recently the chairman of the fire authority reported at a full Rutland County Council meeting
and we learned that the Uppingham Appliance was not available when the large fire broke
out in Pillings Road Oakham just before Christmas. The reason the entire station is manned by
a retained crew and none were available so the appliance was logged out of the system. Just like the
police the fire service can call in support from neighbours when required. So we were assured the fire service can and do the same. Oakham, Uppingham or any Rutland Village would not suffer.
The Chair of the fire authority explained how other towns and counties assisted at the December fire
He also explained how empty stations like Oakham received an appliance from another area to cover
the town and surrounding areas whilst crews were busy at Pillings Road.
Something the man who wrote to Rutland Times should remember when he made the daft comment that it would be unfair for him and others to pay for the additional appliance at Oakham, He suggested Oakham Town Council should pay. Oakham Fire Station is its name, I wonder if the Pilton letter writer realises where a fire crew might come from if there were a fire in Pilton?
He is correct to say it is unfair for all tax payers to go along with Rutland County Councils
proposal to fund an engine that may not have a crew, because the tax payer already
pays for it their council tax bill.
If Rutland County Council do pay, what part of their budget is going to be cut?
Last year we saw them cut £11,000 from Rutland County Library here in Oakham
because they are so cash poor? £75,000 could see a lot more service cuts and I wonder
if this payment would even be lawful.
The letter also write about local BBC propaganda. Any cut in public service is news
worthy. I myself have seen posters and leaflet all containing cropped images showing
two appliances at Oakham, If you walk past and look there are three so I find it all
a little confusing and politics is playing a big part in this why else would Roger Begys
team be able to find funding to pay for the second engine just before an election?
in a leaflet delivered this week.
They refer to retaining the second appliance at Oakham.
I attended a very poor scrutiny meeting at Rutland County Council and the
Fire Officer said the main reason they are considering removing the
appliance is because they can not recruit enough retained staff to run it.
This could explain why the station manager is also a retained officer. Pay must be poor
because like many other officers he also ran his own business.
I find the double taxation option by Rutland Tories suggesting the council fund it at
a cost of £75,000 a year, over the next two years rather daft. Who will operate it
the Chief Fire Officer has said publicly it is often not available due to lack of staff.
I hope Labour are not supporting Rutland County Council offer to pay.
There is a lot of scaremongering about the state of Leicestershire and Rutland Fire Service.
It can cope without this appliance, Of course like all local people I am very grateful and very supportive of our Fire Officers. Although I believe the real issue here is not the loss of the engine
it's the loss of retained crew who are paid and the loss of additional pay to those who are
full time and retained. Like the Station Manager who is also one of our newest Town Councillors.
Recently the chairman of the fire authority reported at a full Rutland County Council meeting
and we learned that the Uppingham Appliance was not available when the large fire broke
out in Pillings Road Oakham just before Christmas. The reason the entire station is manned by
a retained crew and none were available so the appliance was logged out of the system. Just like the
police the fire service can call in support from neighbours when required. So we were assured the fire service can and do the same. Oakham, Uppingham or any Rutland Village would not suffer.
The Chair of the fire authority explained how other towns and counties assisted at the December fire
He also explained how empty stations like Oakham received an appliance from another area to cover
the town and surrounding areas whilst crews were busy at Pillings Road.
Something the man who wrote to Rutland Times should remember when he made the daft comment that it would be unfair for him and others to pay for the additional appliance at Oakham, He suggested Oakham Town Council should pay. Oakham Fire Station is its name, I wonder if the Pilton letter writer realises where a fire crew might come from if there were a fire in Pilton?
He is correct to say it is unfair for all tax payers to go along with Rutland County Councils
proposal to fund an engine that may not have a crew, because the tax payer already
pays for it their council tax bill.
If Rutland County Council do pay, what part of their budget is going to be cut?
Last year we saw them cut £11,000 from Rutland County Library here in Oakham
because they are so cash poor? £75,000 could see a lot more service cuts and I wonder
if this payment would even be lawful.
The letter also write about local BBC propaganda. Any cut in public service is news
worthy. I myself have seen posters and leaflet all containing cropped images showing
two appliances at Oakham, If you walk past and look there are three so I find it all
a little confusing and politics is playing a big part in this why else would Roger Begys
team be able to find funding to pay for the second engine just before an election?
