Tower block fire - london
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
I don't have a high rise block to rent out, (more is the pity...), but historically these places, unless tenanted by owner occupiers are a hot bed of vandalism with wanton damage to lifts, communal areas and infrastructure commonplace, and a major cost to their landlords. Whilst I can't remember WHERE I read it, I am pretty sure some decades back sprinkler systems were cited as a cause of serious costly damage due to vandals randomly setting them off, and were going out of fashion for fire containment.
It's not exactly hard to believe, unfortunately. Why I was intrigued to know about waterless suppression systems.
Seems they could be an answer to combating fire whilst also not succumbing to acts of vandalism. The possibility of occupants being gassed to death might need some work however. (unless it was an act vandalism)
They are usually used in server rooms and the like. Not usually occupied but there would be time for a rapid evacuation.
The risk of vandalism is no excuse for not installing adequate fire safety measures. If a system is installed and vandalised then catch the vandals and bring them to justice (they are after all endangering lives) and/or fit better anti-vandalism measures.
It's a false economy anyway. What price a human life? Lots of people have lost their lives here, the rest have all lost their homes and possessions. All because, it would seem, of cost-cutting measures and negligence.
.Actually what they should do is demolish and build a row or two of three / four storey flats or maisonettes. Without landings access, just normal townhouses in a terrace. 120 various size flats should fit in 30 dwellings.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
I am afraid you are being naieve if well intentioned.. Human life does have a price, ask most NHS fund owners about expensive drugs. Ask any house building company if all their properties are totally state of the art, safety wise. Population expansion, particularly of poorer groups, is ever increasing, and as yet no government has managed to grow a money tree. This incident needs keeping in perspective, if people think every tenement block in the UK is going to brought up to the best safety standards of the modern era they are kidding themselves, councils are embattled with housing low income or no income people, with limited funding, and the government, any government, is limited in what funding is available. The private landlords have to make a profit, and run their businesses in a sensible manner. Is it not premature to be judge, jury and executioner over this accident?
We don't know that at all though.
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,735
- Location
- Welling, London
First victim named. 23 year old Syrian refugee Mohammed Al-Hajali. Tragic. Come here for a better life and end up suffering that.
Idealistic maybe, but far from naive. Don't even go there with parroting all that "money tree" garbage. Yes there's limited resources, so they need to be spent wisely. But if there's a culture of always awarding contracts to the lowest possible bidder, then you run the risk of substandard services and products. Yes the taxpayer needs to get value for money, but as with any product, the cheapest isn't always the best value for money because of the potential for failure or not being fit for purpose.
And of course you can't bring a 1970s tower block fully up to modern standards, but there are cost effective things that can and should be done to improve safety. The economic status of the residents should have zero bearing on this. Or are you saying that because people are "low income or no income" it's acceptable to house them in deathtraps?
The latter requires there to be no human presence because of either the chemicals used, or the fact it removes all the oxygen from the room. Not great if you're in one of the rooms, asleep, or waiting to be rescued.
It's probably repairable, but economically it would likely be cheaper to knock it down and start again. But either way due to the amount that have died it's going to come down.
Ah, we bomb their home, then our terribad social systems kill them anyway.
yup, saw this yesterday from the council and a friend who was volunteering - tis great that so many people donated so quickly though
We bombed their home? How do you figure that one out?
The more effective versions of those systems are designed to be used in server rooms, etc. where the environment is mostly sealed off.
Not physically, but we support Syria's destruction. Regardless i wont discuss this further, it was just a remark.
Is it me or are the authorities drip feeding the likely casualty/fatality total? I can't find a definite figure for those actually accounted for, but figures of 65 rescued out of a potential several hundred occupiers means it will be a lot more than 17 deceased. Obviously there may be some who simply walked off in a state of shock or are with friends/family etc. and not checked in but realistically we could be looking at well into three figures here.
As regards a price on safety, well when landlords and building owners have a duty of care to their tenants it should be no expense spared. However without agreeing entirely with Mr Wilson, every corner of life looks to do things in the most cost effective way. Back in the days when I was hard up, did I put new Michelins on the car or a couple of remoulds? On a couple of occasions it was the latter, because they were cheap and 98% of the time would suffice. However at the back of my mind was the nagging doubt that the 1.999% could be the difference between killing myself or someone else if they blew out on the dual carriageway. My point being we all do it - cut costs - consciously or not to some extent.
As regards a price on safety, well when landlords and building owners have a duty of care to their tenants it should be no expense spared. However without agreeing entirely with Mr Wilson, every corner of life looks to do things in the most cost effective way. Back in the days when I was hard up, did I put new Michelins on the car or a couple of remoulds? On a couple of occasions it was the latter, because they were cheap and 98% of the time would suffice. However at the back of my mind was the nagging doubt that the 1.999% could be the difference between killing myself or someone else if they blew out on the dual carriageway. My point being we all do it - cut costs - consciously or not to some extent.