Tower block fire - london

dowie said:
yes and there is an article posted with a barrister directly commenting on what she's said... I'm not really sure what else you want
Click to expand...

You can think what you like, I'm suggesting a lawyer with a history of representation in this area, who has previously been asking questions of government following earlier outcomes, suggests that an inquest is a superior route, I'm sure a counter opinion is available, I'm just not sure the counter point is from someone on the front line of this issue...
 
stewski said:
Apologies Xiler it was balky12 who made that statement (though admittedly rather than point out to him the ridiculous nature of such a statement, at that time you decided to "school" me in building regulations and eventually agree that the type of inquest people are calling for is necessary).
Click to expand...

You still going on? Or have you recently just returned from that walk? Have to get me up to speed. What was ridiculous about the statement you quoted of mine?

I've added it for ease.

balky12 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
LOAM said:
Well your into the realms of human error / appraisal. The first appliance on site called for immediate backup as they were quickly confronted with something rapidly getting out of control. The policy in place and notification displayed was to stay in your apartment because that's usually the best course of action. The fire allegedly spread from the 4th floor to the 18th in 8 minutes and was unprecedented in its speed.

I don't know though at what point it crossed the line between manageable and out of control, they had some issues with dry risers as well iirc but it's arguable it was beyond recovery by the time it breached the external leaf of construction which by all accounts was soon after they arrived.
Click to expand...

Understand that suggesting the advice was massively wrong, is not directing blame!
 
stewski said:
You can think what you like, I'm suggesting a lawyer with a history of representation in this area, who has previously been asking questions of government following earlier outcomes, suggests that an inquest is a superior route, I'm sure a counter opinion is available, I'm just not sure the counter point is from someone on the front line of this issue...
Click to expand...

but you were talking about holding people responsible etc.. this was the bit I was highlighting:

"An inquest may also avoid areas likely to be the subject of a criminal investigation. Importantly an inquest cannot apportion blame - in terms of civil of criminal liability - that is not the function of an inquest. Unlike a public inquiry. Caution should be exercised by those thinking an inquest is a panacea..."
 
stewski said:
Understand that suggesting the advice was massively wrong, is not directing blame!
Click to expand...

The problem is, if the building had worked as it was designed to, the advice was correct, even if it seems counterintuitive.

The issue is that the building safety features didn't work for whatever reason. By the time the firefighters realised this it was too late.
 
Dolph said:
The problem is, if the building had worked as it was designed to, the advice was correct, even if it seems counterintuitive.

The issue is that the building safety features didn't work for whatever reason. By the time the firefighters realised this it was too late.
Click to expand...

Whichever way you look at it the advice was massively wrong, there are many professions where a similar thing can occur and in the case of the firefighters on the ground, I feel for them and it is unlikely that there is much different they could have done.

Understand that this doesn't mean that the fire service on the whole are blameless!
 
I don't think you can blame the fire service when one of the principle fire mitigation design features of the tower block fails spectacularly.
 
Xiler said:
t.

The cladding was never done with "energy efficiency" in mind, it was to appease the higher class londoners that wanted them to look nicer.
Click to expand...


Why would this happen?

Why would a company spend millions to please people who aren't it's customers?
 
stewski said:
Whichever way you look at it the advice was massively wrong, there are many professions where a similar thing can occur and in the case of the firefighters on the ground, I feel for them and it is unlikely that there is much different they could have done.

Understand that this doesn't mean that the fire service on the whole are blameless!
Click to expand...

If the building was working correctly, the fire should have been contained in the flat of origin for an hour, and the floor of origin for longer. That should have been enough time to bring it under control.

We need to understand why it wasn't, as well as reviewing the advice and considering whether we should even permit single stairwell residential dwellings over a certain height.
 
V F said:
I was thinking the same. Stand up to racism? This is a racism issue now?
Click to expand...


Well there was that black woman saying it never would have happened if the residents had been white.

Much to the confusion of the white resident being interviewed lol
 
easyrider said:
Under duress to save face...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40300369
Click to expand...

and look what happened - she visited a church and hospital but when she goes outside to get in the car she's got an angry rent a mob, not really surprising that her walking among 'the people' was advised against previously on security grounds

Xiler said:
The cladding was never done with "energy efficiency" in mind, it was to appease the higher class londoners that wanted them to look nicer.
Click to expand...

seems like both else why bother with an insulation layer?
 
Jokester said:
Because it was part of the planning application to the council to enhance the aesthetics of the building to those in surrounding areas.
Click to expand...

It was also to improve the insulation of the building to the current regs (something that only really happens with social housing, the rest of us don't bother chasing the regs).

I would imagine aesthetics were considered as part of the refurbishment, but they were not the reason the building was renovated, or external material was applied.
 
Jokester said:
Because it was part of the planning application to the council to enhance the aesthetics of the building to those in surrounding areas.
Click to expand...


So it was a requirement to beautify the building in order to get planning permission from the council for renovations?
 
Xiler said:
I'm saying you don't understand what regulations are.

Acts are law and they are very purposefully written in a loose way.

Regulations are guide lines on how to try and meet the Acts requirements.

Standards are passed by parliament formed based on the scientific understanding at the time, detailing the minimum standard to which structures should be built. Which is why they are updated and why people receive compensation for historic conditions cause by these(i.e asbestos).

What has happened here(I suspect) is that individuals and groups of individuals haven't conformed to the standards or met their regulatory duties there for breaking the act(law). Now if they have been found to meet these and without outside interference this has occurred then the regulation/regulator(government) will also be subject to investigation and punishments.
Click to expand...

Not quite right.... Acts are primary legislation, Regulations are secondary legislation, Codes of Practice are guidelines on how to comply with legal obligations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom