Jump to content
blandy

The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Ghoulish

I wouldn't say ghoulish, I'd say another politician throwing verbal diorhea about a subject he isn't an expert on.

The fact is, in some cases staying put is best. In others, getting the hell out of there is best.

Anyone remember 9/11 and how everyone was asked to stay in and that help was coming? I have never heard any blame put on the people giving those directions (please correct me if I'm wrong!).

'Common sense', as he put it, has little bearing in situation like that - you are panicking with little knowledge of what to do. Therefore, the best course of action is to listen to what the fire service suggests as they have greater knowledge and experience of situation like that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mic09 said:

I wouldn't say ghoulish, I'd say another politician throwing verbal diorhea about a subject he isn't an expert on.

The fact is, in some cases staying put is best. In others, getting the hell out of there is best.

Anyone remember 9/11 and how everyone was asked to stay in and that help was coming? I have never heard any blame put on the people giving those directions (please correct me if I'm wrong!).

'Common sense', as he put it, has little bearing in situation like that - you are panicking with little knowledge of what to do. Therefore, the best course of action is to listen to what the fire service suggests as they have greater knowledge and experience of situation like that. 

Ghoulish.

"**** poor people, they're stupid"

Completely idiotic and insensitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I wouldn't say ghoulish, I'd say another politician throwing verbal diorhea about a subject he isn't an expert on.

The fact is, in some cases staying put is best. In others, getting the hell out of there is best.

Anyone remember 9/11 and how everyone was asked to stay in and that help was coming? I have never heard any blame put on the people giving those directions (please correct me if I'm wrong!).

'Common sense', as he put it, has little bearing in situation like that - you are panicking with little knowledge of what to do. Therefore, the best course of action is to listen to what the fire service suggests as they have greater knowledge and experience of situation like that. 

I think he's right to a small degree  , if I was in a building on fire I think i'd be looking at getting out regardless of the advice being given  , my uncle worked at Kings cross station, and he took me down to the fire scene a couple of days after it happened and all i can say is that fire was as scary as **** , I'd want to be as far away from it as possible and take my chances rather than sitting there  ( I say that from my keyboard , who knows how I'd actually react in those circumstances)

 

where he is 100% wrong is in the suggestion that these people seem to only have themself to blame , inexcusable

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I think he's right to a small degree  , if I was in a building on fire I think i'd be looking at getting out regardless of the advice being given  , my uncle worked at Kings cross station, and he took me down to the fire scene a couple of days after it happened and all i can say is that fire was as scary as **** , I'd want to be as far away from it as possible and take my chances rather than sitting there  ( I say that from my keyboard , who knows how I'd actually react in those circumstances)

 

where he is 100% wrong is in the suggestion that these people seem to only have themself to blame , inexcusable

See original tweet. 9/10. you have more chance of surviving by following the expert's advice. He is not right.

It's callous, insensitive, ignorant and ghoulish.

Edited by StefanAVFC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

See original tweet. 9/10. you have more chance of surviving by following the expert's advice. He is not right.

It's callous, insensitive, ignorant and ghoulish.

I didn't read into the report so the below question is an open though. And again, I would like to underline my point that it's best to listen to advice given by the fire service.

But in this specific case, a 1/10, wouldn't it be best if some people got the hell out of there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

See original tweet. 9/10. you have more chance of surviving by following the expert's advice. He is not right.

It's callous, insensitive, ignorant and ghoulish.

" to a small degree "  it may be semantics but it does kinda change my statement if not used

I'm not  clued-up on tower fire statistics  to argue with that 9/10 figure  but at Grenfell those that got out survived and those that stayed put died did they not ?

Sir Martin Moore-Bick is pressing to have that stay put advice changed to a position of evacuate going forward  , regardless though , we all saw those images I'd be amazed if anyone involved in a tower block fire in the future is just going to sit still 

Edited by tonyh29
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

" to a small degree "  it may be semantics but it does kinda change my statement if not used

I'm not  clued-up on tower fire statistics  to argue with that 9/10 figure  but at Grenfell those that got out survived and those that stayed put died did they not ?

Sir Martin Moore-Bick is pressing to have that stay put advice changed to a position of evacuate going forward  , regardless though , we all saw those images I'd be amazed if anyone involved in a tower block fire in the future is just going to sit still 

Good point.

Then again, there might have been a fire inside the block which people on higher floors didn't know about in which case leaving might have been worse.

In this specific situation, getting out of there was best. But in the craziness of the moment like that, God knows what might have happened and it's anyone's guess about what they should be doing.

Coming back to the 9/11 example, lets imagine that the 2nd plane did not hit, and people from the 2nd tower were asked to leave. Think about how many would have died from the debris. In which case, the advice to stay was right. Unfortunately, just like at Grenfell, it was the wrong advice in hindsight. 

Edited by Mic09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

We can debate about whether the advice is right or wrong, and I'm happy to.

But

As a Cabinet Minister, what sort of message is he giving that people who followed Fire Service advice, and died, have no commons sense?

It's horrendous.

No argument there. Whatever his personal thoughts are, the ministerial line should be that of the fire service - they are the experts. 

Hence, I originally argued that it's not ghoulish, it's just another politician throwing around verbal diarrhoea just to make himself sound knowledgeable on something he has no idea about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a handle on what I would consider 'ghoulish' or otherwise, but callous, insensitive and ignorant certainly seem fair comment. 

Having taken a look at the Grenfell Inquiry report (Part 1), I can't find any claim that 'stay put' is always or usually the wrong advice, only that the transition from 'stay put' to 'evacuate now' was handled poorly by the LFB and that there need to be better and more effective policies in place to handle that transition. I'm happy to be corrected if I've missed it, but it certainly appears that Mogg is way out over his skis talking about this, and frankly he stands more chance of damaging public understanding generally, and the ongoing work of the Inquiry in particular, by this kind of 'verbal diarrhoea', as it was aptly put above. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

... callous, insensitive and ignorant ... it certainly appears that Mogg is way out over his skis talking about this, ... kind of 'verbal diarrhoea', as it was aptly put above. 

tbs.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**** these lying dickheads, seriously

Edited by StefanAVFC
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

We've had enough of experts and facts.

We're leaving europe based on a hunch, you can't expect posh politicians to listen to the fire brigade in a smoke filled single stair building with the lights not working and fire fighters carrying kit and equipment upward, trying to use the stairs in the opposite direction to people carrying children and helping granny down the stairs one step at a time from the 24th floor coming downward, all falling over each other.

This wasn't a fire alarm drill and make your way calmly down the wide, well light stair and then bugger off early for lunch. It was 24 storeys, 2:00am, no means of communication, no knowledge of occupancy, no intercom, one narrow stair, the landlord has covered the outside of the building in toxic flammable gel.

This is all a distraction. Who allowed toxic flammable materials to be used to encase 24 storey human dwellings, and why? Has this been stopped? Have all similar buildings been fixed?

Everything else is chatter.

 

I find myself agreeing with the righteous anger, but not completely with the content.

Have you read any of the report? I ask that not as a gotcha, but because reading (parts of) it this morning, I found the criticisms of the LFB to be fair and well-argued. I accept that if the right things had happened before that night, it would never have gone up in flames like that, and so that has to be the *main* concern of the Inquiry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

**** these lying dickheads, seriously

Imagine the fun we are in for if they get a majority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

I find myself agreeing with the righteous anger, but not completely with the content.

Have you read any of the report? I ask that not as a gotcha, but because reading (parts of) it this morning, I found the criticisms of the LFB to be fair and well-argued. I accept that if the right things had happened before that night, it would never have gone up in flames like that, and so that has to be the *main* concern of the Inquiry. 

I haven’t read all of it. It runs to something like 800 pages, plus all the spin off reference documents. But I have read a few sections relevant to my work. I sometimes build fire strategies for a couple of Clients that have large, externally clad buildings with significant numbers of people in them.

That’s not supposed to be clever, just a bit of context for my nerdy interest.

I’m working on one at the moment, in Birmingham, on the subject of safe refuge spaces vs evacuation vs closing some sections of a building. There’s a lot of theory and a lot of maths and a lot of psychology going on in these situations. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was listening to that ‘defence’ of Mogg. It was spectacular. I tried to précis it earlier and decided it looked like I was making it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...
Â