Rules of engagement

Don't know how much of a national problem this is, but it's been happening in towns of northern England for many dreary years.

https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/109894/attacks-on-firefighters-rise-by-200pc

Apparently not going away, but getting worse. Something must be done.   

Those involved need to be apprehended and have a few things explained to them. Answer, adjust the legal stuff a bit to give firefighters clear powers of self defence and arrest.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rj6doZ1bFo

Easy. Remove the restraints on the fire service personnel. If threatened or attacked they should have the powers to retaliate by 'hose-pipe' - meanwhile calling up assistance from the local police to arrest all and any suspects in the area. A few 'soakings' and arrests and short prison sentences should quickly take care of the problem. It's because the authorities DON'T have the powers to retaliate that allows the miscreants (and that's what they are - kids with nothing better to do) continue to 'play' with the service. It's not rocket science.

The wonderful educational effect of being blasted to the ground with a firehose is perhaps underestimated, and could be more widely applied, as opportunities and circumstances allow.

The Fire Service is a part of our National Defence forces and as such should be treated likewise. Allowing kids to run riot because they are children is no excuse. Spare the rod spoil the child may have been a Victorian outlook but part of it was always applicable. We need balance or we suffer the consequences.

Quite so. There could be some legal or practical problems to directing fire hoses at juvenile delinquents. A special lower pressure hose, still with a 'knockdown' effect could be included in the equipment of a fire engine, under the civil defence aspect. What use is a defence team who are not allowed or expected to defend themselves?

The Fire Service Unions will tell you it is not the job of 'fire personnel' to 'police' and that adequate security should be provided to protect their members. And there you have it - Unions v Government, the very catalyst that brought about chaos in the 70's and 80's - and the fear that nobody wants to go back there-. Meanwhile - we have 'louts' controlling the streets.

If the fire service union wants firefighters not to be allowed to defend themselves against gangs throwing bricks, that is a matter between the firefighters and their union.

That would be fine if there was a 'safe' method for individual (or collective) fire-fighters being allowed to lobby aside from the union - that however is not the case. The 'union' position stands regardless of 'outside' interference. From the union pov they have every right to demand 'protection' from civilian attack in order for their members to do their job proficiently. That would mean sending mini-riot police squads out on every 'call' in order to comply - purely from a safeguard pov. You know it makes sense - not.

The logjam of points of view you describe has resulted in thousands of attacks on firefighters over decades of years, huge waste of resources, and supported a tradition of thuggery passing down the generations. Perhaps these things could be better organised?

Certainly. Remove the service from 'union' control and put it properly alongside the rest of the 'armed forces' where it rightly belongs. The same goes for any 'national public H&S organisation' whereby it is financed by the public purse and for the well-being of all. Give it the right to defend itself from people and things of a natural purpose and equip it thus. Alongside greater autonomy of purpose and reason would go that same personal responsibility that goes with the police and the army etc.

Radical - no. Logical - yes.