The idea of ‘stay put’ developed in the UK in the early 1960s. British Standard Code of Practice 1962 was introduced as the first national standard for tall residential buildings. It required all blocks taller than 80 feet to provide one hour’s fire resistance to enable firefighters to battle flames inside the building.
The aim of the code was to ensure that each flat in a building would act as an individual compartment that would contain any fire for at least an hour. This principle of ‘compartmentation’ would enable firefighters to put out one fire in one flat rather than face a whole building ablaze.
But to work, the principle has two key requirements. First, the building must have the necessary ‘passive fire protection’ to withstand the spread of flames. Second, access to the building must be clear enough that affected residents can escape and firefighters can get in quickly.
Partly because of this second requirement, the code considered fire alarms to be undesirable. The fear is that they could trigger unnecessary evacuations that impede firefighters’ access or even put residents in danger by exposing them to smoke.
There are many advocates for stay put, who point to data that shows it is successful in the vast majority of fires. National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) data shows that there were more than 57,000 fires in high rises between 2010 and 2017, but that only 216 (0.4%) required the evacuation of more than five residents.
The idea of ‘stay put’ developed in the UK in the early 1960s. British Standard Code of Practice 1962 was introduced as the first national standard for tall residential buildings. It required all blocks taller than 80 feet to provide one hour’s fire resistance to enable firefighters to battle flames inside the building.
The aim of the code was to ensure that each flat in a building would act as an individual compartment that would contain any fire for at least an hour. This principle of ‘compartmentation’ would enable firefighters to put out one fire in one flat rather than face a whole building ablaze.
But to work, the principle has two key requirements. First, the building must have the necessary ‘passive fire protection’ to withstand the spread of flames. Second, access to the building must be clear enough that affected residents can escape and firefighters can get in quickly.
Partly because of this second requirement, the code considered fire alarms to be undesirable. The fear is that they could trigger unnecessary evacuations that impede firefighters’ access or even put residents in danger by exposing them to smoke.
There are many advocates for stay put, who point to data that shows it is successful in the vast majority of fires. National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) data shows that there were more than 57,000 fires in high rises between 2010 and 2017, but that only 216 (0.4%) required the evacuation of more than five residents.
The idea of ‘stay put’ developed in the UK in the early 1960s. British Standard Code of Practice 1962 was introduced as the first national standard for tall residential buildings. It required all blocks taller than 80 feet to provide one hour’s fire resistance to enable firefighters to battle flames inside the building.
The aim of the code was to ensure that each flat in a building would act as an individual compartment that would contain any fire for at least an hour. This principle of ‘compartmentation’ would enable firefighters to put out one fire in one flat rather than face a whole building ablaze.
But to work, the principle has two key requirements. First, the building must have the necessary ‘passive fire protection’ to withstand the spread of flames. Second, access to the building must be clear enough that affected residents can escape and firefighters can get in quickly.
Partly because of this second requirement, the code considered fire alarms to be undesirable. The fear is that they could trigger unnecessary evacuations that impede firefighters’ access or even put residents in danger by exposing them to smoke.
There are many advocates for stay put, who point to data that shows it is successful in the vast majority of fires. National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) data shows that there were more than 57,000 fires in high rises between 2010 and 2017, but that only 216 (0.4%) required the evacuation of more than five residents.
OMG Tom...you need to get out more...
Not my words prof, simple copy and paste highlighting the fact the fire brigade have used the stay put policy for quite some time, the government have been aware of it, my wife works in the fire service and we are both appalled at this finger pointing by certain parties.
The idea of ‘stay put’ developed in the UK in the early 1960s. British Standard Code of Practice 1962 was introduced as the first national standard for tall residential buildings. It required all blocks taller than 80 feet to provide one hour’s fire resistance to enable firefighters to battle flames inside the building.
The aim of the code was to ensure that each flat in a building would act as an individual compartment that would contain any fire for at least an hour. This principle of ‘compartmentation’ would enable firefighters to put out one fire in one flat rather than face a whole building ablaze.
But to work, the principle has two key requirements. First, the building must have the necessary ‘passive fire protection’ to withstand the spread of flames. Second, access to the building must be clear enough that affected residents can escape and firefighters can get in quickly.
Partly because of this second requirement, the code considered fire alarms to be undesirable. The fear is that they could trigger unnecessary evacuations that impede firefighters’ access or even put residents in danger by exposing them to smoke.
There are many advocates for stay put, who point to data that shows it is successful in the vast majority of fires. National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) data shows that there were more than 57,000 fires in high rises between 2010 and 2017, but that only 216 (0.4%) required the evacuation of more than five residents.
OMG Tom...you need to get out more...
Not my words prof, simple copy and paste highlighting the fact the fire brigade have used the stay put policy for quite some time, the government have been aware of it, my wife works in the fire service and we are both appalled at this finger pointing by certain parties.
Perhaps your wife should organise a training session, a fire at Gournay Court in Somerset would work well
It is important to recognise that there had never previously been a fire of this type/magnitude in this sort of building. With the benefit of hindsight, the fire services probably made a wrong call. But no-one knew that at the time.
Magnitude perhaps not, but there were warnings of similar fires spread by cladding that changed building regs in other parts of the UK.
It is important to recognise that there had never previously been a fire of this type/magnitude in this sort of building. With the benefit of hindsight, the fire services probably made a wrong call. But no-one knew that at the time.
Magnitude perhaps not, but there were warnings of similar fires spread by cladding that changed building regs in other parts of the UK.
Agreed, tragic that we haven’t learnt but that was Garnock court....I was suggesting Gournay court might be a better building for firefighters to test out changes! The residents of Gournay court will clearly be sensible about it....
The idea of ‘stay put’ developed in the UK in the early 1960s. British Standard Code of Practice 1962 was introduced as the first national standard for tall residential buildings. It required all blocks taller than 80 feet to provide one hour’s fire resistance to enable firefighters to battle flames inside the building.
The aim of the code was to ensure that each flat in a building would act as an individual compartment that would contain any fire for at least an hour. This principle of ‘compartmentation’ would enable firefighters to put out one fire in one flat rather than face a whole building ablaze.
But to work, the principle has two key requirements. First, the building must have the necessary ‘passive fire protection’ to withstand the spread of flames. Second, access to the building must be clear enough that affected residents can escape and firefighters can get in quickly.
Partly because of this second requirement, the code considered fire alarms to be undesirable. The fear is that they could trigger unnecessary evacuations that impede firefighters’ access or even put residents in danger by exposing them to smoke.
There are many advocates for stay put, who point to data that shows it is successful in the vast majority of fires. National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) data shows that there were more than 57,000 fires in high rises between 2010 and 2017, but that only 216 (0.4%) required the evacuation of more than five residents.
OMG Tom...you need to get out more...
Not my words prof, simple copy and paste highlighting the fact the fire brigade have used the stay put policy for quite some time, the government have been aware of it, my wife works in the fire service and we are both appalled at this finger pointing by certain parties.
I think the point of this thread was to illustrate the stupidity of the comments that were made, and the smug arrogance of leading Tories. My own view is that the grovelling apologies were forthcoming only after the backlash from the media, following the absolute outrage of the general public. Andrew Bridgen immediately made it crystal clear that he was in total agreement with Lord Snooty. I think that Lord Snootys original comments, and Andrew Bridgens support represent their true feelings, and the apologies were meant to minimise the damage caused to the Tory election campaign. Tory candidates that suggest benefit claimants should be put down, just goes to show how nasty they are. My view is that they shouldn't be forgiven, whether their apologies are genuine or not. These comments point to an attitude, rather than a series of accidents.
The criticism of the fire service seemed to surround the fact that they stood by their standard advice despite the fact that in this case that advice was incorrect due to the effect of the cladding on the fire. One important reason for appointing leaders is that they may adapt to varying circumstances.
For Lord Snooty to claim that had he lived in Grenfell, that he would have been too clever to have ended up as one of the 72 victims, and clever enough to avoid following advice from the fire service, must be absolutely galling to the friends, and families of the victims. Andrew Bridgen supporting his views, and maintaining that he is running the country because he is so clever, can only have rubbed salt into their wounds.
The idea of ‘stay put’ developed in the UK in the early 1960s. British Standard Code of Practice 1962 was introduced as the first national standard for tall residential buildings. It required all blocks taller than 80 feet to provide one hour’s fire resistance to enable firefighters to battle flames inside the building.
The aim of the code was to ensure that each flat in a building would act as an individual compartment that would contain any fire for at least an hour. This principle of ‘compartmentation’ would enable firefighters to put out one fire in one flat rather than face a whole building ablaze.
But to work, the principle has two key requirements. First, the building must have the necessary ‘passive fire protection’ to withstand the spread of flames. Second, access to the building must be clear enough that affected residents can escape and firefighters can get in quickly.
Partly because of this second requirement, the code considered fire alarms to be undesirable. The fear is that they could trigger unnecessary evacuations that impede firefighters’ access or even put residents in danger by exposing them to smoke.
There are many advocates for stay put, who point to data that shows it is successful in the vast majority of fires. National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) data shows that there were more than 57,000 fires in high rises between 2010 and 2017, but that only 216 (0.4%) required the evacuation of more than five residents.
OMG Tom...you need to get out more...
Not my words prof, simple copy and paste highlighting the fact the fire brigade have used the stay put policy for quite some time, the government have been aware of it, my wife works in the fire service and we are both appalled at this finger pointing by certain parties.
I think the point of this thread was to illustrate the stupidity of the comments that were made, and the smug arrogance of leading Tories. My own view is that the grovelling apologies were forthcoming only after the backlash from the media, following the absolute outrage of the general public. Andrew Bridgen immediately made it crystal clear that he was in total agreement with Lord Snooty. I think that Lord Snootys original comments, and Andrew Bridgens support represent their true feelings, and the apologies were meant to minimise the damage caused to the Tory election campaign. Tory candidates that suggest benefit claimants should be put down, just goes to show how nasty they are. My view is that they shouldn't be forgiven, whether their apologies are genuine or not. These comments point to an attitude, rather than a series of accidents.
The criticism of the fire service seemed to surround the fact that they stood by their standard advice despite the fact that in this case that advice was incorrect due to the effect of the cladding on the fire. One important reason for appointing leaders is that they may adapt to varying circumstances.
For Lord Snooty to claim that had he lived in Grenfell, that he would have been too clever to have ended up as one of the 72 victims, and clever enough to avoid following advice from the fire service, must be absolutely galling to the friends, and families of the victims. Andrew Bridgen supporting his views, and maintaining that he is running the country because he is so clever, can only have rubbed salt into their wounds.
I understand the point of the thread highlighting the insensitive comments, I was expanding the discussion to show he was well aware of the stay put policy and in all the years it’s been used he hasn’t offered his incredibly clever advice to change the policy . We can all say with hindsight the stay put policy was flawed on this occasion, but only because the cladding was a **** fire hazard ( which nobody at the scene was aware of) shouldn’t be on any building. If they did change the stay put policy mid way through, who knows what would have happened in this tragedy?
There is far more to this , and I look forward to the second part of the review.
The idea of ‘stay put’ developed in the UK in the early 1960s. British Standard Code of Practice 1962 was introduced as the first national standard for tall residential buildings. It required all blocks taller than 80 feet to provide one hour’s fire resistance to enable firefighters to battle flames inside the building.
The aim of the code was to ensure that each flat in a building would act as an individual compartment that would contain any fire for at least an hour. This principle of ‘compartmentation’ would enable firefighters to put out one fire in one flat rather than face a whole building ablaze.
But to work, the principle has two key requirements. First, the building must have the necessary ‘passive fire protection’ to withstand the spread of flames. Second, access to the building must be clear enough that affected residents can escape and firefighters can get in quickly.
Partly because of this second requirement, the code considered fire alarms to be undesirable. The fear is that they could trigger unnecessary evacuations that impede firefighters’ access or even put residents in danger by exposing them to smoke.
There are many advocates for stay put, who point to data that shows it is successful in the vast majority of fires. National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) data shows that there were more than 57,000 fires in high rises between 2010 and 2017, but that only 216 (0.4%) required the evacuation of more than five residents.
OMG Tom...you need to get out more...
Not my words prof, simple copy and paste highlighting the fact the fire brigade have used the stay put policy for quite some time, the government have been aware of it, my wife works in the fire service and we are both appalled at this finger pointing by certain parties.
I think the point of this thread was to illustrate the stupidity of the comments that were made, and the smug arrogance of leading Tories. My own view is that the grovelling apologies were forthcoming only after the backlash from the media, following the absolute outrage of the general public. Andrew Bridgen immediately made it crystal clear that he was in total agreement with Lord Snooty. I think that Lord Snootys original comments, and Andrew Bridgens support represent their true feelings, and the apologies were meant to minimise the damage caused to the Tory election campaign. Tory candidates that suggest benefit claimants should be put down, just goes to show how nasty they are. My view is that they shouldn't be forgiven, whether their apologies are genuine or not. These comments point to an attitude, rather than a series of accidents.
The criticism of the fire service seemed to surround the fact that they stood by their standard advice despite the fact that in this case that advice was incorrect due to the effect of the cladding on the fire. One important reason for appointing leaders is that they may adapt to varying circumstances.
For Lord Snooty to claim that had he lived in Grenfell, that he would have been too clever to have ended up as one of the 72 victims, and clever enough to avoid following advice from the fire service, must be absolutely galling to the friends, and families of the victims. Andrew Bridgen supporting his views, and maintaining that he is running the country because he is so clever, can only have rubbed salt into their wounds.
I understand the point of the thread highlighting the insensitive comments, I was expanding the discussion to show he was well aware of the stay put policy and in all the years it’s been used he hasn’t offered his incredibly clever advice to change the policy . We can all say with hindsight the stay put policy was flawed on this occasion, but only because the cladding was a **** fire hazard ( which nobody at the scene was aware of) shouldn’t be on any building. If they did change the stay put policy mid way through, who knows what would have happened in this tragedy?
There is far more to this , and I look forward to the second part of the review.
I look forward to the real fire training at Gournay Court...get it sorted Tom's wife!!
The idea of ‘stay put’ developed in the UK in the early 1960s. British Standard Code of Practice 1962 was introduced as the first national standard for tall residential buildings. It required all blocks taller than 80 feet to provide one hour’s fire resistance to enable firefighters to battle flames inside the building.
The aim of the code was to ensure that each flat in a building would act as an individual compartment that would contain any fire for at least an hour. This principle of ‘compartmentation’ would enable firefighters to put out one fire in one flat rather than face a whole building ablaze.
But to work, the principle has two key requirements. First, the building must have the necessary ‘passive fire protection’ to withstand the spread of flames. Second, access to the building must be clear enough that affected residents can escape and firefighters can get in quickly.
Partly because of this second requirement, the code considered fire alarms to be undesirable. The fear is that they could trigger unnecessary evacuations that impede firefighters’ access or even put residents in danger by exposing them to smoke.
There are many advocates for stay put, who point to data that shows it is successful in the vast majority of fires. National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) data shows that there were more than 57,000 fires in high rises between 2010 and 2017, but that only 216 (0.4%) required the evacuation of more than five residents.
OMG Tom...you need to get out more...
Not my words prof, simple copy and paste highlighting the fact the fire brigade have used the stay put policy for quite some time, the government have been aware of it, my wife works in the fire service and we are both appalled at this finger pointing by certain parties.
I think the point of this thread was to illustrate the stupidity of the comments that were made, and the smug arrogance of leading Tories. My own view is that the grovelling apologies were forthcoming only after the backlash from the media, following the absolute outrage of the general public. Andrew Bridgen immediately made it crystal clear that he was in total agreement with Lord Snooty. I think that Lord Snootys original comments, and Andrew Bridgens support represent their true feelings, and the apologies were meant to minimise the damage caused to the Tory election campaign. Tory candidates that suggest benefit claimants should be put down, just goes to show how nasty they are. My view is that they shouldn't be forgiven, whether their apologies are genuine or not. These comments point to an attitude, rather than a series of accidents.
The criticism of the fire service seemed to surround the fact that they stood by their standard advice despite the fact that in this case that advice was incorrect due to the effect of the cladding on the fire. One important reason for appointing leaders is that they may adapt to varying circumstances.
For Lord Snooty to claim that had he lived in Grenfell, that he would have been too clever to have ended up as one of the 72 victims, and clever enough to avoid following advice from the fire service, must be absolutely galling to the friends, and families of the victims. Andrew Bridgen supporting his views, and maintaining that he is running the country because he is so clever, can only have rubbed salt into their wounds.
I understand the point of the thread highlighting the insensitive comments, I was expanding the discussion to show he was well aware of the stay put policy and in all the years it’s been used he hasn’t offered his incredibly clever advice to change the policy . We can all say with hindsight the stay put policy was flawed on this occasion, but only because the cladding was a **** fire hazard ( which nobody at the scene was aware of) shouldn’t be on any building. If they did change the stay put policy mid way through, who knows what would have happened in this tragedy?
There is far more to this , and I look forward to the second part of the review.
I have not followed the details of this report in great detail, but the fire brigade do not appear to have covered themselves in glory. I feel that the fire chiefs comments regarding not changing anything, were every bit as foolish as those of Lord Snooty. I also saw an interview in which a man who followed the stay put advice, and lost 5 members of his family, found out subsequently that a man living on the floor above was later assisted by the same fireman in successfully evacuating his family. He was heartbroken.
I think the point of this thread was to illustrate the stupidity of the comments that were made, and the smug arrogance of leading Tories. My own view is that the grovelling apologies were forthcoming only after the backlash from the media, following the absolute outrage of the general public. Andrew Bridgen immediately made it crystal clear that he was in total agreement with Lord Snooty. I think that Lord Snootys original comments, and Andrew Bridgens support represent their true feelings, and the apologies were meant to minimise the damage caused to the Tory election campaign. Tory candidates that suggest benefit claimants should be put down, just goes to show how nasty they are. My view is that they shouldn't be forgiven, whether their apologies are genuine or not. These comments point to an attitude, rather than a series of accidents.
The criticism of the fire service seemed to surround the fact that they stood by their standard advice despite the fact that in this case that advice was incorrect due to the effect of the cladding on the fire. One important reason for appointing leaders is that they may adapt to varying circumstances.
For Lord Snooty to claim that had he lived in Grenfell, that he would have been too clever to have ended up as one of the 72 victims, and clever enough to avoid following advice from the fire service, must be absolutely galling to the friends, and families of the victims. Andrew Bridgen supporting his views, and maintaining that he is running the country because he is so clever, can only have rubbed salt into their wounds.
The idea of ‘stay put’ developed in the UK in the early 1960s. British Standard Code of Practice 1962 was introduced as the first national standard for tall residential buildings. It required all blocks taller than 80 feet to provide one hour’s fire resistance to enable firefighters to battle flames inside the building.
The aim of the code was to ensure that each flat in a building would act as an individual compartment that would contain any fire for at least an hour. This principle of ‘compartmentation’ would enable firefighters to put out one fire in one flat rather than face a whole building ablaze.
But to work, the principle has two key requirements. First, the building must have the necessary ‘passive fire protection’ to withstand the spread of flames. Second, access to the building must be clear enough that affected residents can escape and firefighters can get in quickly.
Partly because of this second requirement, the code considered fire alarms to be undesirable. The fear is that they could trigger unnecessary evacuations that impede firefighters’ access or even put residents in danger by exposing them to smoke.
There are many advocates for stay put, who point to data that shows it is successful in the vast majority of fires. National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) data shows that there were more than 57,000 fires in high rises between 2010 and 2017, but that only 216 (0.4%) required the evacuation of more than five residents.
Grenfell victims accuse Labour MPs of not reading the report and 'blindly supporting firefighters'
Victims of the Grenfell Tower inferno have accused the local MP of ‘blind support’ for the fire brigade in a row that threatens the Labour Party’s most vulnerable seat. Grieving families have turned on Emma Dent Coad, the Labour MP for Kensington, for refusing to condemn London Fire Brigade (LFB) over its handling of the disaster. They also accused Diane Abbott, Labour’s shadow home secretary, of not having bothered to read the official inquiry report. The Grenfell report concluded that fewer people would have died but for the “serious shortcomings” and “systemic” failures of the LFB. The LFB commissioner was also criticised for her “remarkable insensitivity” after she gave testimony insisting...
Comments
In next shock news, @HAYSIE isn't totally convinced about Brexit
The aim of the code was to ensure that each flat in a building would act as an individual compartment that would contain any fire for at least an hour. This principle of ‘compartmentation’ would enable firefighters to put out one fire in one flat rather than face a whole building ablaze.
But to work, the principle has two key requirements. First, the building must have the necessary ‘passive fire protection’ to withstand the spread of flames. Second, access to the building must be clear enough that affected residents can escape and firefighters can get in quickly.
Partly because of this second requirement, the code considered fire alarms to be undesirable. The fear is that they could trigger unnecessary evacuations that impede firefighters’ access or even put residents in danger by exposing them to smoke.
There are many advocates for stay put, who point to data that shows it is successful in the vast majority of fires. National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) data shows that there were more than 57,000 fires in high rises between 2010 and 2017, but that only 216 (0.4%) required the evacuation of more than five residents.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-40406057
I think the point of this thread was to illustrate the stupidity of the comments that were made, and the smug arrogance of leading Tories.
My own view is that the grovelling apologies were forthcoming only after the backlash from the media, following the absolute outrage of the general public.
Andrew Bridgen immediately made it crystal clear that he was in total agreement with Lord Snooty.
I think that Lord Snootys original comments, and Andrew Bridgens support represent their true feelings, and the apologies were meant to minimise the damage caused to the Tory election campaign.
Tory candidates that suggest benefit claimants should be put down, just goes to show how nasty they are.
My view is that they shouldn't be forgiven, whether their apologies are genuine or not.
These comments point to an attitude, rather than a series of accidents.
The criticism of the fire service seemed to surround the fact that they stood by their standard advice despite the fact that in this case that advice was incorrect due to the effect of the cladding on the fire.
One important reason for appointing leaders is that they may adapt to varying circumstances.
For Lord Snooty to claim that had he lived in Grenfell, that he would have been too clever to have ended up as one of the 72 victims, and clever enough to avoid following advice from the fire service, must be absolutely galling to the friends, and families of the victims.
Andrew Bridgen supporting his views, and maintaining that he is running the country because he is so clever, can only have rubbed salt into their wounds.
We can all say with hindsight the stay put policy was flawed on this occasion, but only because the cladding was a **** fire hazard ( which nobody at the scene was aware of) shouldn’t be on any building.
If they did change the stay put policy mid way through, who knows what would have happened in this tragedy?
There is far more to this , and I look forward to the second part of the review.
I feel that the fire chiefs comments regarding not changing anything, were every bit as foolish as those of Lord Snooty.
I also saw an interview in which a man who followed the stay put advice, and lost 5 members of his family, found out subsequently that a man living on the floor above was later assisted by the same fireman in successfully evacuating his family.
He was heartbroken.
I think the point of this thread was to illustrate the stupidity of the comments that were made, and the smug arrogance of leading Tories.
My own view is that the grovelling apologies were forthcoming only after the backlash from the media, following the absolute outrage of the general public.
Andrew Bridgen immediately made it crystal clear that he was in total agreement with Lord Snooty.
I think that Lord Snootys original comments, and Andrew Bridgens support represent their true feelings, and the apologies were meant to minimise the damage caused to the Tory election campaign.
Tory candidates that suggest benefit claimants should be put down, just goes to show how nasty they are.
My view is that they shouldn't be forgiven, whether their apologies are genuine or not.
These comments point to an attitude, rather than a series of accidents.
The criticism of the fire service seemed to surround the fact that they stood by their standard advice despite the fact that in this case that advice was incorrect due to the effect of the cladding on the fire.
One important reason for appointing leaders is that they may adapt to varying circumstances.
For Lord Snooty to claim that had he lived in Grenfell, that he would have been too clever to have ended up as one of the 72 victims, and clever enough to avoid following advice from the fire service, must be absolutely galling to the friends, and families of the victims.
Andrew Bridgen supporting his views, and maintaining that he is running the country because he is so clever, can only have rubbed salt into their wounds.
This is what the Tories think of ordinary people
Grenfell victims accuse Labour MPs of not reading the report and 'blindly supporting firefighters'
Victims of the Grenfell Tower inferno have accused the local MP of ‘blind support’ for the fire brigade in a row that threatens the Labour Party’s most vulnerable seat.
Grieving families have turned on Emma Dent Coad, the Labour MP for Kensington, for refusing to condemn London Fire Brigade (LFB) over its handling of the disaster. They also accused Diane Abbott, Labour’s shadow home secretary, of not having bothered to read the official inquiry report.
The Grenfell report concluded that fewer people would have died but for the “serious shortcomings” and “systemic” failures of the LFB. The LFB commissioner was also criticised for her “remarkable insensitivity” after she gave testimony insisting...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/09/grenfell-victims-accuse-labour-mps-not-reading-report-blindly/
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=search&v=546575409501608&external_log_id=a2d7f74498c80ac4b948be65dd004684&q=Jacob+Rees+Mogadishu+can+you+help