What Rees Mogg really thinks of common people

[Swinglowandslow]

Was the criticism of the FB directed more to the comments of the fire chief after the event rather than how they acted at the time. I heard that the fire chief, after the event, said they would do the exact same thing again. Although that would be true, based on the info they had before the fire, the comments were deemed insensitive and indicated the FB may not learn from the event.

Of course, if their actions at the time have also been criticised, I also find it hard to understand as that was the protocol they had, which made sense if they thought the fire wouldn't spread. The bigger blame is to those that knew the cladding was a fire risk, yet failed to remove it asap or at least warn the FB of its danger.

The reports I saw said that their actions had been criticised, as well as her comments coming under fire.
I must say that I cannot see how their actions could be accepted as the right thing to do, yet be offended at the FB chief saying they would do the same thing again ( under the same circumstance)
That would take this business of "being offended" to ridiculous heights, and making plain and honest speaking a dangerous virtue.

I completely agree with your end paragraph, especially the last sentence

 

[rulefan]

was he the one slumped in the HoC once ?

Wouldn't you if you had to sit there for hours?

 

[SocketRocket]

Does anyone think a political decision was made to clad the building in inflammable material with an intent to kill people? When some point fingers at Tories suggesting they did it because they dont have a care about people being burned to death it highlights how twisted peoples logic can become when politics are involved. The question to me is how on earth could a company get away with producing a building cladding that burns out of control and how could this material pass any quality test that allowed it to become a material of choice. The blame for me isn't a Political or Fire Service one but a technical falure that needs resolving so it never happens again. The political blame can be directed to occurrences where such cladding is still in place, if it is.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Also, I have not read the report, but I think I heard that the stay put advice should have been disregarded much earlier, and that had people then tried to escape, there would have been fewer casualties. Now, I'm not sure if that is true, so if not than you can disregard the statement. But, if the report did say this, then would it not suggest that there would have been less casualties if more left the building rather than stay in the building.

Again, I stress that I know that this is not the resident fault. They did exactly the right thing, and followed the advice by the professionals. I do agree that WAS the common sense thing to do based on the information they had.

I believe I heard that the stay put advice should normally be used when the fire is a contained fire, which this clearly was not, hence the stay put order should have been rescinded earlier. Whether or not the single stairwell would have also been a factor in telling people to stay put I don't know.

My only interest in adding this is to add some context/background to Swango1980's comment, not to lay into the LFB. They were, in my opinion, put in an impossible position because of the building design and the obvious unsuitability of the cladding. Whilst I understand & accept the need for a public inquiry after such an event, to scapegoat the LFB's actions prior to the inquiry into the building issues stinks. People don't enter our blue light services to do the wrong thing, they do it to do the right thing and to treat them in the manner this inquiry seems to have done leaves a bad taste for me.

 

[Beezerk]

I believe I heard that the stay put advice should normally be used when the fire is a contained fire, which this clearly was not, hence the stay put order should have been rescinded earlier. Whether or not the single stairwell would have also been a factor in telling people to stay put I don't know.

.

I didn't really want to get involved but here goes. I recall in the days after the tragedy the fire service got a whole load of grief for having this "stay put" policy, the gist was that many more lives could have been saved had they tried to escape straight away.
For balance, it isn't just in the UK, this stuff is used all over Australia as well, I'm pretty sure the UK Tory party aren't in power there

 

[Hobbit]

Without processes, especially in intense situations, mistakes are made. Equally, just occasionally, flexibility is required.

Lets assume the "stay Put" protocol wasn't in place. How many would have died in the hallways and stairwells?

Its a judgement call. "Stay put" till its time to move? "Stay put" till you are forced to move. Fires grow, evolve, change direction. Even with good comms, what messages could have been sent from the upper floors when visibility was so poor due to smoke?

LFB were magnificent!

"Stay Put" is still a valid tactic. Just occasionally the situation will require something else, and making that determination in such difficult conditions is almost impossible.

Releasing the report before all aspects of the situation have been assessed is just plain ignorant.

 

[Fade and Die]

totally agree, funny how TLFS are being scapegoated, when we know full well it was the Council who chose to install the cladding that is the real problem... anyone would think they are trying to deflect the blame away from the Tory Run council

To try to put a political slant on the decision to clad these blocks is ridiculous. There are 100s of blocks like this throughout the country and I’m betting due to the nature of social housing the majority are in Labour controlled councils. But that is irrelevant, these blocks were over-clad for two main reasons, firstly to improve the ascetics of the blocks, people prefer to live in smarter looking blocks than the old style concrete ones so it improves the area. And secondly for insulation, EWI (external wall insulation) reduces the tenants heating costs and reduces the carbon footprint of the block so it’s win win.
Unfortunately like all modern things refurbishment is done more to a cost and less to a standard, and even though all the materials used will have been compliant, and all the work would have been signed off by building control I think ultimately the standards and specifications will be to blame for this disaster, they have slipped down too far.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Does anyone think a political decision was made to clad the building in inflammable material with an intent to kill people? When some point fingers at Tories suggesting they did it because they dont have a care about people being burned to death it highlights how twisted peoples logic can become when politics are involved. The question to me is how on earth could a company get away with producing a building cladding that burns out of control and how could this material pass any quality test that allowed it to become a material of choice. The blame for me isn't a Political or Fire Service one but a technical falure that needs resolving so it never happens again. The political blame can be directed to occurrences where such cladding is still in place, if it is.

It may not of been a political decision to intentionally clad the building with material to kill people, but after a tower block fire in 2009 in which people died there was an inquest and the cladding was found to be at fault.

The jury and coroner at the Lakanal House fire inquest advised the government in 2013 to review the regulations "to provide clear guidance... with particular regard to the spread of fire".

By the summer of 2017 the building regulations had still not been improved.

So whether you like it or not, whoever was in power at the time (this time tories) it happened on their watch and they have to carry the responsibility of their actions or inactions.

As for the LFB, the policy of stay put was in place because the design of the building was to contain fires by it being in compartments, internal fires would not spread internally from compartment to compartment, the issue with Grenfell was the fire moved externally via the cladding.

100% echo Hobbits comments on the LFB and the same should be said for all our Emergency Services.

 

[harpo_72]

Without processes, especially in intense situations, mistakes are made. Equally, just occasionally, flexibility is required.

Lets assume the "stay Put" protocol wasn't in place. How many would have died in the hallways and stairwells?

Its a judgement call. "Stay put" till its time to move? "Stay put" till you are forced to move. Fires grow, evolve, change direction. Even with good comms, what messages could have been sent from the upper floors when visibility was so poor due to smoke?

LFB were magnificent!

"Stay Put" is still a valid tactic. Just occasionally the situation will require something else, and making that determination in such difficult conditions is almost impossible.

Releasing the report before all aspects of the situation have been assessed is just plain ignorant.

This is completely correct.
I am very disappointed that they are calling for the resignation of the fire chief, this is unnecessary. She may have been blunt in her response but she made a decision based on the situation that was playing out in front of her. Did they even discuss how those decisions can change under a dynamic situation or a plan to clear a safe passage ? I have not seen that being asked.
For me, we should not be looking to apportion blame on those who went in there to resolve the issue, but we should seek to address how the issue was caused.
This is not political, it is irrelevant which party it was, it is about that decision and the person who made that decision based on the information they were given. If they were making the decision in the knowledge that this was a potential disaster then, sorry to say that is probably a manslaughter charge at worse. If they were not given that information and the contractor also did not meet requirements then they to are open for charging.
These points need to be flushed out.

 

[SocketRocket]

It may not of been a political decision to intentionally clad the building with material to kill people, but after a tower block fire in 2009 in which people died there was an inquest and the cladding was found to be at fault.

The jury and coroner at the Lakanal House fire inquest advised the government in 2013 to review the regulations "to provide clear guidance... with particular regard to the spread of fire".

By the summer of 2017 the building regulations had still not been improved.

So whether you like it or not, whoever was in power at the time (this time tories) it happened on their watch and they have to carry the responsibility of their actions or inactions.

As for the LFB, the policy of stay put was in place because the design of the building was to contain fires by it being in compartments, internal fires would not spread internally from compartment to compartment, the issue with Grenfell was the fire moved externally via the cladding.

100% echo Hobbits comments on the LFB and the same should be said for all our Emergency Services.

From the Lakanal House inquest:

"The fire brigade was also criticized for the confusion among the 999 operators that urged some of the deceased victims to stay within their flats, and confusion amongst controllers who failed to promptly search flats in time, as they were confused about the layout of the flats."

Also:

It was claimed that the residents had been told that the block could not be demolished because it was a listed building. Harriet Harman, in whose constituency the flats lie, announced that there would be a thorough investigation into the cause of the fire, and whether or not there were adequate fire-prevention measures.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

From the Lakanal House inquest:

"The fire brigade was also criticized for the confusion among the 999 operators that urged some of the deceased victims to stay within their flats, and confusion amongst controllers who failed to promptly search flats in time, as they were confused about the layout of the flats."

Also:

It was claimed that the residents had been told that the block could not be demolished because it was a listed building. Harriet Harman, in whose constituency the flats lie, announced that there would be a thorough investigation into the cause of the fire, and whether or not there were adequate fire-prevention measures.

You’re making it political, WE/THEY didn’t learn from the Lakanal House enquiry.

But in all honesty, I really don’t expect anything else from you.

 

[SocketRocket]

You’re making it political, WE/THEY didn’t learn from the Lakanal House enquiry.

But in all honesty, I really don’t expect anything else from you.

No, you did that and I responded. As normal you just put on the blinkers when someone points out something to you.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

No, you did that and I responded. As normal you just put on the blinkers when someone points out something to you.

Please show me how? Your 2nd paragraph in your post mentions claims and Harriet Harman announcing an investigation? How about backing it up, was there an investigation or once again let’s get a sly dig in on the Labour MP.

People list their lives in these fires, please show some respect and leave the politics out.

 

[Swango1980]

For those that say it is definitely not political, I'm a little confused.

I agree, in that I find it hard to criticise the fire department. The Stay Put advice was standard protocol in this situation. Had they advised against that, then any deaths as a result of people escaping would have been put on their shoulders (even if it would have saved more lives, we'd have never known).

But, surely the main issue was the cladding on the outside of the building. Did this cladding meet building standards, especially tick the health and safety box? If NO, then the blame can be pinned on those that put it there. If YES, then who writes those standards? Is that not a political issue? Or, is someone else in charge of those standards?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

For those that say it is definitely not political, I'm a little confused.

I agree, in that I find it hard to criticise the fire department. The Stay Put advice was standard protocol in this situation. Had they advised against that, then any deaths as a result of people escaping would have been put on their shoulders (even if it would have saved more lives, we'd have never known).

But, surely the main issue was the cladding on the outside of the building. Did this cladding meet building standards, especially tick the health and safety box? If NO, then the blame can be pinned on those that put it there. If YES, then who writes those standards? Is that not a political issue? Or, is someone else in charge of those standards?

When I say it’s not a Political issue, I mean in terms of the blame game, look at the Lakanal House fire, Labour was the Government, by the time the inquest took place the tories were in charge. Now consider Grenfell, tories in charge when that happened, could be a Labour government when that report finally comes out.
Only those in charge at the time of the findings have the power to address the issues.
So for the Lakanal house fire, by all means criticise the Labour government for any faults found, but only the tories can implement the findings.
This he said/she said culture is toxic, some things need sorting, especially were lives are at risk, regardless of political allegiances.

 

[Fade and Die]

For those that say it is definitely not political, I'm a little confused.

I agree, in that I find it hard to criticise the fire department. The Stay Put advice was standard protocol in this situation. Had they advised against that, then any deaths as a result of people escaping would have been put on their shoulders (even if it would have saved more lives, we'd have never known).

But, surely the main issue was the cladding on the outside of the building. Did this cladding meet building standards, especially tick the health and safety box? If NO, then the blame can be pinned on those that put it there. If YES, then who writes those standards? Is that not a political issue? Or, is someone else in charge of those standards?

if it didn’t meet the standards and Rydons had installed a sub-standard product you would have heard of it way before now. This country loves a scapegoat.
It would all have been done to minimum standard required.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

For Closure:
Lakanal House Fire - Southwark Council pleaded Guilty.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....fety-failings-tower-block-lakanal-house-blaze

 

[ColchesterFC]

When I say it’s not a Political issue, I mean in terms of the blame game, look at the Lakanal House fire, Labour was the Government, by the time the inquest took place the tories were in charge. Now consider Grenfell, tories in charge when that happened, could be a Labour government when that report finally comes out.
Only those in charge at the time of the findings have the power to address the issues.
So for the Lakanal house fire, by all means criticise the Labour government for any faults found, but only the tories can implement the findings.
This he said/she said culture is toxic, some things need sorting, especially were lives are at risk, regardless of political allegiances.

I agree with almost all of your post. But I'm not sure that the party in charge at the time of the fire should take any blame. Certainly the party in charge at the time the cladding was fitted need to shoulder their share and I agree that the party in power when the report came out should take their share, especially if recommendations from the report weren't acted on

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Post drifts off to debate what TLFS should or could have done differently; what the council should or could have done differently - but I suggest that we all know what JR-M should have done - and that was not suggest that the residents of Grenfell Tower should have ignored the advice they were getting from TLFS. But he did. And that was wrong. And as for Budgen...

They can say sorry as much as they want - but I suggest that the two of them might largely be sorry for having revealed what they believed. So why might we now accept that - with their thinking now having been 'found out' - they now think differently about those in that part of society of which the residents of Grenfell Tower are typical. I might be wrong and they might be reformed in their thinking - but I doubt it. I suspect that they will be sitting reasonably comfortably having justified to themselves that what they said was actually OK.

Because in many ways they are no different from the rest of us. When we know we have said or done wrong, something that has hurt others, the easiest thing to do is to say sorry then self-justify and leave it at that. The hardest thing to do is to recognise and fully accept that your thinking was wrong - then say sorry and do something about changing your way of thinking.

Anyway...they'll both most likely be re-elected.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I agree with almost all of your post. But I'm not sure that the party in charge at the time of the fire should take any blame. Certainly the party in charge at the time the cladding was fitted need to shoulder their share and I agree that the party in power when the report came out should take their share, especially if recommendations from the report weren't acted on

That’s exactly what happened with Lakanal House, once all the reports were published the Council was took to court.
We haven’t had the 2nd half of the Grenfell report and people are judging the whole situation.
Hence my initial post saying Mogg should of declined to answer the question until all the facts were known.