Tower block fire - london

SpeedFreak · 16 Jun 2017 at 20:30

stewski said:
Whatever the rating I tell you it is, if after purchase you all perish in a huge fire, what would the point of pursuing everyone/anyone involved via the justice system?

Until there is some definitive report clarifying the cause I think rampant speculation is somewhat irresponsible. Once the cause is identified, if it's the cladding then fill your boots with I told you so.

Dolph · 16 Jun 2017 at 20:32

Good to see people aren't trying to exploit the dead for political gain...

Mustafa Almansur: Who is the organiser of the Grenfell Tower protest movement?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_androidshare_AmVYVhghCXpn

arknor · 16 Jun 2017 at 20:33

Uther said:
I suppose one of the issues is are there any other tower blocks clad in the same stuff?

why would it matter? the cladding didn't cause the fire and if it had sprinklers it wouldn't have mattered

Xiler · 16 Jun 2017 at 20:34

stewski said:
You have advocated against an investigation into corporate responsibility, I do not need to read the regulations to disagree, I simply can't see a good argument against it.

It seems "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" only exists for the citizens but not the companies we own!

What are you on about?? CDM holds every body (person or corporation) involved responsible and allows punishment for all.

Again go learn about it, stop twisting things you don't understand.

VincentHanna · 16 Jun 2017 at 20:36

Dolph said:
Good to see people aren't trying to exploit the dead for political gain...

Mustafa Almansur: Who is the organiser of the Grenfell Tower protest movement?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_androidshare_AmVYVhghCXpn

He was subsequently released without charge

Dolph · 16 Jun 2017 at 20:37

VincentHanna said:
As long as they don't start burning things down in re

It was his political associations that I was aiming at.

GAC · 16 Jun 2017 at 20:39

reading that telegraph bit this stuck out.

"The people did not force their way into the building - they walked in. They were not happy with what they heard. They said let’s get the senior executives and get them down.

so the guys booting the doors and trying to force them open with their heads covered must have been at a different town hall.

dowie · 16 Jun 2017 at 20:43

V F said:
I was thinking the same. Stand up to racism? This is a racism issue now?

like the woman on the BBC earlier stating that this was "nothing to do with Islam" - there are some people with legitimate anger and grievances, there are rather a lot more simply jumping on the band wagon to have a big protest/bash the local Tories etc..

balky12 · 16 Jun 2017 at 20:43

stewski said:
OK C3PO

What kind of a world are we living in, where you can't go online and take a swipe at a bunch of dead council tenants without someone having a go back eh?

Who's having a swipe at dead council tenants? Projecting opinions are we?

Regarding the cladding. Let me dumb this down for you...

It was suggested earlier that the cladding was added purely to improve aesthetics to appease those in the surrounding areas. Read: council block was made more pretty just to make rich people living around it happy

This 'projection of opinion' you seem happy and comfortable with.

I went back and suggested that people living there would probably have liked the fact that the building was to be made prettier. Why can't they be house proud? So the opinion of it was done solely for the benefit of rich people doesn't stack up.

This opinion however you have lost your **** over for some reason.

Then you concluded I have no sympathy for those who have died.

Whatever makes you happy I guess.

abbviper · 16 Jun 2017 at 20:43

balky12 said:
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.

He (stewski) is just trolling.

stewski · 16 Jun 2017 at 20:45

Xiler said:
What are you on about?? CDM holds every body (person or corporation) involved responsible and allows punishment for all.

Again go learn about it, stop twisting things you don't understand.

The last I heard which may not be correct (just via newsnight) was that the relevant regulation(s) hasn't been updated for over 10 years, the commentator from Australia found this extraordinary.

In any case I'd advocate, an investigation (not a government lead enquiry) that does not hold the regulations/regulators themselves above the law and looks into any/all bad practices, beyond having ticked a box!

danielanthony · 16 Jun 2017 at 20:51

stewski said:
Do you mean like the numerous government lead public enquiries of the past?

Public enquiries are independent of government once set up. So would your solution to be to have TM lashed in public until she took personal responsibility for the fire? That would certainly be quicker and cheaper, plus would make the mob happy. Perhaps we can stone her afterwards if she survives?

I also notice that people being purposely stabbed and mown down in the street by organised groups is part of city life now and we should calmly carry on, but a fire started accidentally is a massive social injustice which requires a change of government and mass protests.

dowie · 16 Jun 2017 at 20:53

VincentHanna said:
He was subsequently released without charge

Click to expand...

so he is/was one of the 3000 people on our watchlist presumably, like the recent attackers in London and Manchester... speaker at the Finsbury Park mosque back in the day is a bit dodgy, finger prints on an IED book is rather dodgy too

oh and now he's a Corbyn supporter who lead a protest up to the town hall

abbviper said:
He (stewski) is just trolling.

yup, best to ignore when that happens

stewski · 16 Jun 2017 at 20:53

abbviper said:
He (stewski) is just trolling.

No I'm clearly saying that assuming (without evidence) that en masse the tenants who may have died due to the addition of this cladding chose it, is akin to saying everyone who dies in a car crash due to to an inherent design fault in a break system are the ones who chose the car.

In this case, It's both un proven and irrelevant.
Questions that are relevant, why was the cladding added?
Many people on this thread, claimed energy efficiency, I have asked questions of that rationale, the tac now seems to have switched to aesthetic choice and some sympathetic souls suggest (off the top of their heads) the dead tenants chose it.

If you can explain how pointing out that, this shifting BS argument is trolling, knock yourself out!

Dis86 · 16 Jun 2017 at 20:54

dowie said:
so he is/was one of the 3000 people on our watchlist presumably, like the recent attackers in London and Manchester... speaker at the Finsbury Park mosque back in the day is a bit dodgy, finger prints on an IED book is rather dodgy too

oh and now he's a Corbyn supporter who lead a protest up to the town hall

yup, best to ignore when that happens

Shock as terrorist sympathisor has sympathetic terrorists?

Xiler · 16 Jun 2017 at 20:55

stewski said:
The last I heard which may not be correct (just via newsnight) was that the relevant regulation(s) hasn't been updated for over 10 years, the commentator from Australia found this extraordinary.

In any case I'd advocate, an investigation (not a government lead enquiry) that does not hold the regulations/regulators themselves above the law and looks into any/all bad practices, beyond having ticked a box!

Again if your information if from the news/internet take it with a grain of salt. Dont even believe me but please if you feel strongly about something go educate yourself and make your own informed decision.

He probably finds it extraordinary that a document called CDM 2015 or building regs updated to 2010 was written over 10 years ago. I suspect its a twist on the building act (1984) or health and safety at work act (1974) which all this is based on, but without reading it with the associated material(revised) you would have no idea how stupid this is.

stewski · 16 Jun 2017 at 20:55

danielanthony said:
Public enquiries are independent of government once set up. So would your solution to be to have TM lashed in public until she took personal responsibility for the fire?

non sequitur
reductio ad absurdum

Or for people who don't like latin, garbage post unworthy of even this much effort!

stewski · 16 Jun 2017 at 20:57

Xiler said:
Again if your information if from the news/internet take it with a grain of salt. Dont even believe me but please if you feel strongly about something go educate yourself and make your own informed decision.

He probably finds it extraordinary that a document called CDM 2015 or building regs updated to 2010 was written over 10 years ago. I suspect its a twist on the building act (1984) or health and safety at work act (1974) which all this is based on, but without reading it with the associated material(revised) you would have no idea how stupid this is.

So, are you disagreeing or agreeing, that an investigation that doesn't hold the regulators or the regulations above the law is required?

Dolph · 16 Jun 2017 at 21:02

Yet more disgusting politics from the left.

Kusai Rahal said the government needed to be held accountable for the deaths in Wednesday’s inferno.

“What happened over there was murder,” he said. “It was not a mistake, it was simple murder. It’s the government’s fault for seven years of austerity, selling off land to private owners who don’t care about the people, they only care about profit.

Taken from
Grenfell Tower fire: protesters march as anger mounts over disaster response – live

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...pdates?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard, posted at 20:50.

The building in question is owned by the council, and run by a not for profit trust. It has nothing whatsoever to do with selling off land or privatisation.

Some on the left seem more concerned with class warfare and trying to oust the recently re-elected government than in actually helping the people impacted.

Dolph · 16 Jun 2017 at 21:05

stewski said:
So, are you disagreeing or agreeing, that an investigation that doesn't hold the regulators or the regulations above the law is required?

It is absolutely required. The way the building behaved during the fire is something that should not have happened, and in order to determine what went wrong, nothing can be off limits.

We must do everything necessary to ensure this can never happen again, and to ensure that, if appropriate, anyone who knowingly endangered lives is punished.