sure, I just meant in the news etc.. I mean no politician would go near something like that even if they suspected - at the moment the narrative is about heroes and pictures of them on the grass after working all night etc.. if there were some problems with the management of the issue that will come out in time and yes it is worrying to hear reports of the fire seemingly not being dealt with very rapidly back when it was small... though I'm not a firefighting expert so I'm not sure I'd be in much of a position to criticise that too much
Tower block fire - london
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
sure, I just meant in the news etc.. I mean no politician would go near something like that even if they suspected - at the moment the narrative is about heroes and pictures of them on the grass after working all night etc.. if there were some problems with the management of the issue that will come out in time and yes it is worrying to hear reports of the fire seemingly not being dealt with very rapidly back when it was small... though I'm not a firefighting expert so I'm not sure I'd be in much of a position to criticise that too much
Video is just going to get uploaded pretty soon after anyhow - no way to contain it. I can't really see it being used to try and hide anything nefarious either but is kind of strange the way for the first hour loads of accounts live streaming it were suspended.
No, But showing basic humantity is hardly taxing to a normal human being...
She is clearly deficient in certain areas of her emotional development as a child...
Fields of wheat FFS
You make it sound like it was just someones conservatory burning down. This is a major disaster. Nobody expects her to get all huggy touchy feely with the bereaved, it's not her style. But she could at least show the respect and more importantly HUMANITY to meet with some of those affected.
Can anyone with knowledge of the protocol of renovations for such a tower block explain
1.The Direct source of funding for renovations (Central taxation/Government spending or locally generated revenue Council tax/rates ect)
and
2.Are choices on renovation/expenditure/standards determined set by Central Govt or the local council or Housing authority(i have no idea how this is managed in London),but i assume this is a local decision rather than centralized ?
For almost 10 years i have read Private Eye and Local govt is far more inept and prone to corruption and negligence than central Govt due to the scale of accountability and scope for 'getting away with it''.(Seriously Rotton Bourghs subsection showcases the worst of Governance in the UK regardless of party affiliation )
I heard Sadiq Kahns press conference/speech today live in the radio,and understandably the people present were extremely hostile and confrontational.But i struggle to see how this is his 'fault'.Directly afterwards representatives of the council both labour and Tory councilors were given airtime,where they basically passed the buck away from local governance on to central governance .
Surely they are directly responsible for any bad choices that were made in their locality?
The most bizzare thing i heard during this broadcast was a certified architect talk about how regulations have made these specific(60/70's) housing blocks less safe from fire due to regulations related to insulation and resulting renovations ect?That current standards increase fire risks rather than reduce them in these specific dwellings (5Live not some fringe radio broadcast fwiw). Anyone with background or knowledge shed any light on this?
As an aside,watched QT 2nite was massivley dissapointed by the lack of discussion regarding local governance and their potential role or culpability.Why even bother giving councils/authority's autonomy and legitimate power if the arnt held to account?
1.The Direct source of funding for renovations (Central taxation/Government spending or locally generated revenue Council tax/rates ect)
and
2.Are choices on renovation/expenditure/standards determined set by Central Govt or the local council or Housing authority(i have no idea how this is managed in London),but i assume this is a local decision rather than centralized ?
For almost 10 years i have read Private Eye and Local govt is far more inept and prone to corruption and negligence than central Govt due to the scale of accountability and scope for 'getting away with it''.(Seriously Rotton Bourghs subsection showcases the worst of Governance in the UK regardless of party affiliation )
I heard Sadiq Kahns press conference/speech today live in the radio,and understandably the people present were extremely hostile and confrontational.But i struggle to see how this is his 'fault'.Directly afterwards representatives of the council both labour and Tory councilors were given airtime,where they basically passed the buck away from local governance on to central governance .
Surely they are directly responsible for any bad choices that were made in their locality?
The most bizzare thing i heard during this broadcast was a certified architect talk about how regulations have made these specific(60/70's) housing blocks less safe from fire due to regulations related to insulation and resulting renovations ect?That current standards increase fire risks rather than reduce them in these specific dwellings (5Live not some fringe radio broadcast fwiw). Anyone with background or knowledge shed any light on this?
As an aside,watched QT 2nite was massivley dissapointed by the lack of discussion regarding local governance and their potential role or culpability.Why even bother giving councils/authority's autonomy and legitimate power if the arnt held to account?
Depends I think if its state owned or not, etc. no idea on the status.
Exactly. TEFAL has just plummeted in Kudos.....(did he actually have any?)
Surely Public/private owned it would run through the same system of checks and balances,or are we that unorginized in the UK :|
Edit:This is less a direct question than a rhetorical one
She should have spoke to some residents, might have made them feel better even if it's for nothing in the end. That feeling is what counts.
Doesn't matter if she gets shouted down, deep down she should know it's the right thing to do.
Anyone who's in charge of people in business, education, whatever always goes down to talk to the people when the **** hits the fan.
Doesn't matter if she gets shouted down, deep down she should know it's the right thing to do.
Anyone who's in charge of people in business, education, whatever always goes down to talk to the people when the **** hits the fan.
It must be horrible to be in that situation. Imagine having more than enough time to evacuate the entire building and not being given the chance to do so because of some "stay inside" policy and no alarm. The evident reality of the situation is that this turned out to be a "stay inside and allow all escape routes fill with as much smoke as possible before making it impossible to get out" policy.
Call me ignorant but I swear I have NEVER come across a stay in fire policy EVER. It's always evacuate immediately and sound the alarm.
It seems absolutely agonisingly stupid. It is unforgivable to have to die because of an insurance given by a third party. I cannot stress how stupid I think this idea/policy is. A fire could be just down the ****ing corridor or it could be 20 floors away, how on earth can you simply tell EVERYONE to stay fast asleep just because you don't want to wake someone 20 floors up who will POTENTIALLY not be affected by a fire 20 floors down. It makes NO sense whatsoever and it's quite sad to take chances with something as deadly as fire.
My concern is, is this amazing new policy used in schools and stuff too now just to avoid drills and planning evacuation procedures and signposting fire exits and alarm maintenance, etc? I mean my schools were quite big but even a TINY flame on the corner of another building would have mobilised a FULL and complete evacuation procedure which is drilled (and timed) twice a year.
Last edited:
Unless you were a climber I'd doubt it. Even then I'd be surprised it doesn't look very easy at all.
I guess the policy is there so there is no mass panic/stampede but hey guess what policy makers it's that fear/panic that drives us to safety.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,341
without climbing equipment/training, while the outside of the building is on fire?
i wouldn't risk it
Climbing down is always harder than climbing up. Especially if you haven't climbed up in the first place.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40273715
Seems to be the idea that the apartments are designed to contain a fire so evacuating everyone could cause more problems due to the design of the buildings (blocking stair case). Sadly it clearly needs reconsidering
.I don't think it's something that the majority of places will adopt especially after this.
I suspect it's something to do with tower blocks. You don't want people in the top floors running down into the flames on a couple of middle floors, when the firemen could arrive and put the fire out, or at least make a safe way out. It just isn't supposed to be possible for a small fire in one apartment to spread like that and engulf the whole of a concrete block as fast as it did. This is why everyone is looking at the cladding as a reason why the fire was transmitted so quickly ie, the fire was tranmitted up the outside of the building and into every apartment, rather than from the inside from one flat to the next (which it's supposed to resist).
There appear to be recesses, especially post cladding, that would make it possible for an experienced climber - I could probably do it in an emergency (can't be 100% without a closer look) but I suspect the average person not so much.
You'd need the mental training really for something like that - able to make the next handhold or foothold your whole world and just keep it going point by point - most people would be too panicked in that situation.