Bbc Interupts Ronnie Osullivan Playing...
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Jacob Rees Mogg And Grenfell
31 Answers
https:/
Jacob Rees Mogg has apologised for his comments in an interview on LBC with Nick Ferrari, where he appeared to imply that the victims who heeded the advice of the fire service, and stayed in their apartments, and perished, lacked 'common sense' - stating that he would have ignored the advice and left the building regardless of the advice to stay from the fire service operatives at the scene.
This has blown up into a political row, and Mr Rees Mogg has been criticised for what is perceived as a snobbish and superior attitude to people from a different social class from his own.
I have my own view, but I am happy to hold onto it until others have had their say.
Jacob Rees Mogg has apologised for his comments in an interview on LBC with Nick Ferrari, where he appeared to imply that the victims who heeded the advice of the fire service, and stayed in their apartments, and perished, lacked 'common sense' - stating that he would have ignored the advice and left the building regardless of the advice to stay from the fire service operatives at the scene.
This has blown up into a political row, and Mr Rees Mogg has been criticised for what is perceived as a snobbish and superior attitude to people from a different social class from his own.
I have my own view, but I am happy to hold onto it until others have had their say.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. 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.
I`ve been in two high rise hotel fires - both abroad and I sure as hell wasn't going to stay put. One hotel even told me that it was a false alarm and there definitely wasn't any fire. There was. The other one tried to direct me down in the lift - big fail there. Sometimes you have to think for yourself.
This is not about what people should or should not have done. It’s about him being accused of saying or implying something he didn’t say or imply. The OP says he appeared to imply that the victims lacked common sense. He implied nothing of the sort. The OP then goes on to mention snobbery, a superior attitude and class - and that is what this is all about. Posh bloke bashing.
I think he simply said what many thought. A little undiplomatic and without forethought, but who analyses all they say ? It would have been common sense to leave the building; but two things. a) common sense isn't always the best course of action, and b) when an official tells you something, most respect their role to know what's best.
I have a certain sympathy with JRM's original view (before he issued the now standard grovelling apology whenever anyone is "offended"). Too many people depend on advice or instruction for their every move.
However, from the testimony I heard from the firefighter today it is quite clear to me that anybody from the upper floors who attempted to flee would almost certainly have died, even if they had been fit enough to make the descent and were not trampled in the panic. He described how he led occupants down the smoke-filled staircase sharing his breathing apparatus - one breath for him and two for the person being rescued. His "matter-of-fact" description of what was a truly heroic action had to be heard to be believed. It is quite clear from his description that anybody attempting to make that journey unaccompanied would have perished.
The only doubt must lie with how quickly the decision to evacuate was taken. Had that decision been taken as soon as the fire broke out the result may have been different. But such a decision would have been completely contrary to the normal procedures when fire breaks out in a tower block. Evacuation was a last resort, not a first.
However, from the testimony I heard from the firefighter today it is quite clear to me that anybody from the upper floors who attempted to flee would almost certainly have died, even if they had been fit enough to make the descent and were not trampled in the panic. He described how he led occupants down the smoke-filled staircase sharing his breathing apparatus - one breath for him and two for the person being rescued. His "matter-of-fact" description of what was a truly heroic action had to be heard to be believed. It is quite clear from his description that anybody attempting to make that journey unaccompanied would have perished.
The only doubt must lie with how quickly the decision to evacuate was taken. Had that decision been taken as soon as the fire broke out the result may have been different. But such a decision would have been completely contrary to the normal procedures when fire breaks out in a tower block. Evacuation was a last resort, not a first.
naomi - // This is not about what people should or should not have done. It’s about him being accused of saying or implying something he didn’t say or imply. The OP says he appeared to imply that the victims lacked common sense. He implied nothing of the sort. The OP then goes on to mention snobbery, a superior attitude and class - and that is what this is all about. Posh bloke bashing. //
I am entirely in agreement with your assessment of the situation as it has unfolded.
Mr Rees-Mogg was guilty only of failing to make his point absolutely clear to everyone looking to misinterpret what he said in order to beat him over the head with it.
His point was, that with the 20/20 hindsight that we all now enjoy, in that situation, he would have left the building, because that seems lie the common sense approach.
He did not say that he would have reacted in that way had he been on site at the time, he was speaking hypothetically with hindsight, and on that basis, his point was perfectly reasonable.
To interpret that point as being that a posh Tory is looking down on commoners and demeaning their lack of common sense is such a leap of facile misunderstanding as to defy belief, and can only be reached by those reaching a conclusion first, and then working backwards to shoe-horn their misinterpretation of what was said in order to make it fit their deluded need to be outraged.
Mr Rees-Mogg had the grace to apologise to anyone upset by his observation, I believe that was based on his fundamental humanity, rather than the need to give credence to anyone who wanted to twist his words in order score points based on a difference in political ideology, or rampant inverse snobbery - or either, or both.
I am entirely in agreement with your assessment of the situation as it has unfolded.
Mr Rees-Mogg was guilty only of failing to make his point absolutely clear to everyone looking to misinterpret what he said in order to beat him over the head with it.
His point was, that with the 20/20 hindsight that we all now enjoy, in that situation, he would have left the building, because that seems lie the common sense approach.
He did not say that he would have reacted in that way had he been on site at the time, he was speaking hypothetically with hindsight, and on that basis, his point was perfectly reasonable.
To interpret that point as being that a posh Tory is looking down on commoners and demeaning their lack of common sense is such a leap of facile misunderstanding as to defy belief, and can only be reached by those reaching a conclusion first, and then working backwards to shoe-horn their misinterpretation of what was said in order to make it fit their deluded need to be outraged.
Mr Rees-Mogg had the grace to apologise to anyone upset by his observation, I believe that was based on his fundamental humanity, rather than the need to give credence to anyone who wanted to twist his words in order score points based on a difference in political ideology, or rampant inverse snobbery - or either, or both.
AOG - // gulliver1
/// Well what can you expect from a TTT, he is just another Typical Tory Twit,not engaging brain before operating mouth ///
We understand that debates get heated, but personal attacks and abusive language will not be tolerated //
I think that Rule is designed to ensure that AB'ers don't get too carried away with the flowery language when addressing each other - I think politicians are absolutely fair game for some moderate epithets, although I think in this case, the label is misplaced, Mr Rees Mogg is many things, but a twit is absolutely not one of them.
/// Well what can you expect from a TTT, he is just another Typical Tory Twit,not engaging brain before operating mouth ///
We understand that debates get heated, but personal attacks and abusive language will not be tolerated //
I think that Rule is designed to ensure that AB'ers don't get too carried away with the flowery language when addressing each other - I think politicians are absolutely fair game for some moderate epithets, although I think in this case, the label is misplaced, Mr Rees Mogg is many things, but a twit is absolutely not one of them.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
