Should The Senior Officers Of The London Fire Brigade Be Prosecuted?

[anotheoldgit]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-fire-brigade-report-public-inquiry-prosecution-a9177686.html

[fbg40]

Spath
Might I ask if you read the article I linked to in my post at 1134 today ?
FBG40

[Spicerack]

Tsk. All these removed answers.
Spath is getting a lot of stick for his views on here. You don't need to be a fireman to know you don't stay in an out of control blaze. Common sense would tell you to get the heck out.
When were you in the Fire Brigade, fbg, if you don't mind my asking?

[fbg40]

Spice
I joined the LFB in 1968 and was medically retired in 1993.
FBG40

[Spicerack]

I suspected as much. Fair to call you 'Old School'?
Imo, you're defending a service which no longer exists. Like much else today, it's been sacrificed on the altar of Political Correctness.
You'd be more likely to get a medal for diversity than bravery nowadays. ;-)

[fbg40]

Spice
Yes I am old school I suppose, but I'm not defending a service that no longer exists. I am defending the action/s of all those people who attended the incident from the lowliest Firefighter to the Commissioner, Dany Cotton. All the accusations that are being bandied about are coming from "armchair" viewers who have never been near a fire and know nothing about the three requirements of a Firefighter - To Save life, to save property and to render humanitarian services.These 3 requirements were instituted by a certain Sir James Braidwood a very long time ago and still apply today. As far as I'm concerned, someone/somebody is seeking a scapegoat for this event and the Commissioner is in the firing line. I really have nothing further to add.
FBG40

[spathiphyllum]

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

[spathiphyllum]

"someone/somebody is seeking a scapegoat for this event and the Commissioner is in the firing line"

The only people who should be held accountable should be those who decided to cheap out on the cladding and use a cheaper alternative to that which was approved and advised.

[fbg40]

Spath
Many thanks for your last post, much appreciated.
FBG40

[Spicerack]

Spath has changed his tune and Fbg has changed his mind.
What a pair.

[spathiphyllum]

"Spath has changed his tune"

From the get go I did say that those who implemented the stay put policy should be assessed, that is true. But ultimately (what this thread is about) the rapid spread of the fire was cladding. It was told to us that the cladding used, shouldn't have been used. Who decided to cheap out on cladding and use an alternative cheaper cladding? They are ultimately responsible.

[spathiphyllum]

Sorry FBG, yes I did read that article.

[Spicerack]

//But ultimately (what this thread is about) the rapid spread of the fire was cladding//

No it isn't.

[ummmm]

Lol...I suggest you go back to page 1 and reread your first answer, Spath.

[spathiphyllum]

Ummm.. facts are facts.

"Who is responsible for these shortcomings should maybe be assessed."

maybe be assessed

[Spicerack]

He thinks he can see an opportunity to blame the Tories, ummmm.
Like most left wing weasels, facts aren't important to him.
I shan't waste my time defending him again.

[spathiphyllum]

Spicerack i'm confused... How does this have anything to do with tories?

[Rockrose]

More U turns than a learner driver

[spathiphyllum]

My opinion hasn't changed since the start of the thread.

I still think the stay put policy is responsible for many deaths (not all)

I have always thought that the people who should be held accountable should be those who decided to cheap out on the cladding and use a cheaper alternative to that which was approved and advised.

Why is it considered not on that I think those who implemented this policy, and where shortcomings were revealed be assessed? That's not saying fire them. It's certainly not saying imprison them.. Simply assess them. That would be professional and safe.