THE controversy over the reorganisation and proposed extended role of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service should come as no surprise ("Minister insists no decisions have been taken about future shape of the fire service", The Herald, October 26). Experience worldwide shows that the life-saving emotive nature of fire and ambulance services is often used as a political football, to the extent that it sometimes obscures practical realities.
Mutual respect and co-operation has been heightened by far-reaching developments in both services. Naturally, the Fire Service’s success in reducing the number of fires will have an impact on the number and distribution of resources. Ambulance paramedics’ extended role promises to have a significant impact on reducing hospital admissions and GP workloads. Ambulance Service First Responders in rural areas – some of them also part-time or former fire fighters – are dramatically improving response times to medical emergencies.
However, whilst acknowledging fire fighters’ existing basic life-support skills, it is questionable if routinely responding to medical emergencies is the most cost-effective solution. The recent BBC documentary series, Ambulance, should be compulsory viewing for all. It vividly recorded the unsustainable demands being made on this frontline service. Increasing one service’s costs, against a background of decreased demand, whilst denying another the resources it requires, does not make economic sense.
Of course, we may all be guilty of ignoring the elephant in the room. Unhealthy lifestyles, manifested in obesity, alcohol abuse and drug addiction, threatens the very survival of our NHS in its present form. Politicians, of all political parties, would do well to concentrate on turning off the tap, rather than mopping up the floor.
John Wilby,
Oakshaw Street West, Paisley.
I NOTICE two problems in our police, both structural.
Walking late at night, I observed a drunk being loaded into a police van by two officers, a man 6ft 3in, the other a woman a foot shorter. They could not get the drunk into the van, though he was middle-aged, average height and build. Equipment fell to the ground which I collected and put in the driving cabin. The WPC was resolute and heavy enough to be useful. She was just not tall enough or strong enough. I do not think any woman should be asked to do what she was trying to do, as part of her duties. Eventually another police car, again with a man and woman, arrived, and after more struggle, the drunk was got into the van by all four.
The mistake, I suggest, is to put equality of job opportunity before fitness to do the job. This WPC could have suffered serious injury and because of her determination, may yet do so in future. The police used to be required to be tall and strong. Women who are should be employed in this way. Small, light men and women who are endangered by their physique should not be so engaged.
I observed an offence in the street in daylight. Work on a vehicle was ongoing with it parked on the pavement beside the entry to a building. Grease and oil lay in the street, an actylene torch was being used and tools were scattered about the pavement. There could have been a fire and elderly folk entering and leaving the building might have been endangered. I had to write three letters to the police in three months to get any response. Finally, a PR phone call occurred from a senior policeman who suggested that had there been two statements something might have been done. But there was no need for that, as he should have known from the letters, that I took photographs of what I had described. That was sufficient evidence.
There are signs that our police are more interested in how they are perceived than before. Courtesy has departed. Complaints of offences should be acknowledged and recorded. The police exist to deal with offences and to prevent acts which endanger the public.
William Scott,
23 Argyle Place, Rothesay.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel