Tower block fire - london

adolf hamster said:
for sure, the fire alarm system didn't function, and someone's responsible, for all i care they should face the charge of manslaughter for every single person who died in this tragedy.
Click to expand...

Agreed, unless it wasn't a health & safety requirement. If that is the case then whoever agreed the standards is to blame.
 
balky12 said:
You picked a quote that had no relevance to anything? To highlight my sympathy? Thanks for the input I guess.

I just stated, in the quote you picked on, that if the residents had the option of improving the block aesthetically or leaving it as it was, most if not all would have chosen to improve it.

Meaning that the improved aesthetics were not done just for the benefit of those surrounding it.
Click to expand...

Oh sorry, you have evidence that a residence association and or all/majority of residents choose this cladding, or are you projecting an opinion?
 
Rroff said:
I can see this escalating - May and the councils seem to be trying to block it out which will only fuel resentment.
Click to expand...
Once darkness falls it is undoubtedly going to become violent and F&M et al will be smashed up again. Pathetic really.

I can't understand the underlying anti government/political jeering going on though. Well actually I can, but let's be frank, regardless of if it was May or Corbyn in office, this event would have occurred. It's pathetic finger pointing.
 
terley said:
Lets be honest,

1) Sprinklers and or fire suppression devices should be mandatory for all high rise buildings
2) Loud alarm systems should be mandatory for all high rise buildings

These are two ridiculously obvious things that haven't been implemented either due to not being a requirement via standards or the lack of care.. Somebody should be held accountable if the measures weren't met, and if they where then whoever agreed on the standards should be questioned as to why these weren't requirements.
Click to expand...
Agree completely. I would also question having buildings with 27 floors (or more!) when a fireman's ladder can only reach the 12th...
 
StriderX said:
Man i wish i could stay here and argue, but i'm bored to **** of the right-wing authoritarians defending a massive **** in office.
Click to expand...

And i'm pretty sick of all the political threads in this forum have suddenly become a heaven for corbynistas and militant badge wearing communists.
 
terley said:
Agreed, unless it wasn't a health & safety requirement. If that is the case then whoever agreed the standards is to blame.
Click to expand...

You should probably read up on the standards and inform yourself.

What will happen is everyone from the Client(and his company) to the people installing the cladding will be investigated and prison sentences/fines handed out to those found to be in breach of their duties.
 
Wrapping a building in flammable material is simply the most stupidest idea of the highest order. Its a building not a cigarette. You wrap a building up in a massive rizla the only thing its going to achieve is to is to help it burn better.

Its unbelievable how stupid people incharge of things really are.
 
I'm sure one of the news reports at the time explained that the fireman could only direct water as high as the 12th floor. That struck me as somewhat of an issue. If that has always been the case then that would surely have been a compelling case to fit water sprinklers in at least all the tallest tower blocks.
 
terley said:
Lets be honest,

1) Sprinklers and or fire suppression devices should be mandatory for all high rise buildings
2) Loud alarm systems should be mandatory for all high rise buildings

These are two ridiculously obvious things that haven't been implemented either due to not being a requirement via standards or the lack of care.. Somebody should be held accountable if the measures weren't met, and if they where then whoever agreed on the standards should be questioned as to why these weren't requirements.
Click to expand...

agreed completely, however, sprinklers don't sprayy the outsides of buildings
 
stewski said:
We don't need to compare with one specific previous example, I'm asking in all fire incidents in the history of UK fire incidents for un cladded tower blocks have we seen an outcome vaguely similar?

There is likely a reason the fire services got the advice massively wrong re staying put!
Click to expand...

I haven't been around long enough to give you a good answer. This is one of the worst events, possibly the worst residential tragedy in my lifetime (I'm 28 and happy to be corrected).

Fire brigade didn't get it wrong per se. With hindsight it's easy to say, but as mentioned previously flats are suppose to be designed to be self contained when it comes to fires. So standard procedure is to stay put, unless you are on the same floor. Allowing easy access for firefighters as often there is only the single stairwell.

Obviously something went massively wrong, and it looks like the cladding. Which appears to be regulation standard. Which would then mean regulations need to change. Which then means assigning blame is difficult.

Hopefully an investigation will uncover where the failings were. Was the cladding actually regulation? Or was it swapped out on the sly by the redevelopers? Was it manufactured correctly? Was the planning checked properly? Etc.
 
Xiler said:
You should probably read up on the standards and inform yourself.

What will happen is everyone from the Client(and his company) to the people installing the cladding will be investigated and prison sentences/fines handed out to those found to be in breach of their duties.
Click to expand...

Maybe some corporate responsibility?
Alternatively I'll be around to sell you some flammable house cladding for your home later?
 
stewski said:
Maybe some corporate responsibility?
Alternatively I'll be around to sell you some flammable house cladding for your home later?
Click to expand...

You do know many flammable materials are used in construction?

What was the flammability rating on the cladding used in this case, you seem to know so much?
 
balky12 said:
I haven't been around long enough to give you a good answer. This is one of the worst events, possibly the worst residential tragedy in my lifetime (I'm 28 and happy to be corrected).

Fire brigade didn't get it wrong per se. With hindsight it's easy to say, but as mentioned previously flats are suppose to be designed to be self contained when it comes to fires. So standard procedure is to stay put, unless you are on the same floor. Allowing easy access for firefighters as often there is only the single stairwell.

Obviously something went massively wrong, and it looks like the cladding. Which appears to be regulation standard. Which would then mean regulations need to change. Which then means assigning blame is difficult.

Hopefully an investigation will uncover where the failings were. Was the cladding actually regulation? Or was it swapped out on the sly by the redevelopers? Was it manufactured correctly? Was the planning checked properly? Etc.
Click to expand...

Well people staying put would probably argue that giving the advice to stay put was getting it massively wrong!

Obviously if we filled our council blocks with custard powder, without asking/informing them about the implications, it won't be their fault if/when they get it massively wrong again!
 
They'll need to clamp down on protests pronto, the last large London protest turned into countrywide rioting.
 
balky12 said:
I haven't been around long enough to give you a good answer. This is one of the worst events, possibly the worst residential tragedy in my lifetime (I'm 28 and happy to be corrected).

Fire brigade didn't get it wrong per se. With hindsight it's easy to say, but as mentioned previously flats are suppose to be designed to be self contained when it comes to fires. So standard procedure is to stay put, unless you are on the same floor. Allowing easy access for firefighters as often there is only the single stairwell.

Obviously something went massively wrong, and it looks like the cladding. Which appears to be regulation standard. Which would then mean regulations need to change. Which then means assigning blame is difficult.

Hopefully an investigation will uncover where the failings were. Was the cladding actually regulation? Or was it swapped out on the sly by the redevelopers? Was it manufactured correctly? Was the planning checked properly? Etc.
Click to expand...
I suppose one of the issues is are there any other tower blocks clad in the same stuff?
 
stewski said:
Oh sorry, you have evidence that a residence association and or all/majority of residents choose this cladding, or are you projecting an opinion?
Click to expand...

Dude, breath.

You just looking for a fight? First you pick on my apparent lack of sympathy by quoting something that had no relevance. So I pulled you on it.

Of course they didn't pick the specific cladding.

But people were suggesting the block was improved aesthetically just to appease those around it. That projection of opinion is just fine is it?

But when I argue that the people living in the block would probably have liked the building to be improved asthetically as well you lose your mind?

Go for a walk or something.
 
terley said:
Lets be honest,

1) Sprinklers and or fire suppression devices should be mandatory for all high rise buildings
2) Loud alarm systems should be mandatory for all high rise buildings

These are two ridiculously obvious things that haven't been implemented either due to not being a requirement via standards or the lack of care.. Somebody should be held accountable if the measures weren't met, and if they where then whoever agreed on the standards should be questioned as to why these weren't requirements.
Click to expand...

We just refurbished one of our towers last year, they always had proper fire alarm systems through out, but we added sprinklers to this tower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom