He should shut up, it's a bit premature to be blaming anyone at the moment.
Around 9 this morning the page content was gone. I followed a link from google and while the link existed the content pane was empty and "Grenfell Tower" was missing from the list of refurbishment projects. I checked carefully as I was surprised it was gone. The google cache link was similarly empty and reported it was last refreshed 7 something am this morning.That bird on Twitter should be careful as it hasn't been taken off their website
http://www.rydon.co.uk/what-we-do/r...ies/refurbishment-case-studies/grenfell-tower
I agree to be angry and shocked at the events but not at the contractors (yet). Its possible that the thing was done to the letter of the regulations and that its a case of the regulations needing to change. Our Building Regs are up there with the best in the world but occasionally things do happen which we need to look at why and change them accordingly.
the fire alarm didn't go off- someone's responsible for that, although more likely the maintenance rather than refurbishment side of things.
Indeed management issues and construction issues are completely separate. By law though they have to be tested every 6 months IIRC. Some eye witnesses on Sky have suggested that there have been management issues with things being left in communal corridors etc.
Indeed management issues and construction issues are completely separate. By law though they have to be tested every 6 months IIRC.
Apparently survivors are being found inside. Barricaded themselves in and used wet clothes to seal gaps around doors.
true, the refurb company has to answer to the spread of the fire, especially this cladding issue, although as you say they could well have followed code properly on that one.
As bad as the people managing the building might be, dumping a mattress in a communal area is not really their fault. Some of the stuff on that blog seems tenuous at best.
Firefighters speaking off the record here say they can't imagine seeing anything like the scope and shape of this again, says the BBC's Claire Heald, who is at the scene.
"They talk about being in the building, using what they think was a single staircase.
"They say a person was pulled out seven hours after the blaze began. From a floor above where it's thought it started."
An investigation will come in time no doubt, but they say windows were open, curtains billowing, and the fire travelled along the wood cladding shell.
Incredible if so.Apparently survivors are being found inside. Barricaded themselves in and used wet clothes to seal gaps around doors.
true, the refurb company has to answer to the spread of the fire, especially this cladding issue, although as you say they could well have followed code properly on that one.
Regardless whether building regs were complied with, prosecutions can be brought under CDM Regs if it is deemed reasonably foreseeable that fire could spread on the outside of the building due to the cladding. As this has happend elsewhere with this type of cladding the reasonably foreseeable condition is very likely met.
If it is the cladding that is found to be at fault then those with design responsibility could be in serious trouble.
we'll have to see what the investigation comes up with on that one, but if it was then hopefully as you say the people responsible will have to answer for it.
do we have any reason to suspect negligence with the refurb? if this kind of cladding is standard enough practice.