In the news

nailed it tho.

BBC last night

https://twitter.com/madamyez/status/875155162666545157

And from Paul Waugh's morning email

I talked to the two MPs in the Commons who know more than most how
terrifying the blaze must have been. Labour’s Jim Fitzpatrick and Tory
Mike Penning have the distinction of being both former firefighters
and ex-ministers. Both have fought tower block fires. Jim said that
‘the finger is pointing at Government’ because of delays to a review
of building safety regulations, though he was at pains to say it could
be months and years before we find out exactly what happened. Mike
said that the cladding would need to be investigated, but so too would
the lack of fire alarms and emergency lighting. As all the
firefighters told us yesterday, fires will always happen, but that’s
precisely why safety design and regulations are so important.

One senior Labour figure suggested to me yesterday that Grenfell Tower
“is going to become a parable about inequality and austerity in 2017
Britain”. Were sprinklers not fitted because of cost? Was the cladding
a cheaper alternative? Were residents simply ignored by a bureaucracy
that seems designed to strip out any democratic accountability? Locals
complain legal aid cuts meant they couldn’t fight some changes in the
courts. Ex fire chiefs complain that the Government’s one in-three
out rule on ‘red tape’ hampers any proposal for new safety
regulations.

Like Hillsborough, Grenfell Tower could become a defining moment for
the country and spark much-needed change. For many it will be seen as
a man-made stain on our image of ourselves as a modern, wealthy
nation.

10 o'clock news?

Yeah, saw that too. No need for it at all.

stand down boys, La May is on the scene with some tame reporters to sort shit out.

#noproles

#rep

Now look at the difference in performance between rockwool and PIR

That's interesting, and a little alarming (well, it's a commercial promotional video, it's meant to alarm you despite all the caveats they include) - I hadn't realised at all that PIR wasn't non-combustible.

Various reports that she refused to speak to victims/families or volunteers.

All too likely to be true :(

I struggle to work out if she has greater contempt for the public than the public do for her.

why should she? it's not like they're ever going to vote for her.

It would have been a good opportunity to at least appear vaguely human.

If only the people being interviewed by (some) reporters had an ignore button to escape the uneasy feeling following engagement with sentiments they're not happy with.

I haven't yet, I'm thinking about it. I just don't see the point of arguing with the circle-jerk of anti-journalist sentiment here any more. There are cunts and good people in all walks of life, but if I say that I get tarred with the 'not all men' brush. By the kind of people who'd probably argue to the back teeth that it's wrong to tar all cyclists with the actions of a few dickhead RL jumpers.

@boristrump posted this excellent example of a journalist giving a voice to someone affected by the situation in a format that will reach people who don't read papers.

https://twitter.com/madamyez/status/875155162666545157

This is why I'm not going to accept that it's blanket always wrong to interview people who are ready to be interviewed shortly after a tragedy. It's important people hear things like this.

My old job before cycle training was facilities management didn't get to make any decisions about the building works but often ended up getting the day to day as works went on dumped on our team for the building we looked after. Fire safety filled way too much of my time for way too long and practically having the blueprints of the place burned into my mind brick by brick are great memories... ugh

It really feels to me that large properties like this that are traded as assets and the owners might not even ever actually see the physical building just numbers on a spreadsheet, the decisions to do this stuff come from some equally as uninterested types and just follow the trends in what returns the best money. I've had some really depressing conversations with those sorts of people being gleeful they had found for example building guidelines say a bedroom should be so many square meters and they can dodge that by making it a bedroom and some other room while putting in planning then market it as 2 bedrooms, the impact it has on those in the building wasn't a factor for them at all. Maybe the location too the others in the "rich" property the cladding was to improve the views for might be the same people and it's hitting close to home.

.

1 Attachment

They are now inspecting all the housing executive hi-rise buildings in Northern Ireland... hopefully they will do a really, really good check.

Because I wonder if maybe some problems were honestly not always know, and hopefully they use newer guidelines when they inspect.

I appreciate where you're coming from with this, and I absolutely agree that interviews with survivors/victims/eyewitnesses etc when they're ready can provide an informative and vital part of news reporting.
However it does seem the line gets crossed and journalists end up pushing people for information when they're really not ready. The Twitter thread I was talking about earlier provides an insight in to why this kind of reporting can be very indeed https://twitter.com/DrEm_79/status/866948006498717697

This is why I'm not going to accept that it's blanket always wrong to interview people who are ready to be interviewed shortly after a tragedy. It's important people hear things like this.

I don't think anyone has suggested this. What people have suggested is that in the case of personal individual tragedy, where an outsider cannot gauge how the victim will react, then the onus should be on minimising the harm caused by accosting people who are not ready to be interviewed, especially when there is clearly a wider public tragedy which can be reported on without traumatising individuals.

It feels like most of the people in this discussion are trying to focus on this specific issue (that it is a private tragedy that has no place in the public eye, unless put there by the individual affected), whilst you are trying to generalise it into a statement of "all press are evil, and they should only report what I want them to say"

Who's saying it's blanket wrong to interview people who are ready to be interviewed?

It's the methods of ascertaining whether a victim is ready that is being queried.

Do you

a: run in with a mic and a camera firing questions
b: approach a victim with empathy, free of mic or camera and offer some sort of kind words before asking if the victim feels up to answering some questions on camera or just maybe on tape and their words being used in print or online

If you think A is either not happening or that people are wrong to take umbrage with A then that's where the issue lies.

Love this

1 Attachment

I wholeheartedly agree that some journalists need to be much more sensitive. I don't like intrusive, voyeuristic reporting either.

Looks that way, surprised she spoke to the Firefighters, I doubt they hold her in high regard.

Then it would appear there is consensus, so you can stop your crywank and get on with the day. I might just stay for the end of this circle jerk though to release the tension.

may and the dup coalition seems to have been agreed
she even brought a pair of them in their marching gear on her daily duties