Rees Mogg uses common sense to flee burning building.

[longwayoff]

Or, he would, if he were to find himself in that situation. Having previously insulted the medical knowledge and expertise of a leading neurologist, he now advises ignoring fire service advice, saying those who died in Grenfell lacked common sense and should have left the building. AIBU to say this man's ignorance is an embarrassment and he is unfit for public service?

It's a bit like that dress that did the rounds on twitter some years ago, is it green or grey.

Everyone has a JRM lens which will inform the interpretation. I take his comment to mean, 'what a tragedy the stay put guidance contravened instinct i.e. common sense and with hindsight, was wrong'.

i take his comment to mean, 'what a tragedy the stay put guidance contravened instinct i.e. common sense and with hindsight, was wrong'.

Why not say that then?

Why talk about a hypothetical situation where what he would done would have resulted in a better outcome?

his ego is so massive, he can't help making it all about him, even in the context of a terrible tragedy

He said quite a lot more than the two lines you have quoted so not 'all about him'. I don't agree with radio presenters such as James O'Brien repeating that JRM has 'insulted the memories of dead children'...

he's victim blaming by implying the victims lacked the 'common sense' that he has

The distressed relative calling for JRM's resignation also told his sister-in-law to leave the burning building despite what the fire services had told them. From his witness statement (I have removed the names);

^"We called F...together. When I spoke to her, she seemed
calm.She informed us A...A...had been on the phone to the fire services, who advised them to remain in the flat and not to leave.She believed that help was coming to them. I told them to quickly leave the flat..."^

But yes, I agree that it was right for JRM to apologise.

He said quite a lot more than the two lines you have quoted so not 'all about him'.

He brought himself into the situation. I can’t think why he did that.

Specifically to say ‘I (having never been in that situation) would have done something differently to the victims and I would have survived’.

How is that anything other than egotistical and immensely insensitive?

He brought himself into the situation. I can’t think why he did that.

Really? So you have an hour to discuss current affairs on the radio, and you can't imagine a scenario under which you'd hypothesise about what you might think or do?

The longer this goes on, the more it's clear that this has everything to do with JRM and nothing to do with what he actually said.

He brought himself into the situation. I can’t think why he did that.

Presumably because fleeing a burning building is the natural thing to do - as per the relative's witness statement above.

So to drill down to its constituent parts ...

If we ...were in that situation...we would do x which is common sense (in comparison to y which the victims did)

If you can't see what's wrong with that, then I've no more to say to you.

If we...were in that situation...we would do x which is common sense (in comparison to y which the victims did)

I said it was the natural thing to do - instinct rather than common sense.

He used the words common sense

He used the words common sense

Yes, and he has apologised.
You referrred to 'we' as in 'you' and 'me' - I said natural thing to do.

You referrred to 'we' as in 'you' and 'me' - I said natural thing to do.

I was referencing his words. He referenced the interviewer (hence we).

In the nicest possible way, I'm interested in what he said rather than what you said.

Why do you think the relative told his sister-in-law to "quickly leave the flat" even though the fire services had told her to stay put?

In the nicest possible way, I'm interested in what he said rather than what you said.

In that case I shall ignore your next sentence;
"If you can't see what's wrong with that, then I've no more to say to you."

Of course it's ridiculous for an MP being publicly interviewed to hypothesise on what they think they would have done in a highly stressful, dangerous situation the likes of which they have never been confronted with before, especially if they think they would have gone against official advice. It's like asking people how they might behave in a terror attack - I think most civilians couldn't be certain how they would react.

Even worse is for said MP to suggest his reaction (which he presumed would be shared by the presenter) would be the common sense approach in the middle of that situation, implying either the victims didn't have common sense, or they did but they didn't follow it as he and those 'like' him would have.

Nothing anyone can say or not say will eradicate the trauma those poor people and firefighters suffered that night or the resulting PTSD.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing when you're not faced with panic and fear. I cannot say what I'd do in those circumstances as I'd be to frightened to think logically and like most people I'd panic.

The more one’s read over the weekend about the report and about the chances of people surviving, if you just ignore what you’re told and leave you are so much safer and I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said we would leave the burning building

The problem is that his conclusion just makes him sound ignorant and incompetent.

The only safe evacuation policy for a 24 story building covered in flammable cladding designed on the principle that people won't leave in the event of a fire involves a crystal ball. The common sense course of action is not to enter the building in the first place. However even now many people have no other choice but to live in buildings with unsafe cladding.

However, the only conclusion he is capable of drawing is 'in an emergency, do the opposite of what you are told'. The stupidity is astounding.

Really? So you have an hour to discuss current affairs on the radio, and you can't imagine a scenario under which you'd hypothesise about what you might think or do?

Yes, I do imagine what I would have done - would I have woken up in time? how would I have managed to get my mother down so many stairs when she struggles to walk on a flat surface? what would it have been like to get my children to walk into thick smoke? At no point do I imagine that I would have had more 'common sense' than any of the residents.

I think it's particularly misleading to assume that the 72 people who died were all just following the 'stay put' instructions and that that they would have escaped if only they had tried to escape.

I take his comment to mean, 'what a tragedy the stay put guidance contravened instinct i.e. common sense and with hindsight, was wrong'.

Whereas other people are reading and listening to what he actually said.

I think the whole thing is just so insulting to those who went through hell.
Easy to sit on your arse in a media studio saying this that and the other when you haven't been through the trauma.
As I said hindsight from a place where you are safe is a wonderful thing but when you speak to the residents try to help them and hear their stories it's a different matter entirely.

is there a pattern?

www.facebook.com/votelovenothate/videos/1232868776902487/

JRM is a disgusting piece of shit. And yes I have listened to his comments. More than once.

The fake concern is ghastly. He does not care a jot about the common folk, of course they don't have any sense what to do in a tragedy but a higher being such as him would always take the right decision

Come on NE Somerset FFS vote him out. He needs to go. After all, who'd trust a squitty 14 year old who wears a monocle. This is him when he was suing a newspaper for something. Ghastly jumped up twat.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/07/government-in-u-turn-over-approval-for-grenfell-tower-contractor-rydon

Government drops Grenfell contractor in sudden U-turn
Housing secretary backtracks on allowing Rydon to bid for public contracts after outcry

The government has told the main contractor for the Grenfell Tower refurbishment to stop bidding for public contracts, in an abrupt U-turn days after angering survivors by naming it on a list of recommended companies for high-rise housing.

The housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, said late on Wednesday that Rydon should no longer bid for projects until it was established what caused the fire on 14 June 2017, which claimed 72 lives.

The government had named the Sussex-based construction business on a list of 12 companies recommended to public bodies for works on high-rise residential buildings in the south of England, which some of the bereaved and survivors described as adding “insult to injury

The Cabinet Office said only companies convicted of an offence could be excluded from bidding for work, and EU procurement rules meant it could not legally preclude Rydon.

Jenrick effectively executed the U-turn when he responded on Twitter to a critical statement from Grenfell United, which represents the bereaved and survivors.

“I understand why survivors and bereaved do not want to see public contracts awarded to the main contractor for the Grenfell Tower refurb until we have the full results of the inquiry. The contractor should not bid for further work until we know the truth,” he said.

Rydon Maintenance Ltd, part of Rydon Group Ltd, was the main contractor on the £10m project completed in 2016, part of which involved cladding the tower in panels the public inquiry into the disaster concluded were the main cause of the fire spread. The inquiry also found the works breached building regulations.

Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more
The Metropolitan police are carrying out a complex criminal investigation into the construction, refurbishment and management of the tower and the emergency response, as well as investigating possible corporate manslaughter, individual gross negligence manslaughter and health and safety offences

Sandra Ruiz, whose 12-year old niece Jessica Urbano Ramirez died in the fire, welcomed Jenrick’s move. “Thank you! Remember be brave to make the change. Ethics before profits,” she tweeted.

Rydon reported a £16.6m post-tax profit in 2018, more than double the previous year, when the Grenfell disaster happened.

The mayor of London had earlier banned Rydon from participating in a similar framework agreement for housebuilders in the capital.

Rydon had qualified as one of 30 companies recommended for use by public bodies across the capital, but Sadiq Khan issued a mayoral direction ordering the company’s suspension until the public inquiry into the disaster “has reported on the extent to which any Rydon group companies or employee contributed to causing or exacerbating the Grenfell Tower fire”. This is not expected until at least late 2021.

Rydon declined to comment, but Jenrick’s insistence the company does not bid for public works could have a serious effect on its business. It told the public inquiry into the disaster last year that “much of Rydon’s work is ultimately for public sector clients such as local authorities”.

Rydon has a public sector framework agreement, which means it is on a list of suppliers that have been evaluated as capable of delivering common public sector requirements using standardised contract terms. They are used by buyers in central government across the public and third sectors. Rydon’s recent workload has included projects for the NHS, housing associations and the Ministry of Defence.

A Cabinet Office spokesperson said: “Being on a framework does not guarantee a company will secure government contracts and does not constitute an endorsement of them. Under existing EU rules, we are not legally allowed to preclude Rydon Construction from bidding for government contracts.

Didn't the recent report suggest that the fire service advice to stay put was flawed? And that more people would have survived if they had evacuated sooner?

That is true, but only because of the cladding which the fire brigade did not know about. Had the cladding ie a chimney made of petrol not been on the building then it would have been the right call.

People were 'evacuated' to other flats, because normally the fire will stay on one side of the building.

Also think about hundreds of people on the stairs, they cannot see anything, they need to all be moving more or less in step and at the same speed, whether young or old, disabled or fit, with asthma or without and with none of them panicking.

One of the residents who kept a blog of the problems between the council and residents said when he got to where he thought the emergency staircase was it had been blocked up.

That is true, but only because of the cladding which the fire brigade did not know about.

Regardless of whether they knew or not, it was blatantly obvious that compartmentation had been breached by 1.30 as the flames had reached the roof by then. Yet, the fire officers didn't change the "stay put" until over an hour later.

Also, approx half the occupants had got themselves out by 1.30, relying on what they could see/hear/smell and what they were being told by neighbours banging on their doors and friends/family phoning them from outside who could see what was happening and, unlike the fire officers, knew that people needed to get themselves out.