Tower block fire - london

Rincewindle said:
saw a sky news interview with a guy that was a watch commander that night what he was saying about the fire and the situation inside the building sounds horrific.

He describes the pictures we all saw on the news of the tower wrapped in flames and says him and his guys were in there.

Telling how he saw the first crews on the scene coming down from the upper floors saying the guys were virtually on fire the temps were that high and how in the rush to rescue people they had gone in without water to the upper floors and were just banging and kicking in doors trying to get people out.

what ever else comes out of this it just reinforces that these guys {and girls} have balls of steel to be running into a place like that to help when all your natural instincts are telling you to run away.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier I can't see there is likely to be an issue with the operations of the fire teams "on the ground" who, like you I have massive admiration for.
The fact that their lives and the lives they were trying to save were put at far more risk than should be the case (with tragic losses) needs serious investigation and at this point we can't discount the fire service and procedure to include them in verifying the safety of such buildings.

The advice given was massively flawed, this put firemen/women at risk and the tragic consequences of the fire demand meaningful action, my personal thought is the legal representatives of victims of similar incidents should have their opinions heard!
 
It is strange that there seemed to be no real allowance for a contingency plan and almost a reliance on the fire being 100% contained within a single flat for a long period of time. No matter how stringently regulations are adhered to you can't rely on them never failing.
 
Surely the fault for deaths was with whoever told the people to stay put in their apartments while it spread and the flats for not having clear enough fire procedure? I've never known a workplace where you're told in the health and safety introduction that in case of a fire just sit down and relax whilst the building around you burns.
 
mmj_uk said:
Surely the fault for deaths was with whoever told the people to stay put in their apartments while it spread and the flats for not having clear enough fire procedure? I've never known a workplace where you're told in the health and safety introduction that in case of a fire just sit down and relax whilst the building around you burns.
Click to expand...

I believe that's quite common advise for high-rise residential buildings. A similar thing is printed on the signs in my building.
 
mmj_uk said:
Surely the fault for deaths was with whoever told the people to stay put in their apartments while it spread and the flats for not having clear enough fire procedure? I've never known a workplace where you're told in the health and safety introduction that in case of a fire just sit down and relax whilst the building around you burns.
Click to expand...

Indeed. To be frank i would have ignored the advice and left right away. I'm surprised so many stayed put
 
mmj_uk said:
Surely the fault for deaths was with whoever told the people to stay put in their apartments while it spread and the flats for not having clear enough fire procedure? I've never known a workplace where you're told in the health and safety introduction that in case of a fire just sit down and relax whilst the building around you burns.
Click to expand...
In ordinary circumstances that would be better, as each flat is designed to contain a fire. That all goes a bit wrong when you inadvertently install a flame path up the outside of the building to help the fire spread though.
 
TheVoice said:
I believe that's quite common advise for high-rise residential buildings. A similar thing is printed on the signs in my building.
Click to expand...

I've been in a semi high rise with a kitchen fire on the floor below and I've lived in a council owned high rise (which interestingly my dad pointed out had staggered balconies as a means of last ditch escape when we moved in) I was 7th floor. I've never seen or heard of anything as devastating as the fire in this case, how this came to be should be investigated in the manner most likely to prevent future loss of life and aid the families of the victims.

Ignoring that this has occurred on the doorstep of the UK's most glaring example of wealth inequality is a mistake whichever side of the political divide you feel you come from, those with no ears for the angry need to consider if they have any clue or life experience of what is going on here!
 
mmj_uk said:
Surely the fault for deaths was with whoever told the people to stay put in their apartments while it spread and the flats for not having clear enough fire procedure? I've never known a workplace where you're told in the health and safety introduction that in case of a fire just sit down and relax whilst the building around you burns.
Click to expand...

Many reasons for this. Office spaces tend to have multiple fire escapes, and have regular drills etc. Office spaces are more open planned making a fire spread more quickly. Also sprinkler systems and fire suppression equipment is readily available.

Block of flat built in the 70's I believe probably only had one stairwell. Needed to be clear for fire fighters. If everything went to plan the fire should have been contained in the single flat. Fire doors can withstand an hour or so of intense heat. Believe normal practice is for the floor with the fire to evacuate, everyone stay put. Possible exceptions for flats directly above. Also no regular evacuation testing. I do not know the situation with regards to fire extinguishers but apparently fire hoses were removed to deter people from fighting the fire.

Obviously in this case the cladding played a huge part, meaning the advice in hindsight was incorrect. Was probably too late once they realised exactly what was happening. Eye witness also report the door where the fire originated from was left open. Rendering the fire door useless. This is in no way me blaming the individual concerned. He did a grand job of alerting nearby residents and most likely saved multiple lives. But the open door would have aided the fire spreading internally. Drop in the ocean though to what was going out externally I imagine.
 
scorza said:
Remember the abuse Gordon Brown took when he didn't call an election after he took over mid-Parliament from Blair? Calling the election was the right thing to do really, but having an appalling campaign wasn't.

Who says we haven't been getting on with UK independence? Negotiation start dates were agreed with the EU.
Click to expand...

If Theresa May wanted to seek a mandate after taking over from Cameron she should have called an election before triggering Article 50. It's likely she would have got her landslide that way. But having triggered A50 it was in the national interest for her to see it through with the majority she already had, not jeopardise everything for party gains. But it's the same old story of the Tories putting their internal matters and power struggles above the national interest (and yes, Labour have been doing the same until recently).

And if May and her government have indeed been "getting on with UK Independence" as you suggest, then this invalidates the whole "too busy with Brexit" apologist excuse for why the government response to Grenfell has been so poor.
 
Craig1981 said:
The fact the fire started is not the main issue. The issue is the appalling safety standards in these old buildings. Dangerous cladding chose to save money. No sprinkler system. No external fire exits. No building wide fire alarm system.

No building where rich people live would EVER be allowed to exist in that kind of dangerous state.
Click to expand...
Someone sent me a Rightmove link for a privately rented 2 bedroom flat there and it was £450 a week, so I don't think it was just poor people or those living there on state benefits who were affected.

(link was here, completely removed now though: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-57219349.html )
 
well some of them will have been purchased under right to buy

it is also odd that at one point there were potentially 400 people missing yet there are only approx 120 or so apartments, most of them 1 or 2 bedrooms

you'll also probably find, given the location and the value of these places, that in a few cases there will be various lodgers(this can be legal) or indeed entire units(this is illegal for social tenants) sublet - if you're unemployed but your council flat is worth potentially 300+ a week (depending on condition) then it could be quite tempting to rent elsewhere and make a bit more money

I do therefore wonder if there will be a small number of unofficial residents who may have a bit more trouble getting re-homed as they weren't officially there in the first place
 
robgmun said:
Indeed. To be frank i would have ignored the advice and left right away. I'm surprised so many stayed put
Click to expand...
It might have been too late by the time you found out. If you were a few floors up asleep in bed you wouldn't know the building was on fire until the whole thing was in flames, at which point getting down would have been nigh impossible.
 
Django x2 said:
The latter requires there to be no human presence because of either the chemicals used, or the fact it removes all the oxygen from the room. Not great if you're in one of the rooms, asleep, or waiting to be rescued.
Click to expand...

They don't remove all the oxygen in the room, they reduce the oxygen content to around 10% which is too low for combustion but safe to breathe.

They are just not effective outside of controlled environments like server rooms because with all the open doors and windows the gas just escapes.
 
Diddums said:
One of those is easily the most arrogant, smug posters on these boards. It's only when he wants something that he stops telling everyone else they're wrong long enough to not be a shmuck. You can tell he's never been taught respect the good old fashioned way.
Click to expand...
Aye, Asim :)
 
Rincewindle said:
Telling how he saw the first crews on the scene coming down from the upper floors saying the guys were virtually on fire the temps were that high and how in the rush to rescue people they had gone in without water to the upper floors and were just banging and kicking in doors trying to get people out.

what ever else comes out of this it just reinforces that these guys {and girls} have balls of steel to be running into a place like that to help when all your natural instincts are telling you to run away.
Click to expand...

indeed, saw a comment from one that they wondered if this was going to be like a 9/11 situation where they didn't know if they'd come back out again - absolutely amazing the lot of them
 
mmj_uk said:
Sky News now saying that May's reaction to the Manchester bombing was a lot more sympathetic so the insinuation that she's either a racist or doesn't care about the poor. The fact that she's busy trying to form a majority government to be ready for Brexit talks that will have implications on the whole country for years obviously has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

It could equally (more likely IMO) be related to her political opinion and aims. She can use the Manchester bombing to further her authoritarian aims of mass surveillance and control of the internet whereas a fire is difficult to use to further that agenda. Corbyn in the other hand can use it to further his agenda - the idea of increasing inequality and the poor not being looked after by the current government.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom