The leader of the House of Commons issued “a profound apology” after he told a radio interviewer: “I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building. It just seems the common sense thing to do.”
This is an extract from the apology, printed well down the column
In his apology, Rees-Mogg said: “What I meant to say is that I would have also listened to the fire brigade’s advice to stay and wait at the time. However, with what we know now and with hindsight I wouldn’t and I don’t think anyone else would.
So an apology for what exactly? The woke have detected in this a vicious attack on the survivors, who must be treated as the sole arbiters of Truth in this matter, which brought
a furious reaction from survivors and campaigners...The rapper Stormzy [mentioned in the headline to attract da yoof readers] joined relatives, including the nephew of a Grenfell Tower victim who died after being told to stay put by the London fire brigade, in angrily dismissing the cabinet minister’s statement that victims should have left the burning tower block....“What possesses someone to react to an entirely avoidable tragedy like Grenfell by saying the victims lacked common sense?” the Labour leader tweeted.
The statement has now become one criticising the victims for lacking common sense. No doubt the Fire Brigade would also have taken umbrage, but the Graun has not yet decided if they are to be blamed as well, after this:
Sir Martin Moore-Bick, who is leading the Grenfell inquiry, said more lives could have been saved if the London fire brigade dropped its “stay put” policy sooner as staff tried to tackle the blaze.
Luckily, Stormzy's interventions brought some insight:
“Bare [so many] of you politicians are evil and wicked and this is why we hate you,” he said. “72 people died in a tragedy that you are to blame for … This ain’t about politics, it’s about the people who govern us lacking the most basic humanity or empathy. It’s nuts to me.”
The Graun adds legs:
The outpouring of anger at Rees-Mogg’s comments [somehow connects with] Earlier, it was revealed that the Treasury would not conduct a costing of Labour’s economics plans, as the government wished, because it breached civil service impartiality rules.
Worse is to come as A Bridgen commented on the issue using a totally taboo and offensive suggestion. E Davis, of blessed memory, now removed from Newsnight after the pills failed to work, and relegated to radio asked Bridgen if Rees-Mogg was :
in effect, saying: ‘I wouldn’t have died because I would have been cleverer than the people who took the fire brigade’s advice.’”...[and] in a way that is exactly what people object to... Following a long pause, Bridgen said: “But we want very clever people running the country, don’t we Evan? That’s a byproduct of what Jacob is and that’s why he is in a position of authority.”
Marvellous questions really, asking B what R-M meant, and then suggesting whatever he meant, or whatever Bridgen thought he meant, the meaning was 'in effect' something nasty, so Davis's understanding of what Rees-Mogg meant was better than Bridgen's understanding of what R-M meant. Davis evidently knew this all along before he asked any questions, so was only asking Bridgen in order to trap him and display his own virtues?
Now Bridgen's response could have just been a distraction, trying to shift the ground a bit, or maybe he was reacting to what he thought Davis meant, 'in effect' or otherwise, that R-M was just too clever by half. Bridgen really should have added that he felt demeaned, dehumanised and vulnerable after that remark and its obvious implication that Davis was rejecting what he had said. Whatever Bridgen meant by responding to what he thought Davis meant by what Rees-Mogg meant, it is a prime sin to suggest anyone is cleverer than anyone else, and the Graun naturally bristled at this thought, and said 'Andrew Bridgen later compounded the anger'
No comments:
Post a Comment