| Utter and complete scum on 19:57 - Nov 5 with 1397 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Utter and complete scum on 19:55 - Nov 5 by alltjack |
This |
Would you get in a lift in a fire? |  | |  |
| Utter and complete scum on 19:59 - Nov 5 with 1389 views | monmouth |
It reminds me of the 70s when Khomeini was being lauded as a saviour by all the zealots and mysogenistic psychos. My view was then to maybe get him on telly as often as possible to expound his happy horseshit, so everyone could see the dribbling drooling insane mess of the bloke, that was being virtually deified by his hordes of insane acolytes.
Substitute 'brexit obsessed moronic arseholes' for 'hordes of insane acolytes' and the same applies to the cabinet and their ERG clingons. |  |
| |
| Utter and complete scum on 20:01 - Nov 5 with 1382 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Utter and complete scum on 19:57 - Nov 5 by londonlisa2001 |
Would you get in a lift in a fire? |
Pretty sure the lifts would automatically descend to the ground floor and stubbornly refuse to move as soon as the alarm sounds. Still, they can use the stairs. Unless of course the stairs are on fire or otherwise inaccessible.
Still, they’d get out somehow. They’re clever see. |  |
| |
| Utter and complete scum on 20:02 - Nov 5 with 1378 views | Catullus |
| Utter and complete scum on 17:16 - Nov 5 by londonlisa2001 |
That wasn’t even remotely the crux of his argument.
The crux of his argument was that people like him, (and the interviewer), are wise enough to know when to ignore professional advice, as they have more common sense than the types of people that live in a high rise block. He believes himself to be superior to those sorts of people, whereas the reality is he’s a shining example of utter mediocrity with a plummy accent and overwhelming sense of entitlement.
The policy works in high rise blocks. It saves lives. It’s a policy designed for those types of buildings. The issue is that the building was changed after the policy was adopted for that building. Changed by cladding. That was not the cladding that was supposed to be used. If the cladding that was supposed to be used had been used the policy would have been appropriate.
Rees Mogg is an abhorrent, vile creature. He should resign, but will not resign. Hopefully his constituents will do it for him.
As an aside, let’s not let this distract us from the main story of the day, which is the government refusing to publish the report on Russian influence on the referendum and the election. Not let it distract us from the knowledge that Cairns told a barefaced lie about the little scum bag who deliberately scuppered a rape trial. |
There is precedent for this not being a resigning matter. Other MP's have been sent to prison and not resigned.
It doesn't make it right and (to very many people) MP's who behave like this or worse shouldn't even get a chance to resign, they should lose their seat and their pensions.
When someone says don't vote this lot in again though, what other choices do we have? There's Swinson and the Libdems, Corbyn et al or the brexit party. It's the same as previous elections, we can't choose the best party simply the least worst and to a lot of people the tories are not quite as bad as the other choices.
I'll be looking for an independent candidate in the knowledge it'll make no difference because in NPT Labour will probably win. | |
| |
| Utter and complete scum on 20:04 - Nov 5 with 1365 views | Highjack |
| Utter and complete scum on 19:48 - Nov 5 by exiledclaseboy |
Bloody hell, HJ. This is Bluey-esque.  |
I have no idea why I’m being attacked by the Planetswans resident gang of omnipotent experts for advocating the very sensible policy of get people out of the building if it is safe do do so. There’s nothing extreme about this Shirley?
The fact is if they were evacuated when the fire was small they might have had a chance of survival. As it transpired they were told to stay put which gave them no chance of survival.
In events like this you have to look at policies and procedures and in this specific instance it is clear that the stay put policy simply failed. The flaws with the building and the cladding and all the neglect previously is the main cause of this disaster of course. I don’t think anybody is denying that. |  |
| |
| Utter and complete scum on 20:18 - Nov 5 with 1351 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Utter and complete scum on 20:01 - Nov 5 by exiledclaseboy |
Pretty sure the lifts would automatically descend to the ground floor and stubbornly refuse to move as soon as the alarm sounds. Still, they can use the stairs. Unless of course the stairs are on fire or otherwise inaccessible.
Still, they’d get out somehow. They’re clever see. |
They may well do. The reason I asked is that most people would say ‘no - the advice is that you don’t get in a lift when the building is on fire’.
And in the case of Grenfell, the advice was ‘stay where you are - it’s safer’. And yet posters are now claiming they’d ignore that. As they are blessed with astonishing levels of cleverness. And bravery. And cunning. Or if not astonishing levels, better at least than people who live in that sort of block, who are seen as stupid, or idiots, or cowards, you know, because they live in a high rise and didn’t go to well known schools. | | | |
| Utter and complete scum on 20:33 - Nov 5 with 1327 views | Neath_Jack |
| Utter and complete scum on 20:04 - Nov 5 by Highjack |
I have no idea why I’m being attacked by the Planetswans resident gang of omnipotent experts for advocating the very sensible policy of get people out of the building if it is safe do do so. There’s nothing extreme about this Shirley?
The fact is if they were evacuated when the fire was small they might have had a chance of survival. As it transpired they were told to stay put which gave them no chance of survival.
In events like this you have to look at policies and procedures and in this specific instance it is clear that the stay put policy simply failed. The flaws with the building and the cladding and all the neglect previously is the main cause of this disaster of course. I don’t think anybody is denying that. |
Why did those policies and procedures fail?
I know you like a wind up and like to play the class clown, but you are better than this.
Besides, you know you're in trouble when Bluey agrees with you. |  |
| |
| Utter and complete scum on 20:35 - Nov 5 with 1322 views | Neath_Jack |
| Utter and complete scum on 20:18 - Nov 5 by londonlisa2001 |
They may well do. The reason I asked is that most people would say ‘no - the advice is that you don’t get in a lift when the building is on fire’.
And in the case of Grenfell, the advice was ‘stay where you are - it’s safer’. And yet posters are now claiming they’d ignore that. As they are blessed with astonishing levels of cleverness. And bravery. And cunning. Or if not astonishing levels, better at least than people who live in that sort of block, who are seen as stupid, or idiots, or cowards, you know, because they live in a high rise and didn’t go to well known schools. |
I don't believe it's because they're brave or clever, they are doing it because they have read a flawed inquiry and taken the headline from it. Surprised at HJ mind. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Utter and complete scum on 20:48 - Nov 5 with 1305 views | waynekerr55 |
And people trust this cadaver - looking piece of shìt to sock it to the EU and deliver Brexit that helps them.
Fúck a duck... |  |
| |
| Utter and complete scum on 21:24 - Nov 5 with 1273 views | Highjack |
| Utter and complete scum on 20:35 - Nov 5 by Neath_Jack |
I don't believe it's because they're brave or clever, they are doing it because they have read a flawed inquiry and taken the headline from it. Surprised at HJ mind. |
I haven’t read the inquiry or any headlines. My shock and disbelief that they told those poor people to stay in that burning building is as strong now as when I first heard it two years ago. It’s not a wind up. I genuinely find it unfathomable that anyone would think that’s a good idea. Now I’m not an expert and never have claimed to be but surely if there’s a system in place in future instances of this nature that if it is possible to evacuate people safely and swiftly then that should be encouraged over a stay put policy that could trap people in place with no means of escape. | |
| |
| Utter and complete scum on 21:39 - Nov 5 with 1252 views | LeonWasGod |
| Utter and complete scum on 21:24 - Nov 5 by Highjack |
I haven’t read the inquiry or any headlines. My shock and disbelief that they told those poor people to stay in that burning building is as strong now as when I first heard it two years ago. It’s not a wind up. I genuinely find it unfathomable that anyone would think that’s a good idea. Now I’m not an expert and never have claimed to be but surely if there’s a system in place in future instances of this nature that if it is possible to evacuate people safely and swiftly then that should be encouraged over a stay put policy that could trap people in place with no means of escape. |
Interesting read on it here on how stay put came about, how it works, where it hasn't. Oviously it's a valid policy in the vast majority of cases (there's at least one fire a week in high rise building, and you can count the instances where there are multiple deaths on one hand).
On the flip side, despite it working in the vast majority of cases, the article argues that changes are obvioulsy needed given that the conditions for sucessful stay put are compromised by cheap and poor building and maintenance practices (and who could argue - we can't afford another Grenfell).
https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/where-did-the-stay-put-policy-come-from-
I do get a bit miffed when the fire brigade as a whole are being scapegoated - ultimately failure to adhere to correct buidling standards and maintenance routines (in short cost cutting) seems to be the was a main cause for the rapid spread. The fire brigade were fighting a losing battle from the start. But obviously lessons should be learnt from their side too. I just don't thik it's good managment to hang them out to dry - the actual firefighters were putting their lives on the line to save who they could. |  | | |
| Utter and complete scum on 22:01 - Nov 5 with 1222 views | Fireboy2 |
| Utter and complete scum on 21:39 - Nov 5 by LeonWasGod |
Interesting read on it here on how stay put came about, how it works, where it hasn't. Oviously it's a valid policy in the vast majority of cases (there's at least one fire a week in high rise building, and you can count the instances where there are multiple deaths on one hand).
On the flip side, despite it working in the vast majority of cases, the article argues that changes are obvioulsy needed given that the conditions for sucessful stay put are compromised by cheap and poor building and maintenance practices (and who could argue - we can't afford another Grenfell).
https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/where-did-the-stay-put-policy-come-from-
I do get a bit miffed when the fire brigade as a whole are being scapegoated - ultimately failure to adhere to correct buidling standards and maintenance routines (in short cost cutting) seems to be the was a main cause for the rapid spread. The fire brigade were fighting a losing battle from the start. But obviously lessons should be learnt from their side too. I just don't thik it's good managment to hang them out to dry - the actual firefighters were putting their lives on the line to save who they could. |
Re you last sentence Leon.
Its how this government rolls, they will do anything to try and shift the blame away from the people who were partly to blame, the people who signed off the cladding.
If the LFB had known that the cladding on grenfell wasnt fire retardant i can tell you there would have been a systematic evacuation in place if there was a fire as all fire services have to collate risk information on quite alot of building, this evacuation policy would havet been either vertical or horizontal, i suspect that if either of these policies had been used correctly and efficiently then there probably wouldnt have been any deaths. [Post edited 5 Nov 2019 22:43]
|  | | |
| Utter and complete scum on 22:18 - Nov 5 with 1202 views | Highjack |
| Utter and complete scum on 21:39 - Nov 5 by LeonWasGod |
Interesting read on it here on how stay put came about, how it works, where it hasn't. Oviously it's a valid policy in the vast majority of cases (there's at least one fire a week in high rise building, and you can count the instances where there are multiple deaths on one hand).
On the flip side, despite it working in the vast majority of cases, the article argues that changes are obvioulsy needed given that the conditions for sucessful stay put are compromised by cheap and poor building and maintenance practices (and who could argue - we can't afford another Grenfell).
https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/where-did-the-stay-put-policy-come-from-
I do get a bit miffed when the fire brigade as a whole are being scapegoated - ultimately failure to adhere to correct buidling standards and maintenance routines (in short cost cutting) seems to be the was a main cause for the rapid spread. The fire brigade were fighting a losing battle from the start. But obviously lessons should be learnt from their side too. I just don't thik it's good managment to hang them out to dry - the actual firefighters were putting their lives on the line to save who they could. |
Thank you for the good post that continues the debate instead of slinging mud. It’s rare around here these days.
I can’t read that article as I’m not signed up but I think it’s obvious changes are needed. Particularly with the design of buildings in the first place. More fire escapes etc. Only one way out is a recipe for disaster.
And I hope I haven’t come across as blaming the fire service. It was not my intention. They were doing their best in an awful situation with some dodgy information. | |
| |
| Utter and complete scum on 22:54 - Nov 5 with 1164 views | majorraglan |
| Utter and complete scum on 22:18 - Nov 5 by Highjack |
Thank you for the good post that continues the debate instead of slinging mud. It’s rare around here these days.
I can’t read that article as I’m not signed up but I think it’s obvious changes are needed. Particularly with the design of buildings in the first place. More fire escapes etc. Only one way out is a recipe for disaster.
And I hope I haven’t come across as blaming the fire service. It was not my intention. They were doing their best in an awful situation with some dodgy information. |
Have a read of this one. I don’t know much about the poster, but it’s an interesting and alarming read.
https://www.towerblocksuk.com/grenfell | | | |
| Utter and complete scum on 23:12 - Nov 5 with 1152 views | Fireboy2 |
| Utter and complete scum on 22:18 - Nov 5 by Highjack |
Thank you for the good post that continues the debate instead of slinging mud. It’s rare around here these days.
I can’t read that article as I’m not signed up but I think it’s obvious changes are needed. Particularly with the design of buildings in the first place. More fire escapes etc. Only one way out is a recipe for disaster.
And I hope I haven’t come across as blaming the fire service. It was not my intention. They were doing their best in an awful situation with some dodgy information. |
This is it HJ, there doesnt need to be changes to the stay put policy, the relevant fire services that have high rises in their areas will have revisted these buildings, i should know because my brigade have done so, they will have checked procedures if a fire started, whether the flats are compartments are fully protected, whether stay put works or full, partial evacuation is needed, horizontal and vertical evacuation is needed, the utility supplies, water supply near to the building, dry/wet risers and if there are any dangers in the building ie IF THE CLADDING IS FIRE RETARDANT OR NOT, but we do that anyway as part of our visits, we always have done.
Fyi most high rises have 1 or maybe 2 stairwells, the stairwell is supposed to be protected, the doors to these stairwells are supposed to be fire doors but these can be compromised by doors being wedged open. Most fire services visit buildings with a medium or high risk once a year, to familiarise themselves with the building and to update their records.
What happened that night no fire service could prepare for they would have had to just deal with the fire and rescue of the inhabitants, their job made almost impossible by the rapid spread of the fire, caused by the cladding which they didnt know about because if they did they would have adopted an evacuation policy whilst trying to sort the fire out.
I hope that this info helps you know about the stay put policy, if the compartments in the building are fully protected, if they are then the stay put policy works, if they are not then an evacuation policy needs to set up and adhered to. [Post edited 5 Nov 2019 23:17]
| | | |
| Utter and complete scum on 23:25 - Nov 5 with 1140 views | Fireboy2 |
| Utter and complete scum on 18:06 - Nov 5 by felixstowe_jack |
It was not a case of a couple minutes. It was pretty obvious that the fire was out of control and an evacuation should have been ordered at least an hour before it was. The fire service managers should take the blame. |
Ive only just noticed this post.
You think the bosses who were in charge at grenfell should take the blame for the loss of life?
Seriously?
If so what about the people who signed off flammable cladding, then not letting the relevant authorities know, ie the LFB?
You think they arent to blame at all?
Ive been reading some of your posts recently and i think you are a bit, as my nan used to say, touched. | | | |
| Utter and complete scum on 05:44 - Nov 6 with 1076 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Utter and complete scum on 21:39 - Nov 5 by LeonWasGod |
Interesting read on it here on how stay put came about, how it works, where it hasn't. Oviously it's a valid policy in the vast majority of cases (there's at least one fire a week in high rise building, and you can count the instances where there are multiple deaths on one hand).
On the flip side, despite it working in the vast majority of cases, the article argues that changes are obvioulsy needed given that the conditions for sucessful stay put are compromised by cheap and poor building and maintenance practices (and who could argue - we can't afford another Grenfell).
https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/where-did-the-stay-put-policy-come-from-
I do get a bit miffed when the fire brigade as a whole are being scapegoated - ultimately failure to adhere to correct buidling standards and maintenance routines (in short cost cutting) seems to be the was a main cause for the rapid spread. The fire brigade were fighting a losing battle from the start. But obviously lessons should be learnt from their side too. I just don't thik it's good managment to hang them out to dry - the actual firefighters were putting their lives on the line to save who they could. |
Whilst mayor Boris cut the London fire brigade with the counter argument that “fire prevention has got so much better we don’t need as many fire fighters”, or words to that effect .
He’s now running the country , despite the previous disaster due to flammable cladding and non evacuation at Lakanall house in Camberwell (Greater London). |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Utter and complete scum on 05:59 - Nov 6 with 1063 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Utter and complete scum on 22:18 - Nov 5 by Highjack |
Thank you for the good post that continues the debate instead of slinging mud. It’s rare around here these days.
I can’t read that article as I’m not signed up but I think it’s obvious changes are needed. Particularly with the design of buildings in the first place. More fire escapes etc. Only one way out is a recipe for disaster.
And I hope I haven’t come across as blaming the fire service. It was not my intention. They were doing their best in an awful situation with some dodgy information. |
Re your last paragraph. You certainly did come across that way. Here, have a nose at this too
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakanal_House_fire
Basically after this Grenfell should never have happened. | |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Utter and complete scum on 09:34 - Nov 6 with 1013 views | Jango |
The very people who have spent 3 years on the brexit thread claiming the higher educated (better) people amongst us voted remain whilst the lesser educated (stupid) people made the wrong choice in voting leave, are now criticising the higher educated for suggesting the lesser educated (stupid) people made the wrong choice in staying in the building. Amazing.
Reed-Mogg is a horrible c*nt anyway, sack him. | | | |
| Utter and complete scum on 10:13 - Nov 6 with 994 views | JackSomething |
| Utter and complete scum on 09:34 - Nov 6 by Jango |
The very people who have spent 3 years on the brexit thread claiming the higher educated (better) people amongst us voted remain whilst the lesser educated (stupid) people made the wrong choice in voting leave, are now criticising the higher educated for suggesting the lesser educated (stupid) people made the wrong choice in staying in the building. Amazing.
Reed-Mogg is a horrible c*nt anyway, sack him. |
Two little differences Jang.
We're football fans posting on a message board while JRM is one of the people running this country.
72 people lost their lives at Grenfell, so making it a political issue is incredibly distasteful. F*ckup that Brexit is, I don't think it's cost 72 people their lives.
However, I do agree with those who have suggested this controversy does seem to have shifted attention away from more important news, such as the Russian enquiry not being released before the election. Funny that. |  |
| You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocket ship underpants don't help. |
| |
| Utter and complete scum on 07:05 - Nov 7 with 878 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Utter and complete scum on 10:13 - Nov 6 by JackSomething |
Two little differences Jang.
We're football fans posting on a message board while JRM is one of the people running this country.
72 people lost their lives at Grenfell, so making it a political issue is incredibly distasteful. F*ckup that Brexit is, I don't think it's cost 72 people their lives.
However, I do agree with those who have suggested this controversy does seem to have shifted attention away from more important news, such as the Russian enquiry not being released before the election. Funny that. |
What, the conservatives in league with the dirty commies? Has anyonetold Lohengrin? Is Corbyn offended?
The irony though , after Corbyn be roundly called a traitor to his country by conniving with the Czechs! | |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Utter and complete scum on 08:09 - Nov 7 with 853 views | dameedna |
| Utter and complete scum on 18:13 - Nov 5 by londonlisa2001 |
Hang on. 74 people died because the building specification didn’t match the specification used to sign off the fire service recommendation. If the cladding used had been consistent with what the fire service believed had been used the policy would have saved lives, as it has on countless other occasions.
In a high rise building with the proper fire resistant cladding, fire (and the toxic smoke that kills people) often travels up the stairwells. Hence staying in flats behind fire resistant doors is safer than using those stairwells until such time as the stairwells are assessed as being safe for use.
Have you any idea how tall that building is? And how quickly the fire spread? It’s easy to be a smart arse after the event. |
That is a fair assessment. I have been in a four storey hotel fire. The corridors filled with smoke. People leaving hours after I did were okay. I barely made it to the stairs and I was on the second floor crawling through glass. High rise and shite cladding by designers or builders is sick. Mogg is an utter tit for saying or believing that. It is chaos on the staircase I remember it well. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
