Theresa May’s practically minded response to the Grenfell tragedy was unpopular but necessary

SIR – Theresa May does not deserve the opprobrium being heaped on her in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower tragedy (report, June 18).

She met the emergency services to establish what had happened, ordered a public inquiry into the disaster and ensured that government emergency funding was in place for all those involved. That’s exactly what the prime minister should do.

Anything else could be regarded as pure political opportunism. Fiona Campbell

Peebles

SIR – The Government has pledged a £5 million aid package to assist the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire.

That’s about the cost of one sizable townhouse in North Kensington.

No wonder people are angry. Madge Dresser

Bristol

SIR – Why do Labour and the Tories think it appropriate to use the Grenfell Tower fire as a political lever? Surely at such times parties should put aside their differences and work together to help the residents practically and to ensure something like this never happens again.

Catherine Shearman

Stroud, Gloucestershire

SIR – There was enormous public anger following the deadly explosion at the Piper Alpha oil platform in the North Sea on July 6 1988. It was followed by a 13-month public inquiry chaired by Lord Cullen. Billions of pounds were subsequently spent on safety upgrades, such as installation of blast walls and subsea safety valves, and there was a massive research effort over the following decade. There was also a root-and-branch overhaul of the offshore safety regime.

The safety debate was productive because it took place in a calm and rational manner. I hope the Grenfell Tower inquiry is carried out in the same spirit.

Jeff Crook

South Croydon, Surrey SIR – Last week’s fire at Grenfell Tower has brought devastation to the community. In these most difficult circumstances, our firefighters and all of our emergency services have displayed unwavering bravery and professionalism. Over the past few days, as chairman of London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, I have been extraordinarily impressed by, and grateful for, their outstanding work.

Rather than speculate about causes, we must now leave it to the experts to work calmly and methodically to investigate what happened and why this horrific fire behaved as it did. It is vital that we ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.

We must get answers and changes must be made as quickly as possible – but the Government must make sure that any changes to policy, regulations or practices are based on facts.

Dr Fiona Twycross

Chairman, The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority London SE1 SIR – Two letters (June 17) put forward the view that providing fire hoses and fire extinguishers in every apartment in high-rise buildings is preferable to retrofitting sprinklers.

My 36 years as a firefighter convince me that this view is flawed. Who will operate the fire hose or extinguishers if there is no one at home? If the fire breaks out in a flat occupied by a disabled or elderly person, do we expect them to brave smoke and carbon monoxide while trying to fight the blaze? The fire service has plenty of evidence that domestic fires will be dealt with swiftly by the activation of a single sprinkler head.

Annoyingly, scriptwriters for movies and television programmes very often misrepresent the reliability and efficiency of sprinklers by showing entire buildings being flooded by the activation of a sprinkler system when there is no fire. This might get a cheap laugh, but it is a misleading portrait of how they work. John Craig

Worton, Wiltshire