Selfish barstewards!

supersonic

Swell. Scrotum is the worlds most amazing material for its size changing properties. They should make parachutes from it, then they would fold up to the size of a postage stamps. Might failin the arctic though.

Anonymous

my ball bag stretches out to a wafer thin a4 sized stretch of skin after a hot shower. i reckon you could make a swimming cap out of the fucker!

CraigXXL

You are spending way too much time finding the magical properties of your scrotum...might be time to find a woman instead

supersonic

It's the knocking together, always on my mind ;-)

CraigXXL

Why do I get the feeling that picture will be appearing soon of someone stretching their sack over their head.

Stevo_666

supersonic wrote:

Nah animals lick their balls too. Saying that, I can reach mine in hot weather.

it's better to get a bird to do it for you, that way you don't have to wait until next summer

Anonymous

CraigXXL wrote:

You are spending way too much time finding the magical properties of your scrotum...might be time to find a woman instead

ive got one, she likes my ball bags but i dont think she knew when we got married that i would attempt to arab goggle her everytime i got out of a hot shower.

Northwind

Dunno about anyone else but I'm mainly using my nutsack for its intended purpose, if anyone tried to change that job to being a parachute I think I'd consider industrial action.

CraigXXL wrote:

I have only proved that no one is loosing any hours only the shift length is changing,

Nobody's suggested anyone's losing any hours- the point was that night cover will be reduced, which you said "The only people saying less night time coverage is the union".

Anonymous

supersonic wrote:

Nah animals lick their balls too. Saying that, I can reach mine in hot weather.

what a coincidence, I lick your balls in hot weather too.

CraigXXL

Northwind wrote:

Nobody's suggested anyone's losing any hours- the point was that night cover will be reduced, which you said "The only people saying less night time coverage is the union".

Night cover isn't reduced, it has the same amount people manning the same amount of appliances it just the length of the the shift that is reduced allowing day shift more time.

I think you need to have a read of the brigades offer and why it has esclated to it's current situation rather than just the unions side of it.

http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/NewsReleases2009_PR1468.asp

Northwind

CraigXXL wrote:

Night cover isn't reduced, it has the same amount people manning the same amount of appliances it just the length of the the shift that is reduced allowing day shift more time.

OK, there's the contradiction and the bit I think I've failed to get across. If you believe that they'll have more hours in the day (not day shift, day time) as the brigade state, to do prevention work, that has to come from somewhere. If you believe that the night time cover will be unaffected then that's incompatible. One of the two has to be false.

The only way this works is if they're going to continue to do prevention work all through the longer day shift, ie start it earlier and end earlier. And there's the rub, that could be achieved by doing the exact same thing with the same people at the start of the current night shift. So why the change? You're left with either a reduction in night cover, or a completely false justification for the change. At some point you have to decide which part is false. Prevention work is already done by night shifts, in order to cover working households etc.

The actual shifts make it really clear why the changes have a disproportionate effect on firefighters. Right now they have 2 normal-ish 9-6 days and 2 antisocial shifts at nights. Afterwards, they'd have 4 shifts with antisocial hours not 2 and no normal days at all.

I've read the LFB statements but it's pure propoganda just like the FBU's statements, you can't take either one at face value.

I think we're going in circles a bit... All I can really say is, anyone who depicts this as being down to one side or the other has to be blinkered, it takes two to tango. But as I see it, the one point which is taking it to industrial action is the methodology not the proposal, and it's the management approach which has caused the negotiations to fail. LFB's kind offer to go to a conciliation service without withdrawing the termination notices is a farce, it's like negotiating with a gun in your hand.

Northwind

Anyway. I'm in a bad mood tonight so probably shouldn't be getting in pointless arguments on the internet, don't think I'm making my point very coherently if I'm honest so probably better just quit it Sorry if I'm being cantankerous.

supersonic

I think it's just a diffference of opinions. Happens lol.

Sometimes ain't no right or wrong

/banal

Northwind

Tis true but I've typed about a million words here and all I've actually said is "trust neither side" and "It takes 2 to tango" It's not very good is it... Better quit while I'm behind

supersonic

When I were a lad I had to work 26 hours a day, and pay fer priveledge... ;-)

Anonymous

Well you were lucky. We had to get up at 5am, half an hour before going to bed, work 36 hours a day at mine face, and when we got home, our father would beat us to death and dance around on our graves.
And you try telling that to the firefighters of today, and they won't believe you.
Or something like that anyway.

You know, I'm starting to suspect Northwind has become a bona fide card carrying hippy.

CraigXXL

Northwind wrote:

OK, there's the contradiction and the bit I think I've failed to get across. If you believe that they'll have more hours in the day (not day shift, day time) as the brigade state, to do prevention work, that has to come from somewhere. If you believe that the night time cover will be unaffected then that's incompatible. One of the two has to be false.

I can see what you are trying to put across but you don't understand the prevention work is done by the DAY shift only. By extending the hours in a day shift more prevention work can be done. It is still the same DAY shift, same amount of people on a watch in their appliance going around the city doing the prevention work. If they are called to incident that watch goes to it leaving the prevention work it's not seperate people doing prevention whilst others do incidents it's the same day shift.
On the NIGHT shift the same watch with the same amount of people just respond to incidents they do not do prevention work on that shift.
Both shifts have to fit in the maintenance of their equipment and training which gives the day shift even less time to do the prevention work it is supposed to be doing. If they brought forward the change over for the night shift to say 3pm and they made it part of their job to do prevention work then the same amount of prevention work could be done as planned with the present change of shifts but the FBU rejected this change too.

Boy Lard

What a superb mix of firemen and balls.

My ball bag contains 4 balls weighing 15lb each, and has ended up at the bottom of the canal after a bad night at the lanes. (True story)

Unions can suck my balls.

Strike action is blackmail.

WisePranker

CraigXXL wrote:

Northwind wrote:

Nobody's suggested anyone's losing any hours- the point was that night cover will be reduced, which you said "The only people saying less night time coverage is the union".

Night cover isn't reduced, it has the same amount people manning the same amount of appliances it just the length of the the shift that is reduced allowing day shift more time.

I think you need to have a read of the brigades offer and why it has esclated to it's current situation rather than just the unions side of it.

http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/NewsReleases2009_PR1468.asp

I might be understanding this all wrong but night cover would actually increase if the LFB went to 12/12 or 11/13 as the management are wanting.
According to working time regulations, anything longer than a 13 hour shift then the employer must, as I'm led to believe, provide some kind of stand down time for the employee to rest/sleep therefore the firemen are getting paid to be stood down and sleeping on their nightshift.
On a 12 hour night, they aren't entitled to their stand down and sleep time!
This may be slightly wrong but that's my understanding of the system.

Regarding working nights, I work for the emergency services and we are the opposite of the LFB. Whee they have the occasional busy night, we have the occasional slow night. When we have a busy night we leave our station at 7pm and get back there at 7am, usually with no meal break and no facilities available to us for food/drinks. The Police are in pretty much the same boat. The difference between us and the LFB is that none of us are allowed to strike so we can't try and hold a City to ransom because we're afraid of change.

From speaking to Police and Ambulance staff over the past few weeks it's clear that there is very very little in the way of support for the firefighters from other emergency services staff and it also appears that the LFB staff are starting to work at arms length from other emergency services when co-responding on jobs which really does nothing to help anyone.

Anonymous

The thing is, I (and I suspect, most people) will support people if they're striking for what seems like a genuine cause for concern.
This isn't one of those situations, though, is it?

Northwind

CraigXXL wrote:

I can see what you are trying to put across but you don't understand the prevention work is done by the DAY shift only.

OK, I don't want to get too dragged back into this but this isn't correct, as I mentioned the night shifts do site visits and prevention work too, just less of it. Working families, night businesses like theatres and nightclubs, etc. It's usually seen as a day shift job just due to practicality but it's not limited to day shifts.