"michael adams" wrote in message
...
Given all the questions that remain to be answered, if they ever will
there's no reason to claim that anything should necessarily have been
done any differently. Might there have been a stampede with people
crushed etc etc?

Bethnal Green tube station in 1943 showed that happens when someone trips
during a panic evacuation down a staircase. I imagine that is at the back of
the mind of everyone involved in any similar evacuation down a staircase.

One thing that the fire brigade *might* have done differently is using
firemen on each floor as "marshals" to regulate the flow of people down the
staircase to lessen the chance of stampede. If they did do that, I've not
heard it mentioned anywhere.

The point I'm making is that such "facts" are irrelevant to the
actual problem of rescuing him from the chimney. Whereas
in mentioning them at all there may be a suggestion that
a) it was all his own fault anyway, and b) being mentally
unstable and possibly drunk he presented extra danger to
the rescuers. Both of which considerations are as I say
totally irrelevant.

I agree that the reason why he climbed the ladders was irrelevant to the
rescue, but the possibility that his mental / drunk state may present
additional risks both to him and his rescuers was very relevant to the
rescue plan, the same way that the fact he was upside-down (presumably with
a leg hooked around a rung) was a material fact that made his rescue (and
his chance of survival) more of a problem.