Jump to content
IGNORED

London Tower Block Fire


WhistleHappy

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Monkeh said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40330789 

Warnings ignored by the coalition and the tories 

Panorama very moving last night. As the days pass it becomes clearer and clearer an element of this fire was caused by cut backs to local councils. What was a safe building, was made unsafe due to cheap cladding. Unfortunately we have many more years of cuts ahead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, exAtyeoMax said:

Shocking…

 

Interesting that the 'fridge fire' was extinguished. So where did the other fire come from?

I am hearing from a very close and reliable source that the kitchen was also packed with black bags full of rubbish etc .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the cladding wasn't building regs compliant...somewhere there's a building regs officer shitting their pants. ...

My prediction is that this cladding was signed off by a private firm of building surveyors as they tend to be more lax  (hence they are paid good money by contractors) as opposed to council surveyors who are stricter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

So the cladding wasn't building regs compliant...somewhere there's a building regs officer shitting their pants. ...

My prediction is that this cladding was signed off by a private firm of building surveyors as they tend to be more lax  (hence they are paid good money by contractors) as opposed to council surveyors who are stricter.

Well apparently it was inspected 16 times by Kensington and Chelsea Council.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/grenfell-tower-16-council-inspections-failed-to-stop-use-of-flammable-cladding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

So the cladding wasn't building regs compliant...somewhere there's a building regs officer shitting their pants. ...

My prediction is that this cladding was signed off by a private firm of building surveyors as they tend to be more lax  (hence they are paid good money by contractors) as opposed to council surveyors who are stricter.

As usual a tragedy like this has left us with far more questions than answers and nobody but nobody whatever side of the political landscape, the company doing the refit, the building inspectors and possibly the fire service who were involved have or will come out of this with any credit whatsoever.

One of the problems that will hopefully be eventually highlighted and causing the investigating teams undoubted problems is the authorities having no real idea of exactly who was living in this block and one of the problems could possibly be sub letting, there seems to be systemic failures throughout every aspect of the management and refurbishment of this block, it is a national disgrace.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

As usual a tragedy like this has left us with far more questions than answers and nobody but nobody whatever side of the political landscape, the company doing the refit, the building inspectors and possibly the fire service who were involved have or will come out of this with any credit whatsoever.

One of the problems that will hopefully be eventually highlighted and causing the investigating teams undoubted problems is the authorities having no real idea of exactly who was living in this block and one of the problems could possibly be sub letting, there seems to be systemic failures throughout every aspect of the management and refurbishment of this block, it is a national disgrace.

 

As you say in your post, there appear, at present, to be more questions than answers, and, hopefully, these will be answered without undue delay, i.e. within the next year - I believe any shorter time scale is unrealistic, despite the pathetic, publicity-seeking statements of David Lammy who, it seems to me, just wants to have lots of people arrested, regardless of any proof they might have been responsible.

For me, however, the intrigue lies in the nature (truth?) of those answers and what, how much or, indeed, anything, will be swept under the carpet: I think it is quite apparent that something (the cladding itself, building regs.) or somebody (possibilities too numerous to mention at this stage) was responsible for the spread of the fire (the cause appears at this stage to have been a faulty fridge), but don't be too surprised if, twelve months or so hence, it is established that, in fact, nobody was responsible, although lessons have been learnt etc.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2017 at 15:48, BobBobSuperBob said:

For people who , most , will have never have contributed a single penny into our economy

I must confess that I was one of those who criticised Corbyn's comments concerning the requisition of 'luxury apartments', or even 'ridiculed' them to quote @Monkeh. I am also one of those who disapprove immensely of his odious sidekick, John McDonnell, who appears now to be seeking to use the Grenfell disaster to assist in his latest attempt to 'overthrow the government', an attempt in which he failed during the most recent democratic election - but that is another subject, for another day.   

But let me make my view quite clear: a catastrophic disaster has occurred and the unfortunate (not a strong enough word) victims who, through no fault of their own, now find themselves destitute should, as a matter of urgency, be given all possible assistance to find suitable alternative accommodation, which accommodation should be similar and in or as close as is reasonably practicable to the area, i.e. North Kensington, in which they lived.

Whilst I am not convinced that the fact they may or may not have 'contributed a single penny into our economy' is relevant, or, indeed, even true, I do think it is important that they should be found 'similar alternative accommodation', i.e. that they should be placed in a similar position to that in which they found themselves prior to the fire. I suspect, and I say this with all due respect, that given the social standing of the majority of victims, and bearing in mind that it would seem many of the victims were not the registered tenants!, most of them held no insurance for their household contents and, in the circumstances, I would consider it only reasonable for the government to provide, free of charge, household furnishings, electrical appliances, clothing allowances etc. for their new accommodation.

But, and there are lots of buts in this now lengthy post, I believe there should also be a limit to the government's 'generosity'. 

In short, I cannot agree that the government should now spend upwards of £50 Million? to purchase 'luxury' apartments in Kensington Row to house the victims because, firstly, and let's be frank about this, Kensington Row is far removed from the tower block in which the victims lived, and, quite apart from being a far superior level of accommodation for the victims, is it truly a realistic solution when, with a bit of (sadly lacking) hard work from the local authorities suitable and comparable accommodation could be found more locally, without the risk of having two disparate types of occupants in the same group of buildings?

Unfortunately, I fear this is an embarrassing and shameful attempt by the government to buy their way out of the problems caused by their failure to attend to the immediate aftermath of the fire, and to give immediate support to the victims.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

As you say in your post, there appear, at present, to be more questions than answers, and, hopefully, these will be answered without undue delay, i.e. within the next year - I believe any shorter time scale is unrealistic, despite the pathetic, publicity-seeking statements of David Lammy who, it seems to me, just wants to have lots of people arrested, regardless of any proof they might have been responsible.

For me, however, the intrigue lies in the nature (truth?) of those answers and what, how much or, indeed, anything, will be swept under the carpet: I think it is quite apparent that something (the cladding itself, building regs.) or somebody (possibilities too numerous to mention at this stage) was responsible for the spread of the fire (the cause appears at this stage to have been a faulty fridge), but don't be too surprised if, twelve months or so hence, it is established that, in fact, nobody was responsible, although lessons have been learnt etc.    

Lammy is a ****, he is criticising the police because no arrests have been made but ignoring a little things like due process, evidence and our old friend human rights.

I wonder exactly what the little pixie Shameless Chakrabati would have to say about his plans to circumnavigate the law of the land? of course unless they are jewish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a slight tangent ................

Got made redundant at Christmas and used some of the money to go traveling. Amongst the places we went was Australia. There we saw Guns'n'Roses live in concert on their Australian tour. Amazing stage show with lasers , flames , fireworks etc. A very good gig.

Last weekend I went to see them in London at WHUs ground. After the first song , Axl Rose pronounced how sad the band were at the loss of life in the London fire, out of respect they had changed their stage show. No pyrotechnics at all - no fireworks - nothing. So just the band , 80,000 fans and brilliant Rock music. The show was all the better for it. Its easy to be cynical , but I thought it was respectful and honourable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I must confess that I was one of those who criticised Corbyn's comments concerning the requisition of 'luxury apartments', or even 'ridiculed' them to quote @Monkeh. I am also one of those who disapprove immensely of his odious sidekick, John McDonnell, who appears now to be seeking to use the Grenfell disaster to assist in his latest attempt to 'overthrow the government', an attempt in which he failed during the most recent democratic election - but that is another subject, for another day.   

But let me make my view quite clear: a catastrophic disaster has occurred and the unfortunate (not a strong enough word) victims who, through no fault of their own, now find themselves destitute should, as a matter of urgency, be given all possible assistance to find suitable alternative accommodation, which accommodation should be similar and in or as close as is reasonably practicable to the area, i.e. North Kensington, in which they lived.

Whilst I am not convinced that the fact they may or may not have 'contributed a single penny into our economy' is relevant, or, indeed, even true, I do think it is important that they should be found 'similar alternative accommodation', i.e. that they should be placed in a similar position to that in which they found themselves prior to the fire. I suspect, and I say this with all due respect, that given the social standing of the majority of victims, and bearing in mind that it would seem many of the victims were not the registered tenants!, most of them held no insurance for their household contents and, in the circumstances, I would consider it only reasonable for the government to provide, free of charge, household furnishings, electrical appliances, clothing allowances etc. for their new accommodation.

But, and there are lots of buts in this now lengthy post, I believe there should also be a limit to the government's 'generosity'. 

In short, I cannot agree that the government should now spend upwards of £50 Million? to purchase 'luxury' apartments in Kensington Row to house the victims because, firstly, and let's be frank about this, Kensington Row is far removed from the tower block in which the victims lived, and, quite apart from being a far superior level of accommodation for the victims, is it truly a realistic solution when, with a bit of (sadly lacking) hard work from the local authorities suitable and comparable accommodation could be found more locally, without the risk of having two disparate types of occupants in the same group of buildings?

Unfortunately, I fear this is an embarrassing and shameful attempt by the government to buy their way out of the problems caused by their failure to attend to the immediate aftermath of the fire, and to give immediate support to the victims.     

V good post put far more eloquently than I could

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is staggering and incredulous. I work in the automotive industry and i can't use anything on the inside of a car that burns quicker than a certain rate, 100mm/min (std FMVSS302) - so 90mm/min is ok as is something that self extinguishes (like a natural fibre), 110mm/min isn't. Even if a supplier gives me a data sheet or information that tells me whatever i'm using is ok and fire retardant, i have a duty of care and due diligence to test this and make sure that's correct. Otherwise i'm failing in my job.

Yet these councils and local authorities and whoever else signs off these reworks and building refurbishments seem to be completely in the dark about what's being fitted.

I'm stunned, completely stunned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Interesting point raised on another forum I was reading, if the fridge that caused the fire had the wrong fuse fitted, so not  protecting it in the event of an electrical defect,  just say it should have a 5a and the tenant fitted a 13a, does that constitute a negligent act, if so are they culpable?  If they knowing fitted the wrong fuse then it actually becomes a deliberate act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@BigTone

Is all cladding a danger then, a risk in your opinion or just specific types?

 

No not all but tests need to be carried out urgently to establish the combustibility of the material used and all element of doubt removed. I now have the job of trying to get some of Camden's empty apartments habitable for the people being evacuated. Problem is that most of them need work to bring them up to standard for current fire regs. Double edged sword at the moment and getting very frustrating. Last 24 hours has been a bit of a challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...