/ Move over Chuck Norris

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Rob Exile Ward 05 Nov 2019

.. There's a new kid on the block. I give you...

Jacob Rees Mogg

The new adventure action hero, kicking down doors, shoving firefighters out of his way, walking through raging infernos...

What a patronising, insensitive, complacent, supercilious and downright ignorant, thick pr*ck he has truly shown himself to be. Does he have the first frigging idea why the 'stay put' policy existed - or how many lives it saved for that matter, before Tory councils started wrapping tower blocks in inflammable panels?

10
Stuart (aka brt) 05 Nov 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

But it's OK because he's a very clever man and we need them to be in charge. 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/11/andrew-bridgen-suggests-jacob-rees-mogg-would-have-been-too-clever-die

1
Rob Exile Ward 05 Nov 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Worth checking out his defender, Andrew Bridgen's entry on Wikipedia! 

Post edited at 20:31
john arran 05 Nov 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

On the subject of the drugged-up teddy bear himself, this from Twitter:

Andrew Bridgen MP on Rees Mogg's Grenfell comments: "Jacob is not from that background [Grenfell Tower]. He is very, very well educated."

His assumption that people are uneducated simply because they live in a tower block is both outrageous and very revealing.

4
captain paranoia 05 Nov 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Come on, how could the Right Honourable Gentleman for the 1850's possibly have any understanding of the design and construction of high-rise buildings? they don't exist in his timeframe...

1
Rob Exile Ward 05 Nov 2019
In reply to john arran:

Bridgen, the lying b*stard, also suggested he was some kind of working class hero and self made man.

Wikipedia would suggest slightly different.

Stuart (aka brt) 05 Nov 2019
In reply to john arran:

> On the subject of the drugged-up teddy bear himself, this from Twitter:

> Andrew Bridgen MP on Rees Mogg's Grenfell comments: "Jacob is not from that background [Grenfell Tower]. He is very, very well educated."

> His assumption that people are uneducated simply because they live in a tower block is both outrageous and very revealing.

Very revealing. 

https://mobile.twitter.com/PeteApps/status/1191792413481852928

gavmac 05 Nov 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I'm now working through the Tory party wiki entries...  

Post edited at 20:54
profitofdoom 05 Nov 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Jacob Rees Mogg......

Who votes for these idiots?

WHO VOTES FOR THESE IDIOTS?? *

(*Rhetorical question, I'm not asking anyone on this forum or accusing them)

3
DerwentDiluted 05 Nov 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

 To be fair to JRM, fire safety is a particular concern.  Unlike most of us, if he were unfortunate enough to find himself on fire he would be unable to rely on a large number of the population to piss on him.

2
Stuart (aka brt) 05 Nov 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1191789817086042112

It's the pause that does it for me. Is he going to say it, is he, is he...? Yeay, he said it. Out loud. On national radio. 

ColdWill 05 Nov 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I think Camden tower blocks were also clad.

Sean Kelly 06 Nov 2019
In reply to profitofdoom:

A tenuous link but my niece's father in law is JRM's policital agent, whatever that involves!

Pan Ron 06 Nov 2019
Andy Hardy 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

Entitled ringpieces like Reet-Smugg are bred and trained to engage in victim blaming, it's a Pavlovian response, I don't think he can really help himself.

6
Ian W 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Worth a listen.

> Which then becomes (in places like https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/election_day_1-712113?v=1#x9078749) "Mogg attacked the victims of Grenfell".

So what would you call it? He criticised people for following the advice of experts sent in to help them (the fire service personnel) in a situation where common sense is perhaps not top of the average persons response (a burning building where the only exit - the stairwell - was not an option due to smoke / heat.) to a situation they are somewhat less familiar with than the fire service.

Regarding Bridgens' subsequent comment about intelligence, and JR-M's clear surfeit of said attribute, perhaps the type of intelligence that we would prefer in our leaders would be emotional intelligence, an example of which would be knowing when it is best to keep your mouth shut, and your opinions to yourself.

My personal contempt for the pair of them rose sharply this morning.

3
Pan Ron 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

You are entitled to believe that.  You may be right.  

I'm intrigued by the way his comments get translated into newspaper headlines, which when repeated in places like UKC, become taken as evidence that he's a cvnt.  Then hysteria. 

I may not like JRM and I'm sure he wouldn't think much of me.  But I personally find his statement entirely understandable.  Snipping and restructuring his sentences so they imply he said something sinister, as the headlines and responses indicate, is a much bigger concern to me than anything he said. 

Equally so the essentially racist and antagonistic comments that people with a different skin-colour would be treated differently by the fire brigade.  Those are terrible comments to make, not only because they are blatantly false but because, if taken at face value, stir needless unrest and racial hatred. 

Yet here we are attacking JRM instead.

9
Pan Ron 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Ian W:

> He criticised people for....

Did you listen to the clip?  Or are you going by what the media has told you he said?

9
Wainers44 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Ian W:

Intelligence is an attribute only if its used wisely. Otherwise the outcomes are superiority, arrogance and a lack of humanity.

Note well supporters of Boris and his entourage, this slip by JRM is an insight into the reality beneath the media gloss. 

Wainers44 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

I saw the clip. Shocking. 

1
fred99 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Does he have the first frigging idea why the 'stay put' policy existed - or how many lives it saved for that matter, before Tory councils started wrapping tower blocks in inflammable panels?

Not just Tory councils - Labour, LibDem, and probably SNP as well. (Not to mention non-council buildings). The whole business of cladding being certified when it was completely unsafe needs to be dealt with, and by that I mean the Certifiers need to be taken to court.

1
Ian W 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

>Did you listen to the clip?  Or are you going by what the media has told you he said?

Yes. I also saw Bridgens statement / response, and Cleverly's interview this morning. I have a particular habit of fact checking before saying / writing things. It prevents believing stuff that has been deliberately edited / doctored to achieve a certain outcome or to exert unfair influence.......

Anyway, you haven't answered my question - if it wasn't attacking, what would you call it? It's all very well getting other people to justify their standpoint, now how about yours?

Post edited at 13:52
Greenbanks 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Snipping and restructuring his sentences so they imply he said something sinister, as the headlines and responses indicate, is a much bigger concern<

Yes - a bit like Tory HQ trying to shaft Keir Starmer by interfering with a piece of footage....

3
Pan Ron 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Wainers44:

> I saw the clip. Shocking. 

This (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2019/nov/05/grenfell-fire-victims-lacked-common-sense-jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-video) shocks you?

Or do you simply read the URL and assume what was said?

2
Ian W 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Greenbanks:

> Yes - a bit like Tory HQ trying to shaft Keir Starmer by interfering with a piece of footage....

Humourously editing! Did you not listen to James Cleverly this morning?? 

Rigid Raider 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Seems to me that if anybody didn't exercise common sense it was the LFB management who didn't understand that, it being summer all the windows would be open and they they all had wood frames, providing a perfect route for the fire into the interiors of the apartments. This has to be the biggest elephant in the room of the enquiry.

We've all see videos of fires burning more or less harmlessly up the cladding of several tower blocks in the Gulf but they all had modern aluminium windows, which would have been closed for the air-conditioning.

2
Lusk 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> What a patronising, insensitive, complacent, supercilious and downright ignorant, thick pr*ck he has truly shown himself to be. Does he have the first frigging idea why the 'stay put' policy existed - or how many lives it saved for that matter, before Tory councils started wrapping tower blocks in inflammable panels?

There's not much more to say really!  But ...
When is this blaming the Fire Brigade going to stop?  As you say, the reason those poor people died is purely the fault of developers.  When are they going to be held to account?

As for staying put ... I've been in a house fire, I'm laying on the floor with a towel over my mouth trying to talk to the operator, thick black smoke descending towards me.  I'm told to stay where I am, they're on their way.  I doubt I'd've survived if I tried to get out on my own.

It's worth repeating this:
What a patronising, insensitive, complacent, supercilious and downright ignorant, thick pr*ck he has truly shown himself to be.

3
Bob Kemp 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

Let's remove any ambiguity here. This is the quote: 

“I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building. It just seems the common-sense thing to do.”

So what he says was not a direct attack; it was a criticism by way of innuendo. It implies that the people in the building did not apply comment-sense, not like the superior types in the LBC studio. 

3
Wainers44 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

Err no, I saw the clip. OK hands up, I don't like JRM but what he said really made me cringe. Talk about insensitive. What's the natural follow on from his stupid comment? Don't worry about fire safety, as most people won't be so silly as to stay put so will all be OK?

Stupid, arrogant, insensitive. But beautifully educated and intelligent. 

1
Pan Ron 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> it was a criticism by way of innuendo. It implies that the people in the building did not apply comment-sense, not like the superior types in the LBC studio. 

Really?

In response to claims of racism (absurd in themselves), "The tragedy came about because of the cladding, leading to the fire racing up the building, and then it was compounded by the stay-put policy.  And it seems to me that that is the tragedy of it – that the more one has read over the weekend about the report, about the chances of people surviving, if you just ignore what you are told and leave you are so much safer, and I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building.  It just seems the common-sense thing to do and it is such a tragedy that that happened, and it doesn’t have anything to do with race or class"

You, and predictable elements of the media, seem desperate to read the worst possible assumptions into that statement, presumably because that fits your evil-man narrative. 

That is hugely uncharitable.  You don't even have to go as far as assuming his response is a "knowing what we know now, I would do this" one.  Simply taking the quote at pure face value should be enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.

RJM believe's 72 people died because they are more stupid than him? 

Christ almighty.  I used to think JRM himself was a nasty unpleasant individual.  But the way those opposed to him go about their character assassinations and trials-by-media is utterly obnoxious.  I think I can see perfectly clearly who the real cvnts are!  

21
Rigid Raider 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The other aspect of it was the residents' almost unquestioning obedience to what they viewed as "authority". It's the same unquestioning obedience that allows our older more trusting citizens to be robbed by fraudsters masquerading as officials from Microsoft, the bank, HMRC, the lottery company, whoever seems to be in a position deserving of respect.  

Blunderbuss 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

An intelligent person would not have said what he said on national radio......that said Mark Bridgen doubling down on JRMs comment sounded even more crass.

Rob Exile Ward 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

I don't believe this. Watch that clip as often as you like, and you can only be struck by the fact that he believed he would have acted differently to the residents, and implicitly would have looked after his family better than the residents did theirs. Apart from reasonably asking how many life-threatening experiences  he has had to make that assumption, the sheer insensitivity to the survivors feelings beggars the imagination. And what frigging point was he trying to make, anyway?

Post edited at 15:09
2
Pan Ron 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> And what frigging point was he trying to make, anyway?

That its a tragedy that, in "doing the right thing" by following advice rather than your common-sense, you were guaranteed to die? 

And that after reading the reports, most people's conclusion would be to do likewise in future; to ignore advice and go with your common-sense instead.  And that in itself is a tragedy too?

4
Ian W 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

You still haven't got round to answering the question i posed above; rather than just sit there questioning criticising other peoples language and opinions, how about justifying your own.

JR-M spoke from position of almost total ignorance of the realities of that situation.

Post edited at 15:23
Greenbanks 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

<I think I can see perfectly clearly who the real cvnts are! >

If you make such a claim I'd suggest embellishing your cv by speaking to some of the locals about a fine chap called Feilding-Mellen, the now strangely absent Councillor who oversaw the Grenfell refurb (& the cladding). But that might run contrary to your (apparently) prevailing stance, as intimated in your posts.

2
Bob Kemp 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> You, and predictable elements of the media, seem desperate to read the worst possible assumptions into that statement, presumably because that fits your evil-man narrative. 

What evil-man narrative? You're resorting to fiction. You have absolutely no idea of what 'my narrative' might be. 

> That is hugely uncharitable.  You don't even have to go as far as assuming his response is a "knowing what we know now, I would do this" one.  Simply taking the quote at pure face value should be enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.

He's a politician. Why on earth would I take what he says at face value? 

> RJM believe's 72 people died because they are more stupid than him? 

Who knows? I didn't say that. But he does appear to believe he would have a more appropriate response to being in a fire.

> Christ almighty.  I used to think JRM himself was a nasty unpleasant individual.  But the way those opposed to him go about their character assassinations and trials-by-media is utterly obnoxious.  I think I can see perfectly clearly who the real cvnts are!  

Just stick to arguments, not abuse.

2
Stuart (aka brt) 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Rigid Raider:

> The other aspect of it was the residents' almost unquestioning obedience to what they viewed as "authority". It's the same unquestioning obedience that allows our older more trusting citizens to be robbed by fraudsters masquerading as officials from Microsoft, the bank, HMRC, the lottery company, whoever seems to be in a position deserving of respect.  

Do you not think that's a massive leap of (fuzzy?) logic? The advice given, as I understand it, would have been sound if the facility had been constructed as it should have. 

Rigid Raider 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Wrong; the tower was designed in 1967 at which time it was considered cutting-edge. Nobody at that time could have anticipated the obession with energy saving, which grew at the beginning of the 2000s and the subsequent cladding of the building with a flammable cladding designed to add insulation and improve the look of the building.

Similar residential tower blocks in the Middle East are designed with cladding from the start and, most importantly, with air conditioning meaning there is seldom any need to open the windows. 

Post edited at 16:10
1
Stuart (aka brt) 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Rigid Raider:

> Wrong; the tower was designed in 1967 at which time it was considered cutting-edge. Nobody at that time could have anticipated the obession with energy saving, which grew at the beginning of the 2000s and the subsequent cladding of the building with a flammable cladding designed to add insulation and improve the look of the building.

Perhaps I should have been clearer then. Clad with the correct type of insulation. The advice from the fire service should have been sound under such circumstances. I don't think following their advice is undue reverence. 

Rigid Raider 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

I completely agree on that; I believe the fire service personnel had all watched the videos of cladding fires on modern buildings and failed completely to understand that in an old building with open windows and lots of dry timber around the fire would not just shoot up the outside. Their advice was fatally erroneous and residents' trust in that advice was unfortunate. 

1
Stuart (aka brt) 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Rigid Raider:

> I completely agree on that; I believe the fire service personnel had all watched the videos of cladding fires on modern buildings and failed completely to understand that in an old building with open windows and lots of dry timber around the fire would not just shoot up the outside. Their advice was fatally erroneous and residents' trust in that advice was unfortunate. 

Obviously it was wrong, but wrong based on, I presume, bad intel. The fire service undoubtedly will go through the usual 'lessons learned' phase. I was probably flinching at your liking the fire services advice and scammers.

The real scam here is the council going for a cheaper cladding and not listening to resident's concerns over many years. 

gravy 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Sean Kelly:

toadying I think, and cleaning the bog (literally and metaphorically)

Pan Ron 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Ian W:

JRM has read the same reports anyone else has read.  How is he any more ignorant than you or I?  I suspect he has been privy to far more direct briefings and contact with people involved than either of us.  

> So what would you call it?

What would I call his comments?  A "response" to a question maybe?

He was asked to explain the tragedy, the question though couched in an accusation of Tory racism being the cause (a contemptible claim, and as obnoxious as I find the claims of some of his opponents, the "racism" one really takes the biscuit). 

He responded as he is perfectly entitled to do, saying it is nothing to do with racism, and pointing out exactly what he thinks is tragic; that people were killed due to a) dangerous cladding and b) the stay-put policy. 

The "stay put" policy particularly so as if you ask anyone what to do in a fire their first response would be, rightly, to get as far away from it as possible.  No doubt the people who died would have said so too.  But they didn't.  They did as they were told.  

C4 news asked a survivor about what he thought of the report.  He said he called 999 over a dozen times and was told to stay put every time, as the fire services were apparently en-route to his apartment.  On the 21st floor.  Eventually he decided to get out with his family.

> how about justifying your own.

I don't see why I need to justify taking someone's words at face-value, objecting to insinuations of racism, or worse.  Do I really need to justify not wanting to join the chorus of hatred, from supposedly right-on folk?  Right here you have some of the worst aspects of human judgement coming out.

9
Bob Kemp 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

Why don’t you find out a little more about the stay-put policy. The issues are more complex than you or Rees-Mogg seem to think. Try this:

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/where-did-the-stay-put-policy-come-from-and-where-do-we-go-now-63957

1
Pan Ron 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Perhaps you could summarise what I'm missing (the link requires me to register). 

Though I struggle to see what the article could say which would change what JRM said.  A stay-put policy might be sound.  Or it might be crap.  It doesn't matter - even if it saves lives 99% of the time.  In this case, when people put aside common-sense and followed the policy, it killed them. 

That is the tragedy.  They could have all escaped easily.  But they did as they were told and it killed them.  That's it.  It's certainly not racism.  

So now, after Grenfell, if you found yourself in a similar situation, would you really sit at home with the alarms going off, googling the fire characteristics of every aspect of your apartment building?  Or would you decide to go with common sense and decide now might be a good moment to pop out to pub for a few hours?

That's the point JRM is making...the filthy elitist scum who thinks Grenfell victims are lowlife.

10
Rob Exile Ward 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

You're the one banging on about racism. STFU about it; nobody has mentioned it here.

'They could have all escaped easily.'

F*ck me you're a clever bugger, I certainly didn't know that.  I don't suppose you could source it? I mean, it's dead easy shepherding kids and elderly down 21 floors in the dark, in the smoke, with alarms going off, firefighters trying to get past you with their hoses, dodgy or non-existing lighting,  bannisters too hot to touch - piece of pi$$. 

'That's the point JRM is making...the filthy elitist scum who thinks Grenfell victims are lowlife.'

You have a phenomenal imagination if you can derive that 'point' from the interview. You're just saying stupid sh*t; we used to have computer programs that could do that 20 years ago.

1
neilh 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

No they could not. Several people used “ common sense” and died whilst trying to escape. 

Did you see the video and interview with the guy who filmed what was going on in his flat. He could not escape. Smoke was pouring in through the door which he had blocked with wet towels. Luckily him and his partner were rescued. Their unborn baby was unfortunately not so lucky. 

JRM should have read the report and been better informed about what happened.

captain paranoia 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> So now, after Grenfell, if you found yourself in a similar situation, would you really sit at home with the alarms going off

No, because WE NOW KNOW that these buildings are clad with materials that breach the fire protection principles they were originally designed with; perfectly sound principles. The residents of Grenfell didn't know that at the time of the fire. The Fire Service didn't know that at the time of the fire. Everyone was acting on the assumption that the retro-fitted cladding had not breached the containment policy, BECAUSE IT SHOULD NOT HAVE; it was supposed to be fire retardant.

It's easy to be 'intelligent' with hindsight, and with access to knowledge that wasn't available at the time.

Hopefully, with this problem now known to everyone, and a survey completed to identify all insulation-clad buildings to identify which if them are at a similar risk (and, it seems, there are a lot), the fire response plans for these buildings will have been modified, which would need to address the limited egress points that limit the rate at which people can safely leave the building; it's very hard to retrofit improved egress facilities. Thus, plans would have to include a means of deploying a phased evacuation. I might also be thinking hard about retro-fitting smoke and/or fire suppression systems in the egress routes.

There is a significant problem with this inquiry, in that a minority report has been published first, dealing with the events from the outbreak of fire onwards, rather than doing the root cause analysis to determine how the building was able to get into a state whereby the fire could spread in the way it did. By the time the second part of the report is published, the blame will have been pinned firmly on the failings of the Fire Service. And there were failings; it should have become apparent quite quickly that the containment principle was breached, since the fire was spreading rapidly up the outside of the building. A more dynamic response to what was unfolding before them should have been used, and an alternative, pre-planned evacuation strategy adopted instead (as above, understanding that mass evacuation has very significant risks in itself). That is a lesson that has hopefully already been learned by all fire services. That said, I would not have wanted to have been in the position to have to make that decision to evacuate; weighing up those risks, without adequate knowledge of what was happening inside the tower, and what might happen inside the tower after an evacuation was triggered, would have been very, very hard.

Post edited at 19:56
Pan Ron 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> You're the one banging on about racism. STFU about it; nobody has mentioned it here.

I'd love to STFU about it.  But racism is the EXACT claim that JRM was responding to.  You don't think it has relevance?

> 'They could have all escaped easily.'  F*ck me you're a clever bugger, I certainly didn't know that.  I don't suppose you could source it?

"Prof Purser walked from the top to the bottom of the tower in three minutes 30 seconds as part of his probe, aged 73 and in heavy protective clothing.  He added: “Up to about 2am the stairwell was reasonably safe. Some time after 2am… if occupants attempted to evacuate they were exposed to high concentrations of smoke, carbon dioxide and possibly cyanide.  But it was “not impossible” to use it throughout the night, some doing so as late as 8am."

> You have a phenomenal imagination if you can derive that 'point' from the interview. You're just saying stupid sh*t; we used to have computer programs that could do that 20 years ago.

It takes zero imagination. 

You only have to look at the URL in the Guardian article ("grenfell-fire-victims-lacked-common-sense-jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-video") and the plethora of headlines to derive what newspaper editors and journalists want us to think about JRM's comments.

"Grenfell Tower: Jacob Rees-Mogg criticised for 'insulting' comments" (BBC)
"Grenfell: Jacob Rees-Mogg urged to resign over 'unforgivable' comments" (Sky)
"Jacob Rees-Mogg says Grenfell victims lacked ‘common sense’ for staying put" (Metro)

etc. etc. etc.

The phenomenal imaginations here are the ones that manage to put JRM in any way slandering Grenfell victims from what he actually said.  And there's clearly no shortage of willing dupes, happy to take on board any manipulative crap if it confirms their own prejudices.

6
Bob Kemp 06 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:That's the problem with the idea of common-sense - there's no such thing. What's common-sense in one situation is very much not so in another.

Pan Ron 06 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

> No they could not. Several people used “ common sense” and died whilst trying to escape. 

Presumably after "staying put"?  For how long?  

Bob Kemp 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> The phenomenal imaginations here are the ones that manage to put JRM in any way slandering Grenfell victims from what he actually said.  And there's clearly no shortage of willing dupes, happy to take on board any manipulative crap if it confirms their own prejudices.

Confirming their own prejudices? Like Gavin Barwell?

"...Gavin Barwell, Theresa May's former chief of staff, branded the remarks 'incredibly stupid' on Newsnight."

Do stop this stupid rhetoric - it's getting silly. Your prejudices are showing....

Post edited at 20:10
1
Ridge 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I agree with most of your post, however:

> You're the one banging on about racism. STFU about it; nobody has mentioned it here.

Well Pan Ron has. He's referring to this:

https://www.channel4.com/news/doreen-lawrence-says-grenfell-tragedy-was-linked-to-racism

Which IMHO, despite my sympathy for what she and her familily went through, is a disgusting slur on the responders.

> 'They could have all escaped easily.'

> F*ck me you're a clever bugger, I certainly didn't know that.  I don't suppose you could source it? I mean, it's dead easy shepherding kids and elderly down 21 floors in the dark, in the smoke, with alarms going off, firefighters trying to get past you with their hoses, dodgy or non-existing lighting,  bannisters too hot to touch - piece of pi$$. 

Exactly. Apparently two BA crews passed each other in the stairwell and neither crew was aware the other crew was there. There was no process to intitiate an evacuation, other than expecting a call handler to go against established procedures (imagine the crucifixion job on the call handler when the stairwell ended up full of bodies).

It's pure conjecture as to how many lives may have been saved by an early evacuation, The death toll may have been even higher once the stairwall become blocked. It's all hindsight.

Wainers44 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

You are a rude individual aren't you. Name calling and abuse throwing at those who have called out JRM for his insensitivity is unnecessary really. He has actually apologised so that makes it pretty clear even he thinks he was out of order.

He has probably reflected that hindsight rather influences what people may later see as common sense. We will never know, but my guess is that if the loss of life had actually resulted from the poor people being killed in the stairwells having ignored the instructions given, he would have been insensitive enough to criticise them for not behaving as instructed. That after all is common sense....with hindsight... 

2
Stuart (aka brt) 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> "Prof Purser walked from the top to the bottom of the tower in three minutes 30 seconds as part of his probe, aged 73 and in heavy protective clothing.  He added: “Up to about 2am the stairwell was reasonably safe. Some time after 2am… if occupants attempted to evacuate they were exposed to high concentrations of smoke, carbon dioxide and possibly cyanide.  But it was “not impossible” to use it throughout the night, some doing so as late as 8am."

" The physical capacity was enough for all of the occupants to have evacuated safely within minutes if there had been some means of alerting them to evacuate such as, for example, a general tower alarm system, which of course we don't have."

Being able to evacuate in a brief safety period (the Prof. quotes it elsewhere) and knowing that you have to, are quite different things. 

There are some real villains in this saga and it's not the fire service. Maybe you could flex your anger at the council for ordering the refurb to come under budget. 

2
captain paranoia 06 Nov 2019
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Hopefully, with this problem now known to everyone

I fear for the outcome of the next fire in a tower block, however limited. People fearing another Grenfell may well decide to evacuate (no matter what the actual fire security of their building). With ensuing casualties in the panic.

I also fear that such a tragedy would them be followed by some smartarse saying that everyone should have used 'common sense' and stayed put in the building, because it was 'obvious that everyone would get crushed in the rush'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_stampedes_and_crushes

https://listverse.com/2010/11/26/10-tragic-human-panics-and-stampedes/

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12222738.matinee-mayhem-that-left-70-children-dead-paisley-remembers-its-crushing-tragedy-born-of-panic-over-a-suspected-fire/

captain paranoia 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Ridge:

> (imagine the crucifixion job on the call handler when the stairwell ended up full of bodies).

The problem of course being that we can never know which would have been the better action, because we can't run the scenarios together to find out. That's why I would have hated to have had to make that decision; you would have to make a choice, based on the information you had at the time, and hope that your choice was right. Either way, people are likely to die, and the person making the choice will always have that decision preying on their mind, and the 'what if' question. A terrible responsibility, and a terrible burden.

I said earlier that I thought the fire service made mistakes, but I'm also absolutely sure they thought they were doing the right thing, and were trying their absolute best in the circumstances. As such, I cannot place the burden of blame on their shoulders.

neilh 06 Nov 2019
In reply to captain paranoia:

Well judging by LFB s comments so far they still have not addressed training for high rise buildings nor come up with the difficult solutions as to how to evacuate these buildings. It is one of the many reasons why LFB is being taken to task by the Grenfell survivors.

Pan Ron 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Wainers44:

> You are a rude individual aren't you. Name calling and abuse throwing at those who have called out JRM for his insensitivity is unnecessary really.

Jesus, that's rich when the same folk are accusing him of mocking and belittling 72 dead.

> He has actually apologised so that makes it pretty clear even he thinks he was out of order.

It makes it pretty clear that he was well aware the lynch-mob was out in force and the sensible thing to do was apologise, whether he needed to or not.

> He has probably reflected that hindsight rather influences what people may later see as common sense.

Yes!  At last you're getting it.  That seems to be precisely the point he was trying to make; the tragedy being that with hindsight they would unlikely have followed the (perfectly valid and understandable) stay-put guidance.  If you can say it, why is a cvnt for saying the same thing?

5
neilh 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

Instead of second guessing why not read the published report?

Pan Ron 06 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

It's 835 pages.  Do me a favour of a page reference at least if you are trying to raise my awareness of a particular detail it contains that I am apparently not aware of.

Pan Ron 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Being able to evacuate in a brief safety period (the Prof. quotes it elsewhere) and knowing that you have to, are quite different things. 

All of which is irrelevant to JRM's comment. 

> There are some real villains in this saga and it's not the fire service. Maybe you could flex your anger at the council for ordering the refurb to come under budget. 

Lessons can probably be learnt by everyone.  The best way to do that is not painting anyone as a villain.  The council, like the FB, have their own pressures and may get it wrong as a result. 

There's an awful lot of finger-pointing going on, JRM being the latest, the FB before, the council before them.  The acceptability of the villain seems to be down to their political persuasion. 

4
Wainers44 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Yes!  At last you're getting it.  That seems to be precisely the point he was trying to make; the tragedy being that with hindsight they would unlikely have followed the (perfectly valid and understandable) stay-put guidance.  If you can say it, why is a cvnt for saying the same thing?

Not sure where you get any of that from. Point is that he said that he would have done something different, missing the point completely that his supposed superior common sense based on hindsight was insensitive.

Please don't attribute the c word as being a descriptive that I used. It wasn't. 

Stuart (aka brt) 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Being able to evacuate in a brief safety period (the Prof. quotes it elsewhere) and knowing that you have to, are quite different things. 

> All of which is irrelevant to JRM's comment. 

Agreed. You brought the Professor into it though. As proof of what I wouldn't want to guess at. I was merely highlighting some other quote that caught my eye which suggests things aren't as clear cut. 

> There are some real villains in this saga and it's not the fire service. Maybe you could flex your anger at the council for ordering the refurb to come under budget. 

> Lessons can probably be learnt by everyone.  The best way to do that is not painting anyone as a villain.  The council, like the FB, have their own pressures and may get it wrong as a result. 

> There's an awful lot of finger-pointing going on, JRM being the latest, the FB before, the council before them.  The acceptability of the villain seems to be down to their political persuasion.

I think cuts in services and budgets are most definitely political as was the decision to use not fit for purpose building materials because, well, it was cheaper. You won't like that I'm sure.

As for JRM. We'll always have that image of him lying down on parliament. He's either the cleverest stupid man, or the stupidest clever man. Thank god he's in charge (courtesy of Bridgen). 

Post edited at 21:26
1
Ridge 06 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Well judging by LFB s comments so far they still have not addressed training for high rise buildings nor come up with the difficult solutions as to how to evacuate these buildings. It is one of the many reasons why LFB is being taken to task by the Grenfell survivors.

Building evacuation plans and carrying out fire drills ( that'll be fun..) are likely to be down to the building management company, not the LFB.

Likewise they're not responsible for the botched renovations and mismanagement of the contractors by the management company, neglect and failure to maintain building services, piles of rubbish, vandalism of fire doors and replacement of fire resistant front doors by residents.

Yes there were issues with the response, and the LFB Commissioners refusal to accept the findings shows a failure of leadership. However I can't help thinking LFB are going to be scapegoated, and the real culprits will be off the radar until 2025 or whenever the final, and most probably most important, findings are quietly published.

Post edited at 21:30
captain paranoia 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Ridge:

> Building evacuation plans and carrying out fire drills

Indeed. I posted a very similar observation earlier, but it seems not to have registered...

Planning revised fire reaction measures for buildings with compromised containment measures, that have not been designed to support evacuation, is not a simple matter. It should require cooperation between a number of agencies, such as the Building Research Establishment, Board of Agrement, Building Standards, Planning Authorities, landlords/owners, etc. Introducing 'common sense' measures by knee-jerk reaction is likely to simply replace one risk with another. It must be considered, and evidence-based.

As for the point about LFB apparently not learning lessons, I suspect the commissioner's comments were a somewhat misguided attempt to defend her staff from blame, along the lines of my argument earlier. I would think that they are reviewing their procedures. But they are not the ultimate arbiters of building fire safety design. I'm not sure how much influence they have, if any at all.

Dave Garnett 07 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Yes!  At last you're getting it.  That seems to be precisely the point he was trying to make; the tragedy being that with hindsight they would unlikely have followed the (perfectly valid and understandable) stay-put guidance.  If you can say it, why is a cvnt for saying the same thing?

I have to say that's how it struck me when I heard the whole response.  It was slightly awkwardly put but I didn't detect the level of offence that political opponents chose (understandably) to take.

 I've heard him say a lot things I personally found more ignorant and offensive but, apart from anything else, I don't see what possible advantage he would see in deliberately implying anything so outrageous and unpopular on the first day of an election campaign.

Anyway, it gave Corbyn his cue for the first concise, punchy response I think I've ever heard him come up with, about common sense being not wrapping buildings in flammable cladding.  A real zinger by his standards.

1
Rob Exile Ward 07 Nov 2019
In reply to Dave Garnett: 'A real zinger by his standards.'

You're not wrong, and I wouldn't be surprised if we hear it again. And again.

Rob Exile Ward 07 Nov 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

'I think cuts in services and budgets are most definitely political as was the decision to use not fit for purpose building materials because, well, it was cheaper.'

I did hear one version that suggested the cladding was chosen because it was the same cladding that was used for (and approved for) a nearby low rise Academy; it was partly an attempt to enhance the Academy by making the nearby buildings fit in better.

climbingpixie 07 Nov 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I'm not sure that would be the case because whether it matches or not depends on the fascia not the actual cladding material. I suspect it will be a combination of cost and a lack of awareness that certain forms of cladding are not suitable for high rise buildings.

I spent a few years working on carbon reduction projects for an energy company and the Grenfell disaster really worries me. We funded a lot of external wall insulation projects on high rise buildings in 2010-2013 (it was a very cost-effective way of reducing carbon) but we were doing it a) under massive time pressure from government targets and b) without much (any) knowledge of any H&S risks of different forms of cladding. Products had to be BBA approved but for us it was a tick box exercise to check it had a certificate and I don't recall us or Ofgem ever raising the issue that some BBA approval was only for low rise flats. That's not to say Ofgem weren't checking but they were also under massive time and resource pressure. Liability for H&S was obviously backed off to the contractor within our contracts but I can't help feeling that as the funder we should've been much more aware of the risks. The idea that in the process of trying to reduce carbon emissions and energy poverty we might have put people's lives at risk is awful.

Post edited at 10:28
Ridge 07 Nov 2019
In reply to climbingpixie:

> Liability for H&S was obviously backed off to the contractor within our contracts but I can't help feeling that as the funder we should've been much more aware of the risks.

This is what really scares me about corporate culture in the UK. Not having a go at you, I see it everywhere: “I have a bit of paper that says it's the contractor's problem, my arse is covered, I'll hit my 'milestones', I'm not going to look any deeper because I might find something that I might have to deal with”.

It's everywhere, Government, Local Authorities, Private companies in all industries. “Safety is our number one priority (unless it costs time, money, effort)”. Make sure you fill in lots of reports on loose shoelaces and not holding handrails for my KPIs, but don't you dare be a “blocker” and start pointing out costly errors in design, construction or operation that'll affect my bonus.

Stuart (aka brt) 07 Nov 2019
In reply to Ridge:

> > Liability for H&S was obviously backed off to the contractor within our contracts but I can't help feeling that as the funder we should've been much more aware of the risks.

> This is what really scares me about corporate culture in the UK. Not having a go at you, I see it everywhere: “I have a bit of paper that says it's the contractor's problem, my arse is covered, I'll hit my 'milestones', I'm not going to look any deeper because I might find something that I might have to deal with”.

> It's everywhere, Government, Local Authorities, Private companies in all industries. “Safety is our number one priority (unless it costs time, money, effort)”. Make sure you fill in lots of reports on loose shoelaces and not holding handrails for my KPIs, but don't you dare be a “blocker” and start pointing out costly errors in design, construction or operation that'll affect my bonus.

This is why the criticism of the fire service rankles with me. They're a reactive service and having to make some very serious and dynamic assessments of what the hell was going on. Don't build buildings of stuff that can burn shouldn't be difficult (apart from it not being cheap).

I've no involvement of the fire service aside from knowing one fire officer.

climbingpixie 07 Nov 2019
In reply to Ridge:

I agree completely, though I'd say that for us it wasn't motivated by not wanting to look deeper in case we found a problem that needed to be dealt with but more that we were a non-technical team who were more used to dealing with local authorities and housing associations who were suddenly managing contracts with building contractors. H&S issues were largely a part of the Ofgem guidance and monitoring regime and the end result was that anything that wasn't included as part of the Ofgem rules tended not to be known. Couple that with hard deadlines and the threat of massive fines from Ofgem for not delivering carbon and you end up with corners being cut and things being missed.

I'm pleased to say that this culture was changing by the time I left. After the end of the CERT/CESP obligations (end 2012) the team grew and brought in a load of technical staff - e.g. people who'd formerly been insulation and heating installers. There was a big shift in focus onto H&S and our obligations as a funder (and the accompanying risk of corporate manslaughter charges) and less reliance on passing on liability as something for someone else to deal with.

Post edited at 11:53
neilh 07 Nov 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Why does it rankle.?There was huge criticism of Manchester Fire Service and the way they reacted follwoing the Arena bombing. The reports were very hard hitting about failings.

Manchester FS took it on the chin, reacted positvely and got on with implementing the recommendation. The criticsm from parents etc all vanished, and it was handled very well.

Nobody expects perfection in these disaster scenarios, most people recognise that not every thing will be right.

When the LFB commissioner said in the enquiry " we would not have done things differently". It was a PR disaster for LFB and they have never recovered.It smacked of never learning any lessons.LFB have been on the back foot ever since.

You only have to listen to the Grenfell survivors to see they do not want a whitewash from LFB.

Perhaps they should also learn from Theresa May who made an absolute  mess of her dealings with it in the inital few days. Then she pulled it round and listened.

Post edited at 12:01
Stuart (aka brt) 07 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Why does it rankle.?There was huge criticism of Manchester Fire Service and the way they reacted follwoing the Arena bombing. The reports were very hard hitting about failings.

> Manchester FS took it on the chin, reacted positvely and got on with implementing the recommendation. The criticsm from parents etc all vanished, and it was handled very well.

> Nobody expects perfection in these disaster scenarios, most people recognise that not every thing will be right.

> When the LFB commissioner said in the enquiry " we would not have done things differently". It was a PR disaster for LFB and they have never recovered.It smacked of never learning any lessons.LFB have been on the back foot ever since.

> You only have to listen to the Grenfell survivors to see they do not want a whitewash from LFB.

> Perhaps they should also learn from Theresa May who made an absolute  mess of her dealings with it in the inital few days. Then she pulled it round and listened.

Yes, all fair points. I think it's a useful diversion for some in the media. 

captain paranoia 07 Nov 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Don't build buildings of stuff that can burn shouldn't be difficult

Unsurprisingly, that was the conclusion from the fire of London, and gave rise to building regulations determining what building could be built from (stone and brick). So it's not a new lesson.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.