Why?
There's a sort of two camps thing going on here. I'm concerned that the curent system sounds so old hat and vulnerable to something as simple as a breaker switch tripping and the lights going out, but any new project involving such an explostion of new technology really should be looked at cautiously. IT for IT's sake is never the answer. Being able to cope with a major disaster does not mean having lots of beige boxes. It means having the processes in place for people to make decisions quickly and decisively. It sounds more and more like Government has fallen for some patter about the wonders of computers and databases again.
Maybe it's me, but the centralisation of the control centres sounds a bit flawed and personally I see no real advantage over keeping them on a 'local' basis. Why not retain them with a digital upgrade to ensure all can work together and support each other?
Of course, the FBU will jhave a vested interest to protect the people who are its members, although sometimes I do wish they (and other unions) were a little more honest about this. But a comment towards the end got me very worried:
"staffing is down to the local-authority controlled companies that will run the RCCs."
Now the idea of privatising the control of emergency services is something I really don't like the idea of. Saving lives should not be done for profit, it is a public service. Shame on this Government for such an idea.


