Tower block fire - london

h4rm0ny · 26 Jun 2017 at 00:02

Tefal said:
problem is its much like union elections you've rarely got anything more than a paragraph of text on an obscure web site to acxtually find out who the heck you're voting for.

so its just blind roulette.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The higher the turn-out for council elections, the more effort candidates put in to differentiating themselves and making efforts to secure your vote with things you want. With the dire turnouts most areas see, they barely bother because they believe that people will just vote along the lines of the current national government.

muon · 26 Jun 2017 at 00:08

Cern said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40397790

60 blocks across 25 councils have now failed safety tests. So there's going to be a mix of councils of all political persuasions, past and present, responsible.

This is shaping up to be a scandalous failure of the political establishment, involving all parties.

It is easy to blame politicians, but it is also a massive failure on the part of experts that sign off on these things as well as the experts that created the regulations.

Rroff · 26 Jun 2017 at 00:15

Cern said:
This is shaping up to be a scandalous failure of the political establishment, involving all parties.

Doesn't really surprise me to be frank this kind of approach is endemic within British industry and this is just one of the times where chance taking and complacency, etc. has actually come around to the foreseeable, if relatively low chance of occurring, consequences.

I mean we send troops off to fight without adequate amounts and often even wrong ammo, pitifully broken radios, etc. if anyone is surprise by this they really shouldn't be by now.

Cern · 26 Jun 2017 at 00:19

muon said:
It is easy to blame politicians, but it is also a massive failure on the part of experts that sign off on these things as well as the experts that created the regulations.

Yes, perhaps. We'll have to see what the Public Enquiry uncovers as to how much the expert advice was either incorrect or went unheeded. The interviews I've seen so far with fire safety experts and architects would seem to indicate it's more a case of warnings going unheeded, some of them quite strong warnings. But they could be covering their backsides too.

Top_gun · 26 Jun 2017 at 00:21

muon said:
It is easy to blame politicians, but it is also a massive failure on the part of experts that sign off on these things as well as the experts that created the regulations.

The politicians must never be let off the hook. Particularly as several Tory housing ministers sat on a fire report in the aftermath of the Lakanal fire enquiry. I would suggest the Grenfell Tower fire may not have occurred if this report was actually published on time.

Also, has there been a failure in regulations with regards to the Grenfell fire? Philip Hammond was claiming that the Grenfell tower cladding was against building regulations during his interview on a BBC programme.

h4rm0ny · 26 Jun 2017 at 00:25

Dis86 said:
We already know that to be the case as it looks like it was full of illegal immigrants.

Second time someone has posted this in this thread. Where are you both getting this? Do you have a source?

Mr Badger · 26 Jun 2017 at 00:38

h4rm0ny said:
Second time someone has posted this in this thread. Where are you both getting this? Do you have a source?

It stands to reason. Some people that lived there were on the news and they had funny accents and didn't look like us proper white English folk, therefore it was packed full of illegal immigrants. QED.

Either that or the comments section of the Mail online...

:rolleyes:

Top_gun · 26 Jun 2017 at 00:57

Cern said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40397790

60 blocks across 25 councils have now failed safety tests. So there's going to be a mix of councils of all political persuasions, past and present, responsible.

This is shaping up to be a scandalous failure of the political establishment, involving all parties.

Possibly, except Camden council is claiming that Rydon, the same contractor linked to the Grenfell Tower fire scandal, did not installed the specified safer cladding. We won't know the full extent of the scandal for 60 blocks across 25 councils until people starts to question the refurbishment process. For example, did the council conducted a full and meaningful consultation with residents, what was the extent of fire risk assessments, did local politicians risk the lives of residents by putting money first before safety?

stewski · 26 Jun 2017 at 00:58

Dolph said:
Plymouth for one, the work was done under both local and national labour governments.

I thought the cladding in Plymouth had been established as significantly different to grenfell?

My first questions on this thread were about the reasoning behind adding cladding, if has been suggested it is impossible to establish valid heat efficiency improvement as compared to other housing stock, what are/were the reasons given for these death traps!

Cern · 26 Jun 2017 at 01:10

Mr Badger said:
It stands to reason. Some people that lived there were on the news and they had funny accents and didn't look like us proper white English folk, therefore it was packed full of illegal immigrants. QED.

Either that or the comments section of the Mail online...

It's a matter of perception and seeing what you want to see / hearing what you want to hear much of the time.

To my London ears, many of those interviewed in the aftermath sounded like ordinary Londoners. For the most part good English spoken. For the most part London accents present, either partially or completely. Yes there were newer non-EU immigrants and EU immigrants too. But lots of regular London folk who have likely lived in the capital most, or indeed all, of their lives. So this 'packed full of illegal immigrants' thing is a falsehood. It's of course likely there were some, but those people trying to make out it was a majority are pushing a pretty unpleasant agenda.

Dalandius · 26 Jun 2017 at 01:24

After the australian tower block fire in 2014 why was this not looked into?

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ys-melbournes-lacrosse-tower-still-poses-risk

Rroff · 26 Jun 2017 at 01:32

Dalandius said:
After the australian tower block fire in 2014 why was this not looked into?

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ys-melbournes-lacrosse-tower-still-poses-risk

Kind of interesting if true that sprinklers are pointed to there are being one of the key factors they were able to evac successfully - also was one point that hampered firefighting (defensive) in Grenfell due to issues getting hoses above the 8th floor or something like that to provide a protective corridor.

Top_gun · 26 Jun 2017 at 01:58

Here's an interesting Guardian article

Why wasn't the lessons of the Lakanal fire in 2009 implemented?

Energize · 26 Jun 2017 at 02:13

Dalandius said:
After the australian tower block fire in 2014 why was this not looked into?

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ys-melbournes-lacrosse-tower-still-poses-risk

Firefighters were able to evacuate the building and save its 400 residents. High-pressure water in the sprinkler system, which did not fail despite being overwhelmed by multiple points of fire, extinguished the flames inside.

Well that puts to rest the nay sayers claims that sprinklers would not have helped.

Freakbro · 26 Jun 2017 at 04:34

Mr Badger said:
It stands to reason. Some people that lived there were on the news and they had funny accents and didn't look like us proper white English folk,

To be fair, the white people had pretty funny accents to me as well

therefore it was packed full of illegal immigrants. QED.

Either that or the comments section of the Mail online...

I also noticed that 'illegal sub-letting' was being talked about which because it had the word illegal in it immediately seemed to morph into 'illegal immigrant',by some people

garnett · 26 Jun 2017 at 06:22

Apologies if this has already been discussed but what is the reason the fire brigade didn't use any sort of equipment that could have allowed people to jump from the building?

Are those inflatable "bouncy castle" things not really any good, or only suitable for building of a certain height, or not deployed where there's a risk of stuff falling on them?

Tefal · 26 Jun 2017 at 06:28

Cern said:
Yes, perhaps. We'll have to see what the Public Enquiry uncovers as to how much the expert advice was either incorrect or went unheeded. The interviews I've seen so far with fire safety experts and architects would seem to indicate it's more a case of warnings going unheeded, some of them quite strong warnings. But they could be covering their backsides too.

surely you have to ask why there were "warnings" not a simple refusal to approve the work as it didn't meet regs?

Tefal · 26 Jun 2017 at 06:33

stewski said:
I thought the cladding in Plymouth had been established as significantly different to grenfell?

My first questions on this thread were about the reasoning behind adding cladding, if has been suggested it is impossible to establish valid heat efficiency improvement as compared to other housing stock, what are/were the reasons given for these death traps!

i think you'll find it hard to compare as it would be

you: So what insulation do you have in traditional housing?

Council: eighteen inches!

You: ok, what kind of insulation and how effective is it?

council:....errrr 18 inches just like the regs say!

you: yes but how effective is it?

council : 18 inches!!!!!!

Dolph · 26 Jun 2017 at 07:00

stewski said:
I thought the cladding in Plymouth had been established as significantly different to grenfell?

My first questions on this thread were about the reasoning behind adding cladding, if has been suggested it is impossible to establish valid heat efficiency improvement as compared to other housing stock, what are/were the reasons given for these death traps!

Cladding is the same, insulation was different (it was completed in 2000)

As for cladding, social housing is required to constantly chase the latest building regulations for insulation etc, hence the use of external insulation and cladding.

Tefal · 26 Jun 2017 at 07:06

Dolph said:
Cladding is the same, insulation was different (it was completed in 2000)

As for cladding, social housing is required to constantly chase the latest building regulations for insulation etc, hence the use of external insulation and cladding.

but it seems they got the regs completely wrong?

i just dont see how something goes through the whole process with no body noticing "not over 18 meters"?

in o0ur industry we get regs beaten into us to the point where youre safer saying to your boss "no im not touching it get quality in" than to do as your told. quality/inspection is separated out completely from the chain of command much like HR is in most places.

if they say no, doesn't matter how big the boss is yelling nothing happens.