SAVE SHROPSHIRE'S AMBULANCE CONTROL ROOM

In response to:SORRY PEOPLE OF SHROPSHIRE

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:23:19 +0100

So - here we finally are. Wednesday 28th November and the Shropshire Star reports that West Midlands Ambulance Trust has announced that Shropshire Control is to close. For the 'resilience' of the Control function overall - of course.

What a complete and utter farce. A decision made months ago - the consultation was a total sham from the word go. Add to that some very smug and less than truthful PR staff (then again, PR staff aren't paid to have principles or even to think for themselves, they're just a salaried mouthpiece).

And lastly the spineless Chief Executive himself. Take a bow all of you - you all ought to be ashamed of yourselves. But then again I guess it'll all count towards some fat 'performance bonuses' next year won't it???!

You put up a good fight, Shropshire staff. But you can't win against the sort of managers you have got - which to be fair, is much the same as most ambulance trusts have these days!

In response to:SORRY PEOPLE OF SHROPSHIRE

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:49:31 +0100

its back in the news

Daniel Kawczynski MP is hoping to secure a Commons debate on the proposed closure of Shropshire's ambulance control centre.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/7095821.stm

In response to:SORRY PEOPLE OF SHROPSHIRE

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:17:22 +0200

Recently Anthony Marsh insulted 16000 Shropshire residents by telling them that the petition they had signed was worthless because of a technicality.

It is time to fight back.

I have been invited to a meeting with Ben Bradshaw, the Minister of State (Health) on the 31st October. (Next Wednesday) and so I have today launched a website at www.keepshropshiresafe.co.uk. This website has a template letter that is addressed to the Minister and which can be sent to me at the click of a button. All the user has to do is fill in his or her name an address to validate it, and then press send. Of course if you'd like to add other comments (or even delete some) then please feel free to do so. The template details the reason why we are so concerned about the closure, how we are appalled that ambulances are STILL being sent across border without providing adequate cover, and how after demonstrating his utter contempt for the people of Shropshire how Marsh's position is now untenable and that the Minister should take action to insist on his resignation.

It is my intention at the meeting with the minister to personally hand him every single email that is sent to me to show him just how strong feeling is in Shropshire. It goes without saying that the greater the number of emails I collect, the greater our bargaining position.

Please take time to visit the site and send an email. It will take no more than one minute of your time, but could actually, really, save lives.

Make no mistake. This is our last chance. If this fails, the whole of Shropshire loses.

Steve Jetley
steve@keepshropshiresafe.co.uk

In response to:SORRY PEOPLE OF SHROPSHIRE

Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:34:27 +0200

To add to Roy's comment. I think that the approx 100 members of the public at the Shrewsbury meeting, have lost faith and trust in the management of OUR ambulance service in Shropshire.

I know of one Member of the public that has lost faith and trust in you, Mr Marsh and your management team. Me!!!!

In response to:SORRY PEOPLE OF SHROPSHIRE

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:06:35 +0200

Dear Mr. Marsh just a line to say what a wonderful job you have done with the Consultation. It is refreshing to see the open way in which you and your Management team have carried the whole thing out from start to finish.

Mis- construing figures. Manipulation of figures words and statements.
The total disregard for staff and the total underhanded methods used.
Hiding behind the data protection act while you yourselves were guilty of
allowing personnel details to get into the public domain.
Whatever the outcome, which might I suggest was all a done deal from the start, and the savourservice campaign was just a slight irritant under your skin.
Sir you and your Senior members of staff at Millennium Point have not only insulted the population of Shropshire with the statement by Dr Wyse but you yourself have destroyed every ounce of trust the staff at both EOCs had in the WMAS and without doubt I suspect the vast majority would leave tomorrow if there home situations allowed. Not one person with whom I have spoken with has any respect for this Executive. Well done and good luck in your next venture.

In response to:SORRY PEOPLE OF SHROPSHIRE

Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:49:42 +0200

so how much will they get for the land from the back doors of the station??? its not about the money, when the control centre is sitting on valuable land. Shropshire the poor relation of WMAS.

In response to:29th August 2007

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:15:43 +0200

How can this Trust be allowed to get away with IGNORING a petition of 16,000 names?

If the petition had been presented after the formal consultation period - fair enough. But just because someone has been proactive enough to get off their bums and get a petition together and then distribute it BEFORE the official start of the consultation period....is it right to IGNORE it?

What are these people afraid of? Everybody knows that public consultation is a sham anyway and that organisations never have any intention of taking notice of what the public think. So what is the harm in accepting the petition, accepting also that public concerns are recognised and trying to reassure them that those concerns will be addressed?

Interesting that an 'independent' consultant (I don't know who employed him?) has conceded that WMASNHST need to consider why there has been more vociferous opposition to their plans than has happened elsewhere. Could it be the arrogant and dishonest way the plans have been presented?

In response to:18h April 2007

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:00:33 +0200

So many best and fresh coupons and deals related to health & beauty are available here at Couponalbum.com....!!!!

In response to:16th June 2007

Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:29:15 +0200

Hi there, we are developing a blog site for the 999 heros on the uk that dont get fair treatement and wnat to express their frustrations. Post a blog today about any subject and get the nations heros discussiong it. Spread the word.

In response to:29th August 2007

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:39:11 +0200

Latest news today (19th Sept) on the BBC News website is that - surprise surprise - Worcestershire Primary Care Trust has backed the plan to close Hereford and Worcester Control.

Hardly a great surprise - people who know little or nothing about the ambulance service accepting everything the ambulance managers spoon-feed them.

I'm sure there's more of this 'lack' of support to come....

And Murray McGregor pops up yet again with more of his smugness. Anyway, see

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/7002841.stm

And yes, as one poster suggests above, you don't really think Leamington Spa will last longer than 2 years do you? I doubt very much whether Stafford will be still around in 5 either!!

In response to:29th August 2007

Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:51:02 +0200

Subject: EOC Reconfiguration

Dear Sir/Madam,
Having been involved with trying to save the Shropshire control room I feel that the Executive should be looking to take onboard the proposal to keep its control in Shrewsbury use the money that the Shropshire PCT want to put into saving it, sell the back end of the Ambulance site and move forward to the front area and upgrade for dispatch /maintainance and put in a new control with some extra capacity for emergencies and also put in the air Ambulance control with also a facility to have an emergency room to work in the time of emergency for floods or direct linkage with police and fire. The control can and should be local but also linked to the main controls so that in the time of a failure that can and has happened, any control that goes down then lets the other takes over. A fall back centre which works daily as its own County control, but it can be opened up to give cover when needed across the West Midlands Area.
Shropshire is the largest land locked county very rural with approx 500,000 people living in areas that are hard to contact with even the latest digital equipment .Tetra your new system is not fully tried and tested and still has flaws within its system and capacity. and will require many new masts to make it fully operational in this area. Shrewsbury control is ideally situated close to the main BT telephone exchange for Shropshire and also the present site is only 100metres below the highest point in Shrewsbury which makes it perfect for line of sight onto the wrekin for repeaters as needed. Shropshire control has very dedicated staff that throughout this difficult time have shown quite clearly that they value the work they do and are totally dedecated and have a proven track record.

Please consider this option
£1 million pounds from Shropshire PCT plus your figures say £500,000 from sale of the land the present control is situated on.
The County Council is committed to the vote taken to support the retention as is Shrewsbury and Atcham Council of a Shropshire control centre.
With the presentCouncil votes in place it rules out the possibility that either Councils can make an offer on this area unless the control is retained in Shropshire.
Please retain our valuable service and build a bridge with the public and staff who now really do not trust the present management team.
It is also hoped that the statement made to putting off any decision till mid November is not just a smoke screen to allow time for this issue to go off the boil, before returning to carry out what the public of Shropshire expect and fear, and that is the closure as pre-planned from the start.

mike manning.

In response to:29th August 2007

Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:19:20 +0200

@ambo spotter

Details for the WMAS IT Director are ;

My Barry Thurston
Unit 9, Waterfront Business Park
Waterfront Way
Brierley Hill
DY5 2SZ

The BH exchange flooding incident is used as a case study example in the consultation document.

In response to:29th August 2007

Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:08:20 +0200

This is a letter which I have sent to Mr Marsh (and forwarded to the Healthcare Commissioner as the basis of an official complaint)in reply to a letter which I received from the WMAS (which can be found here: http://saveyoureoc.co.uk/Documents/Reply%20from%20WMAS.pdf. ) concerning the proposed merger.

Dear Mr A C Marsh

PROPOSED EOC RE-ORGANISATION IN THE WEST MIDLANDS

I received a letter from you recently, care of Sir Michael Spicer, in response to a letter which I had sent to Sir Michael Spicer detailing to some extent my concerns about the proposed re-organisation of EOCs in the West Midlands. You will see that I have copied this letter to Sir Michael Spicer, raised a complaint through the Healthcare Commission and have e-mailed it for posting on http://saveyoureoc.co.uk/default.aspx, and http://saveourambulancecontrol.blog.co.uk/, in order that the complaint is officially registered and that Sir Michael Spicer and the general public are aware of how unhappy I am with the response which I have received and the derision and irrationality which you have shown.

I was distressed to find my concerns treated with contempt and impertinence. Not all my concerns were addressed, those that were have been addressed inadequately and I have been dealt many answers with spin and subjectivity. This is not good enough. I require my concerns, which I will elucidate in more detail below, to be addressed promptly, fully, directly and objectively, with each issue, aspect or question being given individual attention and an individual answer.

I was originally at a loss to comprehend why the individual aspects of my letter were not answered fully. I later found that the letter, which you had sent to Sir Michael Spicer, who in turn forwarded it to me, addressing my concerns, had not been bespoke. It had been copied to at least 2 other people, people who I am sure had specific concerns of their own that needed addressing and which subsequently have not been addressed. I am exceedingly angry at the disrespect shown to us, and it serves as further proof that you do not take the opposition seriously. I am not asking these questions to be difficult or vexatious; I am very concerned about the procedural impropriety that has been shown by your consultation and the adverse affect that this will have on people in the community. Your attempt to broadly answer our concerns with one letter has meant that you have answered them all inadequately and has meant that they have not been considered with their due individual regard. This makes a mockery of the consultation. We expect our concerns to be individually considered and addressed. That they are not being so addressed is proof that concerns raised by the public are not subject to serious consideration by you.

As a result, I, and I am sure the others affected have had to write letters such as this to ask questions and express concerns which should have been dealt with originally. This could be an intentional underhand tactic, but whether it is or is not, it has had the same result. This has wasted our time, and as the consultation period is so short, has had a severely adverse effect on the situation of the opposition to the proposal. I therefore ask to have the consultation period extended to make up for the time lost which would include the time taken to draft letters, time taken for them to get to you in the post and time taken for a reply to be received and considered. 20 working days would suffice to cover this.

You seem to think that my concerns, and the concerns of others opposed to your proposals, can be dismissed without recognition. You are very wrong. You have a legal responsibility to the general public, which you cannot dismiss with arrogant spin doctoring, which requires a proposal such as this to be administered professionally and a public consultation on the issue to be undertaken 'properly'.

I would like to bring your attention to the case: R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan [2001] QB 213. In this case the Court of Appeal determined that:

"To be proper, consultation must be undertaken at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage; it must include sufficient reasons for particular proposals to allow those consulted to give intelligent consideration and an intelligent response; adequate time must be given for this purpose; and the product of consultation must be consciously taken into account when the ultimate decision is taken."

My understanding is, that as there is only one proposal under consideration (that detailed in the Consultation Document) and as the consultation period only opened once this Consultation Document had been released, the consultation has been undertaken only after the proposal was finished, and not whilst they were at a formative stage; this is highly irregular and constitutes procedural impropriety.

A decision suffers from procedural impropriety if in the process of its making the procedures prescribed by statute have not been followed or if the 'rules of natural justice' have not been adhered to. Laws J, in the case R v Somerset CC ex parte Fewings [1995] 1 All ER 513 stated that the rule of law demands that a public authority can only make a decision, or adopt a course of conduct, if it can find positive law to justify it. Making a decision, or following a course of conduct (such as the proposal, Consultation Document and the consultation as you have administered it) in breach of the relevant statutes and guidance and the ruling in Coughlan (which you have breached with the proposal, Consultation Document and the consultation as you have administered it) is therefore procedurally improper, and demonstrates a breach of the principals laid down in Fewings, and is therefore not a course of conduct that you are lawfully able to take, and a decision based on such, is not one that you are lawfully able to make.

The product of the consultation has, in part, been the responses it has drawn from the general public. The reply which I received to the concerns I outlined showed that my concerns had not, in the slightest, been taken into account or been given their due individual attention. You have gone no further than to re-iterate the proposals in the Consultation Document in what resembles an attempt to fob me off. You have turned what should have been a collaboration into a war, trying to defend your proposal from criticism when the point of a consultation period is to take concerns on board and address them in the proposal and final decision. My concerns, as with those of other members of the public, are completely relevant and highly legitimate. They highlight major failings in your research for the Consultation Document, into which I expected further research to be carried out and amendments to the Consultation Document to be made as a result. My fears and concerns have not been taken into account at all, you evidently have not addressed them and have not attempted to put right what you have done wrong. The consultation and subsequent decision, it seems, is a sick joke. They do not take into account the product of the consultation period and as a result this constitutes further procedural impropriety and unlawfulness because the principles set out in ex p Coughlan and Fewings has been breached.

You will be aware that the Code of Practice on Consultation sets out clear guidelines on how to administer a proposal, consultation, consultation period and the results of the consultation period. You seem to have breached this on several occasions. Consultation Criterion 1.1 states that:

"Consultation is a continuous process that needs to be started early in the policy development process."

Your proposal was released barely before any consultation period was opened, this is not 'early in the development process' at all, it is at the latest possible stage before a decision is reached.

Consultation Criterion 1.2 states that:

"It is important to identify proactively relevant interested parties and those whom the policy will be likely to affect. These groups should be contacted and engaged in discussion as early as possible in the policy development process."

The general public, EOC operators and their unions, paramedics, hospitals, doctors' surgeries and many other groups would be considered as 'relevant interested parties' and 'those whom the policy will be likely to affect' yet these groups were not contacted or engaged in discussions early on in the policy development process, they were engaged at the last possible moment, barely before the start of the consultation period (which occurs immediately before the decision is to be made) and after the proposal had been made, they had not been involved in the drafting of the proposal in the slightest.

Concerning the late start to the consultation period, which renders it almost impotent, I was even more affronted when I saw a comment from the Regional Head of Communications who stated (in a letter published on http://saveyoureoc.co.uk/wmaspo.aspx) that you:

"have chosen to consult for 13 weeks rather than the month that we were legally obliged to carry out"

Criterion 1 of the Code of Practice on Consultation states that you must:

"Consult widely throughout the process, allowing a minimum of 12 weeks for written consultation at least once during the development of the policy."

You have opened the consultation period for only 1 week more than the code of practice decrees, and only after the proposal was made, not during the drafting period. To say otherwise is misleading and underhand and seemingly done to make the public think that you are being fair when you are actually giving only slightly more time than you are obligated to give, and have opened the consultation period at a later time to the time when you were obligated to open it.

I wrote in my original letter that I had reason to believe that Bransford EOC out performed the EOC at Brierley Hill (I do not want to belittle the good work of any EOC, but much of your proposal is based on claims that Bransford is underperforming but you have provided no real evidence of this). You did not dismiss this claim, only giving me a quite irrelevant table that compared the number of calls delayed between Brierley Hill and Shropshire. Please tell me categorically if I am right and that Bransford EOC outperforms that of the EOC at Brierly Hill (that is when you consider Brierly Hill on its own, not their performance when combined with that of Shrewsbury), and please provide relevant figures that show the performances of Brierly Hill (that is when you consider Brierly Hill on its own, not their performance when combined with that of Shrewsbury) and Bransford for at least the past 18 months.

You have failed to sufficiently answer my concerns about the financial viability of the proposal, or to provide me with all the relevant financial information surrounding the proposal. You just replied that the proposal would be subject to an audit. This re-organisation is very large and involves a very large amount of money. It is very important that the financial implications are properly assessed throughout. That the proposal will be audited does not achieve this. The proposal, by this admission, has not been audited, and has not had a complete financial assessment. The public have not seen such a complete financial assessment and neither have you. The public, therefore, do not know if the financial statistics that you have provided are accurate, and neither do you. Nobody therefore knows if the proposal is viable or not. This is very irregular, it means that your decisions are being made irrationally and without any real basis and that your statistics and statements, which pretend that this is not the case, are incredibly misleading. It means that your proposal is incomplete and that any figures you have given are purely speculative and may not be accurate or complete, and yet by putting this information into the Consultation Document, without explaining that it has not been proved accurate, you have led the public to believe the information is wholly true when you are aware that it may not be so. This invalidates the consultation because the public cannot contribute effectively because they have not been provided with all the facts and details of the proposal. Please address this issue and please provide me with all the relevant financial information that affects this proposal, and the sources of such information, plus information regarding who will carry out the audit and how they will do this.

Also, when I first read the Consultation Document, the cost of the proposal was priced at half a million pounds. You then released an updated Consultation Document. The proposal in this was priced at £1 million. Nothing else was changed in the Document and no explanation was given for this 100% increase. I can only presume that you do not consider half a million here and there to be an issue, which is very hypocritical because the proposal is backed up by arguments grounded on its financial superiority to other possibilities. Please provide me with a reason for this increase and all the relevant financial details and statistics.

I also questioned the use of reports such as the 'Varney' report, because they were relevant to call taking in offices that dealt with tax, pensions and student loans and not with the critical and life saving emergency call taking in an EOC. It is dangerous, incompetent and irrational, when researching a proposal, to rely on a report that relates to something irrelevant to the particulars of the proposal. The 'Varney' report regularly stresses aspects such as 'every level involved being behind a change', and 'bottom-up staff input'. Aspects which you do not mention or take into account, and in fact are ignoring, because you are not listening to the people on the shop floor and have not got a situation where every level is behind the change. You pick and choose the parts of the report that suit your argument, rather than basing your proposal on the reports themselves. You did not address these aspects in my original letter. Please do so now.

You rely heavily on the findings of the 'Mason' report, but fail to mention that it stresses: the importance of optimum local knowledge; that there are a series of options to consider, rather than just the one; and that "…one size does not fit all…" You have not mentioned these aspects in the Consultation Document, and have certainly not acted upon them, and as a result they has been hidden from the public. Again, rather than basing your proposal on the report, you have irrationally picked and chosen aspects of the reports, out of the context of the document as a whole, in an attempt to bolster your weak Consultation Document and in the hope that this would not be subject to close scrutiny.

I also mentioned that the reports you relied upon are not without dissenters. It took me 3 minutes of searching the internet to find that there are many professionals and academics who have made objections to the 'Mason' report, and a similar amount of time to find dissenting views on the 'Varney' report, and yet you referred to the latter as "widely accepted". It is also widely rejected. Why have you made this comment when it is misleading and hides the truth? Could you please now address my concerns that you have not researched these dissenting views and that you have, irrationally, made your proposal based only on the reports themselves, without even considering the views of the many bodies who object to their findings, and that you have tried to give the papers more credence by exaggerating about how accepted they are.

The case Wheeler v Leicester City Council [1985] 2 All ER 1106 decided that it was illegal for a public authority to ignore relevant considerations, or take irrelevant considerations into account when making a decision. Your misuse of both the 'Varney' report and the 'Mason' report has both ignored relevant considerations and taken irrelevant ones into consideration, and to make a decision based on this misuse would be illegal.

A large concern of mine, that I addressed in my original letter, is that there is only one proposal. You rail on about this being better than 'no change' but you hardly give a mention to the possibility of upgrading all the existing EOCs, or any other possibility for improving EOC performance. It is very shortsighted not to have considered other options, especially the option which is open to upgrade all existing EOCs to all have the latest technology, thereby retaining existing resources and increasing their efficiency, rather than attempting the latter whilst losing the former. By offering just one proposal you have invalidated the consultion period. You have a proposal which is better than 'no change', so a consultation period, in which you do not consider the proposal in comparison to any other, basically achieves nothing. There should be several other proposals, each researched and evidenced properly, so that a consultation can be had upon them and a victor chosen, bearing in mind worthy aspects of the other proposals and the amendments that arise out of the consultation period. As it is, you constantly argue that your proposal is better than 'no change'. It is easy to assume that you have only submitted one proposal, on purpose, so that you can defeat any argument that it is not a good proposal by saying 'but it is the best we have got'. If it has not been done intentionally, then it has had the same effect; and should be remedied by serious research into several other proposals, in order to make a fair comparison with the one you have already put forward. There are already a number of alternatives which are being researched, such as one from Sir Michael Spicer MP in conjunction with Parliamentary Candidate Harriett Baldwin, and there is one that has already been published on http://saveyoureoc.co.uk/default.aspx. Finding and developing several new and alternative proposals, it seems, is not impossible and yet you have failed to achieve this.

Consultation Criterion 2.3 states that:

"As far as possible, consultation should be completely open, with no options ruled out."

In the Consultation Document there are many other options that you do not put forward as possibilities and ignore completely. You dismiss the other options which you do mention almost out of hand, when they should have been developed fully and properly in order for you to make comparisons effectively. The consultation period will be unsuccessful in collecting the opinions of the public on the other options because they have not been developed fully enough to be able to assess their effectiveness; the only proposal that can be assessed is the only one you have put forward. This has been a straightforward breach of Criterion 2.3 in two areas: the other options have been ruled out; and as the consultation period can only assess the one proposal you have made, the consultation can not be considered 'completely open'.

Consultation Criterion 4.2 states that:

"Particular attention should be paid to…possible new approaches to the question consulted on"

This Criterion has also been breached because instead of paying 'particular attention' to the other approaches, proposals and suggestions, hardly any attention has been payed to them and they have been dismissed very curtly without any of them being given their due regard.

Consultation Criterion 6.6 states that a consultation must:

"seek to ensure that the Principles of Good Regulation are followed whenever policy is being developed. These are: proportionality; accountability; consistency; transparency; and targeting."

Considering the scale and importance of the proposed re-organisation of EOCs, releasing only one proposal is not a proportionate response, several should have been fully considered; criterion 6.6 has therefore been breached too. Lord Diplock, in the case Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, stated that, to be legal, a decision by a public authority must be proportionate to the aim that it seeks to achieve. A disproportionate decision was defined as one that demonstrates irrationality in the form of what has been termed 'Wednesbury unreasonableness', and such decision (such as any decision based on the proposal, Consultation Document or consultation as you have administered it), it was stated, would be illegal.

This notion that the decision (to move forward with the only proposal that you have put forward) has already been made, and may have been made before the consultation period even opened, gains validity when one reads it in conjunction with comments made by the non-executive director to the Chairman and Chief Executive of WMAS Trust (on http://saveyoureoc.co.uk/wmaspo.aspx) where he repeatedly refers to the proposal as a "decision". The idea forms that this "decision" was made before the consultation period was opened, and was not even the result of extensive research and evidence, but that after the "decision" was made, there was a vague attempt to legitimise it with an inept Consultation Document, which would explain all the irregularities and references to documents that are unrelated, in an effort to give it credibility. This again is in breach of Consultation Criterion 1.1 and the decisions in ex p Coughlan and Fewings.

I have asked many questions about the possibility of your proposal being a bad choice compared to other possible proposals but you have consistently answered a different question. You have consistently answered saying that your proposal will be better than 'no change'. I am not advocating 'no change', I agree that a change is required. My concern is that your proposal is not the best change, that it falls far short of what is necessary, that it has been inadequately researched and evaluated, and that no other proposals have been put forward for it to be compared against.

You make a statement to the effect that the Trust "…has a legal requirement under the Civil Contingencies Act…" to ensure there are facilities available if a control room ceases to function, and you go on to say that they need the capacity to manage a major incident. You then write, in juxtaposition, that you "believe" your proposal will save lives. You have not stated whether or not your proposal achieves the criteria you mention in the statement, or given evidence of how it achieves them. That your statement (that you have legal requirements to cope with major incidents and control rooms going off line) is true, does not mean, and is not evidence, that you are fulfilling the criteria in the statement, and yet the juxtaposition of the statement and what you "believe" would suggest that this is so. This juxtaposition is vague and misleading.

Aside from this, your statement is a very poor argument for your proposal, and only serves to argue that it is better than 'no change'. I am not advocating 'no change', but the production of different proposals and many of them, all produced competently and properly. Any proposal put forward would have to be aligned with the provisions of the Civil Contingencies Act, have facilities for if a control room ceased to function and have the capacity to manage a major incident. There are many proposals that could be put forward which are different to your proposal and still fulfil those criteria, yours is not the only possible one. That 'your proposal fulfils those criteria' does not mean that 'your proposal is qualified, or legitimised, because it fulfils those criteria', it certainly does not mean that 'your proposal is the only possible proposal that is qualified, or legitimised, because it fulfils those criteria'. These are all very different notions. Every possible proposal would have to fulfil those criteria, that yours has done so does not make it special. The statement does not mean anything and it is also purely speculative because you have not stated if, nor shown proof of how, your proposal is aligned with the criteria you mentioned, you have just tried to give the appearance that it is.

One of my main concerns about the proposed merger is the loss of local knowledge that it brings with it, local knowledge that can and has saved lives. This merger, therefore, could cost lives, and I raised the issue in my original letter. Your reply stated that:

"Rather than these proposals putting lives at risk, we believe it will save lives."

You failed to show me the results of research done into how many lives could be lost or saved as a result of the merger, you failed to show me evidence of how many lives will be lost or saved if there was 'no change'. More importantly you failed to show me the research and evidence which shows how many lives will be lost or saved, in comparison with any other proposals to which you have given serious consideration. Your subjective ejaculation that it will save lives means absolutely nothing without proof. It is not objective and there is no evidence to support it and relying on such a statement to make a decision would be considered as 'taking irrelevant considerations into account', in breach of the decision in Wheeler, and would be illegal. It, as with so much of your Consultation Document, is speculation and this is akin to a lie. I do not want you to weasel out of giving answers with empty rhetoric and unsupported opinions. Please show me the research that you have done and the evidence gained from it that shows how many lives will be lost or saved by the merger, and please show me the comparisons with the amount of lives, that your research has been found, which will be lost or saved through the enaction of other proposals, such as technological improvements, back ups and intergration for all existing sites. If no such research has been done, this is evidence of gross misconduct and I hope you will address the issue immediately.

You state that there will be no loss in local knowledge. This, again, is pure conjecture (which constitutes taking irrelevant considerations into account) and is, in other words: a lie, because there is no evidence of research done into the number of call takers from Bransford EOC who will be moving to be call takers in Brierly Hill. In fact, as call takers were not told about the proposed merger until the last possible moment, until after the proposal had been released, there would have been no way you could have done such research and found out how many people would move with the merger, and so find out much local knowledge you would be retaining. Making such claims that local knowledge will be retained, and that lives will be saved, without research and evidence demonstrates irrationality and again is unlawful. In fact, Consultation Criterion 6.6 states that a consultation must show transparancy. Making claims in a Consultation Document that are not based on evidence constitutes a total lack of transparancy; adding such subjective comments clouds the issue and hides the truth. You have managed here, with this speculation, to breach this Criterion as well.

Although some call takers from Bransford EOC may be relocated to Brierley Hill EOC, not all will be able to, the ones that will shall be significantly watered down meaning that the odds that a caller from Herefordshire or Worcestershire will speak to a call taker who has knowledge of the same is very slim. You have stated that you will retain local knowledge but that is misleading. You have not done the research to find out how much you will retain and your comments which allude to this and which make it sound like there will be no loss of local knowledge are, again, speculation, because although there may be a few people who have moved with the merger, they will not necessarily be taking the calls from the areas of which they have local knowledge. In the future too, there is no reason to believe, and you have showed no evidence to prove, that recruitment drives will be made in Herefordshire or Worcestershire for call takers in Brierley Hill. Call takers will in all likelihood be recruited from the Brierley Hill locality, which means that in the future, very few people from Herefordshire and Worcestershire are likely to be recruited at Brierley Hill, which means that in the future, local knowledge of those counties will be lost. You have, again, 'ignored relevant considerations'.

You have consistently underlined the virtues of new technologies. Technology plays a vital part when getting ambulances to incidents. You seem to argue, however, that there is either an option to have only local knowledge, or there is an option to have only technology. This is not the case. It is entirely possible, for instance by maintaining current EOCs and expanding them and improving the technologies within them, to have both. To say anything else is deceptive and yet you do not seem to have taken this consideration on board.

You stress that technology can somehow make up for a loss of local knowledge. This is purely an assumption. Nowhere have you given statistics, or any proof at all, that the new technology would make up for such loss, neither has it been considered that a systems failure could occur rendering local knowledge invaluable.

You even state, in your reply to my original letter:

"Very often [ambulance crews] will back the technology up by asking if the caller can see local landmarks, which will confirm locations."

Saying this, in juxtaposition to comments about the lack of a requirement for local knowledge is a complete dichotomy. You have shown, yourself, the importance of local knowledge, and still maintain that it is not important. A pool of local knowledge, by your own admittance, is essential; to lose local knowledge, by your own admittance, would be a disaster. You state that the local knowledge will be maintained with ambulance crews, but you have not assessed the amount that would be lost. Simply put, you do not know the effect that this will have. Considering the views I have read from paramedics, who I am told rely heavily on the local knowledge of the call operators, the effect of this loss would be very significant, and yet you have not provided researched for this conjecture, have not given it consideration, and have tried to claim that it is not an issue. The extent of this attempt to gloss over the issue is amplified when you consider, as I do later in this letter, that by deploying ambulance crews to cover larger areas (as, it has been recently admitted, is the intention) ambulance crews will, significantly, not be operating in areas of which they have local knowledge. If in such a situation, there were no call takers with local knowledge, then a major asset would be lost and a very dangerous situation created. You even state:

"The EOC staff do not know every single location within their county and we should not pretend otherwise."

By that same argument, neither do the ambulance crews, yet you speculate that by retaining them the EOC staff are unnecessary. What is important is a pool of local knowledge from EOC staff and ambulance crews, but your proposals will see that pool drained.

You have not, in the Consultation Document, given any of these aspects their due consideration.

The document also states that there will be no job losses from the merger. However the Brierley Hill EOC is situated a fair distance from the Worcester EOC. Taking the shortest route, the Birmingham EOC is within a distance from the Worcester EOC which is considered, when a company relocates, to be a legal extra distance that workers should be expected to travel to their new jobs. This means that you feel that you do not legally have to let people go or make any redundancy payments.

However, the shortest route is famously not the quickest, due to traffic volume, and the quickest can still take a ridiculous amount of time due to the same. This can make a very long journey time, more so for those who have already travelled from Hereford. For a normal job, this would be considered reasonable but for people who work 8 or 12 hour shifts, whose sleeping patters are changed weekly and who have to stay alert for their whole shift as a matter of urgency, such people would in all likelihood be too exhausted to stay awake on long shifts or be such effective call takers. This is very dangerous. Even if they can, and then even if they are taken by bus or similar arrangement from their old place of work to their new one, it cannot be reasonable to expect them to risk their lives and those of others on a drive home, when they are too tired to drive due to the extra journey time. In short this is stupid and dangerous too.

As a result many people will leave their jobs and all you will have achieved is a saving on redundancy payments, rather than retaining local knowledge, but your Consultation Document passes this off as a good thing. Furthermore, although the law does give a maximum distance that a relocation can be to avoid redundancies, the case law surrounding it (an example being Aparau v. Iceland [2000] 1 All ER 228) talks of "reasonableness". There are cases that set and support the principle that "reasonableness" should be taken into consideration when considering a relocation and redundancy payments, rather than a set distance. This distance, when considered alongside the time it takes to drive it, and the exhaustion call takers would suffer from the extra commuting time, the nature of the work and the shift patterns, would not be considered "reasonable", and such relocation therefore would cause job losses and these would be considered redundancies.

Furthermore, the case HSBC Plc v. Mrs C Drange CSRC vol. 27 iss. 17/3 EAT/369/2003 stated that the only way a relocation could happen without redundancy payments or payments for constructive dismissal was if "no reasonable employer would have concluded that there were no business reasons for the transfer". If this was not the case, such relocation would cause a "total breakdown of trust and confidence between the parties", and any staff that left would have to be given redundancy payments, or, if they had already left, be given financial compensation. Here, with the business case for the merger so legally and procedurally flawed, a reasonable employer would have to conclude that there are 'no business reasons for the transfer', and this would cause a 'breakdown of trust and confidence' and render you liable for redundancy and compensation payouts.

Even without considering the relocation itself, and just considering the proposal and consultation there are grounds for constructive dismissal. In the case Morrow v Safeway Stores [2002] IRLR 9 the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that if there has been conduct by the employer likely to destroy or seriously damage the trust and confidence relationship this will mean, inevitably, that there has been a fundamental breach going to the root of the contract and entitling the employee to resign and claim constructive dismissal. The way in which you kept the plans for the merger secret from your employees until the last possible minute, your unwillingness to listen to any proposals other than the one you have forwarded and your unwillingness to listen to, and take into account complaints and recommendations about your proposal and the consultation, along with the illegalities and irregularities of the proposal, Consultation Document and consultation, would alone be enough to create a 'breakdown of trust and confidence', meaning that anybody who resigned would be entitled to compensation under a claim for constructive dismissal.
Nowhere in your document has this been considered. The possibility of such redundancy payments has not been mentioned anywhere, and yet you claim to have carried out "extensive research". This is absolutely preposterous. There is legislation that states that it is vital that an employer informs the workforce of which people will be made redundant and why, as soon as possible and that where redundancies occur, consultation with employees and their representatives should begin as soon as possible, within a timeframe given by statute. If an employer has failed, in any way, to meet the consultation requirements, there are legal sanctions. You have not considered the possibility of any redundancies which although you do not intend, could well be forced upon you, you therefore have not assessed the legal or financial implications that you could face as a result, they are not detailed in the Consultation Document, and so your proposal and the Consultation Document must be considered inadequately researched.
Neither have you considered that the relocation, if it caused women to quit, could also constitute indirect sexual discrimination. When the higher earner in a family has his job relocated, the family will generally move to where the job is. If it is a lower earner who gets relocated, then the family will not move because this is not usually financially viable. Women generally earn less than men. When a woman's job is relocated, as they are more likely to be the second earner in a family, they are unlikely to move to the area that their job has been relocated to. EOC operators are generally on not too high a salary (the benefit being the job satisfaction and not the money), which will mean that women who are in this post and who have a partner or a husband are likely to be the second earner in a household and therefore more likely to be unable to relocate, meaning that such a relocation could constitute sexual discrimination. This principle has been set in the case Mrs Meade-Hill & National Union of Civil & Public Servants v. British Council Court of Appeal [1995] IRLR 478 under S.1(1)(b) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and yet does not seem to have been researched by you, any financial implications resulting from this have not been assessed and it is not mentioned in the Consultation Document, which you claim has been extensively researched.

You have also stated that in situations where it is too far for people to travel to their new jobs, there will be jobs created closer to home. The Consultation Document does not say what jobs these will be. This could be the catalyst for a claim for constructive dismissal. People do this job because they love it and are passionate about it. To demote them, even on the same pay, to a job without the excitement, the drama, and the feeling of having saved lives, would, for them, constitute debasement. It would be akin to demoting a busy barrister from courtroom battles to filing, or a general practitioner to receptionist, or a journalist to deskwork. Most EOC operators would consider most other jobs as unsuitable; although they do not have professional qualifications, they do their jobs for a personal reason. A removal of this would cause most to leave their new jobs, or not take them up, as a result of a 'breakdown of trust and confidence', and this could be considered as constructive dismissal.

This, along with the possible redundancy payments, and possible claims for sexual discrimination, have not been considered anywhere in the Consultation Document, and yet they could have serious financial and logistical implications. They may also impact on the amount of local knowledge that you retain. To have ignored such important possibilities is highly negligent and means that you 'have ignored relevant considerations' which would render a decision based on the Consultation Document, which does not take these aspects into account, illegal.

The Consultation Document heavily relies upon what might happen in natural disaster or terrorist attack. You are on record as stating that, concerning a terrorist attack: "…it is not a matter of 'if' but 'when'." The document states that Birmingham, as England's second city, is a major terrorist target and that if there were such an attack, it would be necessary to have a bigger unit, with more people manning it, more people available at short notice and other EOC units available in case of failure of the main ones, in order that an emergency can be effectively coped with. This emotive issue is highlighted in a completely disproportionate manner. It certainly is not a manner of 'when' and if it were, there is also a consideration of 'how bad would it be'. Many terrorist attacks in foreign countries hurt few people, it is a rare tragedy that one causes much damage, and it is very unlikely that one such would happen in Birmingham. Removing the regular ambulance services at the expense of thousands in Hereford and Worcester is a disproportionate response to limiting the damage from a possible disaster in Birmingham.

Furthermore such a contingency plan is based on flawed logic. The idea that there are more people available at short notice in the case of an emergency is just silly. In an emergency, Birmingham would be in gridlock, it would be very difficult for people to rush into work. If, however, there were an EOC in Worcester (which I doubt would be considered under any threat from a terrorist attack) then, as Worcester would barely be affected, people would be able to get into work in an emergency, and at short notice be able to act to continue services in the event of a failure of the main EOC in Birmingham. Here you have again 'ignored relevant considerations'.

Although, as I already have mentioned, the Bransford EOC is in need of upgrading, the comments which the document makes, and which have been made in the press, regarding this are subjective and over sensationalised. As you are aware there has recently been severe flooding of the Severn and its tributaries in the area. This caused massive chaos, with ambulances needed everywhere, severe grid lock and flooded roads. There are anecdotal reports that Birmingham's EOC, including its back ups, being forced, or taken, off line and that it was working pen to paper as a result. Worcester's EOC on the other hand had no problems and continued functioning as normal, their local knowledge praised by many people who were very happy with the way the ambulances negotiated the obstacles due to guidance of local EOC operators. Bransford EOC is accused of being less effective and not 'fit for purpose' when it seems, objectively and in light of the evidence of the recent emergency, it is actually more 'fit for purpose' than the EOC at Brierley Hill. Why has the opposite been sensationalised when it is not true, and why have the actual statistics that show how effective Bransford EOC is in comparison, not been made obvious? These statistics are incredibly important when re-organising a system on such a scale as this and should be given great consideration when making the proposal and within the Consultation Document. It is again negligent, and shows further incompetence, to ignore facts and statistics such as these.

The WMAS have a ratings system, whereby they rate the severity of an incident, the most severe being termed a "disaster" or similar term (I do not know the jargon used). Most people would consider the flooding to be a disaster, but the WMAS only ranked it as something akin to "almost a disaster". If the Birmingham systems had gone down in a "disaster", it would have looked awful for them. As it was not classified as such, no issue has been made out of it. Also, the Worcester EOC coping so well with a "disaster" would have looked very good for them. It is very suspicious and underhand that such an occurrence should not be clarified under the terms it deserves, just to save the blushes of the WMAS.

I have also heard that a few people from the Shropshire EOC had been suspended, and one eventually resigned, accused of leaking information of ambulance deployment in the Midlands. I was made aware that the person who was resigned was suspended because he breached the Data Protection Act. This Act protects sensitive information about the general public, and not information relating to the performance of a public service. Could you please furnish me with the facts of this suspension and the grounds for it, and if it is the case that he was suspended under suspected breach of the Data Protection Act, even though he had not breached it, could you please make the person, and myself aware of this.

The information released especially related to details of emergencies in Shropshire that have had to wait due to vehicles being urgently deployed to Wolverhampton and Dudley, which is Birmingham's territory. This is very injurious to WMAS because it highlights the fears of Hereford and Worcestershire residents that they will become second class citizens because ambulances that used to serve them only, are being stretched to cover emergencies over a larger area, and due to high demand in the cities, leave the countryside with a diminished service. It also shows that the Birmingham EOC is not so efficient as it is being made out to be. I imagine this will be very embarrassing for the WMAS.

This looks like it is a very separate issue to the proposed merger, but, in the meeting in Hereford recently, a member of the Trust Board admitted that alongside the new merger, there is a plan to pool ambulance depots, so it will be easier for ambulances in rural areas to be deployed into the cities. The plan probably intends to be reciprocal but there will be fears that this will not be so, that there are more emergencies in the cities, so ambulances will be taken from the surrounding countryside more often, and, through the number of calls and relative positioning of ambulances, stay there. I have heard cities being referred to as 'black holes', because the ambulances have a difficult time coming out of them, back into rural areas, once sucked in. This could leave the countryside with a severely reduced service. Why has this not been mentioned in the report? It is incredibly relevant, and would have required being taken into account when the proposal was made, and for the public to dwell upon during the consultation period. If it was not for the call operator at Shropshire EOC releasing this information, the issue may not have been broached at all. The suspension of the call operator and the issue of ambulances being sent to other territories is very relevant to this proposal and yet you do not consider them together, again you 'ignore relevant considerations'. This lack of clarity also breaches Consultation Criterion 6.6 which demands transparency.

There is a breach of Criterion 2 which states you must:

"Be clear about what your proposals are"

Your proposal omitted to mention possible pooling of ambulances. This materially affects the proposal and hiding such relevant information means that clarity has not been achieved.

Keeping this information away from public scrutiny means that a consultation cannot properly take place because the public are not aware of all the facts; if the public do not know everything, the effectiveness of a consultation is completely negated because they cannot give opinions based on the facts because the facts are not given to them. This requires serious redress.

You have also breached Criterion 4.2 which states that:

"Particular attention should be paid to…further evidence of the impact of the proposals"

This pooling is a major impact of the proposal, which you have not considered at all, and have in fact tried to hide from the public. You should be praising, not suspending, the call operator who leaked this, because you had a legal duty to release it yourselves as part of the development of the Consultation Document. You should not be hiding important and relevant statistics from the public, it was your mistake that this was kept secret. It is you who are legally culpable for not releasing the information, not the call operator for doing so, all the call operator did was highlight your incompetence. It is you who should be being punished and not the call operator.

This pooling of ambulances asks further questions of your statements in the Consultation Documents about the limitations to losses of local knowledge. You state:

"It should also be recognised that crews will remain based in exactly the same locations as now, thereby maintaining local knowledge."

Wherever they are based, if they are operating outside of their local areas, which due to this pooling they are more likely to be, ambulance crews will have no local knowledge of the area they are operating in at all. Local knowledge will be completely lost, and yet you have made no mention of this, or the pooling that from which it will result and are actually making comments to the opposite effect (once again 'ignoring relevant considerations'). Your evasiveness makes this comment seem like local knowledge will not be lost, whereas you have not put all the facts in, you have omitted very important ones and so the comment is only a half truth. You have clouded the issue; that ambulance crews will be based in the same locations as they are now does not mean that the local knowledge will be any use in the areas where they will be operating. Whether intentional or not, this comment is misleading as to the local knowledge that will be retained. You certainly, and quite improperly, have not given any aspect of this issue its due consideration; I can find no reference to the issue in the Consultation Document.

You were recently quoted as saying:

"This trust will not do anything that will put patients' lives at risk"

This comment is purely speculative and is dangerous. It allays peoples' fears and stifles debate when you should be trying to obtain peoples' opinions and take peoples' fears on board. It serves to moderate the effectiveness of the consultation period, and a consultation period that is not effective may mean that important points are omitted that should have been considered and this, ultimately, can cost lives. You have provided no evidence in this document that enables you to make this statement. You have done inadequate research into the risk to life that it poses. You have, again, 'ignored relevant considerations', and you have insufficiently and falsely addressed many of the aspects that you have considered, which constitutes 'taking irrelevant considerations into account'.

You are not in a position to know whether your proposals will put patients' lives at risk or not.

How you can possibly think that a monumental shake up of these proportions can be significantly dealt with in the mere 6,460 words of the Consultation Document is beyond me, and it shows massive ineptitude. I have written more than this in this letter (which serves only to point out concerns and errors based on the document and highlight issues that you have not taken into consideration within the Consultation Document) alone. I am aware there are other people who have different concerns about the proposal, which I do not know the particulars of and which I have not broached here. The fact that I have been unable to pen my concerns in response to the Consultation Document in fewer words than the Consultation Document itself contains, stresses that there has clearly not been enough research that could be considered adequate enough to have led you to the conclusions which you have outlined in the proposal.

This proposal and Consultation Document are severely flawed, both procedurally and in content. They require serious redrafting and should be taken back to the drawing board. A consultation period, months longer than the minimum required, needs to be opened in which to obtain the opinions of experts, relevant parties, and the general public and, taking all this on board draft not one, but several complete and well researched proposals on how EOCs could be improved (there are a number of relevant bodies who are willing to contribute, including MPs, members of the public, relevant unions and call takers from many EOCs). At the end of this, a proposal should be chosen amended by reference the product of the consultation period, and taking into account the best aspects of the rejected proposals. Another consultation period should then be opened in which this proposal is itself subject to scrutiny by experts, relevant parties and the general public. The proposal should be amended and tweaked with reference to the product of this consultation period and only then should the decision be made to go ahead with this.

Throughout this whole period: every relevant statute, regulation, direction, guideline and decision from case law should be obeyed; every aspect should be researched in detail by relevant experts; no information should be held back from the public; people should be given time and support to voice their concerns and aided by swift responses from the WMAS; nothing should be voiced or proposed by the WMAS unless it is based on evidence which is available to the public; anything and everything relevant should be taken into account; the comments and concerns of the public and relevant bodies should be considered in detail; there should be clarity and transparency; and nothing should be ruled out until the consultation periods are over and the final decision is made.

I repeat my requirement that my concerns be addressed promptly, fully, directly and objectively, with each issue, aspect or question being given individual attention and an individual answer.

Yours faithfully

Leo Hughes

In response to:29th August 2007

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:50:18 +0200

one thing made me a bit worried and i talked to the Information communications tech bloke, i work in I.C.T and can see a fob off quickly, i should know i used the same one myself.

when asked about the link failure from BH to Shrewsbury, he said the failure was at the BH exchange. when i asked him what was done to stop it happening again he said "there is backup systems in place". then told me that at the time of the failure both the main and backup systems where copper wire based tech. and they have made shore both main and backup are now on totally different tech bases.

he left before i could ask him another question that was,
how would the communication systems work from BH to the radio communications mast in shropshire, and what backup would be in place. if i could remember the bloke name i would email him asking this question.

anyone remember him name or even better got his email address.

BTW, love look on mr marsh's face at the some questions being asked and the responice from the public. was it me or did he look hot and bothered??

In response to:16th August 2007

Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:16:32 +0200

I have been talking to people about the meeting on the 28th, not one of them knew it was on. and 2 of them did not know about the plan to close control at shrewsbury. so far 4 people have said they are definitely come to the meeting from west of the monford bridge gap.

I told them to spead the news.

In response to:10th august 2007

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:27:29 +0200

I think it was celebrated Labour spin-doctor Alastair Campbell who said that when the PR man becomes the story rather than the issue he's trying to manage, he's in deep trouble. I think this sort of applies to Mr McGregor I'm afraid. It could have been handled better - its a shame he has become a front man for the gang that couldn't shoot straight (amazing how the Chief Exec has kept his mouth shut and let the PR men take the flak...after all, if you don't say anything you can't be held to account for it, can you?!)

Other than that, I'm glad to hear that two of the suspended staff have been reinstated but sorry to hear that one has resigned.

In response to:2nd august 2007

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:23:02 +0200

Having been involved as a resident living in Shropshire and not a member of staff from day one,I have been amazed at how Anthony Marsh and his Senior members of staff have conducted themselves with what can only be described as lies,mis- representation incompetence and a very cynical method in which they have avoided to tell the truth over claims put to them of which there are many. The ability to try to turn all the problems back at staff who have brought this to the media attention. I also have been able to catch these people out with answers to questions that have been replied to, which are a long way from being truthful and well balanced.
I as a resident in Shropshire have lost all faith in the ability of Anthony Marsh and his senior members who also serve on the consultation committee to do the jobs. This consultation is a sham which has already been approved by the very same people that first came up with these ideas of shutting the two EOCs namely Shrewsbury and Bransford leaving over one million people without there own control room. The voting process will be rubber stamped by the very same people who came up with the idea .They constantly talk of bigger and better control rooms they are not talking of what happens if a major incident knocks out one or two of these centres.
A public inquiry should be held into the whole sorry mess and Anthony Marsh should be removed, taking his other members of his team that came with him to carry out this outrage in Shropshire Hereford and Worcestershire.

In response to:2nd august 2007

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 08:22:39 +0200

regarding the data protection act and the fact that the managers at WMAS know the details of any addresses or names had been cut off........sorry did you say that they knew because they had a copy faxed from radio shropshire to them selves !!!!!!!! blimey DO THEY REALISE THEY HAVE COUNTER BREACHED THE ACT THEMSELVES !!!!!! BY HAVING THE DOCUMENT FAXED TO THEMSELVES !!! OOOOOPPPSSSS

In response to:2nd august 2007

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 23:43:57 +0200

Subject: WMAS Trust Board unfit for purpose

WMAS Trust Board continually tries to convince us that ‘under the
proposals’ a far better level of service will be achieved. They dismiss
the threatened centres as ‘unfit for purpose’ whilst avoiding the
shortcomings of the centres not under threat. They try to mislead us
into believing all is well at Brierly Hill. They habitually fail to
compare like with like, ‘apples with apples’; repeatedly try to mislead
the public that, what Brierly Hill aspires to be already exists and
threatened centres are beyond redemption.

WMAS Trust Board has no interest in achieving best practise, only in
meeting targets by cutting corners. Mr Macgregor’s mantra of ‘calls
answered within 5 seconds’ has no substance, what possible use can that
be if you cannot deliver the goods? What benefit is there in achieving
call connect times if you cannot get the patient the Ambulance he/she so
badly needs?
Quite obviously the Board intend to apply the Law of Diminishing
Returns, where every effort is put into securing 80% of the available
market, whilst the remaining 20% is ignored. Whilst this is acceptable
business practise, it hardly constitutes best patient care. All too
clearly we can see where the 20% will be found, in the rural counties of
Hereford and Worcester and Shropshire.
Better business practise would be ‘Unique Selling Point’: serve the
community in the community you serve.

Mr Macgregor on behalf of the Board glibly tells us that the loss of
local knowledge will not be an issue, that technology will conquer all.
Technology is only as good as the information it’s given. People can be
confused when stressed, can be strangers to a place; when calling for
help they may not be able to give the information, the postcode that
satellite navigation needs. They are more likely to resort to what they
know or can see; I’m behind the chip shop in the High Street, I can see
a statute of a bloke holding a bike. That’s where local knowledge pays
off, and in smaller, intimate surrounding, that’s where knowledge can be
shared.
Staff at every centre possess this knowledge, creating high capacity
centres by simply increasing seats and introducing new staff, whether
they be re-located or raw recruits, will result not only in loss of
local knowledge in the rural counties, but will significantly dilute the
pool of local knowledge in the urban areas. This is simple common sense.

Left unchecked this folly could cost the taxpayer millions, firstly in
the closure of local centres and relocation of staff, then, when the
plan goes spectacularly wrong, in the re-instatement of those same
centres. No doubt Mr Macgregor will put his own particular brand of spin
on this development and tell us how lucky we are to be witnessing such
progress. As a mere taxpayer I’d rather give that experience a miss.
How many times have we seen the same happen? Large organisations
centralise for economy and efficiency, only to backtrack and provide
local, point of use facilities.

What is needed is investment in all existing centres, each one capable
of operating networked or autonomously as needs and conditions dictate,
that the WMAS Trust Board fails to recognise this is unprofessional and
inexcusable.

Mr Macgregor’s comments cannot stand up to scrutiny; the Trust Board is
incapable of delivering any information other than that which satisfies
their own dubious requirements. They are alarmed at the thought that the
public may learn the truth behind the deception, and react with
unreasonable actions when the truth is told. They panic. Only the weak,
the unsure, the incapable panic.

In conclusion, I question whether the WMAS Trust Board is fit for
purpose. I have no confidence in the ability of the Board, their methods
and motives are, at the very least suspect, at worst, immoral.

If the WMAS Trust Board cannot or will not provide sensible, workable
proposals then the task must immediately be given to those who can.

R. N. Prosser
--
Bob Prosser

In response to:2nd august 2007

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 23:39:06 +0200

SAVE OUR SERVICE
S O S.
This is a statement from the saveourservice campaign date 6th August 2007.
We wish to thank the sixteen thousand plus residents of Shropshire and also the five serving members of Parliament with also both the Shropshire County Councillors and the Shrewsbury and Atcham Councillors for the one hundred percent support in condemning the West Midlands Ambulance Service proposal to close the Shropshire 999 control room here in Shrewsbury. This control room serves the whole of Shropshire responding to 999 calls helping to save lives daily with excellent local knowledge which is invaluable something that can not be replaced from a huge control room either in Stafford or Brierley Hill in the West Midlands. Throughout our campaign it has been our intention to help the residents of Shropshire to understand what it will mean to loose this valuable service and also loose the last little control we have to the West Midlands. During the period we have been campaigning the control room at Bransford in Worcestershire has been informed it also is down for closure. This would mean that an estimated one million residents will loose their own 999 response call centres to the West Midlands Service, one that appears hell bent in creating a central corridor down the centre of the country, that being Stafford control, Brierley Hill control, and also Royal Leamington Spa i.e. Coventry. This is we feel a result of a government scheme to centralize the essential services that being Police Fire and Ambulance Services. The Ambulance Control room in Shropshire has a wealth of local knowledge and more Important than that is its Identity with the local residents of Shropshire and now Hereford and Worcestershire. Make no bones about this we must retain our own local identities to protect loved ones by giving them the best local service even if that means the existing stations are updated with the latest technology. During this campaign the Chief Executive and his senior members of staff have consistently mislead the public by their responses to the Shropshire Star and also Radio Shropshire. People within the service now believe they are not telling the truth in statements but trying to sideline any comments that are given to the press. This consultation is a complete sham. It should be stopped and an Independent Inquiry set up to look at the methods employed by Management and also to find out the how and when this document was drawn up and how many of the voting executive were involved. How can this be deemed an Independent Consultation when the driving force behind these closures include Anthony Marsh the Chief Executive, and his management team. A committee of approx fifteen people will vote on whether to close Shrewsbury and Bransford with seven or eight of these people working along side the Chief Executive. The facts that have so far come out highlight problems within the West Midlands. Call waiting, a call answering message that is triggered when there are not enough operators to answer the phones. This message states welcome to the West Mids Ambulance Service your call is in a queue and will be answered as soon as an operator becomes available something they denied then later said it had been removed. This happened at Millennium Point Control Brierley Hill and not Shropshire’s or Herefords control centres. Fact. Ambulances are being taken out of area to carry none emergency patients to hospitals in the West Midlands. Ambulances that were needed in Shropshire a fact that Murray McGregor missed out. He stated that they were on Emergency calls, this is not true and Mr McGregor is aware of this fact. I could go on stating problems that have been brought to the attention of the Executive and all reports have been denied by them even though they were aware they were true. There is a great feeling now that this management is not carrying out its duties in a fair and honest manner and that this consultation is a sham which should be stopped and an Independent Committee be appointed to look at this whole affair.
Regarding the suspension of the three members of staff for breaching the data protection act, these people have done nothing other than bring to the publics attention in total frustration of not being listened to by management. All sensitive information like patient’s names and addresses, was cut out of the document before they were put in the public domain, no breach was made by these members of staff. Senior management are aware of this, having had a copy of this document faxed to them by Radio Shropshire. Anthony Marsh should resign, for the way he and his team have conducted themselves. In the widely used saying these days, “not fit for future purpose”
Please e-mail your support to saveourservice@aol.co.uk or e-mail consultation@wmas.nhs.uk
We need your support . Roy.. on behalf of the save our service campaign.

http://www.shropshirestar.co.uk/2007/08/bosses-suspend-new-999-worker/

http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1584520.mostcommented.ambulance_staff
http://www.saveourambulancecontrol.blog.co.uk/

In response to:2nd august 2007

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 23:37:41 +0200

In response to:2nd august 2007

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:59:46 +0200

THE STAFF WHO HAVE PLENTY TO SAY ABOUT THE POOR WAY IN WHICH THEY ARE TREATED BY ANTHONY MARSH AND HIS SENIOR MANAGERS SHOULD NOW INSTRUCT THEIR TRADE UNIONS TO PREPARE A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, THE CHAIRMAN AND THE TRUST BOARD OF WEST MIDLANDS AMBULANCE SERVICE.
NO DEAL JUST A SIMPLE VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN THE TRUST AND ITS BOARD.

In response to:1ST AUGUST 2007

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:57:32 +0200

In response to:2nd august 2007

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:07:08 +0200

Interesting link to the Worcestershire page. Even more interesting to read the comments. And *especially* interesting to read the comments of "Ambo999", who clearly would appear to be a manager from WMASNHST but hasn't the guts to identify themselves. (Actually my money would be on one of the PR staff...)

They keep banging on about how one central facility (with backup from their favoured centres in Leamington and Stafford) would be during a major incident or a natural disaster. Fair enough. Yet the pinching of vehicles to cover what I assume are urgent (rather than emergency) calls in the West Mids conurbation recently suggests they can't actually cope with a slight increase in everyday calls - let alone the influx that would occur in a large scale emergency.

I wonder how many other ambulance services who pass calls to West Mids (ex mobile numbers, or NHS Direct etc) get their calls answered within seconds? I doubt many metropolitan controls answer their calls that quickly - they're overrun, just like most large control rooms. Presumably staff sickness levels in Millenium Point are at low levels then?

I bet they're not!

Typical ambulance service management mentality - pat the staff on the head with some brief and patronising thanks and then proceed to crap on them with some poorly supported 'facts' and 'suppositions'. As the Here-Worcs staff just seem to have found out.

In response to:1ST AUGUST 2007

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:00:57 +0200

I have just read Wednesdays paper and again the West Midlands Management cannot tell it how it really is.
I do not wish to call any body a lier, but my comment should be the old saying as a stranger to the truth. Throughout the campaign to try to save the control room at Shrewsbury the Chief Executive and his Management team has denied everything that has been said to them and even gone as far as to say it is not true or not the case, and even stated no decision has been made to close Shrewsbury. Come on guys its time that an Independent inquiry looked into the Management of the West Midlands starting with Anthony Marsh and the other Management who have been involved with this total mis management of the whole so called preparation and consultation ..From the first day this idea was conceived Anthony Marsh has intended to close Shrewsbury by any means available and possibly Bransford also.If it had not been for the very poor pre discussions with staff telling them it might be, one, could be two, or even three EOCs to close and the glib method it was presented to them. Then members of staff might not have started the campaign so early At the end of that meeting it was decided to let the public of Shropshire know what was going on.
Well before April 2007 the Budget for Shropshire had its budget for communications removed from its 2007/2008 forecast.
FACT.
West Midlands Ambulance Service had discussions with Shropshire County Council on a possible purchase of land at the rear of the Ambulance Garages oops the control room sits on that piece of land.
FACT.
Managers have stated that all calls are answered at Millennium Point within five seconds.
FACT IS not all calls are answered in this manner and as soon as a build up of calls happens they had a call answering message//Welcome to the West Midlands Ambulance Service your call is in a queue. FACT
In a letter to me written by Anthony Marsh I was told this did not happen, then in a second letter, again from Anthony Marsh I was thanked for bringing it to his attention and that it had now been removed. FACT.
"I wonder if it really has now been removed."
A caller calling Millennium Point was left in a queue for twenty minutes, this caller was injured he put the phone down and the BT Operator phoned another EOC for help. FACT. Another denial by Management.
West Midland Ambulance Service have been taking Ambulances from Shropshire to prop up their own service by taking non Emergency patients to hospitals in the West Mids Area. FACT.

I could go on and on but the fact of the matter is that they have constantly denied any claim put to them, constantly claimed that not decision has yet been taken but the Executive is a hung committee with at least seven of the voting members out of the fifteen or so voting members, work for the West Midlands Ambulance Service, and to add salt to a very large wound, It is my belief that there is not one member of this Executive that represents Shropshire. The total Consultation is a SHAM.
IT is time now that an Independent Inquiry is held to look fully at the dealings of this present Management regarding this matter.
Conclusion why am I getting so hot under the collar well Murray MacGregor joins the list of a stranger from the truth with his statement in this evenings star "Absolutely nothing to do with the current consultations or with the concerns of the Ambulances being taken out of Shropshire. He claims its all about confidentiality of patients and data protection. Get a life Murray if you watched the news you would have seen quite clearly that the papers shown had all the patient info removed and Management knows this. Of course its about whats going on, I can even work that out and I take 24 medication tablets every day for my lunacy.

To the three members of staff involved, whoever you are. All my very best wishes and my support 1000% .Indeed if I can be of any further help please E-mail me at /// saveourservice@aol.co.uk

In response to:1ST AUGUST 2007

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:10:38 +0200

Public consultation? WMAS Trust Board is interested in no other opinion than it's own. Freedom of speech appears to have become as extinct as freedom of information. WMAS Trust Board is doing its utmost to stifle any information that's in opposition to it's own views.

How has patient confidentiality been breached by giving details of vehicle movements? How do these 3 suspensions sit within the Harassment/Dignity at work policies currently under review to reflect respecting individuals' human rights?

One member of the public noted 1st August in a reply to a comment in Worcester News article "Ambulance Staff Plea to Health Chiefs", "most modern, forward thinking organisations would consider the action by Shropshire staff as ‘whistle blowing on bad practise’ . A Draconian organisation would do exactly as WMAS management did." In the same comment Beepey states, "Personally, as a fully paid up member of the general public, I have no confidence in the ability of the WMAS Trust Board to serve my needs."

The support for the Shrewsbury Three as well as everyone else in your control room, is from all of us in Hereford and Worcester Ambulance Control. Personally, I share Beepey's lack of confidence in the WMAS Trust Board - twofold: both as a resident in the Hereford and Worcester Locality, and as an employee of WMAS Trust.

In response to:1ST AUGUST 2007

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:59:39 +0200

Well done, its about time the managers got theres need any help from mersey crews , just ask

In response to:1ST AUGUST 2007

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:24:27 +0200

Those senior managers from the West Midlands Ambulance Service who have been caught out as liars should resign immediately. How can they ever be trusted again. Continue with your ranting and raving up there at Brierley Hill, your cards are certainly marked!!

In response to:1ST AUGUST 2007

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:23:12 +0200

I find it absolutely disgraceful that 3 members of Shropshire Ambulance Service have been suspended for bringing to the attention of the public, information which we all have a right to know and indeed information relating to matters which may place in jeopardy, our emergency ambulance cover in Shropshire. West Mids. Ambulance Service have lied, are lying and will continue to tell lies in order to protect the Chief Executive's image. Well let me tell you something Anthony Marsh, you and your cronies have been found out and you will not only have to answer to the Staff, but to the public and their representatives also. The sooner the vote of no confidence in you and your clique is completed, the better.

In response to:22nd June 2007

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:17:11 +0200