Crosswords2 mins ago
Should The Senior Officers Of The London Fire Brigade Be Prosecuted?
213 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Spice
Yes I am old school I suppose, but I'm not defending a service that no longer exists. I am defending the action/s of all those people who attended the incident from the lowliest Firefighter to the Commissioner, Dany Cotton. All the accusations that are being bandied about are coming from "armchair" viewers who have never been near a fire and know nothing about the three requirements of a Firefighter - To Save life, to save property and to render humanitarian services.These 3 requirements were instituted by a certain Sir James Braidwood a very long time ago and still apply today. As far as I'm concerned, someone/somebody is seeking a scapegoat for this event and the Commissioner is in the firing line. I really have nothing further to add.
FBG40
Yes I am old school I suppose, but I'm not defending a service that no longer exists. I am defending the action/s of all those people who attended the incident from the lowliest Firefighter to the Commissioner, Dany Cotton. All the accusations that are being bandied about are coming from "armchair" viewers who have never been near a fire and know nothing about the three requirements of a Firefighter - To Save life, to save property and to render humanitarian services.These 3 requirements were instituted by a certain Sir James Braidwood a very long time ago and still apply today. As far as I'm concerned, someone/somebody is seeking a scapegoat for this event and the Commissioner is in the firing line. I really have nothing further to add.
FBG40
"Spath has changed his tune"
From the get go I did say that those who implemented the stay put policy should be assessed, that is true. But ultimately (what this thread is about) the rapid spread of the fire was cladding. It was told to us that the cladding used, shouldn't have been used. Who decided to cheap out on cladding and use an alternative cheaper cladding? They are ultimately responsible.
From the get go I did say that those who implemented the stay put policy should be assessed, that is true. But ultimately (what this thread is about) the rapid spread of the fire was cladding. It was told to us that the cladding used, shouldn't have been used. Who decided to cheap out on cladding and use an alternative cheaper cladding? They are ultimately responsible.
My opinion hasn't changed since the start of the thread.
I still think the stay put policy is responsible for many deaths (not all)
I have always thought that the people who should be held accountable should be those who decided to cheap out on the cladding and use a cheaper alternative to that which was approved and advised.
Why is it considered not on that I think those who implemented this policy, and where shortcomings were revealed be assessed? That's not saying fire them. It's certainly not saying imprison them.. Simply assess them. That would be professional and safe.
I still think the stay put policy is responsible for many deaths (not all)
I have always thought that the people who should be held accountable should be those who decided to cheap out on the cladding and use a cheaper alternative to that which was approved and advised.
Why is it considered not on that I think those who implemented this policy, and where shortcomings were revealed be assessed? That's not saying fire them. It's certainly not saying imprison them.. Simply assess them. That would be professional and safe.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.