ChatterBank0 min ago
Jacob Rees Mogg
Is it just journalists who are affronted by his Grenfell comments?
Perhaps a little insensitive, but I can't see much wrong with his comments. To listen to the BBC this morning, you would have thought he lit the fire.
Perhaps a little insensitive, but I can't see much wrong with his comments. To listen to the BBC this morning, you would have thought he lit the fire.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hopkirk. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
naomi24//APG, me too ... but how could those people possibly know they had a 100% chance of dying? They couldn't. It was an unprecedented situation for victims and for the fire fighters.//
But it wasn't. Almost exactly the same thing happened a few years earlier at Lakanal House when the LFB said they would learn lessons. Then Dany Cotton said of Grenfell 'I'd no more plan for this than a satellite landing on the Shard'
Lessons learned, indeed.
But it wasn't. Almost exactly the same thing happened a few years earlier at Lakanal House when the LFB said they would learn lessons. Then Dany Cotton said of Grenfell 'I'd no more plan for this than a satellite landing on the Shard'
Lessons learned, indeed.
tamborine
// a weed factory was found in Grenfell. //
It wasn’t really a factory with hydroponics and lights. They only found some cannabis plant cuttings and an oven for making oil. He was a user himself. He received a suspended sentence.
Idiotically, he alerted police to his flat because he said his £4000 proceeds were missing.
// a weed factory was found in Grenfell. //
It wasn’t really a factory with hydroponics and lights. They only found some cannabis plant cuttings and an oven for making oil. He was a user himself. He received a suspended sentence.
Idiotically, he alerted police to his flat because he said his £4000 proceeds were missing.
This blame game is ridiculous. I personally think that if an expert tells you to stay put in a fire, you do that as you believe they have things under control. Rees Mogg's comments do nothing except insinuate that the victims are at least partly to blame for their deaths. The apology was needed.
On a personal note, I find Rees-Mogg an odious turd of a man, and there is no lack of schadenfreude from me in watching him frantically back peddling.
On a personal note, I find Rees-Mogg an odious turd of a man, and there is no lack of schadenfreude from me in watching him frantically back peddling.
Naomi, from the BBC article I linked to earlier:
------------------------------------------------------------
The "stay put" instruction is not inherently unsafe - if flats are properly hermetically sealed and fire-retardant. Guidelines state that an apartment in a tower block should withstand a blaze for an hour, giving enough time for inhabitants to be rescued.
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
The flats in the tower block were fire-resistant for just four minutes, the Lakanal House inquest established
But two years before the fire that killed Miss Hickman, the council had refurbished the outside of the building and installed false ceilings, "improvements" which helped the flames spread.
The flats were not fire-resistant for an hour - they were resistant for four minutes. As John Hendy QC, a barrister at the Lakanal House inquest, pointed out, that is "no resistance at all".
The refurbishment involved wrapping the building in a flammable cladding and there was no sprinkler system - both factors in the Grenfell Tower blaze eight years later.
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
The "stay put" instruction is not inherently unsafe - if flats are properly hermetically sealed and fire-retardant. Guidelines state that an apartment in a tower block should withstand a blaze for an hour, giving enough time for inhabitants to be rescued.
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
The flats in the tower block were fire-resistant for just four minutes, the Lakanal House inquest established
But two years before the fire that killed Miss Hickman, the council had refurbished the outside of the building and installed false ceilings, "improvements" which helped the flames spread.
The flats were not fire-resistant for an hour - they were resistant for four minutes. As John Hendy QC, a barrister at the Lakanal House inquest, pointed out, that is "no resistance at all".
The refurbishment involved wrapping the building in a flammable cladding and there was no sprinkler system - both factors in the Grenfell Tower blaze eight years later.
------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I'd have got me and my family out, if would have seemed the common-sense thing to do under any such circumstances ..... but I'm an old-fashioned person and don't trust officialdom. The media are making a meal of this.
I'm waiting for the next phase of the enquiry. I know someone who tendered for the cladding job at Grenfell (does a lot of this renovation work, especially in Scotland) and lost out because he used the correct fire-proof materials, so his quote was c£100k dearer than the one which won the contract. Someone on a committee, somewhere, made the decision to risk it and save money. I dearly hope that all becomes clear at that stage.
I'm waiting for the next phase of the enquiry. I know someone who tendered for the cladding job at Grenfell (does a lot of this renovation work, especially in Scotland) and lost out because he used the correct fire-proof materials, so his quote was c£100k dearer than the one which won the contract. Someone on a committee, somewhere, made the decision to risk it and save money. I dearly hope that all becomes clear at that stage.
//from the BBC article I linked to earlier:
------------------------------------------------------------
The "stay put" instruction is not inherently unsafe - if flats are properly hermetically sealed and fire-retardant. Guidelines state that an apartment in a tower block should withstand a blaze for an hour, giving enough time for inhabitants to be rescued.//
Whoever wrote that should be dismissed as an idiot.
------------------------------------------------------------
The "stay put" instruction is not inherently unsafe - if flats are properly hermetically sealed and fire-retardant. Guidelines state that an apartment in a tower block should withstand a blaze for an hour, giving enough time for inhabitants to be rescued.//
Whoever wrote that should be dismissed as an idiot.
There seems to be a lack of something throughout this thread - has anyone on here ever been in a serious fire where you thought you might not get out? I have. In 1971. A factory fire where I was working. But there was no H&S then, although I could see fire fighting equipment but couldn't reach it. But that wasn't in my thoughts. I wanted out and I wanted it quick as I was choking from the fumes and heat of a chemical blaze. I could hardly see, as the chemical-fuelled smoke was stinging my eyes, then I heard a shout to my left and just ran, blindly towards the voice, into the smoke, through some flames. I consider myself to be very lucky that I didn't fall over. As I moved more to my left, a chink of light appeared. That was an open fire door, with a fireman just inside. I was safe. My instinct was to get out. And Rees-Mogg is correct. I can't understand why anyone would not kick into survival mode and try and get out where they could.
10 Clarion - // There seems to be a lack of something throughout this thread - has anyone on here ever been in a serious fire where you thought you might not get out? //
Direct experience of a debate subject is always an advantage, but it is by no means a prerequisite to offering a view, and discussing the views of others.
I have never seen an atomic weapon, but I have a view on them.
Direct experience of a debate subject is always an advantage, but it is by no means a prerequisite to offering a view, and discussing the views of others.
I have never seen an atomic weapon, but I have a view on them.
Khandro - // The "stay put" instruction is not inherently unsafe - if flats are properly hermetically sealed and fire-retardant. Guidelines state that an apartment in a tower block should withstand a blaze for an hour, giving enough time for inhabitants to be rescued.//
Whoever wrote that should be dismissed as an idiot. //
Why?
The point made is perfectly reasonable.
The observation is that the instruction 'is not inherently unsafe', and it is qualified by a specific, which makes it a fair statement to make.
It then refers to guidelines, which, as the name suggests, are guidance, not instruction, and again the point is valid.
Whoever wrote that should be dismissed as an idiot. //
Why?
The point made is perfectly reasonable.
The observation is that the instruction 'is not inherently unsafe', and it is qualified by a specific, which makes it a fair statement to make.
It then refers to guidelines, which, as the name suggests, are guidance, not instruction, and again the point is valid.
Khandro - // That's fine andy, you stay put & fry, but you won't mind if I & my intelligent family flee to safety will you? //
I responded to your observation that the person writing the quote you offered was 'an idiot'.
I explained my view that the points made are valid.
On that basis, your further response, quoted above, makes no sense whatsoever, I have no idea what you are talking about.
I responded to your observation that the person writing the quote you offered was 'an idiot'.
I explained my view that the points made are valid.
On that basis, your further response, quoted above, makes no sense whatsoever, I have no idea what you are talking about.
> Whoever wrote that should be dismissed as an idiot
The writer is stating that the "stay put" policy is sometimes appropriate and sometimes not. You are calling them an idiot, implying that the stay put policy is always wrong - based on what happened at Grenfell and Lakanal, where flammable cladding was wrapped around the building, and extrapolating that to a general case. Your attitude is not intelligent, it's dangerous, thinking you know better based on what you've read about these isolated incidents, and taking no account of other times when "stay put" was the best advice. But never mind, the chances are that you personally won't be involved in a major fire in a block of flats, so it hardly matters ...
The writer is stating that the "stay put" policy is sometimes appropriate and sometimes not. You are calling them an idiot, implying that the stay put policy is always wrong - based on what happened at Grenfell and Lakanal, where flammable cladding was wrapped around the building, and extrapolating that to a general case. Your attitude is not intelligent, it's dangerous, thinking you know better based on what you've read about these isolated incidents, and taking no account of other times when "stay put" was the best advice. But never mind, the chances are that you personally won't be involved in a major fire in a block of flats, so it hardly matters ...
Khandro - // andy ; //The point made [by the BBC] is perfectly reasonable.//
No it isn't, it's stupid … // & you support it. //
My observation is based on reason, yours is based on emotion, I believe the statement is reasonable, which is a detached observation, you believe it is stupid and that is an emotional reaction with no explanation as to why you think that.
// & you support it. //
I have made no comment about whether I support it or not, so once again you are making an assumption as to my position, and then criticising me fore it, which is pointless.
// So, as you believe in it, you stay & fry & I run - I may not make it, but if you stay put in a building going up like a Roman candle, your chance of survival is zero & mine is somewhat higher. //
I have no idea why are assuming that I believe in something, and would act on it - but the debate is actually about comments made by Mr Rees-Mogg, and not about yours or my hypothetical responses to hypothetical scenarios, so shall we return to the point of the thread?
No it isn't, it's stupid … // & you support it. //
My observation is based on reason, yours is based on emotion, I believe the statement is reasonable, which is a detached observation, you believe it is stupid and that is an emotional reaction with no explanation as to why you think that.
// & you support it. //
I have made no comment about whether I support it or not, so once again you are making an assumption as to my position, and then criticising me fore it, which is pointless.
// So, as you believe in it, you stay & fry & I run - I may not make it, but if you stay put in a building going up like a Roman candle, your chance of survival is zero & mine is somewhat higher. //
I have no idea why are assuming that I believe in something, and would act on it - but the debate is actually about comments made by Mr Rees-Mogg, and not about yours or my hypothetical responses to hypothetical scenarios, so shall we return to the point of the thread?
Latest Posts
You Mightn't Be Able To Help Here
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Sunday Express Skeleton 23Rd June
Crosswords61 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles61 mins ago
