I am pleased we have parked the racial overtones to this debate.
It seems this enquiry is to be beset with unfortunate comment.
Lawrence's was based in her history in institutional racism. No matter the nature of her family loss the manner in which the pursuit of her sons killers was handled identified any number of concerns. Hers was an unfortunate intervention based I suspect largely on the shared emotion of ethnic minorities not being heard by the forces of the establishment.
I regard the language used by the Enquiry Report as similarly unfortunate.
The entire phasing of the report is flawed.
It is testimony to the resources made available to the prosecution of the enquiry. Why does Phase 2 of the enquiry not start until 2020? Why did it not have a second judge conduct the second part of the enquiry in conjunction with Phase 1.
My limited experience of the Grenfell scenario was as a Staff Association representative responsible for Health and Safety checks for Bank Offices in the Hyde Park and West End areas of London.
If you ever looked at any of the risk management and failsafe procedures and systems involved you would know THERE ARE NEVER EVER ANY GUARANTEES.
It is called Risk Management for a reason.
Stay put procedures are an uncomfortable and unnatural concept. I know I worked in two offices where such were the default procedures in the event of fire. Fight and flight are built into our animal instincts.
Stay put is the default position for any high rise building for very good reasons. It is a long standing and proven procedure which has over the decades saved thousands of lives. It relies on the established fire prevention and fire protection infrastructure of business and residential premises and the pursuit of fire prevention compliance by the occupants of such premises.
I cannot help the ignorance, stupidity and selfishness of those who choose to think they know better whether they are Rees-Mogg or posters to this site.
Stay put did not cause the fire. It was caused by faulty equipment.
Stay put did not create the speed of the spread of the fire. It was the fault of the authorities managing the enhancement of the building.
Stay put did not cause the failure of failsafe systems. Inappropriate installation and maintenance failed the residents.
To use a flippant sporting analogy you do not and cannot set a field in cricket to cater for bad bowling. Bad bowling will cost you runs.
In this instance the London Fire Brigade in its entirety were front and centre of a tragedy NOT of their making. That is a challenge they face every day of their lives. It on occasion costs the lives of their work colleagues.
As reported the Enquiry position is the equivalent of blaming the airline pilot for the mechanical failure of the aircraft.
Yet the enquiry is making interim judgements on an as yet incomplete study.
I will repeat that. THE ENQUIRY IS MAKING JUDGEMENTS ON AN AS YET INCOMPLETE STUDY.
The criticism of Cotton at this stage is poor.
The criticism of individual fire fighters at this stage is poor.
The criticism of the supporting communications at this stage is poor.
None of it reflects the reality of the working environment, financial constraints and political (with a small p) influences under which the organisation operates. It is political and populist deflection.
Any judgemental comment and decisions at this stage are entirely premature and inappropriate.
Where is the modelling of the fires progress linked to established and proven eye witness reports matched to the real life working conditions.
Cotton is a Public Servant Professional. She is not a politician. Ironically it is the political influence at play here where the true responsibility lies.
Her comments at the Enquiry were in respect of the prevailing LFB policy and operational procedures appropriate at the time of the Grenfell fire standing by her management and staff in terms of the actions taken on that night.
Public and Fire Brigade lives depend on those long established procedures. You do not get to rewrite the rules "of the cuff". You may not like the answer but she is 100% correct. There are no absolutes here.
If a fire occurs in any building your life is at risk. It is the same risk you take every time you climb into a car, train, plane. It something goes wrong you are at risk. No emergency service can protect from injury help you if another car or train driver or airplane is drunk, under the influence of drugs, over tired or is used to driving a car on the other side of the road.
Stay put is preferred in such circumstances quite simply because of the unpredictable nature of tall buildings and the unknown numbers and unknown mobility of those involved. Just how many fire officers would have been needed to move everybody safely.
Assessments have to be made and decisions made in real time.
As the one harrowing experience in losing a child in the evacuation recounts the process itself is fraught with danger. None of us can speak to the circumstances as to how a man lost his young son.
Any other theory is by default unproven and purely speculative.
How long does it take to even evaluate and assess 120 apartments on 24 floors let alone safely evacuate up to 600 men, women, children and elderly from 120 apartments with 200 bedrooms on 24 floors in a timely manner?
How long does it take to travel down 24, 23, 22, 21 floors? How do you restrict fire accessing the common public egress?
How do you possibly train to control a fire in a building clad in inflammable material?
How long is a piece of string?
I strongly suspect there are no, nor will be, definitive answers let alone guarantees.
It is not the responsibility of the fire brigade to bail out the institutional irresponsibility of local government, its contractors and service providers.
Yet the mud has now been thrown. Society in general will rue the day it attacks the emergency services.
The attached article poses a number of interesting thoughts
I am pleased we have parked the racial overtones to this debate.
It seems this enquiry is to be beset with unfortunate comment.
Lawrence's was based in her history in institutional racism. No matter the nature of her family loss the manner in which the pursuit of her sons killers was handled identified any number of concerns. Hers was an unfortunate intervention based I suspect largely on the shared emotion of ethnic minorities not being heard by the forces of the establishment.
I regard the language used by the Enquiry Report as similarly unfortunate.
The entire phasing of the report is flawed.
It is testimony to the resources made available to the prosecution of the enquiry. Why does Phase 2 of the enquiry not start until 2020? Why did it not a second judge conduct the second part of the enquiry in conjunction with Phase 1.
My limited experience of the Grenfell scenario was as a Staff Association representative responsible for Health and Safety checks for Bank Offices in the Hyde Park and West End areas of London.
If you ever looked at any of the risk management and failsafe procedures and systems involved you would know THERE ARE NEVER EVER ANY GUARANTEES.
It is called Risk Management for a reason.
Stay put procedures are an uncomfortable and unnatural concept. I know I worked in two offices where such were the default procedures in the event of fire. Fight and flight are built into our animal instincts.
Stay put is the default position for any high rise building for very good reasons. It is a long standing and proven procedure which has over the decades saved thousands of lives. It relies on the established fire prevention and fire protection infrastructure of business and residential premises and the pursuit of fire prevention compliance by the occupants of such premises.
I cannot help the ignorance, stupidity and selfishness of those who choose to think they know better whether they are Rees-Mogg or posters to this site.
Stay put did not cause the fire. It was caused by faulty equipment.
Stay put did not create the speed of the spread of the fire. It was the fault of the authorities managing the enhancement of the building.
Stay put did not cause the failure of failsafe systems. Inappropriate installation and maintenance failed the residents.
To use a flippant sporting analogy you do not and cannot set a field in cricket to cater for bad bowling. Bad bowling will cost you runs.
In this instance the London Fire Brigade in its entirety were front and centre of a tragedy NOT of their making. That is a challenge they face every day of their lives. It on occasion costs the lives of their work colleagues.
As reported the Enquiry position is the equivalent of blaming the airline pilot for the mechanical failure of the aircraft.
Yet the enquiry is making interim judgements on an as yet incomplete study.
I will repeat that. THE ENQUIRY IS MAKING JUDGEMENTS ON AN AS YET INCOMPLETE STUDY.
The criticism of Cotton at this stage is poor.
The criticism of individual fire fighters at this stage is poor.
The criticism of the supporting communications at this stage is poor.
None of it reflects the reality of the working environment, financial constraints and political (with a small p) influences under which the organisation operates. It is political and populist deflection.
Any judgemental comment and decisions at this stage are entirely premature and inappropriate.
Where is the modelling of the fires progress linked to established and proven eye witness reports matched to the real life working conditions.
Cotton is a Public Servant Professional. She is not a politician. Ironically it is the political influence at play here where the true responsibility lies.
Her comments at the Enquiry were in respect of the prevailing LFB policy and operational procedures appropriate at the time of the Grenfell fire standing by her management and staff in terms of the actions taken on that night.
Public and Fire Brigade lives depend on those long established procedures. You do not get to rewrite the rules "of the cuff". You may not like the answer but she is 100% correct. There are no absolutes here.
If a fire occurs in any building your life is at risk. It is the same risk you take every time you climb into a car, train, plane. It something goes wrong you are at risk. No emergency service can protect from injury help you if another car or train driver or airplane is drunk, under the influence of drugs, over tired or is used to driving a car on the other side of the road.
Stay put is preferred in such circumstances quite simply because of the unpredictable nature of tall buildings and the unknown numbers and unknown mobility of those involved. Just how many fire officers would have been needed to move everybody safely.
Assessments have to be made and decisions made in real time.
As the one harrowing experience in losing a child in the evacuation recounts the process itself is fraught with danger. None of us can speak to the circumstances as to how a man lost his young son.
Any other theory is by default unproven and purely speculative.
How long does it take to even evaluate and assess 120 apartments on 24 floors let alone safely evacuate up to 600 men, women, children and elderly from 120 apartments with 200 bedrooms on 24 floors in a timely manner?
How long does it take to travel down 24, 23, 22, 21 floors? How do you restrict fire accessing the common public egress?
How do you possibly train to control a fire in a building clad inflammable material?
How long is a piece of string?
I strongly suspect there are no, nor will be, definitive answers let alone guarantees.
It is not the responsibility of the fire brigade to bail out the institutional irresponsibility of local government, its contractors and service providers.
Yet the mud has now been thrown. Society in general will rue the day it attacks the emergency services.
The attached article poses a number of interesting thoughts
Anyone who cannot see what he absolutely implied doesn't understand the English language. He is a complete cnut of a human being.
On the face of it I couldn't agree more Blackpool, but I'll have to hold fire for now until our Spanner visitor has reinterpreted and reworded your views for you. Just for context of course.
Which is exactly what you've done with the comments being discussed here.
Your hypocrisy is nothing short of astounding, and is steeped in idiocy when catastrophically failing to heed your own criticisms.
Your ability to ignore this, and carry on regardless, is hilarious.
My bruv is an ex-LFB fireman, he retired recently after 20 years service, and he risked his life to save others on many many occasions, and he is as upset as anybody at the 72 deaths, yet blaming the LFB is currently an easy target. I was listening to Radio 4 yesterday and they spoke with a fireman who attended Grenfell and to paraphrase what he said, he said that - "In his time in the service he has attended around 15 high tower block fires, where the rule is to occupants to stay inside and wait for the Fire Brigade to get them out as they should be safer there, as the flats are 'compartmentalised' to stop fires spreading, and on ALL 15 'shouts' it worked. The problem with Grenfell was that the LFB had NOT been told that the building had been covered in this highly inflammable cladding!! This then led to the normal advice being rendered useless but by the time the LFB realised what was happening, the toxic and thick black smoke was moving rapidly through the building, and this would have led to potentially more deaths". Its a case of, in my opinion, the LFB were damned if they did and damned if the didn't. The culprits here are the local council and the contractors for wrapping this building in a fire hazard.
Anyone who cannot see what he absolutely implied doesn't understand the English language. He is a complete cnut of a human being.
On the face of it I couldn't agree more Blackpool, but I'll have to hold fire for now until our Spanner visitor has reinterpreted and reworded your views for you. Just for context of course.
Which is exactly what you've done with the comments being discussed here.
Your hypocrisy is nothing short of astounding, and is steeped in idiocy when catastrophically failing to heed your own criticisms.
Your ability to ignore this, and carry on regardless, is hilarious.
I wasn't going to reply given the subject matter is so awful to indulge in responding to ad hominem remarks but since someone else has seen fit to support your view...
JRM's comments are in the public domain, both in written and video form. They stand for themselves, in that what he said before he started to get a public backlash was the opposite to what he claimed he meant afterwards. People can, and have, placed their own interpretation on both the nature of his views and his duplicitous nature.
This includes myself and I'm honest enough to admit I find him to be abhorrent. But also plenty of others came to the same conclusion about his attitude and this includes representatives of the victims first and foremost. Even those in his own party have gone on record and reinforced the view his comments illustrate Rees-Mogg's overly inflated opinion of himself (and by reflection the reverse on those that acted differently to what he claims was the obvious right course). Those looking to interpret his views differently, for whatever reason, are welcome to do so.
But you don't get to throw allegations of hypocrisy around, idiotic, hilarious or otherwise, when you've literally changed my previous comment on the matter to suit your own agenda, yet are levelling the same criticism against me in my interpretation of what JRM said in his interview.
Anyone who cannot see what he absolutely implied doesn't understand the English language. He is a complete cnut of a human being.
On the face of it I couldn't agree more Blackpool, but I'll have to hold fire for now until our Spanner visitor has reinterpreted and reworded your views for you. Just for context of course.
Which is exactly what you've done with the comments being discussed here.
Your hypocrisy is nothing short of astounding, and is steeped in idiocy when catastrophically failing to heed your own criticisms.
Your ability to ignore this, and carry on regardless, is hilarious.
I wasn't going to reply given the subject matter is so awful to indulge in responding to ad hominem remarks but since someone else has seen fit to support your view...
JRM's comments are in the public domain, both in written and video form. They stand for themselves, in that what he said before he started to get a public backlash was the opposite to what he claimed he meant afterwards. People can, and have, placed their own interpretation on both the nature of his views and his duplicitous nature.
This includes myself and I'm honest enough to admit I find him to be abhorrent. But also plenty of others came to the same conclusion about his attitude and this includes representatives of the victims first and foremost. Even those in his own party have gone on record and reinforced the view his comments illustrate Rees-Mogg's overly inflated opinion of himself (and by reflection the reverse on those that acted differently to what he claims was the obvious right course). Those looking to interpret his views differently, for whatever reason, are welcome to do so.
But you don't get to throw allegations of hypocrisy around, idiotic, hilarious or otherwise, when you've literally changed my previous comment on the matter to suit your own agenda, yet are levelling the same criticism against me in my interpretation of what JRM said in his interview.
There's a few nice segways and diversions in there, not least the attempt to slander me as being the person that cast the first stone in the misrepresentation stakes.
And, yes, I do get to throw allegations around. Especially when they are with absolute merit, irrespective of your deplorable attempt at fudgery and misdirection with comments like "I wasn't going to reply given the subject matter".
Your hollow holier than thou wording doesn't fool me.
Now, tie some string around those pants before they fall down again.
I've read through parts of the inquiry. It states that the 'stay put' advice should be abandoned once fire in a single flat has breached that flat and spread to another. Apparently this is in the LFB policies. I've looked but yet to see it?
One thing I did note when reading it was just how fast this was moving. The amount of actions that were carried out in the first 30 mins was extraordinary. I defy anyone, Moore-Bick, Reese-Mogg to deal with the kind of life threatening operations,instructions and emotions that were rapidly going through the minds of anyone who was involved in that horrific night. Both the fire service and the poor souls who lived in and around that block.
No mention of the psychological hurdles that were faced minute by minute. "But the fire service are trained to deal with this kind of circumstance" I can hear Budgen and Reese-Mogg cry. In a building turned into a death trap by penny pinching, profit making authorities that this scum preside over ,our wonderful firemen and women didn't stand a chance It's a miracle that they got as many out as they did.
They were, and still remain to be, shamefully let down.
For me, the issue with the criticism of the LFB feels harsher as it is not sitting alongside criticism of others which is yet to come from the findings. There can be no way that fire fighters get even an ounce of blame, which I am sure has not been the case. The criticism seems to me to be around a lack of learning from within the relevant parts of the LFB from previous similar fires. Also a lack of reviews about accessibility of equipment to fight high rise fires (can a fire engine get to a place to fight a fire). You would imagine there are people responsible for this within the LFB and these people are not the fire fighters themselves. Any policy that made things worse for fire fighters put them at increased risk too.
You do have to be careful about comments you make about such a disaster. I won't comment about Rees Mogg's comments as it will be deemed political when it isn't. The comments speak for themselves whoever makes them. I will comment on Danny Cotton. When you reach the position she has, part of her salary is around the responsibility. It seems to me that some want the money but not what comes with it. To say she wouldn't have done anything differently to the enquiry is worrying. Where is the culture of learning that seemed so lacking in the first place?
I can't see how criticising the LFB is criticising brave fire fighters and Danny Cotton should not hide behind them. Of course she did not want the fire to happen and didn't expect it to happen. But there lies the issue. There were failings that she has to take responsibility for.
Also a lack of reviews about accessibility of equipment to fight high rise fires (can a fire engine get to a place to fight a fire). You would imagine there are people responsible for this within the LFB and these people are not the fire fighters themselves. Any policy that made things worse for fire fighters put them at increased risk too.
Grenfell Tower had a dry riser so getting water to the fire was should not have been an issue. However the refit works had increased to over the 18m access requirement for a pumping appliance for the main inlet connection point. This caused issues on the day of getting the appliances close enough to connect up to the dry risers.
Which somebody is ultimately responsible for. We all learn from these things, or at least we have to. It seems from people who know more than me, and dare I say it, even you. That some lessons that should have been learned from other fires where not.Surely you are not disagreeing with that. I didn't come to those conclusions, others did.
Which somebody is ultimately responsible for. We all learn from these things, or at least we have to. It seems from people who know more than me, and dare I say it, even you. That some lessons that should have been learned from other fires where not.Surely you are not disagreeing with that. I didn't come to those conclusions, others did.
Yes you are certainly right that there are lessons to be learned from other fires. One being that sticking cladding containing inflammable plastic on the outside of a building is a stupid thing to do. The question is who implements those lessons.
The London Fire Brigade didn't authorise that. Politicians and planners did yet it is the London Fire Brigade that are being scapegoated despite pointing those issues out to politicians and planners during the enquiries to previous fires so lessons could be learned!
But shouldn't the LFB review those other fires in London to find lessons? That isn't to say blame does not lie elswhere. It can be a combination of factors, but the part of the blame that is yours should be accepted. It isn't a case of manslaughter, but how things might have been done better under your watch.
The trouble is that lessons learnt don't necessarily get picked up by generations after an incident. We get clever clogs then making and endorsing the mistakes of yore. We get developers, councils, govt etc in thrall to costs and profit rather than premium levels of safety. Telling us the wonderful new ways are better than the old fashioned ways. And until something goes wrong we fall for it and ignore any concerns as being hysterical.
I was once a fire safety officer in the office I worked. We were on the third floor and I was responsible for a section of it. Part of my role was to ensure swift evacuation when there was an alarm. Obviously there was significant training and part of this highlighted the safe spaces for disabled colleagues with mobility issues. These were spaces on each floor between two fire doors where the person should wait rather than evacuate the building.
I found it hard to get my head around this. In a previous office we had an evac- u -chair (which also required regular training on it's use) which seemed better than leaving a colleague in a potentially burning building. I accepted the expert knew more and my feelings were emotional, but I said I would have to stay with the colleague as I couldn't leave her there alone. I accepted the advice even if it felt wrong and that is why the advice has to be right. I'm sure it was in the circumstances I have described btw.
Coroners proved recommendations following the fire deaths at both Lakanal House in 2009 Shirley Towers in 2010 where two fire fighters died.
Very few of those recommendations have been included in updated legislation and plenty of landlords have done nothing to implement some of the more straight forward issues - like providing luminescent floor numberings on stairwell landings.
But shouldn't the LFB review those other fires in London to find lessons? That isn't to say blame does not lie elswhere. It can be a combination of factors, but the part of the blame that is yours should be accepted. It isn't a case of manslaughter, but how things might have been done better under your watch.
The London Fire Brigade DOES review other fires in London, or certainly did in my late father's time, but implementation (or not) of their recommendations is down to politicians and planners as I said above. As I've mentioned elsewhere my father back in the sixties, seventies and early eighties tried desperately hard to get sprinklers accepted as standard in high rise buildings but the politicians and planners decided it was too expensive. This ancient history is relevant when you remember that Grenfell Tower was completed in 1974.
The London Fire Brigade's role with politicians and planners is rather like being the parent of a stroppy adolescent. You make recommendations and try to convince them why you say what you say but the bottom line is that the stroppy adolescent makes its own choice. That's what politicians and planners do.
After my father retired from the Brigade he did a lot of consultancy work and edited a book called Tolley's Fire Safety Management Handbook amongst other things. As part of his consultancy work he would meet with various what I'll call building specialists as a generic term to cover architects, surveyors, project managers etc. There would be a discussion about fire safety regulations and my father would make his point. The building specialist would often respond with something like 'the legislation is not meant to be interpreted in that way' to which my father would respond 'I wrote the legislation and that is how it should be interpreted.'
Despite all that they would often proceed and do what suited them.
You can lead a horse to water you cannot make it drink.
Although a very useful guide to fires in the workplace and particularly the effect they have to workplace and business operations, Tolley's deals with non domestic buildings where generally nobody is asleep when a fire occurs or there is minimal or no living accomodation.
It was superseded virtually immediately by the introduction of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Although a very useful guide to fires in the workplace and particularly the effect they have to workplace and business operations, Tolley's deals with non domestic buildings where generally nobody is asleep when a fire occurs or there is minimal or no living accomodation.
It was superseded virtually immediately by the introduction of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
That sounds about right. I think his book was 2003 or thereabouts.
Comments
I am pleased we have parked the racial overtones to this debate.
It seems this enquiry is to be beset with unfortunate comment.
Lawrence's was based in her history in institutional racism. No matter the nature of her family loss the manner in which the pursuit of her sons killers was handled identified any number of concerns. Hers was an unfortunate intervention based I suspect largely on the shared emotion of ethnic minorities not being heard by the forces of the establishment.
I regard the language used by the Enquiry Report as similarly unfortunate.
The entire phasing of the report is flawed.
It is testimony to the resources made available to the prosecution of the enquiry. Why does Phase 2 of the enquiry not start until 2020? Why did it not have a second judge conduct the second part of the enquiry in conjunction with Phase 1.
My limited experience of the Grenfell scenario was as a Staff Association representative responsible for Health and Safety checks for Bank Offices in the Hyde Park and West End areas of London.
If you ever looked at any of the risk management and failsafe procedures and systems involved you would know THERE ARE NEVER EVER ANY GUARANTEES.
It is called Risk Management for a reason.
Stay put procedures are an uncomfortable and unnatural concept. I know I worked in two offices where such were the default procedures in the event of fire. Fight and flight are built into our animal instincts.
Stay put is the default position for any high rise building for very good reasons. It is a long standing and proven procedure which has over the decades saved thousands of lives. It relies on the established fire prevention and fire protection infrastructure of business and residential premises and the pursuit of fire prevention compliance by the occupants of such premises.
I cannot help the ignorance, stupidity and selfishness of those who choose to think they know better whether they are Rees-Mogg or posters to this site.
Stay put did not cause the fire. It was caused by faulty equipment.
Stay put did not create the speed of the spread of the fire. It was the fault of the authorities managing the enhancement of the building.
Stay put did not cause the failure of failsafe systems. Inappropriate installation and maintenance failed the residents.
To use a flippant sporting analogy you do not and cannot set a field in cricket to cater for bad bowling. Bad bowling will cost you runs.
In this instance the London Fire Brigade in its entirety were front and centre of a tragedy NOT of their making. That is a challenge they face every day of their lives. It on occasion costs the lives of their work colleagues.
As reported the Enquiry position is the equivalent of blaming the airline pilot for the mechanical failure of the aircraft.
Yet the enquiry is making interim judgements on an as yet incomplete study.
I will repeat that. THE ENQUIRY IS MAKING JUDGEMENTS ON AN AS YET INCOMPLETE STUDY.
The criticism of Cotton at this stage is poor.
The criticism of individual fire fighters at this stage is poor.
The criticism of the supporting communications at this stage is poor.
None of it reflects the reality of the working environment, financial constraints and political (with a small p) influences under which the organisation operates. It is political and populist deflection.
Any judgemental comment and decisions at this stage are entirely premature and inappropriate.
Where is the modelling of the fires progress linked to established and proven eye witness reports matched to the real life working conditions.
Cotton is a Public Servant Professional. She is not a politician. Ironically it is the political influence at play here where the true responsibility lies.
Her comments at the Enquiry were in respect of the prevailing LFB policy and operational procedures appropriate at the time of the Grenfell fire standing by her management and staff in terms of the actions taken on that night.
Public and Fire Brigade lives depend on those long established procedures. You do not get to rewrite the rules "of the cuff". You may not like the answer but she is 100% correct. There are no absolutes here.
If a fire occurs in any building your life is at risk. It is the same risk you take every time you climb into a car, train, plane. It something goes wrong you are at risk. No emergency service can protect from injury help you if another car or train driver or airplane is drunk, under the influence of drugs, over tired or is used to driving a car on the other side of the road.
Stay put is preferred in such circumstances quite simply because of the unpredictable nature of tall buildings and the unknown numbers and unknown mobility of those involved. Just how many fire officers would have been needed to move everybody safely.
Assessments have to be made and decisions made in real time.
As the one harrowing experience in losing a child in the evacuation recounts the process itself is fraught with danger. None of us can speak to the circumstances as to how a man lost his young son.
Any other theory is by default unproven and purely speculative.
How long does it take to even evaluate and assess 120 apartments on 24 floors let alone safely evacuate up to 600 men, women, children and elderly from 120 apartments with 200 bedrooms on 24 floors in a timely manner?
How long does it take to travel down 24, 23, 22, 21 floors? How do you restrict fire accessing the common public egress?
How do you possibly train to control a fire in a building clad in inflammable material?
How long is a piece of string?
I strongly suspect there are no, nor will be, definitive answers let alone guarantees.
It is not the responsibility of the fire brigade to bail out the institutional irresponsibility of local government, its contractors and service providers.
Yet the mud has now been thrown. Society in general will rue the day it attacks the emergency services.
The attached article poses a number of interesting thoughts
http://https//truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/mainstream-media-bias-why-we-still-dont-know-the-truth-about-grenfell/
Excellent analysis, as ever, above by the way,
I'm sure Oxford have a forum, no?
Your hypocrisy is nothing short of astounding, and is steeped in idiocy when catastrophically failing to heed your own criticisms.
Your ability to ignore this, and carry on regardless, is hilarious.
JRM's comments are in the public domain, both in written and video form. They stand for themselves, in that what he said before he started to get a public backlash was the opposite to what he claimed he meant afterwards. People can, and have, placed their own interpretation on both the nature of his views and his duplicitous nature.
This includes myself and I'm honest enough to admit I find him to be abhorrent. But also plenty of others came to the same conclusion about his attitude and this includes representatives of the victims first and foremost. Even those in his own party have gone on record and reinforced the view his comments illustrate Rees-Mogg's overly inflated opinion of himself (and by reflection the reverse on those that acted differently to what he claims was the obvious right course). Those looking to interpret his views differently, for whatever reason, are welcome to do so.
But you don't get to throw allegations of hypocrisy around, idiotic, hilarious or otherwise, when you've literally changed my previous comment on the matter to suit your own agenda, yet are levelling the same criticism against me in my interpretation of what JRM said in his interview.
There's a few nice segways and diversions in there, not least the attempt to slander me as being the person that cast the first stone in the misrepresentation stakes.
And, yes, I do get to throw allegations around. Especially when they are with absolute merit, irrespective of your deplorable attempt at fudgery and misdirection with comments like "I wasn't going to reply given the subject matter".
Your hollow holier than thou wording doesn't fool me.
Now, tie some string around those pants before they fall down again.
It states that the 'stay put' advice should be abandoned once fire in a single flat has breached that flat and spread to another.
Apparently this is in the LFB policies. I've looked but yet to see it?
One thing I did note when reading it was just how fast this was moving. The amount of actions that were carried out in the first 30 mins was extraordinary.
I defy anyone, Moore-Bick, Reese-Mogg to deal with the kind of life threatening operations,instructions and emotions that were rapidly going through the minds of anyone who was involved in that horrific night. Both the fire service and the poor souls who lived in and around that block.
No mention of the psychological hurdles that were faced minute by minute.
"But the fire service are trained to deal with this kind of circumstance" I can hear Budgen and Reese-Mogg cry.
In a building turned into a death trap by penny pinching, profit making authorities that this scum preside over ,our wonderful firemen and women didn't stand a chance
It's a miracle that they got as many out as they did.
They were, and still remain to be, shamefully let down.
I wish you'd go and jump in the English Channel.
Wrong. I defended what he said and corrected those that claimed he'd uttered words that were never spoken.
You do have to be careful about comments you make about such a disaster. I won't comment about Rees Mogg's comments as it will be deemed political when it isn't. The comments speak for themselves whoever makes them. I will comment on Danny Cotton. When you reach the position she has, part of her salary is around the responsibility. It seems to me that some want the money but not what comes with it. To say she wouldn't have done anything differently to the enquiry is worrying. Where is the culture of learning that seemed so lacking in the first place?
I can't see how criticising the LFB is criticising brave fire fighters and Danny Cotton should not hide behind them. Of course she did not want the fire to happen and didn't expect it to happen. But there lies the issue. There were failings that she has to take responsibility for.
The London Fire Brigade didn't authorise that. Politicians and planners did yet it is the London Fire Brigade that are being scapegoated despite pointing those issues out to politicians and planners during the enquiries to previous fires so lessons could be learned!
We get clever clogs then making and endorsing the mistakes of yore.
We get developers, councils, govt etc in thrall to costs and profit rather than premium levels of safety. Telling us the wonderful new ways are better than the old fashioned ways.
And until something goes wrong we fall for it and ignore any concerns as being hysterical.
I found it hard to get my head around this. In a previous office we had an evac- u -chair (which also required regular training on it's use) which seemed better than leaving a colleague in a potentially burning building. I accepted the expert knew more and my feelings were emotional, but I said I would have to stay with the colleague as I couldn't leave her there alone. I accepted the advice even if it felt wrong and that is why the advice has to be right. I'm sure it was in the circumstances I have described btw.
Very few of those recommendations have been included in updated legislation and plenty of landlords have done nothing to implement some of the more straight forward issues - like providing luminescent floor numberings on stairwell landings.
The London Fire Brigade's role with politicians and planners is rather like being the parent of a stroppy adolescent. You make recommendations and try to convince them why you say what you say but the bottom line is that the stroppy adolescent makes its own choice. That's what politicians and planners do.
After my father retired from the Brigade he did a lot of consultancy work and edited a book called Tolley's Fire Safety Management Handbook amongst other things. As part of his consultancy work he would meet with various what I'll call building specialists as a generic term to cover architects, surveyors, project managers etc. There would be a discussion about fire safety regulations and my father would make his point. The building specialist would often respond with something like 'the legislation is not meant to be interpreted in that way' to which my father would respond 'I wrote the legislation and that is how it should be interpreted.'
Despite all that they would often proceed and do what suited them.
You can lead a horse to water you cannot make it drink.
It was superseded virtually immediately by the introduction of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.