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?

By 1.30 people were already calling for help because they were trapped in their flats.

People who escaped talked about stepping over bodies in complete darkness.

Only one family from the top three floors survived - do you think the people who didn't realise that they should leave just randomly lived in the top three floors?

JRM is so out of touch with ordinary people I think he'd actually be dangerous to the rest of us in a position of real power.
For me his statement just shows his inate sense of superiority over us plebs. Why WC people continue to vote for a party that has absolutely no empathy for them, or no experience of what it's like to actually have to work for a living with no trust fund or well off relations to help them out is beyond me.

And as for 'common sense' - if I'd have called 999 from one of the top floors of Grenfell and they told me to stay put, it was safer and that the fire brigade were there dealing with the fire and coming to rescue I think I probably would have stayed in my flat rather than risk trying to run down the stairwells of a burning building with my children.
JRM has no idea what he's talking about, he's never been in a flat in a building like Grenfell I would imagine, it's completely outside of the realm of his experience. With hindsight it's easy to say - they should have risked it - but what would YOU have done in the place of those people actually in that building??

but what would YOU have done in the place of those people actually in that building

I'd have got out as soon as I knew there was a fire. No question about it. I wouldn't have even called the fire service to ask for advice. That's exactly what about half the residents did - those who were out of the building by 1.30. The inquest heard from many survivors, some of whom got themselves out even before they knew the fire was serious.

Obviously, once people thought they were trapped, it was a different matter - they needed some proper advice as to whether or not there was a viable escape route. Instead they were told to stay-put, by people who had no idea about the reality of the situation because there'd been no feedback of information from the fireground.

The inquiry heard that on some floors, it was the hallway/landing that was smoke logged due to the ventilation system ducting spreading the smoke throughout the buildign, but that the stairway itself was actually relatively clear of thick smoke, so those residents thought they were trapped, but in reality, could get to the stairway if they could get themselves through the few feet of smoke-logged landing/hallway. It was a great shame that kind of information couldn't be passed on rather than "stay put".

In fact, for that final family to escape from a top floor a couple of hours later, they DID have some reliable information from control and were talking to control throughout their escape. They were told to get themselves down as far as possible as there were firefighers on the stairs lower down waiting for them to help them, so they knew they would find help if they could somehow get down, even though they knew they couldn't get all the way down without help. So, finally, exchange of real information did happen.

None of us can say with any reliability what we would do in a situation of extreme danger and stress like that.

All kinds of primal reflexes and reactions kick in.

It’s extremely stupid and/or arrogant to believe we have that kind of foresight.

And I agree with whoever said that JRM has probably never even been in a building like that. His arrogance is sickening.

The thing that has stood out to me about Rees-Mogg and his defenders on social media is the way they equivocate between getting out of, for example, a 3-bed house in the event of a fire and getting out of a towerblock.

The advice (and building regulations!) for different dwellings has always been different, because there is a lot of difference between getting down one set of stairs to outside without being overcome by smoke and getting down from the top floor of a high-rise tower-block without passing out on the stairs.

And that Jamie is spot on
Yes when panic and fear set in and a person has to get out from the top floor of a tower block it's a very different situation to legging it from your 3 bed house especially when the stairwell itself is a death trap.

Can probably be summed up with the saying "you don't know what you don't know".

I used to live in a high-occupancy building that had previously had a fire, and ended up being a tenant rep, which meant I was obliged to be there for every meeting about safety. By the time I moved out, I could have recited how many minutes of air being behind a fire door gives you, and drawn diagrams of where the families on the top floor should seek refuge while waiting for the fire brigade to get them.

But we didn't have combustible cladding.

And there lies the crux of the matter flammable cladding! Whoever signed that off should be made to grovel, wonder if they have a conscience?

they needed some proper advice as to whether or not there was a viable escape route. Instead they were told to stay-put, by people who had no idea about the reality of the situation because there'd been no feedback of information from the fireground.

The honest advice was that there was not a safe exit route, there were insufficient resources to help everyone, and that people would have to fight their natural instincts and walk into greater danger to get out.

The alternative to 'stay put' was not managed evacuation, but "you're on your own".

Rees Mogg was responding to the interviewer asking whether the tragedy had anything to do with racism or class. I'm failing to see how criticism of the response from the emergency services after 7 years of Conservative government and 8 years of a Conservative London Mayor makes it sound as though the Conservatives care about tower block safety.

The people who signed that cladding off are probably telling themselves that people should have just left quicker, supported by all the armchair firefighters who think surviving a household fire is all about "common sense".

I wouldn't be altogether surprised if Rees-Mogg hasn't realised that you can't just get the lift down in a fire.

Pandemonium chaos and hell was the description that stuck with me.
I hope I never have to face that situation I really do as the aftermath must be living hell.

This survivor lived on the 20th floor;

"A Grenfell Tower resident packed a bag of belongings just days before the deadly fire after deciding she would defy the standard stay-put advice in an emergency, an inquiry has heard."

"In a moment of chilling foresight, she had recently read the fire evacuation advice on a sign in the tower and was prepared to run with a bag of her documents if disaster struck."

"This was contrary to the building’s policy, which told residents to remain in their properties unless the fire affected them directly–a strategy it is feared led to many deaths."

"in a statement to the Grenfell Tower inquiry that she discussed the issue with her husband after seeing the sign and “we both agreed we would not follow the stay-put advice”."

“I think it was just an instinct, and just thinking about how the building is and how it is designed, thinking about the two lifts that obviously you shouldn’t use in event of fire and also thinking about the stairwell, it’s not the biggest and widest stairwell, it’s quite dark sometimes."

^“I think the thinking was, ‘if there is a fire, as soon as we can get out, given all these circumstances, the better’.”"

"The couple were awoken by their smoke alarm going off on the night of the fire and made a break for a stairwell with wet towels covering their faces."

“The first thing that really struck me was that there was nobody there –I was expecting a lot of people leaving in the stairwell."

“There was nobody.”

"Several of the couple’s neighbours on the 20th floor died that night"

www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/grenfell-survivor-had-bag-packed-in-defiance-of-stay-put-advice-days-before-fire-876398.html

Oh here’s Clav back with the links. I was wondering where they were.

Not sure what point you think you’re making, but I guess you get paid more for the link, yes?

What struck me about the survivor testimonies was the general lack of knowledge about fire precautions/instructions within the tower. Surely there should have been some kind of briefing for all new residents when they moved in and regular reminders etc in person? Otherwise how would residents know whether there was an alarm or not? Some survivors testified that they were waiting for the alarm to go off, and the absence of an alarm gave them the impression that evacuation was unnecessary!

Some of the survivors didn't know whether there was a fire alarm or not, didn't know if there was a sprinkler system, didn't know the importance of keeping fire doors closed, some never read the signs so didn't even know there was a "stay put" policy in place. Surely there should be some responsibility on the part of the landlord/local authority who housed people in it to make their residents aware of fire precautions and alarms/sprinklers (or lack of them).

Yep and responsibility of installing fireproof cladding definitely lies with the local authority

He's unfit to do anything. He's a vile man. But I think, in this case, he was actually stating something sensible.

Not sure what point you think you’re making
I think the survivor's account is very relevant to the discussion - I'm not making a point.

I guess you get paid more for the link, yes?
Who is paying me?? SAHM - I've been on Mumsnet for years with the same username.

Yep and responsibility of installing fireproof cladding definitely lies with the local authority

During the next part of the inquiry, we shall hopefully be illuminated as to what role the local authority/landlord played. At the moment, we don't know the roles/decisions of each person/organisation involved in the relatively long chain of people involved in the decision making process. The LA/landlord can't be held to blame if they genuinely believed the renovations were fully compliant based on information given by others in the chain. The inquiry will consider the relative roles of the building designers, architects, contractors, materials suppliers, surveyors, etc., to decide where it all went wrong, who didn't ask the right questions, who maybe misled or lied, who acted without competence to do so, etc etc.

I think the survivor's account is very relevant to the discussion - I'm not making a point.

I agree. As I said upthread, the video/photographic footage shown during the inquiry and testimonies showed there was a mere trickle of people leaving the building during the first 30 minutes, when nearly half of the residents got themselves out. There was no "stampede" or dangerous numbers of people and no "crowded" staircase. Most of the survivor testimonies say the same thing that they barely saw anyone else in the stairway on their way down.

Think about the logistics. If everyone left at the same time, those on lower floors would be long out of the building before the people from upper floors reached the lower floors. Not all 300 residents would be in the same place on the stairs at the same time. It's nothing like the genuinely dangerous situation if 300 people were all on the top floor and all started to descend at the same time! Assuming 20 occupied floors, 300 people is just 15 per floor. Obviously, there are issues with disabled people, but another aspect that needs addressing is why people with seriously impaired mobility were on higher floors in the first place.

But I think, in this case, he was actually stating something sensible

What was this sensible thing?

That he can predict with accuracy how he’d react in a situation he’d never been in, in a totally unknown building?

That he and the presenter (being middle/upper class presumably) are in possession of a ‘common sense’ that the victims lacked?

Enlighten me.

Maybe it's that he's admitting that he is an arrogant wazzock, LaurieMarlow? That's a sensible insight to have.

In Hollywood disaster films, when brave firefighters/other emergency services personnel are risking their lives to save people and have asked the people to stay where they are, there is always one arrogant arsehole who refuses to listen and goes against advice. Then he dies or someone else nearly dies saving him.

This time, it turned out that the fire brigade were wrong, because that building was a death-trap. Under normal circumstances, where buildings meet fire regulations, he'd be the person who leaves the group 1/3 of the way through the film and then dies of smoke inhalation on the stairs/hypothermia/heat exhaustion to show the audience that the brave heroes know what they're talking about.

Kazzy they could have tried listening to the tenants concerns instead of ONLY listening to contractors. Instead of threatening them with litigation when they raised concerns. Until these attitudes (which are prevelent right across the housing sector) there will be another tragedy.

*Until these attitudes (which are prevelent right across the housing sector) CHANGE there will be another tragedy

Maybe it's that he's admitting that he is an arrogant wazzock, LaurieMarlow? That's a sensible insight to have.

. That’s about right