Grenfell Fire

[Donny osmond]

I don't live in london but my perception is there is a lot of genuine anger, even rage about this fire. At this point it seems like it will be hard for the authorities to stop people following Zhiv's lead and making assumptions... and to be fair there are plenty of fire regs designed to stop this happening so asking why those regs weren't implemented is a fair question, even before any investigation into the causes. When was the last inspection and why didn't it pick up on the previously and regularly voiced safety concerns of the residents? Don't need a special investigation into that, it should be a matter of record.

Theres plenty about this incident that is already political, apparently cuts to legal aid meant residents were denied access to legal representation to follow up on their fears for example. The authorities will already be in the cross hairs for a lot of people looking on, with austerity and local and national cuts being first stop on the blame train, perhaps with justification. The authorities are going to need to be very careful about how they handle this to avoid public unrest.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

[Banquo]

I don't live in london but my perception is there is a lot of genuine anger, even rage about this fire. At this point it seems like it will be hard for the authorities to stop people following Zhiv's lead and making assumptions... and to be fair there are plenty of fire regs designed to stop this happening so asking why those regs weren't implemented is a fair question, even before any investigation into the causes. When was the last inspection and why didn't it pick up on the previously and regularly voiced safety concerns of the residents? Don't need a special investigation into that, it should be a matter of record.

Theres plenty about this incident that is already political, apparently cuts to legal aid meant residents were denied access to legal representation to follow up on their fears for example. The authorities will already be in the cross hairs for a lot of people looking on, with austerity and local and national cuts being first stop on the blame train, perhaps with justification. The authorities are going to need to be very careful about how they handle this to avoid public unrest.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Yep, there is a lot of understandable anger, and a lot of pitch fork talk. The management company looks like the first point of call- but there will obviously be talk of fat cats etc etc, despite the management company being a not for profit organisation.
Desperately sad and awful situation, and imo not the time yet for finger pointing. But fingers will need to be pointed to make sure the chances of it happening again are minimised.

[Sandydragon]

I don't live in london but my perception is there is a lot of genuine anger, even rage about this fire. At this point it seems like it will be hard for the authorities to stop people following Zhiv's lead and making assumptions... and to be fair there are plenty of fire regs designed to stop this happening so asking why those regs weren't implemented is a fair question, even before any investigation into the causes. When was the last inspection and why didn't it pick up on the previously and regularly voiced safety concerns of the residents? Don't need a special investigation into that, it should be a matter of record.

Theres plenty about this incident that is already political, apparently cuts to legal aid meant residents were denied access to legal representation to follow up on their fears for example. The authorities will already be in the cross hairs for a lot of people looking on, with austerity and local and national cuts being first stop on the blame train, perhaps with justification. The authorities are going to need to be very careful about how they handle this to avoid public unrest.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Quite. There is plenty of speculation at the moment which often isn't helpful. We can all agree that this shouldn't have happened, and must not happen again. For me, there are 3 potential avenues to explore:

Was this deliberate? I'm not referring to the evidence less claim that the council was in on it, but arson needs to be considered.
Were safety regulations followed? If the company hasn't complied with official regs then they are in the shyte.
Are safety regs sufficient? If the company and its contractors were operating to the letter of the law then does the law have to change?

All of this will come out following a full investigation. What isn't helpful is the political point scoring, i.e. austerity led to this. A similar event occurred in 2009, before the austerity era so people suggesting that have short memories. However, its a useful political stick with which to beat the government, but one that can unfortunately also enflame the situation (absolutely no pun intended). A more responsible approach would be to express sympathy and let the fire investigation professionals actually do their job before jumping to conclusions.

[Banquo]

I don't live in london but my perception is there is a lot of genuine anger, even rage about this fire. At this point it seems like it will be hard for the authorities to stop people following Zhiv's lead and making assumptions... and to be fair there are plenty of fire regs designed to stop this happening so asking why those regs weren't implemented is a fair question, even before any investigation into the causes. When was the last inspection and why didn't it pick up on the previously and regularly voiced safety concerns of the residents? Don't need a special investigation into that, it should be a matter of record.

Theres plenty about this incident that is already political, apparently cuts to legal aid meant residents were denied access to legal representation to follow up on their fears for example. The authorities will already be in the cross hairs for a lot of people looking on, with austerity and local and national cuts being first stop on the blame train, perhaps with justification. The authorities are going to need to be very careful about how they handle this to avoid public unrest.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Quite. There is plenty of speculation at the moment which often isn't helpful. We can all agree that this shouldn't have happened, and must not happen again. For me, there are 3 potential avenues to explore:

Was this deliberate? I'm not referring to the evidence less claim that the council was in on it, but arson needs to be considered.
Were safety regulations followed? If the company hasn't complied with official regs then they are in the shyte.
Are safety regs sufficient? If the company and its contractors were operating to the letter of the law then does the law have to change?

All of this will come out following a full investigation. What isn't helpful is the political point scoring, i.e. austerity led to this. A similar event occurred in 2009, before the austerity era so people suggesting that have short memories. However, its a useful political stick with which to beat the government, but one that can unfortunately also enflame the situation (absolutely no pun intended). A more responsible approach would be to express sympathy and let the fire investigation professionals actually do their job before jumping to conclusions.

Madness!

Exactly. The immediate point scoring, as happened after Borough Market, is frankly crass.

[Sandydragon]

A perception you are advancing, not to mention the accusation that the council started the fire deliberately to sell the plot on.

Yes there are serious questions that need answering - the succession of experts on the news all looking confused as to how this happened suggests that something has gone badly wrong. Equally, until there has been an investigation, speculation over funding cuts or prioritising the safety of the rich is just point scoring without any evidence to back it up.

Protest all you want, the reality is that is exactly what you are doing - point scoring.

I never said they started the fire deliberately. You are twisting my words to (hypocritically) score points.

You decided to spread that little rumour. There isn't a shred of evidence to back it up, just the usual conspiracy nonsense and I have no time for such crap or the people who share it.

Ask yourself a question. Does sharing that rumour actually help anything? Tensions are already high and there will be calls for heads to roll if there is a hint of poor practice. If enough people believe that rubbish then those rumblings could turn very nasty, and of course a riot is just what the area needs right now. If you spread junk like that expect to be called out on it.

[Zhivago]

A perception you are advancing, not to mention the accusation that the council started the fire deliberately to sell the plot on.

Yes there are serious questions that need answering - the succession of experts on the news all looking confused as to how this happened suggests that something has gone badly wrong. Equally, until there has been an investigation, speculation over funding cuts or prioritising the safety of the rich is just point scoring without any evidence to back it up.

Protest all you want, the reality is that is exactly what you are doing - point scoring.

I never said they started the fire deliberately. You are twisting my words to (hypocritically) score points.

You decided to spread that little rumour. There isn't a shred of evidence to back it up, just the usual conspiracy nonsense and I have no time for such crap or the people who share it.

Ask yourself a question. Does sharing that rumour actually help anything? Tensions are already high and there will be calls for heads to roll if there is a hint of poor practice. If enough people believe that rubbish then those rumblings could turn very nasty, and of course a riot is just what the area needs right now. If you spread junk like that expect to be called out on it.

So you think that the council wouldn't like to be able to sell off the land?

[Digby]

I don't live in london but my perception is there is a lot of genuine anger, even rage about this fire. At this point it seems like it will be hard for the authorities to stop people following Zhiv's lead and making assumptions... and to be fair there are plenty of fire regs designed to stop this happening so asking why those regs weren't implemented is a fair question, even before any investigation into the causes. When was the last inspection and why didn't it pick up on the previously and regularly voiced safety concerns of the residents? Don't need a special investigation into that, it should be a matter of record.

Theres plenty about this incident that is already political, apparently cuts to legal aid meant residents were denied access to legal representation to follow up on their fears for example. The authorities will already be in the cross hairs for a lot of people looking on, with austerity and local and national cuts being first stop on the blame train, perhaps with justification. The authorities are going to need to be very careful about how they handle this to avoid public unrest.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Quite. There is plenty of speculation at the moment which often isn't helpful. We can all agree that this shouldn't have happened, and must not happen again. For me, there are 3 potential avenues to explore:

Was this deliberate? I'm not referring to the evidence less claim that the council was in on it, but arson needs to be considered.
Were safety regulations followed? If the company hasn't complied with official regs then they are in the shyte.
Are safety regs sufficient? If the company and its contractors were operating to the letter of the law then does the law have to change?

All of this will come out following a full investigation. What isn't helpful is the political point scoring, i.e. austerity led to this. A similar event occurred in 2009, before the austerity era so people suggesting that have short memories. However, its a useful political stick with which to beat the government, but one that can unfortunately also enflame the situation (absolutely no pun intended). A more responsible approach would be to express sympathy and let the fire investigation professionals actually do their job before jumping to conclusions.

Also need to look at the response of the fire brigade, what were the issues in them being able to get to work tackling the fire, and why did they stick with the plan for the building that assumed a 1 hour burn between flats and between floors given the spread and rate of spread of the fire?

[Sandydragon]

I don't live in london but my perception is there is a lot of genuine anger, even rage about this fire. At this point it seems like it will be hard for the authorities to stop people following Zhiv's lead and making assumptions... and to be fair there are plenty of fire regs designed to stop this happening so asking why those regs weren't implemented is a fair question, even before any investigation into the causes. When was the last inspection and why didn't it pick up on the previously and regularly voiced safety concerns of the residents? Don't need a special investigation into that, it should be a matter of record.

Theres plenty about this incident that is already political, apparently cuts to legal aid meant residents were denied access to legal representation to follow up on their fears for example. The authorities will already be in the cross hairs for a lot of people looking on, with austerity and local and national cuts being first stop on the blame train, perhaps with justification. The authorities are going to need to be very careful about how they handle this to avoid public unrest.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Quite. There is plenty of speculation at the moment which often isn't helpful. We can all agree that this shouldn't have happened, and must not happen again. For me, there are 3 potential avenues to explore:

Was this deliberate? I'm not referring to the evidence less claim that the council was in on it, but arson needs to be considered.
Were safety regulations followed? If the company hasn't complied with official regs then they are in the shyte.
Are safety regs sufficient? If the company and its contractors were operating to the letter of the law then does the law have to change?

All of this will come out following a full investigation. What isn't helpful is the political point scoring, i.e. austerity led to this. A similar event occurred in 2009, before the austerity era so people suggesting that have short memories. However, its a useful political stick with which to beat the government, but one that can unfortunately also enflame the situation (absolutely no pun intended). A more responsible approach would be to express sympathy and let the fire investigation professionals actually do their job before jumping to conclusions.

Also need to look at the response of the fire brigade, what were the issues in them being able to get to work tackling the fire, and why did they stick with the plan for the building that assumed a 1 hour burn between flats and between floors given the spread and rate of spread of the fire?

That's interesting, given the fire safety inspection. Either the issue with cladding weren't understood or there was an issue that just wasn't apparent during their inspection. Ive hosted the FIre Brigade on a number of occasions for these things, they tend to be pretty good as a whole. Certainly, they aren't going to take risks with peoples lives.

[kk67]

Some mates were experimenting with building their own wood burners. Getting them to draw air properly is quite a nifty equation, it took them ages to perfect it.
Easterly wind and a fire on the Western side. It looked to like a perfect storm of drawing air up through the cavity. The fire stops prevented it going vertically like in Dubai but it found a way laterally.

Horrific.

[Zhivago]

I don't live in london but my perception is there is a lot of genuine anger, even rage about this fire. At this point it seems like it will be hard for the authorities to stop people following Zhiv's lead and making assumptions... and to be fair there are plenty of fire regs designed to stop this happening so asking why those regs weren't implemented is a fair question, even before any investigation into the causes. When was the last inspection and why didn't it pick up on the previously and regularly voiced safety concerns of the residents? Don't need a special investigation into that, it should be a matter of record.

Theres plenty about this incident that is already political, apparently cuts to legal aid meant residents were denied access to legal representation to follow up on their fears for example. The authorities will already be in the cross hairs for a lot of people looking on, with austerity and local and national cuts being first stop on the blame train, perhaps with justification. The authorities are going to need to be very careful about how they handle this to avoid public unrest.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Quite. There is plenty of speculation at the moment which often isn't helpful. We can all agree that this shouldn't have happened, and must not happen again. For me, there are 3 potential avenues to explore:

Was this deliberate?I'm not referring to the evidence less claim that the council was in on it, but arson needs to be considered.
Were safety regulations followed? If the company hasn't complied with official regs then they are in the shyte.
Are safety regs sufficient? If the company and its contractors were operating to the letter of the law then does the law have to change?

All of this will come out following a full investigation. What isn't helpful is the political point scoring, i.e. austerity led to this. A similar event occurred in 2009, before the austerity era so people suggesting that have short memories. However, its a useful political stick with which to beat the government, but one that can unfortunately also enflame the situation (absolutely no pun intended). A more responsible approach would be to express sympathy and let the fire investigation professionals actually do their job before jumping to conclusions.

No one has claimed this!!

[Zhivago]

All this talk by Sandy about let's wait for the inquest blah blah. There was an inquest 4 years ago into an almost identical incident - Lakanal House. The 'lessons' were not learned, they were ignored.

[kk67]

Something that pissed me off about this tv coverage was the way they kept filming the building at an angle. They really, really, really wanted it to fall down. Sick Feckers.

[Digby]

Quite. There is plenty of speculation at the moment which often isn't helpful. We can all agree that this shouldn't have happened, and must not happen again. For me, there are 3 potential avenues to explore:

Was this deliberate? I'm not referring to the evidence less claim that the council was in on it, but arson needs to be considered.
Were safety regulations followed? If the company hasn't complied with official regs then they are in the shyte.
Are safety regs sufficient? If the company and its contractors were operating to the letter of the law then does the law have to change?

All of this will come out following a full investigation. What isn't helpful is the political point scoring, i.e. austerity led to this. A similar event occurred in 2009, before the austerity era so people suggesting that have short memories. However, its a useful political stick with which to beat the government, but one that can unfortunately also enflame the situation (absolutely no pun intended). A more responsible approach would be to express sympathy and let the fire investigation professionals actually do their job before jumping to conclusions.

Also need to look at the response of the fire brigade, what were the issues in them being able to get to work tackling the fire, and why did they stick with the plan for the building that assumed a 1 hour burn between flats and between floors given the spread and rate of spread of the fire?

That's interesting, given the fire safety inspection. Either the issue with cladding weren't understood or there was an issue that just wasn't apparent during their inspection. Ive hosted the FIre Brigade on a number of occasions for these things, they tend to be pretty good as a whole. Certainly, they aren't going to take risks with peoples lives.

Cladding or no with a fire spreading as it was then after this and the fire in Southampton a few years back I think they will have to revisit the decision to simply rely on supposed building containment plans. And blimey would I not want to be the person having to make that call at any given scene

[Stones of granite]

I don't live in london but my perception is there is a lot of genuine anger, even rage about this fire. At this point it seems like it will be hard for the authorities to stop people following Zhiv's lead and making assumptions... and to be fair there are plenty of fire regs designed to stop this happening so asking why those regs weren't implemented is a fair question, even before any investigation into the causes. When was the last inspection and why didn't it pick up on the previously and regularly voiced safety concerns of the residents? Don't need a special investigation into that, it should be a matter of record.

Theres plenty about this incident that is already political, apparently cuts to legal aid meant residents were denied access to legal representation to follow up on their fears for example. The authorities will already be in the cross hairs for a lot of people looking on, with austerity and local and national cuts being first stop on the blame train, perhaps with justification. The authorities are going to need to be very careful about how they handle this to avoid public unrest.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Quite. There is plenty of speculation at the moment which often isn't helpful. We can all agree that this shouldn't have happened, and must not happen again. For me, there are 3 potential avenues to explore:

Was this deliberate?I'm not referring to the evidence less claim that the council was in on it, but arson needs to be considered.
Were safety regulations followed? If the company hasn't complied with official regs then they are in the shyte.
Are safety regs sufficient? If the company and its contractors were operating to the letter of the law then does the law have to change?

All of this will come out following a full investigation. What isn't helpful is the political point scoring, i.e. austerity led to this. A similar event occurred in 2009, before the austerity era so people suggesting that have short memories. However, its a useful political stick with which to beat the government, but one that can unfortunately also enflame the situation (absolutely no pun intended). A more responsible approach would be to express sympathy and let the fire investigation professionals actually do their job before jumping to conclusions.

No one has claimed this!!

If no one has claimed this, what does this post mean?

On the extreme end of allegations it has been suggested that the council might have desired to be able to sell the land, being as it is in a prime location...

[canta_brian]

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/ ... /10907.htm

1999. So that's nearly 18 years to get this regulated.

[kk67]

I gladly decry 1950's, 60's, 70's architecture....but you can't argue with 'concrete don't burn'.
It'll be fascinating to see the projected thermal benefit of the panels.

[Sandydragon]

I gladly decry 1950's, 60's, 70's architecture....but you can't argue with 'concrete don't burn'.
It'll be fascinating to see the projected thermal benefit of the panels.

I wonder how many building managers are looking at the cladding on their building with a sense of unease today?

For the sake of making the place look nice it would have been cheaper and safer to paint the concrete and be done with it. However, I'm not going to knock someone unless they deliberately used materials they knew to be unsafe or did a Sshyte job, both of which need to be established.

[kk67]

paint the concrete and be done with it.

Yup. Could have looked really nice if it had been done well. The original building was ok.
The lower entrance floors reminded me of a swimming pool I used as a kid. We seem to have a pathological desire to improve things in a totally pointless fashion.

[Zhivago]

Quite. There is plenty of speculation at the moment which often isn't helpful. We can all agree that this shouldn't have happened, and must not happen again. For me, there are 3 potential avenues to explore:

Was this deliberate?I'm not referring to the evidence less claim that the council was in on it, but arson needs to be considered.
Were safety regulations followed? If the company hasn't complied with official regs then they are in the shyte.
Are safety regs sufficient? If the company and its contractors were operating to the letter of the law then does the law have to change?

All of this will come out following a full investigation. What isn't helpful is the political point scoring, i.e. austerity led to this. A similar event occurred in 2009, before the austerity era so people suggesting that have short memories. However, its a useful political stick with which to beat the government, but one that can unfortunately also enflame the situation (absolutely no pun intended). A more responsible approach would be to express sympathy and let the fire investigation professionals actually do their job before jumping to conclusions.

No one has claimed this!!

If no one has claimed this, what does this post mean?

On the extreme end of allegations it has been suggested that the council might have desired to be able to sell the land, being as it is in a prime location...

It's vague. There was a claim from one of those interviewed that said that he thought the council wanted to sell the blocks to developers. That's not the same as some half baked conspiracy that Sandy or Mells inferred from it... Which they did just to have something to argue with.

[Zhivago]

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/ ... /10907.htm

1999. So that's nearly 18 years to get this regulated.

Good find!

[kk67]

No one has claimed this!!

If no one has claimed this, what does this post mean?

On the extreme end of allegations it has been suggested that the council might have desired to be able to sell the land, being as it is in a prime location...

It's vague. There was a claim from one of those interviewed that said that he thought the council wanted to sell the blocks to developers. That's not the same as some half baked conspiracy that Sandy or Mells inferred from it... Which they did just to have something to argue with.

That junction is a very important conduit. That makes it prime real estate.

[Mellsblue]

paint the concrete and be done with it.

Yup. Could have looked really nice if it had been done well. The original building was ok.
The lower entrance floors reminded me of a swimming pool I used as a kid. We seem to have a pathological desire to improve things in a totally pointless fashion.

The paint would've lasted a matter of a few years before looking like shit.
Externally cladding is the best way to insulate a building. In fact, to maintain the integrity of the building fabric of these concrete tower blocks it's the only way to retrospectively insulate them.

[Stones of granite]

No one has claimed this!!

If no one has claimed this, what does this post mean?

On the extreme end of allegations it has been suggested that the council might have desired to be able to sell the land, being as it is in a prime location...

It's vague. There was a claim from one of those interviewed that said that he thought the council wanted to sell the blocks to developers. That's not the same as some half baked conspiracy that Sandy or Mells inferred from it... Which they did just to have something to argue with.

So, how does this connect to the fire? It is either a complete non sequitur, or it is an allegation of involvement. Which is it?

[Zhivago]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 92711.html

It has now emerged that the aluminium panels thought to have been added to the outside of the block as part of a £10 million refurbishment completed in May 2016 are banned in the US on buildings taller than 40 feet for fire safety reasons.

The panels believed to have been fitted to the outside of Grenfell Tower are produced by US company Reynobond, which makes three types of panel: one with a flammable plastic core and two with fire-resistant cores.

It is thought that contractors chose the cheaper, more combustible version for Grenfell, which has a polyethylene core and is known as PE.

A salesman for the US company Reynobond, which produces the panels, told The Times the type of panel believed to have been used on Grenfell Tower was banned on tall buildings in the US “because of the fire and smoke spread”.

He said the PE version is used for small commercial buildings and petrol stations, rather than for tower blocks or major public buildings such as hospitals, adding: “It’s because of the fire and smoke spread. The FR [variant] is fire-resistant. The PE is just plastic."

[Sandydragon]

paint the concrete and be done with it.

Yup. Could have looked really nice if it had been done well. The original building was ok.
The lower entrance floors reminded me of a swimming pool I used as a kid. We seem to have a pathological desire to improve things in a totally pointless fashion.

The paint would've lasted a matter of a few years before looking like shit.
Externally cladding is the best way to insulate a building. In fact, to maintain the integrity of the building fabric of these concrete tower blocks it's the only way to retrospectively insulate them.

I was being slightly facetious, I do understand the requirement to clad older buildings. I suspect we are going to find lots of good intention decisions taken for the best of reasons which co tribute towards this disaster. And possible some bad ones as well, but let's look at the investigations first. The PM wants a public enquiry, but I heard today that the police are launching a criminal investigation, so we should get some facts pretty quickly.

Someone also needs to calm this situation down. Sadiq Kahn of all people getting heckled and, allegedly, bottles thrown at him isn't a great sight and Corbyn et al meeting the survivors is fair enough, but political leaders need to be keeping people calm right now, or allowing bad blood to fester and lead to something worse.