RugbyRebels

Tragic. Somehow I feel that this should have been preventable.

Condolences to all affected.

Zhivago wrote:Tragic. Somehow I feel that this should have been preventable.

Condolences to all affected.

It's sounding more and more like it should have been preventable and it will be more than 6 dead by the end.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Tragic. Somehow I feel that this should have been preventable.

Condolences to all affected.

It's sounding more and more like it should have been preventable and it will be more than 6 dead by the end.

Such a rich council like Kensington should have no excuses along the lines of lack of funding... I get the impression that somewhere people's safety has been ignored for financial benefits...

... Cutting costs costs lives.

A very sad event and thoughts with those who are hurt and the families of the deceased.

Bit early yet to be suggesting blame. It sounds like there were issues along the way, but Im very curious why safety controls like firedogs didn't hold back the blaze for the 30 odd minutes they are supposed to, but I'll wait for the report before jumping to conclusions.

Absolutely horrific stuff. What a terrifying ordeal to go through. It's bad enough watching the scenes unfold on the news, but to go through it or try escaping it doesn't bear thinking about.

It's hard to believe in this day and age, in a high income country that a building where people live can go up in flames that fast. It's the kind of thing you would expect to see happening in low income countries where regulations are not as tight.

I sincerely hope people are held fully accountable for there role in what has happened. There seems to be a lot of blame directed at the local council for their reluctance to take residents concerns seriously. If corners were cut, then guilty parties need to be dealt with at a criminal level.

I wonder how long it will be until someone mentions that lessons will be learned?

It doesn't look good. Residents spent last number of years jumping up and down about safety fears. There was a fire in 2009 albeit in a different block that should've set alarm bells ringing (pun unintended). I believe Tories recently voted against a bill/amendment that would've made landlords' safety checks more rigorous?

Initial outlook seems like heads will, rightly, roll

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

No communal alarms, gas risers recently installed in the stairwells and all the eye-witness accounts mentioning cladding that would appear to have served as an accelerating conduit that allowed the fire to by-pass any internal passive fire defences? This doesn't appear to me to be a case of asking whether it were preventable, but rather determining to what extent the risk was deliberately trivialised and who was culpable.

Like WiW, I have spent the day asking how something like this can happen in a European city with robust and modern building regulations. Do we treat those who are forced by circumstances to live in these social horror-boxes with such contempt that feckers are allowed to ignore these regulations to save a buck and make something hideous look a little less so from the outside?

Death toll now up to 12.

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...

Also read in the indy that the cladding was chosen to please owners of nearby luxury flats... keep the area looking decent.

Zhivago wrote:Also read in the indy that the cladding was chosen to please owners of nearby luxury flats... keep the area looking decent.

That's wholly irrelevant to this. Any product used will have to meet the standards of the relevant regulations. Whether they're chosen by the rich, poor or conspiracy theorists.

Zhivago wrote: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...

Yes, of course. They set fire to it when at its highest levels of occupation.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:No communal alarms, gas risers recently installed in the stairwells and all the eye-witness accounts mentioning cladding that would appear to have served as an accelerating conduit that allowed the fire to by-pass any internal passive fire defences? This doesn't appear to me to be a case of asking whether it were preventable, but rather determining to what extent the risk was deliberately trivialised and who was culpable.

Like WiW, I have spent the day asking how something like this can happen in a European city with robust and modern building regulations. Do we treat those who are forced by circumstances to live in these social horror-boxes with such contempt that feckers are allowed to ignore these regulations to save a buck and make something hideous look a little less so from the outside?

Death toll now up to 12.

I don't work in the residential sector but from what I do know fire alarms in the communal areas are very rare. All it takes is one idiot to light a fag and the entire block has to be evacuated. Each unit/flat will be its own safe house so that in your average fire you will have an hour (I think, again not sure about resi) of protection. This fire rating will obviously be on your 'average' fire and this one seems to be a monster.

The residents keep saying that the fire plan was for all residents to stay in their homes in the event of a fire. This tells me that the building met fire regs but it ain't my specialist field.

I think you're correct about how it spread. Either the external cladding or the work to the risers for the new gas supply had compromised the fire breaks.

With regards to regulations, we have some of the most stringent in the world but even with the best intentions you can't rule out all eventualities.

Someone somewhere has made a mistake or taken a bad decision and I hope they can come to terms with it.

Zhivago wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Tragic. Somehow I feel that this should have been preventable.

Condolences to all affected.

It's sounding more and more like it should have been preventable and it will be more than 6 dead by the end.

Such a rich council like Kensington should have no excuses along the lines of lack of funding... I get the impression that somewhere people's safety has been ignored for financial benefits...

... Cutting costs costs lives.

I think you should be carefully what you say until you know reason(s) this happened.

Mellsblue wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Also read in the indy that the cladding was chosen to please owners of nearby luxury flats... keep the area looking decent.

That's wholly irrelevant to this. Any product used will have to meet the standards of the relevant regulations. Whether they're chosen by the rich, poor or conspiracy theorists.

It is relevant. Your assertion relies on the assumptions that the regulations are kept up-to-date and reports with recommendations were not in fact kicked into the long grass...

Negligence or malfeasance, the outcome is still the same.

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Also read in the indy that the cladding was chosen to please owners of nearby luxury flats... keep the area looking decent.

That's wholly irrelevant to this. Any product used will have to meet the standards of the relevant regulations. Whether they're chosen by the rich, poor or conspiracy theorists.

It is relevant. Your assertion relies on the assumptions that the regulations are kept up-to-date and reports with recommendations were not in fact kicked into the long grass...

Do you know anything about building regs and British Standards/Eurocode? They are minimum requirements set by govt (UK & EU) of both the product itself and the installation specification. You can't use product if it doesn't meet these requirements. If the product is made in the EU it won't even leave the factory unless it meets these standards. As long as the cladding met these requirements, and I'd be monumentally suprised if a public sector building didn't though of course it is possible, then it doesn't matter who chose the cladding.
If the regulations aren't up to date how is that the faulty of the people who you've heard rumours chose the product.
More to the point, why shouldn't people who have to look at the building have a say in which product is used. That's how the planning system works all over the country for the rich, poor and conspiracy theorists.

Zhivago wrote:Negligence or malfeasance, the outcome is still the same.

Yes it is. People have lost their lives or their loved ones and you think it's a good idea to score political points by blaming austerity and rich people.

Mellsblue wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Negligence or malfeasance, the outcome is still the same.

Yes it is. People have lost their lives or their loved ones and you think it's a good idea to score political points by blaming austerity and rich people.

Politics matters. And it matters most when it causes people to lose their lives. You may see it as scoring points because you see it as a game, but I don't.

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Negligence or malfeasance, the outcome is still the same.

Yes it is. People have lost their lives or their loved ones and you think it's a good idea to score political points by blaming austerity and rich people.

Politics matters. And it matters most when it causes people to lose their lives. You may see it as scoring points because you see it as a game, but I don't.

I don't see it as a game. I work in the sector, I could work on a scheme just like this. Trust me, I don't see it as a game. You can go fuck yourself for even saying it.

The fact is, you have no idea whether politics has anything to do with the fire starting and/or spreading. When the fire investigation report comes back then start pointing the figure. Anytime before that it's just idle speculation and gossip, and you're trying to blame people for deaths when you have no idea what you are talking about.

Zhivago wrote:Negligence or malfeasance, the outcome is still the same.

The potential criminal charges are a bit different though.

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Negligence or malfeasance, the outcome is still the same.

Yes it is. People have lost their lives or their loved ones and you think it's a good idea to score political points by blaming austerity and rich people.

Politics matters. And it matters most when it causes people to lose their lives. You may see it as scoring points because you see it as a game, but I don't.

Hang on fella, you're th one accusing rich people and effectively playing politicS. Corbyn naturally blamed austerity without looking at whether this was a result of budget cuts or not. Basically jump on a bandwagon and score some points before the truth is established. That's playing politics.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Yes it is. People have lost their lives or their loved ones and you think it's a good idea to score political points by blaming austerity and rich people.

Politics matters. And it matters most when it causes people to lose their lives. You may see it as scoring points because you see it as a game, but I don't.

Hang on fella, you're th one accusing rich people and effectively playing politics. Corbyn naturally blamed austerity without looking at whether this was a result of budget cuts or not. Basically jump on a bandwagon and score some points before the truth is established. That's playing politics.

I'm not accusing rich people. I'm saying that a rich Tory borough like Kensington is perceived to care more about the interests of the rich folk living nearby in their luxury flats than it does about maintaining these social housing units to a safe standard. You may not have followed all the facts that have already come out about this fire, but I've been following it pretty closely. Obviously it's still an early stage, but there are already serious questions that need answering, and these questions do raise the issue about the impact of austerity and cuts in this. That's not playing politics, that's trying to understand the root causes of a tragic incident, and trying to hold people in positions of power accountable.

I don't play political point scoring games. That's a very childish way of seeing politics. I only seek to advance the progressive cause for a better society for all.

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.

Sandydragon wrote: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.