New fire service training centre opens in Cookstown
A long-delayed state-of-the-art training college for the fire service in Northern Ireland is to officially open at a ceremony on Wednesday.The facility just outside Cookstown was first announced more than 20 years ago.The initial plan was for a larger training college that included the police and prison service.But in 2015 plans for the college were radically redrawn and in 2021 planning permission was granted for a £42m facility that catered for the Northern Ireland Fire & Rescue Service (NIFRS) only.
Both the prison service and the police were instead given extra money for training and to refurbish existing facilities.
'Tactical firefighting facility'
The Northern Ireland Fire & Rescue Service Learning & Development College (LDC) at Desertcreat includes a flood water rescue facility, a call-out village, a training warehouse, a barn and slurry pit and a tactical firefighting facility. An official opening ceremony for the college is taking place on Wednesday morning.This includes firefighter demonstrations at various locations across the site.NIFRS say the facilities will enable firefighters to simulate real-life training scenarios and provide a "safe, controlled and repeatable environment for high-quality, practical training".The site was granted planning approval by Mid Ulster District Council in 2021.It represented the largest capital investment in NIFRS' history.
Delays
Proposals for the site at Desertcreat have been dogged by problems since the Policing Board announced in February 2004 that a £80m police training college for Northern Ireland would be built there.Although planning permission was granted in 2005 for a state-of-the art college, it was later reported the same year that the new academy would cost £50m more than expected and would not be completed until 2009.In February 2007, the government announced it planned to provide all the funding for a new joint police, fire and prison service college at the 210-acre site.Planning permission was granted for the training centre in 2013, but in November 2014 a steering group overseeing the development said the project should not continue.The scheme was subsequently scrapped and it later emerged that Northern Ireland had lost £53m of public money that had been earmarked for the joint training college, with a Stormont committee being told the Treasury had withdrawn the funding.Plans for the college were radically redrawn.It was announced the fire and rescue service would get a £44m purpose-built complex at Desertcreat, while the PSNI would be given about £20m to refurbish its existing training facilities in east Belfast.The prison service instead received funding for training at Maghaberry and Magilligan prisons.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
18 minutes ago
- BBC News
Firefighters save seven ducklings from pool and drains in Jersey
Firefighters in Jersey have helped reunite a mother duck with her seven ducklings after a call from the had fallen into a swimming pool in St Brelade and could not get out, while the other three were stuck in a rescue team, who were "armed with nets, gentle hands and a solid sense of teamwork", managed to save the ducklings - which were Jersey Fire and Rescue Service said the mother duck kept her distance from the firefighters but "remained close by" and refused "to be rescued first". Watch Commander Ryan said it was a reminder of why crews loved their said: "It might not have been flames or ladders today - but it was no less important. "We're just happy to help, whatever the call may be."The service helped save a dog trapped on a cliff in April and a herd of cows from the sea in January.
BBC News
28 minutes ago
- BBC News
Wing foiler with suspected spinal injury saved from sea in Devon
Emergency services have described how they worked together in a "complex life-saving operation" where a man suffered suspected spinal injuries while wing RNLI said two lifeguards responded to the emergency at Bantham beach just before 11:00 BST on Sunday after spotting a man waving for help in windy conditions more than 200m (656ft) from they arrived on scene, the pair found he had had an accident with his board and he was taken back to shore on the rescue lifeguard beach Sedgewell Cove coordinated a response from the HM Coastguard and the air ambulance arrived to take the man to the hospital. 'True professionals' Luke Lane-Prokopiou, Seasonal Lifeguard Supervisor, said it was "a fantastic show of multi-agency" teams "working in harmony".He said: "Without the initial actions of RNLI Lifeguards this could have been a very different outcome. "We could not be prouder of how our RNLI Lifeguards acted, they were true professionals in a complex lifesaving operation."The service said lifeguards would be on Bantham beach throughout the summer between 10:00 and 18:00 BST.
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
It should be legal to make people angry, even by burning the Koran
Many people in response to the Coskun case appear to believe free speech is an absolute in this country; but it isn't and never has been. For a few centuries, it is true, people have been free (or used to be free) to say what they thought provided they did not incite violence. One exception was the common law offence of blasphemy and the related crime of blasphemous libel. These were formally abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and in Scotland only last year. They continue to be offences in Northern Ireland and apply only to the Christian faith. Burning a bible in Armagh would, presumably, be considered blasphemous. English law does not forbid the burning of a holy book. Indeed, the district judge in the Coskun case was at pains to say he was not being arraigned for this but for disorderly behaviour under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Public Order Act 1986. Coskun, a Turkish-born opponent of president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, held the burning book aloft and shouted 'Islam is the religion of terrorists' and 'the Koran is burning'. It was what happened next that made this a crime. A man emerged from an adjacent property and attacked Coskun, threatening to kill him, and a passer-by joined in. He was found guilty of disorderly behaviour 'within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress,' motivated by 'hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam.' The judge said: 'What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language… That the conduct was disorderly is not better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by two different people.' Yet if someone carrying out a legal activity, namely burning a book, is attacked then surely it is the assailant who is at fault. Arguably, Coskun was not aiming his protest at Muslims but at their religion. The two are not the same, even if adherents disagree, and our right to criticise a religion must be upheld. But our free speech protections have become so tied up with other laws that they are rendered redundant. The prosecutor in the Coskun case said his conviction did not represent any restriction on criticising religion but that is disingenuous to put it charitably. The cause of this legal confusion is the expansion of a multi-cultural society and Parliament's belief that criticising a faith is a proxy for racist hatred. Politicians believe we need laws to protect minority groups from abuse; but these are now used to shut down perfectly legitimate opinions and activities. Over the years we have seen the gradual prohibition of ideas because they hurt someone's feelings or make them angry. But as long as there is no attempt or intention to provoke violence, why should this be a matter for the criminal law? Moreover, why should it be forbidden to criticise any faith whether it be Islam, Judaism or Christianity? We are assured that this is still permitted and yet it evidently isn't if to do so leads to an arrest because it inspires a hostile reaction. The Public Order Act means any conduct deemed 'likely' to cause someone 'harassment, alarm or distress' can be punishable. The word 'likely' needs to be removed from legislation since it is impossible to define. Indeed, the fault here lies with Parliament's constant tinkering. America's founding fathers introduced the First Amendment to the constitution because they did not trust the legislature to uphold free speech. It states that 'Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech'. That is unambiguous whereas legislators here have done nothing but meddle to the point where no-one is clear where the boundaries lie any more. There is more to come with a new definition of 'Islamophobia' being drawn up by a committee appointed by Angela Rayner due to be published next month. The Coskun case has become a cause célèbre, taken up by the Free Speech Union and the National Secular Society which objects to the revival of a blasphemy law and is backing an appeal. In particular, it is seen as a unique protection for Islam, though I doubt Hasidic Jews would take kindly to a Torah being burned outside their synagogue after a Shabbat service. Any threat of disorder would presumably trigger an arrest, though I would not be confident of that. The cost of defending freedom can come at a much higher price than the £240 fine received by Coskun. The Swedish Koran burner, Salwan Momika, was murdered in Stockholm earlier this year.
