Could we not separate news and politics?

Something went wrong with the ^^s in my previous post.

There is a limit to the height that water can effectively be pumped. That may be the reason.
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/12/how_high_can_a_fire_hose_shoot.html

"^Between 75 feet and 100 feet straight up, depending on water pressure. In practice, though, firefighters on the ground rarely attempt to reach higher than 40 feet with hoses. Since water pushes smoke and heat back into the building, attacking a high-rise blaze from the outside can actually be counterproductive. That's especially true if there's a chance people may still be trapped inside.^

Firefighters can also use truck-borne ladders to reach high places, but scaling a ladder with a heavy hose is often difficult. The general rule of thumb is that ladder-and-hose setups are only effective up to about the 10th floor; after that, it's imperative that the blaze either be fought from an adjoining structure, such as the Chicago building's roof wings, or from the inside.

^The most common approach in high-rises, then, is to use a building's standpipe system. This consists of an interior vertical pipe that runs from the ground to the roof, allowing firefighters to connect hoses on any floor. The water usually comes from either a fire truck or a street-level hydrant; firefighters connect a hose from the water source to a standpipe outlet, and it's then pumped upward to the blaze's location.^"

Yes I heard that on radio 4 this morning Eloethan and Rigby46

Thank goodness some people ignored the instructions to stay inside their flats. But those poor people who did what they were told to do...

I do not think you can ask for (and get) gentle politics. It happens occasionally when there is a consensus but as we all know, like religion things tend to get heated.

I believe this is because both are a reflection of our view of morality and this is about our intrinsic self. On here we see people try and rubbish another view because it seems to make them feel uncomfortable and that leads to them trying to stop the discussion.

Personally, I will not put my politics (not rooted in any party) behind me to make someone else feel their stance is reasonable although I am happy to hear their argument that it is, nor will I stop believing that poverty is a moral problem; that the rights of the poor should be the same as the rights of the rich. When anyone says 'let's not talk about blame' I, personally, feel they are saying 'let's not talk about people's rights to live safely'. 'Let's not talk about' always seems to deny someone their right to be heard - not us but those suffering. I would agree we should not apportion blame until it has been properly investigated but we should certainly be allowed to discuss what is being discussed by those involved.

What is meant by saying we should not be political?. Is this the same as the feeling those people in the flats got when they questioned what was being done to them. They have said they felt they were seen as trouble-makers perhaps they were even seen as taking part in political wrangling. Morality is politics. No one party owns the moral high ground but taking a moral stance is a choice and finding out what that should be has to be discussed.

The one thing we have seen as part of the aftermath of this tragedy is the outpouring of love and the coming together of all communities. That is the greatest political and moral stance we can hope for not the closing down of free speech suggested here.

I heard that they only reach that far because they are supposed to be able to fight the fire from inside and have fire hydrant points on all the landings

gillybob According to reports, the fire services arrived 6 minutes after the alarm was raised and, within that time, the fire had ignited, "like paper" according to one witness, right up the side and to the top of the tower block. If that had happened in a developing country, the story would focus on poor regulation and corruption. It is absolutely obvious that something is wrong - either the fire/building regulations are not fit for purpose or those regulations were disregarded.

I, for one, had no idea that fire platforms and water hoses could only reach to 12 floors. Surely this is madness?

Why are such inflammable materials allowed to be used in homes - particularly in buildings like difficult to reach tower blocks? Fire retardant materials are available and would possibly have given people longer to get out safely.
The person who told people to stay in the flats and wait to be rescued must be feeling dreadful today.

voxpoliticalonline.com/2017/06/15/the-next-grenfell-tower-style-disaster-could-happen-in-your-local-school/

maizie I used it quite deliberately!! I have a long memory.

Of course I would want answers suzied but I would want the right answers not silly assumptions from people with their own agendas .

It's not "jumping in with blame" it's just discussing the event - how it was caused, what should we do to avoid it in the future? If you were one of those involved you'd want those questions answered. Such questions are not easy.

I wonder why every news story however sad, tragic, funny or happy needs to be turned into a political wrangle?

I didn't say that we shouldn't discuss events I jut think it would be nice (just now and again) if one could express sadness, regret or whatever without someone jumping in with blame. Yes there probably is blame to be laid at "someone's" feet for this tragic fire but why jump straight to the conclusion that the blame is with the government for cut backs to the fire service before anyone knows the facts?

It reminds me a bit of my late grandad who as an ex miner hated Mrs Thatcher so much she would be blamed for anything from the failure of his tomato crops to the fact that his favourite football team had been relegated.

Do you know, whitewave, I haven't heard that description of people as being wet since the end of the Thatcher era! It's very evocative.

And wet

I guess some people just want to say how terrible, awful etc the event is but not make any comments on why the event happened, how it could be avoided etc. Not much of a discussion then . I think it goes without saying such incidents are horrible and tragic, so not allowing discussion about it seems a bit pointless.

Yes I watched the link DJ posted and that man is the current Foreign Secretary, who some would make PM. Actually it would be good if he followed his own directive to the panel member. How can you have a serious debate with someone who seeks to shut down discussion with an insult?

I went to view a new property about 5 years ago before buying my current home. It was a second floor flat in a two storey block. There was no alternative exit other than the main stairwell. I asked to salesperson how people would get out in a fire and she said, You stay in the flat and close the door and wait for the fire brigade to arrive. I knew immediately there was no chance I would be buying there.

That is what the people in the Grenfell Tower had been instructed to do. Who decided on this procedure? Total madness in my view. If you can leave the building surely you should do so as quickly and safely as possible. I imagine it is to avoid people being crushed in the rush, but with the right fire escape routes it should be possible to vacate even a tower block. I do hope others will now be checked and regular fire drills put into operation.

And some of the residents of this block of flats and their neighbours also seem to see this as a political issue. I have seen one or two individuals expressing the view that, as "working class people", their safety appears not to have been prioritised. It is astonishing that even the most basic safety features - such as fire alarms and unimpeded access for emergency services - seem to have been absent from this building.

Just in case those that don't like to read links haven't seen this one posted by durhamjen:

Video has emerged of then-London Mayor Boris Johnson defending his cuts to fire services in London before a fire-safety panel of London Assembly Members.

When challenged to explain how cutting fire stations, firefighter positions, fire safety officers could possibly not put the lives of London residents at risk, Johnson at first tries to defend the indefensible by simply asserting that his recklessness works and improves safety.

Then, when challenged further, he tells a Labour AM,

Oh get stuffed.

The way high rise flats are built/renovated, the availability of safety features within them, the number of times they are inspected, the extent to which the emergency services have the necessary equipment to deal with high rise fires, and how much notice is taken of residents who have raised serious concerns, etc., etc., depends almost entirely on whether such matters are deemed to be of importance to local and national governments.

Most things have a political dimension - even - or perhaps especially - the fire in London.

How do you separate the man from his politics?
He's the man that some people on here should be the next PM, taking over from May.

It will be Jen. I think he may regret that.

It really does feel like a couple of people wanting to suppress political discussion. You are right Jalima it really wouldn't matter which heading it was under; if it has a political aspect it will be discussed politically.

Is this political?

skwawkbox.org/2017/06/14/video-boris-johnson-telling-fire-safety-panel-get-stuffed-grenfell/