[ad_1]
On Wednesday’s episode, it is largely Inger Cecilie “IC” Grønnerød’s sabotage of one of the weekly assignments that is striking. He lights an embroidery and rushes out of the house when the flames burn.
In the end, the film crew had to step in and they threw the burning embroidery into the yard.
Furious after sabotage: – Nausea
When the other participants saw what had happened, it provoked strong reactions and the atmosphere afterwards has been frozen. There has also been smoke in the comment fields on social media, with several taking a hard line against Grønnerød and the arson.
– I told the production from the beginning about this plan, which was what I wanted to do, so that security and everything was taken care of, he told Dagbladet on Wednesday.
TV 2 not responding
Several also react to TV 2’s explanation of what happened, after having responded to the press that the sabotage was clarified in advance with the production. However, they believe that there was a misunderstanding between Grønnerød and the team, and that production was never intended to intervene.
On Wednesday, the two participants Karianne Kopperstad and Daniel Viem Årdal explained that they did not buy the explanation of TV 2. They are not alone.
Outside of “The Farm”: – Tired of being so cynical
Dagbladet has sent a series of questions to TV 2 to clarify the background saying that the situation was under control. TV 2 refers to yesterday’s statement and does not want to answer the questions.
- Read the questions at the end of the case.
– There were people present in the room all the time, and it is important for us to emphasize that Inger Cecilie never endangered anything or anyone with what she did. The situation was under control the entire time. Neither the participants, nor the animals nor the houses were in danger, wrote program editor Kathrine Haldorsen in an email to Dagbladet on Wednesday.
However, he admitted that there was a misunderstanding between the production and Grønnerød about who should put out the fire, which is why they had to intervene.
Explanation of doubts
Nils Kvalvik (39), who was sent home from the farm a few weeks ago, is a firefighter and takes a hard line against production in a Facebook post.
“If the production had had the fire brigade present, or someone with experience in fires, I don’t think they would have allowed anything inside to catch fire as long as there were unsuspecting people in the house,” was one of his writings.
see more
For Dagbladet, he emphasizes that he was not present, but that he thinks it is surprising that something has caught fire inside.
– Of course, I question the fact that they discard it with everything under control. I really wonder what risk assessment has been done to set things on fire: We are talking about century-old furniture, he says.
The profile of the “farm” badly damaged
As is well known, Kvalvik had to travel home from the farm after it was discovered that the participants had been in nearby cabins and thus broke infection control rules. He believes that the production should have learned something from the participants and not have.
– We have defended what we did on the farm, we assume the consequences and we apologize when we made a mistake. I was very disappointed with the production, that they could not say “sorry, we gave a very bad evaluation”. We should never set fire to anything in a house where there are two people upstairs.
Ask for action
Rolf Søtorp, CEO of the Norwegian Fire Protection Association, tells Dagbladet that he assumes that TV 2 had done a risk assessment and had a plan in case there was an unforeseen development of the fire process, as they themselves claim that everything was under control.
– As is clear from the text of the article, we cannot see that there is an extinguisher, fire hose or other extinguishing agents available beyond what is called a water boiler. There is also no mention that a risk assessment was conducted and measures were taken according to that risk analysis, he says.
“The Farm” -Thors turning point: – A crisis in life
– To have control in such a situation is not to have a boiler with available water, so we must assume that more measures than that were taken. In any case, lighting tablecloths or anything else open on a floor indoors is not justified without professional and effective measures being taken to deal with an unforeseen development of the fire approach, he adds.
TV 2 will not answer these questions:
- Former participant and firefighter Nils reacts strongly to Facebook. He believes that the situation was not under control from the production side, and says that it is inconceivable that lighting something inside an old house could be fireproof. What do you think about this?
- Have the fire department been consulted prior to the incident?
- It says little in yesterday’s answer about what was actually clarified with IC in advance. Can you elaborate?
- The Norwegian Fire Protection Association tells us that they consider that you have carried out a risk assessment and plan in the event of an unforeseen development of the fire approach, as you say the situation was under control. Have you done it before? If not, why do you say that everything was under control?
- Exactly what measures were initiated to gain control? It says there was a water boiler there, but the Norwegian Fire Protection Association thinks there should also be a fire extinguisher, fire hose or other extinguishing agents nearby, right?
