London fire strikes: what the media won’t discuss


9:10 am - October 27th 2010

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

Coverage of the controversy around London fire-fighters strike on 5th November has been abysmal. On Channel 4 News last night, Jon Snow managed to get the two sides to agree to talk but shed little light on what is behind all this.

I also wish the FBU’s website was a bit more media friendly and they explained to people in simple language why the strikes were taking place. It’s abysmal.

Anyway, Here’s what I’ve gathered so far.

According to the FBU, London’s 5,600 firefighters were sent letters on August 11 saying unless they agreed to new work conditions they would be sacked. What were these conditions? Partly, it was to do with reducing work hours, and partly beds.

1. The beds: Adam Bienkov reports:

Boris’s Fire Chief Brian Coleman has long wanted to remove beds from fire stations. Currently all firefighters work two 15 hour nights a week and are able to use their beds between incidents.

However, under Coleman’s new plans, dayshifts will be lengthened and nightshifts shortened to 12 hours each. This is ostensibly being done to increase productivity.

Sleeping on the job? Brian Coleman, the chair of the London Fire Authority, is famous for doing that actually.

2. Changing work conditions: Matt Wrack from the FBU explained at the Guardian why this was a problem

First, it is known that the LFB wants to cut down on night-time fire cover, and the Fire Brigades Union believes that this is the LFB’s main reason for wanting to change shift patterns. Having equal length day and night shifts will make it administratively easier to achieve. The justification for cutting night-time fire cover is that there are fewer fires at night. This is true, but the fires that do occur at night tend to be major ones, and are reported at a later stage. Night time is when most fire deaths occur. Cuts in night-time cover will mean some fire stations will close or certain fire engines will be withdrawn from service at night. This will certainly mean that sometime, a life will be lost which would otherwise have been saved.

Second, the new patterns would make it very hard for firefighters with young families to see much of their children. Because of the physical demands of the job, frontline firefighters tend to be relatively young men and women, and many of them have young families.

Perfectly reasonable. But rather than discuss and negotiate, Coleman is only interested in bullying fire-fighters. He says if they don’t sign he will simply fire them en-masse:

At the end I asked what he would do if firefighters refused to sign the new contracts and it became clear that he really does intend to follow through on the threats to sack any firefighters who doesn’t sign the new contracts which will be issued on 26 November. “What then?” I said. “We will rebuild the fire service,” he replied.

And yet he claims that he’s very willing to negotiate and listen to the other side.

3. Brian Coleman’s dedication to cutting costs
Earlier this year, Brian Coleman and his colleagues in the London Borough of Barnet voted to double their allowances.

Mr Coleman – who in the past has shrugged off criticism of his expenses claims by referring to himself as the “king of bling” – is paid a total of £114,322 in allowances. He receives £34,000 from Barnet for his role in the council’s cabinet – up from £17,000 last year – on top of £53,439 for sitting in the London Assembly and £26,883 as chairman of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.

Brian Coleman is the country’s second-highest paid councillor. And he voted to increase his allowances and pay at a time everyone else, including the fire-services, were asked to slim down.

In 2007 even ConservativeHome said Coleman should be “ashamed of himself” for accusing the late Ted Heath of “cottaging”. A year later he called Libdem MP Lynne Featherstone “completely dizzy” for calling out the fire services, even when completely justified.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Local Government ,Trade Unions

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Kudos for this.

I’m sure the FBU could do more to make its case. However, the main reason the situation is opaque is because LFB isn’t being straight about what it wants to do. If you follow the negotiations, it’s clear that while they reject all offers that don’t allow them to reduce night cover, which fire authorities have been trying to do for a while. So, for example, the FBU offered 24 hour shifts at one point, and it was rejected out of hand, because that doesn’t allow the fire bosses to disentangle day and night cover. But they aren’t being open about that agenda. And the reason is simple: while it looks like a good thing to cut if you’re an accountant interested in cost-saving, it doesn’t look good if you’re a firefighter who understands the way fire risk works. Night time is when fires are most dangerous, when they’re noticed too late, when people are more likely to die.

Another reason for the lack of clarity in the media about this subject is that the negotiations are difficult to follow and distil into easy talking points. For example, I understand that prior to the strike ballot, the negotiations resulted in two separate offers being made. One involved the unworkable twelve hour shifts. Another involved far more workable shifts that the firefighters would have been happy to accept – had there not been a whole string of bizarre and onerous clauses obviously designed to provoke rejection. I summarise from memory. The basic point is that LFB haven’t negotiated seriously, that their counter-offers have always been designed to provoke rejection, so that they can stick with their goal of imposing twelve hour shifts.

I also want to say that I know a few firefighters personally, and the first thing that strikes you about their job is that they do a hell of a lot more than fight fires. They’re extremely competent skilled workers handling a vastly complicated variety of situations – car crashes, complex rescue situations, etc – with talents and knowledge that would bewilder anyone without their degree of training. You can’t replace them with scab workers and expect them to handle difficult situations with the same deceptive ease. That’s why provoking a strike and relying on Assetco to cover it is reckless to the point of vandalism, knowingly bringing about a dangerous situation. Even losing the good will of such workers is an extraordinary risk to take, because their morale and identity as valued public servants is what enables them to routinely go beyond the immediate call of duty. The second thing that strikes you is that they work as very tightly knit families, living together, cooking for one another, etc – solidarity and collective responsibility is built into what they do. You can understand why Brian Coleman and his cut-throat coterie of self-interested Tories despise this situation. But it’s also why there’s no hope in hell of a big swathe of firefighters crossing those picket lines when there’s a strike on, which is what Coleman et al have been depending on.

LFB has to negotiate seriously, and withdraw the threat to sack all the firefighters, or they will have deprived the capital of an impressive fire and rescue service and put us all in unnecessary risk.

Sunny

You’re right about the MSM’s reluctance to explain what this is all about. And this is not the first time. The BA cabin crew strike was the same. To go by media accounts, you’d have thought it was merely capricious.

Why is it that the media just can’t report strikes professionally?

Though I’d probably be on the opposite side from you on any industrial dispute, I agree that it’s important that the facts, motivations and arguments are made clear. Good post.

A good summary of the background, Sunny. The only thing I would add is in regards to timing, and the flack the FBU are getting in relation to calling a strike next weekend. The 90-day advance dismissal notices are set to expire the following week, so it is effectively now or never for London’s firefighters. If those who have been so quick to condemn them actually understood either the issues at stake or the indecent approach to ‘negotiation by bully’ that the LFB have indulged in then perhaps they’d rethink their knee-jerk New Statesman col… er… opinons.

I support this strike. The fire service doesn’t need corners cut when lives are at stake.

The FBU’s website is awful though, if that epitomises their approach to communicating their position, no wonder everyone hates them.

Good post.

I have learned more from this one blog post about the argument than I have from many articles in several newspapers.

I support this strike. The fire service doesn’t need corners cut when lives are at stake.

But the FBU have traded on that sentiment for decades. In fairness, they have done an outstanding job for their members in resolutely refusing to change working practices and terms and conditions but this intransigence has resulted in a hugely expensive and cumbersome service.

I live in a semi rural area and a few years back the FBU resisted rationalisation. They put up “Kill The Chief” placards on trees and lamp posts on the CFO’ s route to work and they won the battle.

My local station, costing a seven figure sum, put out three brush fires last year.

The dominance and power of the FBU is founded in the life and death element of the fire services work and it is time for this power to be challenged. Most firemen have little to do on a day to day basis and many have second jobs.

It is time for the terms and conditions of service to begin to reflect the essentially part time nature of the work.

Most firemen have little to do on a day to day basis and many have second jobs.

Many of them have second jobs because they’re volunteers.

6 pagar

“My local station, costing a seven figure sum, put out three brush fires last year. ”

It would be shocking…. if true. I wonder if there is actually any evidence whatsoever for this claim however, or whether someone who actually worked in the local station might have a different view of how busy they had been…..?

@ 8

it would be shocking…. if true. I wonder if there is actually any evidence whatsoever for this claim

The time for tough negotiation by management and strike action (if necessary) by the unions should be after the public has been given full disclosure of all the relevant facts, manning arrangements, costs and achievement records. There needs to be much more transparency in the public sector. Put it all on the website – and let the public make informed judgments.

At least Cameron & co are committed to greater openness. In power, Labour kept everything under wraps and reserved decision-making to elites. Firefighting provision is exactly the sort of area where radical localism has a part to play.

They might have more public sympathy if they hadn’t timed the strike to coincide with Bonfire Night. I mean seriously, who is responsible for their PR?

10

Yes, I’m sure it would serve the interests of their members much better if they arranged their strike action for days where they were guaranteed to have no call outs…..

…..errrrmmmm…

12. margin4error

Their PR is shocking as it falls on fire-work night and Diwali

It is also a risky strategy as we saw last time they went on strike – as the government got the army in and they did the job just as well on much less pay. (This time round private companies are set to do the work during the strike)

But then this one isn’t about a pay rise. It is about cutting cover. And the public are fairly well aware of that.

So their PR needn’t be all that great to win public favour. Especially with the likes of Colman lined up against them.

It ios just a shame so few people even notice the regular fire checks, drills, and fire-reduction programmes firemen undertake. They tend only to notice fires – and the fire service concidered all fires a failure.

“My local station, costing a seven figure sum, put out three brush fires last year.”

By this logic, when we have no wars we should scrap the army.

I paid 300 quid for my car insurance last year and didn’t make a single claim! what a waste of money….

This one is very puzzling – on the surface it would appear that the FBU are objecting to a very minor change in shift arrangements that would appear to enable the firefighters to deliver better service without significant upset – surely this isn’t the case ? If so, shame on them. More concise reporting would be good.

I wonder if this is symptomatic of a common misconception across the public sector unions that the unions represent the end user, rather than the service provider ? Whenever discussions on service levels occur, the argument presented seems to always run on the assumption that what suits the service provider (in this case represented by the FBU) is what’s best for the public.

However, trying to look at this objectively, it’s not clear how this can be the case – the union ultimately has responsibility to its members in ensuring continued employment, better pay and conds etc, which clearly could run counter to the general public’s generally stated intention to keep its money in its own pocket thank you very much, I’ve got little enough to live on already etc.

Not trying to start an argument here – If I was a paid up union member (not realy an option in my industry), I’d be pretty pissed off if my rep was putting the public need before mine. Is there a lack of honesty in the way these things are being represented ? And is this contributing to the general lack of complaint about current ‘austerity measures’ ?

Just a thought…

Mr Average

Spot on.

My brother happens to be one of the striking firemen and he has directed me to a website that is much better than the official FBU one: http://www.firebrigadedispute.co.uk/

Additionally, I’ve taken this from his Facebook while the strike was going on: “striking firefighters broke their picket lines for reported fires yesterday to save lives because the scab crews are so poorly trained and refused to enter burning buildings because it was TOO DANGEROUS WITHOUT THE FIRE BRIGADE THERE!”

Night time is when most fire deaths occur. Cuts in night-time cover will mean some fire stations will close or certain fire engines will be withdrawn from service at night. This will certainly mean that sometime, a life will be lost which would otherwise have been saved.

To assess whether this is a good trade-off we need to know (i) how much money would be saved, and (ii) how many extra deaths there would be. It would also be useful to know how much the London fire service costs and how many fire deaths there are annually (430 across the UK).

Yes it is interesting how the right wing media is suddenly hostile to the firefighters, because about 10 years ago when they went on strike the tories could not wait to attack the Labour govt for dealing with it.

But then as we all know IIOKIYAAC

It is ok if you are a conservative.

11 – and the interests of the public who rely on them?

I’m a London fireman (MKChris’ brother, he pointed me here)

Great article, much better than the crap spouted in the media about us. What annoys me is a lot of people choose to believe the spin made up by politicians who are infamous for spouting lies to support their cause rather than believing the voice of firefighters who are prepared to risk everything to get people out of dire situations. Who would you trust with your life- a firefighter or a polititian?

Firstly, I think the beds argument is irrelevant, I’ve not heard this mentioned once at work, there are much more important things at stake. We are allowed to sleep between 0000 hrs and 0700 hrs on our (15 hour) night shifts but I haven’t been to sleep at all on nights in the last few weeks because we’re so busy there’s no point.

We’re busy because there London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) chose to remove 27 frontline fire appliances from stations a few weeks ago to prepare them for the oncoming strikes. Why they needed to do this, I don’t know, but I can tell you that in this time, 5 persons have been killed in fires where they had one fire appliance turn up on the initial call rather than two because of the 27 appliances removed. Two firefighters have also been injured. One firefighter broke his back and both his legs when a wall collapsed on him and is now wheelchair bound and one firefighter from my station, but a different watch broke his collarbone at a fire 2 days ago. You won’t see any of these deaths or injuries reported anywhere, it’s as if there’s a ban on reporting them- strange that.

Some people are asking ‘why strike on bonfire night?’
Well, in 2 weeks time, the 3 months notice of section 188 of the labour relations act runs out, and the authority is able to sack every firefighter, crew manager and watch manager (basically every person you will see riding a fire appliance). We have little time to act. I would like to think this action will force the LFEPA to give in. I was on the picket last Saturday, which was a very quiet day for the LFB, call wise and listened to the brigade radio as to what was going on. Of the 27 appliances they had covering London, 13 crews gave up, mostly because they considered the too dangerous. They refused to go in to fires and fought them defensively which caused a house and a 4 story block of flats to almost burn to the ground- like I say, just 2 major fires in one day in London is extremely quiet, and they couldn’t even cope with that.

When it came over the radio of a ‘smoke issuing from 6th and 8th floor of high rise flats, multiple calls, persons trapped in flats’ call, the emergency cover crews didn’t answer the radio and made up excuses not to go. Fair enough, a high rise fire is possibly the most dangerous any firefighter can deal with, but this forced picket lines close to the call to go to the call and deal with the incident to prevent any injuries or deaths. Yet, after our strike action Brian Coleman and Ron Dobson publicy came out and said that the emergency fire cover was a success and will deal with any other strike days just as well. All they have to do to stop the strike action on the 1st of November as well as the 47 hours over bonfire night is call off the section 188 and return to the negotiating table.

To the guy who said his local station dealth with 3 brush fires last year, are you saying this is the only calls they dealt with? If so, please provide evidence of a fire station doing 3 calls in a year, and if this is the case, they will be volunteer crews anyway. My station does around 3,000 calls a year and we’re considered reasonably quiet for a London station- the busiest in London will do between 7,000 and 8,000 calls a year.

The argument of firemen having second jobs comes up a lot. We work 48 hour weeks, and it’s quite sad that after working 48 hours where they may have to risk life and limb some members still need second jobs in order to fund a family. I don’t have a second job for the record but then I don’t have a family to feed.

Fire deaths are pretty low because the majority of people caught in building fires are rescued by firefighters. However, fire deaths in London are up by 20%, so surely work should be done to reduce this number- changing our shifts and closing stations at night is not the way to do this.

We have 3 memorials on my station for firefighters who have worked at the station, responded to a call and not made it home. I look at these every shift and it’s a reminder of the risks I am expected to take in order to save the lives of members of the public. I signed up to the job knowing the risk because I’m passionate about saving lives and property in one of the greatest cities in the world. That’s why I’m going on strike- because the polititians and senior LFB officers are more interested in saving a few pennies than a few lives. Remember, whilst your firefighters have accepted a 3 year pay freeze, Brian Coleman (as mentioned) has voted himself a 50% increase of allowances, Ron Dobson is payed far more than the PM, and on their cushy 6 figure wages, they plot the closure of fire stations to save money. Disgusting.

20 LFBFF

I for one wish you every success in achieving a fair settlement. Hopefully most reasonable people can see where the fault lies in this situation, and it isn’t with the fire fighters.

Thanks for taking the time to put the record straight so eloquently.

“Brian Coleman is the country’s second-highest paid councillor” – say it ain’t so; not in EasyCouncil Barnet?

Mr Average

Take a look at LFBFF’s post then ask yourself who is best positioned to represent what the public actaully want and not just what politions tell them they need?

LFB union are not striking for more pay or better conditions, this is about democracy and how unions should be able to negotiate in a free and fair society without the threat of being sacked for holding an honest held belief.

Two questions:

1) Will the firefighters striking on the busiest night of the year put members of the public at risk?

2) If not, why are we paying them anything the rest of the time? If we can do without them on Novermver 5th, we can do without most of them the rest of the time.

24

I suppose it would be too much to expect such a cretin to have actually read the OP or some of the discussion above……

26. Chaise Guevara

@24

“If not, why are we paying them anything the rest of the time? If we can do without them on Novermver 5th, we can do without most of them the rest of the time.”

Bloody firemen, living off the state… go back to Russia!

@20

Thanks for that post. This is information which clearly isn’t coming across. I’m particularly shocked to hear that 5 lives may already have been lost. Surely this is something that ought to be more widely known.

@24

You’re a moron

29. Chris Baldwin

If firefighters want to strike on November 5th, or any other day, they have my complete support. Any disruption in service is 100% the fault of management.

30. justwondering

I totally support the strike, but I don’t understand why the unions didn’t go public, or strike when they got the letters? Maybe I don’t read the news enough but I’ve only been aware of only been aware of this since the weekend, and really thought the 5th November a poor choice of date. I just don’t get why not sooner, from what I have seen the public support and cheer picket lines and advance action
from the unions would keep that going no matter what the media say ?

31. Chaise Guevara

“What the media say” is a big deal, though. For a start, it could be the reason you didn’t hear about this sooner.

“Last time they got the army in and they did just as good a job but for less pay”

You could not be less accurate I’m afraid. Two soldiers lost their lives whilst covering fire shifts and working on the green goddesses. At least 3 fatalaties occured with member of the public too and numerous fires were not controlled properly.
These were not reported because it didn’t fit in with the media stance back then(similar to stance that certain red tops have decided to take up this time round)

I still find myself surprised at just how gullible the general public is.
ALl you need to do is google Brian Coleman to see just what a trecherous liar the man is. He is the epitome of a corrupt 1970s Tory politician.

No.24 AD

1)Potentially. What you need to understand is- Potentially the busiest night does not equal the most dangerous night.
Safety is paramount at any bonfire, even those held privately. The vast majority of people have fun in a controlled manner and exercise caution. If anything, the ambulance service are busier on Bonfire, dealing with burns caused by sparklers etc. Firefighters may get the odd shed on fire or fence alight due to bonfires not being looked after properly.

2)Because they are there in case. I was called to a persons reported on my first night shift. We saved two people that night in a burning house. It was a quiet tuesday night/morning and the shout came through around 3am. Now, if Biran Coleman gets his way, my station would not have been able to respond to that call because we would close for night duites and us firefighters would be sent elsewehre for our shift. LAS said that oneof gthe people were rescued that night would not have been able to have survived had she been brought out of the property a minute later.

Too many people with nowhere near enough facts at their disposal are too quiock to condemn. Still, thats modern soceity where idiots take whatever they read in The Sun as gospel.

How would the army step in? The Green Goddesses they used have been sold off. Is this why some of the fire engines have been withdrawn?. It smacks of the Maggie Thatcher era when Union members were goaded so much that they gave Thatcher an excuse to privatise the service. I have a nasty feeling that this government of privatisation is looking for an excuse to do this with the Fire Service

I can’t believe that the person who complained that his local fire service only put out 3 bush fires in one year thinks it should be abolished. Does he really mean that he wouldn’t want a fire service to be available if his house was burning down?

34 maura

I think most people can see the story pedalled above @ post 6 about the local fire station costing seven figures which only put out 3 brush fires a year for what it was: unsubstantiated rubbish.

You’re always going to get a few wing-nuts who “know” about these things, but can provide no evidence at all to back it up. I’d love to hear the REAL story from the fire fighters who actually man that station!

Guys all excelleny informed comments ..let me help a bit though

..currently every single fire engine and every single item of kit carried is ownd by asset co .yes the company that owns .the private fire brigade working on strike days
on the 27th of november there may not be any london fire fighters left so the LFB bosses must be happy that asset co are providing and will provide a safe and effective fire brigade so its irrelevent whether we walk out now or get sacked ..according to coleman you are all in good hands ..

LFB currently over the last few years sends a fire engine with two firefighters on the back ..yes just two..however if we have one over they get their kit jump on a bus and get to another fire station maybe 3-5 hours later in the hope they can put that fire engine “on the run”( so in effect you have no idea whether your local station is operational or not !! ,,if it goes to 12 hour shits ..it would mean fireman getting back to main base maybe at 10pm and getting home at 11pm at night !!! …working late beacuse of fires is never a problem but having your life smashed beacuse of dangerous under manning is unacceptable

any more questions then please ask – kind regards Jim…

37. justwondering

@31. If there were strikes earlier of course I would have heard about/ seen it. I imagine there is a reason I just want to know what it is….

I was reading my local paper (The Camden New Journal) and read this quote from Brian Coleman:

“I could put an advert in the Evening Standard and get 20,000 people applying. London will be totally safe.”

I find it shocking that Brian Coleman thinks “London will be totally safe” with 20000 new fireman who would all need to be trained from scratch. Surely there’s not enough resources to train 20000 new fireman at once and how much would all that training cost (more than they are trying to save)? It must take years of working as a fireman and dealing with different situations to be fully competent. What planet does Brian Coleman live on?

You can read the article that I’m talking about here: http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2010/oct/london-firefighters-told-we-can-replace-you (there are also some interesting letters of support for the fire fighters on the letters page).

It was reading the above article that got me interested in the subject, which is how I found this site. I must say, this post along with all the comments is very interesting indeed. I have no idea why the national press seems to be against the strikes when they make perfect sense to me.

We are always warned that we should be so afraid of terrorism and the government spends huge amounts on anti-terrorist measures, yet they want to cut fire & rescue services in our capital city. It’s crazy! The fire-brigade do a lot more than just fighting fires and from my experience they are excellent at their job and response times are very quick. Politicians shouldn’t play with peoples safety, human life in more important than money!


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  2. Liz K

    RT @libcon: London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  3. Liz K

    RT @libcon: London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  4. Rooftop Jaxx

    RT @libcon: London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  5. Rooftop Jaxx

    RT @libcon: London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  6. Cliff O'Sullivan

    RT @libcon: London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  7. Cliff O'Sullivan

    RT @libcon: London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  8. Rick Coyle

    RT @libcon: London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  9. Rick Coyle

    RT @libcon: London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  10. Luke Walter

    RT @libcon: London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/9X7ABX < and why Brian Coleman is a dick head

  11. Luke Walter

    RT @libcon: London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/9X7ABX < and why Brian Coleman is a dick head

  12. Mike Lammiman

    RT @rickcoyle99: RT @libcon: London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  13. sunny hundal

    What's behind the London fire-fighter strikes and Brian Coleman's bluster http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  14. leninology

    RT @libcon: London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  15. Danny James

    RT @libcon: London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  16. Duncan Hothersall

    @jackofkent THIS > RT @sunny_hundal What's behind the London fire-fighter strikes and Brian Coleman's bluster http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  17. Richard Jones

    RT @sunny_hundal: What's behind the London fire-fighter strikes and Brian Coleman's bluster http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  18. Bike for Life

    London fire strikes: what the media won’t discuss | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/isHjmHl via @libcon

  19. Paul Kenny

    RT @sunny_hundal: What's behind the London fire-fighter strikes and Brian Coleman's bluster http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  20. Natalya

    RT @sunny_hundal: What's behind the London fire-fighter strikes and Brian Coleman's bluster http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  21. Celyn

    RT @sunny_hundal: What's behind the London fire-fighter strikes and Brian Coleman's bluster http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  22. Gavin Murdock

    RT @libcon: London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  23. Dave Plummer

    RT @libcon: London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  24. Chris Welch

    RT @sunny_hundal: What's behind the London fire-fighter strikes and Brian Coleman's bluster http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  25. James Anthony

    Excellent analysis RT @sunny_hundal: What's behind the London fire-fighter strikes and Brian Coleman's bluster http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  26. Kevin Peel

    RT @sunny_hundal: What's behind the @LondonFBU strikes & Brian Coleman's bluster http://bit.ly/9X7ABX < Coleman, what a douche

  27. Michael Hanley

    RT @libcon: London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  28. Mark Best

    RT @libcon: London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  29. Striking the right tone « Rob Carr – A Novocastrian Abroad

    […] you want to understand a bit more about the reasoning behind the dispute, then I recommend reading this post over at Liberal Conspiracy to give you a bit of a better picture than the media seem to be providing right […]

  30. Patrick Kingsley

    Finally, someone (@SunnyHundal) has itemised what the Fire Strikes are all about: http://is.gd/gmc3q

  31. Patrick Kingsley

    Finally, someone (@sunny_hundal) has itemised exactly what the Fire Strike is all about: http://is.gd/gmc3q

  32. ??????? ?

    RT @libcon: London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  33. Pucci Dellanno

    RT @libcon: London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  34. Andy Bean

    RT @libcon: London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  35. sunny hundal

    RT @PatrickKingsley: Finally, someone (@sunny_hundal) has itemised exactly what the Fire Strike is all about: http://is.gd/gmc3q

  36. Jennifer McMahon

    RT @PatrickKingsley: Finally, someone (@sunny_hundal) has itemised exactly what the Fire Strike is all about: http://is.gd/gmc3q

  37. catherine buca

    RT @PatrickKingsley: Finally, someone (@sunny_hundal) has itemised exactly what the Fire Strike is all about: http://is.gd/gmc3q

  38. Martin Eve

    RT @PatrickKingsley: Finally, someone (@sunny_hundal) has itemised exactly what the Fire Strike is all about: http://is.gd/gmc3q

  39. feminister

    RT @PatrickKingsley: Finally, someone (@sunny_hundal) has itemised exactly what the Fire Strike is all about: http://is.gd/gmc3q

  40. Peterward

    RT @PatrickKingsley: Finally, someone (@sunny_hundal) has itemised exactly what the Fire Strike is all about: http://is.gd/gmc3q

  41. Simon Davies

    RT @PatrickKingsley: Finally, someone (@sunny_hundal) has itemised exactly what the Fire Strike is all about: http://is.gd/gmc3q

  42. Stuart John Bulloch

    RT @PatrickKingsley: Finally, someone (@sunny_hundal) has itemised exactly what the Fire Strike is all about: http://is.gd/gmc3q

  43. Julian Swainson

    RT @PatrickKingsley: Finally, someone (@sunny_hundal) has itemised exactly what the Fire Strike is all about: http://is.gd/gmc3q

  44. Alex Wilkinson

    Good summation of what the London fire strikes are actually about by @sunny_hundal http://bit.ly/bT72m6

  45. Nadia

    London fire strikes: what the media won’t discuss | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/p7bmwZ2 via @libcon

  46. Chris Welch

    @LondonFBU Have you read @sunny_hundal's account of strikes? http://bit.ly/9N1Ece (my bro wrote comment 20 btw, I'm biased but it's good)

  47. Doug Winter

    worth a read on the FBU strike. as always more complex than it looks at first http://bit.ly/bCtnCS

  48. Adam White

    RT @libcon London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/9X7ABX

  49. superdeluxesam

    RT @winjer: worth a read on the FBU strike. as always more complex than it looks at first http://bit.ly/bCtnCS

  50. Information Libre

    Check out comment 20 on this piece – great explanation of why London's firemen are striking (via @sunny_hundal): http://j.mp/bCtnCS #FBU

  51. Matthew Gubby

    worth a read on the FBU strike. as always more complex than it looks at first http://bit.ly/bCtnCS #fbu

  52. rowan davies

    If you're thinking that the Bonfire Night strike is a bit crap, read this on @LibCon http://bit.ly/9n7ldX esp. the comments by firefighters.

  53. Boris Watch

    RT @rowandavies: If you're thinking that the Bonfire Night strike is a bit crap, read this on @LibCon http://bit.ly/9n7ldX esp. the comm …

  54. Sarah Baskerville

    RT @rowandavies: If you're thinking that the Bonfire Night strike is a bit crap, read this on @LibCon http://bit.ly/9n7ldX esp. the comm …

  55. Elly

    RT @rowandavies: If you're thinking that the Bonfire Night strike is a bit crap, read this on @LibCon http://bit.ly/9n7ldX esp. the comm …

  56. Tudor Evans

    RT @rowandavies: If you're thinking that the Bonfire Night strike is a bit crap, read this on @LibCon http://bit.ly/9n7ldX esp. the comm …

  57. Kat Fletcher

    RT @rowandavies: If you're thinking that the Bonfire Night strike is a bit crap, read this on @LibConspiracy http://bit.ly/9n7ldX

  58. sinister dexter

    RT @rowandavies: If you're thinking that the Bonfire Night strike is a bit crap, read this on @LibCon http://bit.ly/9n7ldX esp. the comm …

  59. Angela Pateman

    RT @rowandavies: If you're thinking that the Bonfire Night strike is a bit crap, read this on @LibCon http://bit.ly/9n7ldX esp. the comm …

  60. Alex Collins

    RT @rowandavies: If you're thinking that the Bonfire Night strike is a bit crap, read this on @LibCon http://bit.ly/9n7ldX esp. the comm …

  61. Tom Burke

    RT @rowandavies: If you're thinking that the Bonfire Night strike is a bit crap, read this on @LibCon http://bit.ly/9n7ldX esp. the comm …

  62. Simon Hewitt

    RT @rowandavies: If you're thinking that the Bonfire Night strike is a bit crap, read this on @LibCon http://bit.ly/9n7ldX esp. the comm …

  63. Dan Siron

    Very interesting piece on the London Firefighters strike on Bonfire Night. http://bit.ly/bT72m6 Have a read and see how you feel.

  64. Sam

    RT @Danno375: Very interesting piece on the London Firefighters strike on Bonfire Night. http://bit.ly/bT72m6 Have a read and see how yo …

  65. Luke Pollard

    What the media won't tell you about the FBU strike http://is.gd/gn749 (via @libcon and @rowandavies) – must read of the day

  66. Ash Singleton

    RT @LukePollard: What the media won't tell you about the FBU strike http://is.gd/gn749 (via @libcon and @rowandavies) – must read of the day

  67. Claire Cooper

    RT @Danno375: Very interesting piece on the London Firefighters strike on Bonfire Night. http://bit.ly/bT72m6 Have a read and see how yo …

  68. Gareth Wyn Abbit

    RT @LukePollard: What the media won't tell you about the FBU strike http://is.gd/gn749 (via @libcon and @rowandavies) – must read of the day

  69. Chris Penberthy

    RT @LukePollard: What the media won't tell you about the FBU strike http://is.gd/gn749 (via @libcon and @rowandavies) – must read of the day

  70. Plymouth City UNISON

    RT @LukePollard: What the media won't tell you about the FBU strike http://is.gd/gn749 (via @libcon and @rowandavies) – must read of the day

  71. yorkierosie

    London fire strikes: what the media won’t discuss | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/R6P8YEt via @libcon

  72. Cllr Pete Robbins

    RT @LibCon What the media won't tell you about the FBU strike http://is.gd/gn749 >> Brian Coleman is a greedy shit, amongst other things

  73. Victoria Dunn

    If you want more TRUE info on firefighters strike: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/10/27/london-fire-strikes-what-the-media-wont-discuss/

  74. John Pierce

    RT @cllr_robbins: RT @LibCon What the media won't tell you about the FBU strike http://is.gd/gn749 >> Brian Coleman is a greedy sh …

  75. Rosa

    RT @rowandavies: If you're thinking that the Bonfire Night strike is a bit crap, read this on @LibCon http://bit.ly/9n7ldX esp. the comm …

  76. Laura Barnard

    @robbie_duncan Re: firemen. I saw this earlier (disclaimer: haven't read it all yet & don't know how much is verified). http://bit.ly/9n7ldX

  77. Zoë

    RT @rowandavies: If you're thinking that the Bonfire Night strike is a bit crap, read this on @LibCon http://bit.ly/9n7ldX esp. the comm …

  78. Mark Everden

    RT “@LukePollard: What the media won't tell you about the FBU strike http://is.gd/gn749 via @libcon and @rowandavies) – must read of the day

  79. Peter D Cox

    London fire strikes: what the media won’t discuss | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/lkw7VSC via @libcon It cd be Wales next!

  80. Paul Bull

    RT @LukePollard: What the media won't tell you about the FBU strike http://is.gd/gn749 (via @libcon and @rowandavies) – must read of the day

  81. Tweetminster

    "London fire strikes: what the media won’t discuss" http://bit.ly/dssJxN – Liberal Conspiracy

  82. dave m

    RT @tweetminster: "London fire strikes: what the media won’t discuss" http://bit.ly/dssJxN – Liberal Conspiracy

  83. Andrew Tindall

    RT @tweetminster: "London fire strikes: what the media won’t discuss" http://bit.ly/dssJxN – Liberal Conspiracy

  84. Mary Hamilton

    RT @tweetminster: "London fire strikes: what the media won’t discuss" http://bit.ly/dssJxN – Liberal Conspiracy

  85. NewsTweets

    tweetminster: London fire strikes: what the media won't discuss http://bit.ly/dssJxN – Liberal Conspiracy http://ht.ly/19FZVY

  86. Hannah Claydon

    RT @rowandavies: If you're thinking that the Bonfire Night strike is a bit crap, read this on @LibCon http://bit.ly/9n7ldX esp. the comm …

  87. Kevin Theobald

    RT @tweetminster: "London fire strikes: what the media won’t discuss" http://bit.ly/dssJxN – Liberal Conspiracy

  88. Nutsville

    RT @tweetminster: "London fire strikes: what the media won’t discuss" http://bit.ly/dssJxN – Liberal Conspiracy

  89. A firefighter speaks out: ‘who would you trust, us or politicians?’ | Liberal Conspiracy

    […] by Guest     October 28, 2010 at 9:05 am This was posted as a comment on an earlier article, and we thought it was good enough to publish properly as an article. It has been slightly edited […]

  90. T Swanborough-Nilson

    RT @tweetminster: "London fire strikes: what the media won’t discuss" http://bit.ly/dssJxN – Liberal Conspiracy

  91. T Swanborough-Nilson

    Seriously, do read this article http://bit.ly/dssJxN about the London fire strikes.

  92. cardifflife.net

    RT @sunny_hundal: What's behind the London fire-fighter strikes and Brian Coleman's bluster http://bit.ly/9X7ABX <–makes more sense

  93. Tim Fenton

    RT @tweetminster: "London fire strikes: what the media won’t discuss" http://bit.ly/dssJxN – Liberal Conspiracy

  94. London Fire Strikes. « Constructive Society World News Review.

    […] http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/10/27/london-fire-strikes-what-the-media-wont-discuss/ […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.