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.
Tower block fire - london
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
Last edited:
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!
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.
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
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.
Here's an interesting Guardian article
Why wasn't the lessons of the Lakanal fire in 2009 implemented?
Why wasn't the lessons of the Lakanal fire in 2009 implemented?
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
Deleted member 68110
D
Deleted member 68110
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?
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?
surely you have to ask why there were "warnings" not a simple refusal to approve the work as it didn't meet regs?
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.