Because it is not relevant here and insinuates blame on the victims, continuously!
The fact that you evaded the question is just par for the course!
Last edited:
Tower block fire - london
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
The fact that you evaded the question is just par for the course!
You first insinuated that the interior door being open made a material difference to the outcome!
Then you insinuate that tenants wishes have affected local council decisions on sprinklers, with no mention of previous fires pushing the safety issue to the fore and being ignored!
You then make insinuations that fire prevention may not have been reasonable due to potential tenant abuse and/or the content of communal areas!
Frankly based on your post history here, shameful is generous and throwing the rant word and refusing to meaningfully comment for 2 pages isn't a defence!
white noise?
At the start of this thread people said in all seriousness that cladding on tower blocks is an enhancement required to improve thermal efficiency.
All I asked was:
What is the cost in energy to produce the cladding/how long will it take to pay it self off.
What is the comparable efficiency of other housing stock (owned by the council) for around 150 people.
No answers yet on these, but happily we have moved on to the state of the bins and if the residents like sprinklers anyway.
White noise might be a good shout!
Actually the original claim - which I can't find the original statement right now (but it was covered on sky news) only people repeating it - was that the cladding was to increase the thermal insulation and reduce heating/fuel bills for residents so they had more money to use for other things put over as if in the guise of some kind of philanthropic gesture.
Googling for the wording keeps leading back to http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2017/06/17/the-grenfell-tower-inferno/ but I definitely saw it covered live spoken by a spokesperson for the management of the tower block early on after the fire.
PS: Your re-framing of what people have said in a tense that is obviously not the way they meant it and fake moral outrage at the way people have said things that are plainly weren't meant in a manner to cause offence is really getting boring to read. Browbeating people from some affected moral high ground is quite an ugly trait.
Last edited:
If thats what you believe, Live with it!
you'll need to make a freedom of information request to the relevant council authority for those questions.
if anyone even knows the answers.
this may be something that no one has ever cataloged.
you said are we blaming the dead. that does suggest you think it was only the dead residents not the living ones
no theyre saying that blocked escape routes and flammable
things in the common areas will likely have contributed to deaths. As p[people would have found escape far more difficult.
literally no idea what this sentence even means.
what the heck does that have to do with anything?
fire routes where blocked and there was debris/flammable material in common areas.
these are big common fire risks and likely contributed to the number of people who died/failed to escape.
are you seriously saying you want a large part of the investigation to be ignored?
If decision makers do not know any of this, how on earth could you state that the cladding was put in place for energy efficiency reasons?
You are ranting and too worked up to discuss this sensibly.
Go away and read the entire thread again and then I'll discuss with you, call you a troll and follow that by deleting all my posts, isn't that how this works?
Alternatively:
I asked are we in the territory of blaming the dead for this fire?
It implies nothing of if I think the (roughly half) dead tenants are related to rubbish in communal areas, you can make your own calculations on probability when responding to what was always a question.
Actually this summary differs significantly from what was given (after 2 pages of evasion again) by the person I originally asked about the nature of their input to the thread.
for your continued irrelevant input!
Your personal opinion on the tenants of a tower block should indeed be irrelevant, I'm not asking for the investigation to ignore anything, however:
Anyone contributing to the investigation (on a fire that on an unclad building, would likely been put out, with no loss of life/little loss of life as many other have been in the past) who then focuses (as people here) on points that ONLY brings up biased, opinionated point after point of what the tenants/victims got wrong, should be seriously questioned as to their reason for being involved in the first place. Personally, I'd ask them something like if they are in the territory of blaming the dead for the outcome of this fire?
Because in the case of a fire that almost certainly, got out of hand due to external cladding, doing so would be a shameful thing to do!
Go away and read the entire thread again and then I'll discuss with you, call you a troll and follow that by deleting all my posts, isn't that how this works?
Alternatively:
No I Didn't and No it Doesn't!
I asked are we in the territory of blaming the dead for this fire?
It implies nothing of if I think the (roughly half) dead tenants are related to rubbish in communal areas, you can make your own calculations on probability when responding to what was always a question.
Actually this summary differs significantly from what was given (after 2 pages of evasion again) by the person I originally asked about the nature of their input to the thread.
It means, if your sole input to a thread on a fire, that has spread unlike any other (and primarily via an external cladding) is to point out issues you FEEL are with the residents/victims themselves (some based on hearsay) expect a bit of flack
for your continued irrelevant input!
Your personal opinion on the tenants of a tower block should indeed be irrelevant, I'm not asking for the investigation to ignore anything, however:
Anyone contributing to the investigation (on a fire that on an unclad building, would likely been put out, with no loss of life/little loss of life as many other have been in the past) who then focuses (as people here) on points that ONLY brings up biased, opinionated point after point of what the tenants/victims got wrong, should be seriously questioned as to their reason for being involved in the first place. Personally, I'd ask them something like if they are in the territory of blaming the dead for the outcome of this fire?
Because in the case of a fire that almost certainly, got out of hand due to external cladding, doing so would be a shameful thing to do!
ah more virtue signalling and fake moral outrage and thanks to you not being willing to engage in constructive dialogue but instead rant and call things 'shameful' etc.. it has gone on for 3 pages now
sad to see that even after you've asked your questions and had a rant you then decide to ignore what has been said and carry on ranting
sad to see that even after you've asked your questions and had a rant you then decide to ignore what has been said and carry on ranting
I guess not posting continual jabs at the victims of a horrific fire is a "virtue" to some these days.
Also odd, I post a question, it's an ignorant rant, you post evasion and then delete everything, it's presumably level headed?
'continual jabs at the victims' nope
and the only posts I've delete were two asking you questions about your general ranting... which was probably a good idea at the time as you'd have likely taken another two pages last night with yet more virtue signalling and ranting
