Senior officers continue to mislead during the consultation

False claims, inaccurate data and misleading statements

have undermined the consultation from the beginning 

Chief Fire Officer Lee Howell & Fire Authority Chair Sara Randall Johnson

Your Reality

"Not all emergencies are preventable, so if you need help

our plans will ensure that it takes longer for us to arrive,

creating a less safe world for you and your family, 

for your business and for your community."

To help anyone who has yet to complete their consultation response, here are some facts to set the record straight:

There are no low risk areas

Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service keep referring to low risk areas, but the risk to lives and property is no different in Barnstaple than it is in Bridgwater, no different in Exmouth than it is in Exeter, and no different in Porlock than it is in Plymouth. 

Call volume may vary, but the risk to people trapped in a fire or crash is the same wherever the fire or crash happens.

A quick and effective response is required right across Devon & Somerset

The modernisation claim is bogus

The service has changed considerably since the 1940s. Better equipment, training and procedures, but already less firefighters and fire engines available.

The service has been modernising continuously and is on a par with other 21st century fire & rescue services in the UK.

Councillors and independent inspections have monitored this modernisation and have found no serious inadequacies. That will change if the cuts go ahead.

The number of emergencies attended has risen significantly since the 1940s. There are over twice as many fires today and over five times more non-fire emergencies, such as road traffic collisions.

1958 figures were the earliest found for Devon & Somerset. For reference, national figures were lower in 1948 than in 1958.

Chief Fire Officers say no link

between resources and demand

The professional body representing Chief Fire Officers confirmed there is no link between resources and demand. That is why resources were not increased when demand increased by 500% and why they should not be cut now.

There has been no need to move fire stations because they are strategically located to ensure a quick and effective response, no matter where an emergency occurs. The proposals do not include any fire stations being moved, which confirms they must be in the right places.

The way we live has changed, but it has not removed the need for the fire & rescue service to arrive quickly, with adequate resources, when people or property are in danger.

Some causes of fire have been reduced or eliminated, but new ones emerge to replace them (battery chargers, tumble driers, e-cigarettes etc.).

Modern homes are not always safer,

these homes were just 9 years old

Legal duty deception

Claims that the fire & rescue service only has a legal duty to attend fires and road traffic collisions are false. The Fire & Rescue Services Act and the Civil Contingencies Act, which has been ignored in this consultation, place a duty on the service to respond to many other emergencies.

Similarly, the claim that they are only funded for fires and road traffic collisions is false. Core Government funding and Council Tax revenue is not specified for particular emergencies. Specific Government funding is additionally provided for urban search and rescue and the ambulance service fund the fire & rescue service's response to medical emergencies.

Important financial information missing

The consultation has failed to provide full costings. No figures have been provided to show how much of the saved money is to be reallocated to prevention or any other work.

No figures have been provided to show the anticipated saving from On-call firefighter savings, or how much money will actually be reallocated.

No details have been provided to show how the claimed capital savings will be achieved, or how that will affect annual revenue costs.

Devious modelling information

The modelling of the effects is incomplete and the results suggest it has not been carried out properly or honestly. They even admit to modifying the Fire Services Emergency Cover (FSEC) Toolkit, which was developed after extensive research and should not be manipulated.

Fire deaths, which are not in dwellings, the cost of property damage as a result of fires, and deaths at non-fire incidents, which are not road traffic collisions, have all been excluded. That has been done to give the impression that the consequences of these cuts will be less severe than they actually will be.

They have failed to show the modelling results for each station area affected by the changes. Not only an attempt to hide the worst effects, but they dishonestly claim they don't have that information (FSEC modelling can provide results from the whole service area right down to a very small geographical area).

Inappropriate manipulation of the modelling is the only plausible explanation for the significant differences between D&SF&RS modelling and modelling of similar changes in other fire and rescue services. Examples include:

D&SF&RS change of crewing at Barnstaple, Paignton and Exmouth results in 19 extra deaths. In another fire & rescue service, the change at just one station in a seaside town similar to Paignton, but with a slightly smaller population and fewer incidents, shows a difference of 23 deaths.

Removal of a second fire engine in another fire & rescue service showed 11 extra deaths in 100 years. D&SF&RS has failed to provide the figures, but a map in their analysis document appears to show, for removal of a second fire engine at a similar station, just one extra death in 1,000 years.

This is the same document, proclaimed to be "comprehensive" and to "set out an evidence base", which shows some response times increasing by no more than five minutes, when the nearest fire engine will be six miles further away!

The modelling information is inadequate and fundamentally flawed

No evidence that more prevention will save lives

D&SF&RS has claimed that more prevention work will save lives, but has provided no evidence to substantiate the claim. The limited modelling figures they have provided show that cuts to response will cost more lives. Proper modelling would show the cost in lives and property damage would be significant. We all hope that prevention work saves lives and prevents fires, but hoping it will is not enough.

It is reckless to make cuts that will cost lives when there is 

no guarantee that more prevention will save lives

Appalling misrepresentation

One of the most appalling misrepresentations concerns the use of this chart, which has been used to make utterly dishonest claims, such as "we have more fire engines than we need".

This is either a deliberate attempt to mislead, or the management team in D&SF&RS do not understand their responsibilities. A fire engine is not only of value when it is attending an incident. There is just as much value when it is sat in a fire station ready to respond quickly to the next emergency.

You can just imagine the reaction of a D&SF&RS fire safety officer visiting a factory complex and finding that all the fire extinguishers and all but one of the smoke detectors had been removed. The factory owner says, "We had more than we need. We never had more than one smoke detector go off and we have never needed a fire extinguisher".

That is the same ludicrous logic that underlies Devious & Secretive

Fire & Rescue Service's claim of 'having more fire engines than they need'

This BBC Journalist can work that out

"The fire service is a bit like an insurance policy. 99% of the time you don’t need 
or think about it, but when you do need them you really do." John Ayres, BBC Spotlight

But the leadership of D&SF&RS  is ignoring the
fundamental purpose of the service - Why?