Planet Rugby Forum

eldanielfire wrote:Tragically the Grenfell group are turning on Labour MPs for daring to back the fire brigade and suggest it's building massive tower blocks with flammable materials which is the problem.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ion-widget

You start to get the feeling that they will never be happy unless someone is locked away.

You are only now starting to get that feeling. Is it possible you actually feel no one did anything criminal

Anonymous. wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:Tragically the Grenfell group are turning on Labour MPs for daring to back the fire brigade and suggest it's building massive tower blocks with flammable materials which is the problem.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ion-widget

You start to get the feeling that they will never be happy unless someone is locked away.

You are only now starting to get that feeling. Is it possible you actually feel no one did anything criminal

I don't know about criminal. I do think that the Fire Brigade certainly aren't to blame for doing their best (and risking their lives) and the vitriol against them, as imperfect as they are, is misplaced.

Likewise I'm certain any criminal element in this is down to whom ever cleared the cladding for the building knowing it was flammable and not designed for buildings about 30 odd feet (form all that I read). Was it a terrible systemic mistake or criminal neglect? I assume we find out in part two of the report. I'm certainly any and all blame lies there.

eldanielfire wrote:

Anonymous. wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:Tragically the Grenfell group are turning on Labour MPs for daring to back the fire brigade and suggest it's building massive tower blocks with flammable materials which is the problem.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ion-widget

You start to get the feeling that they will never be happy unless someone is locked away.

You are only now starting to get that feeling. Is it possible you actually feel no one did anything criminal

I don't know about criminal. I do think that the Fire Brigade certainly aren't to blame for doing their best (and risking their lives) and the vitriol against them, as imperfect as they are, is misplaced.

Likewise I'm certain any criminal element in this is down to whom ever cleared the cladding for the building knowing it was flammable and not designed for buildings about 30 odd feet (form all that I read). Was it a terrible systemic mistake or criminal neglect? I assume we find out in part two of the report. I'm certainly any and all blame lies there.

I'll predict right here & now that there won't be any such clarity when part II comes out.

What we're likely to get is a, probably accurate, but infuriating mis-mash of bad planning, penny pinching, laziness, & political expedience; which all ended up in turning the building into a death trap.

Politicians under pressure from rich constituents, wanted to tart up an eyesore, but wanted it to be done on the cheap. They put the pressure on the council staff to keep to an impossible budget; & at some stage, someone made the faithful decision to use the cladding in an unapproved way, (but in actuality the cladding shouldn't have been approved for any use, anywhere !) & that decision was probably made after a half dozen other more suitable claddings were rejected.

And this is without even discussing all the internal changes to the fabric of the building, that makes it obvious that there was a history of neglect in the management of the buildings in council care.

Cladding was hardly the only issue, beyond the cladding there's the single staircase problem and that the renovations saw the fire compartmentalisation zones disturbed or at least not work as they should on the interior of the building. There's also an issue with the washing machine manufacturer trying to be quiet about a faulty product. Oddly in this instance I don't know if money is a problem, the figures from the time of the fire being bandied around would be ballpark what you'd expect to spend to do a competent job renovating such a large building, so it's perhaps less the sum of money being spent and more how it's spent.

We keep hearing this is a cheap piece of work which was done to less affluent residents, but the same problems around building materials, fire compartmentalisation zones being effective, a lack of fire safety officers and thus inspections by those officers, all these problems are replicated in plenty of buildings with wealthy residents. Trying to make this a class issue isn't helpful to addressing the underlying issues. We also need building standard to pay more attention to global standards, some of the cladding for instance wouldn't have been deemed fit for purpose on such a tall building in Germany, and we're still waiting for central government to revise standards on the testing of materials, and to fund local authorities so they can discharge the duties expected of them.

Anonymous. wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:Tragically the Grenfell group are turning on Labour MPs for daring to back the fire brigade and suggest it's building massive tower blocks with flammable materials which is the problem.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ion-widget

You start to get the feeling that they will never be happy unless someone is locked away.

You are only now starting to get that feeling. Is it possible you actually feel no one did anything criminal

Those associated with Grenfell are speaking out of anger, pain and frustration. They're not to be ignored as a result, so if you're Theresa May should still be turning up to get yelled at by them, but they don't get to influence future policy unless they're able to move onto substantive suggestions beyond the pain and anger, and I make no demand they do move on, it's a horrendous thing to even try and move on from.

I’ve seen interviews of few people who were inside the Twin Towers in NY that claimed what actually saved their lives was that they went against the advice of the rescue teams - ie instead of waiting to be rescued, they actually rushed out of the building as soon as possible (someone claimed
to have taken the elevators to get down as quick as possible).
Now I am not saying that following the rules is bad - but maybe sometime improvising is better (assuming you are not subject to panicking)

AlanBengio wrote:I’ve seen interviews of few people who were inside the Twin Towers in NY that claimed what actually saved their lives was that they went against the advice of the rescue teams - ie instead of waiting to be rescued, they actually rushed out of the building as soon as possible (someone claimed
to have taken the elevators to get down as quick as possible).
Now I am not saying that following the rules is bad - but maybe sometime improvising is better (assuming you are not subject to panicking)

The company I was working for had an office in the south tower. One of my colleagues was there at the time. As soon as the plane hit the first building he and everybody else decided to leave - against standard advice. I seem to remember that almost everybody below where the plane hit got out and several people from above as well because of that. I guess it's an easier decision to make when you have already seen what happened next door.

piquant wrote:Cladding was hardly the only issue, beyond the cladding there's the single staircase problem and that the renovations saw the fire compartmentalisation zones disturbed or at least not work as they should on the interior of the building. There's also an issue with the washing machine manufacturer trying to be quiet about a faulty product. Oddly in this instance I don't know if money is a problem, the figures from the time of the fire being bandied around would be ballpark what you'd expect to spend to do a competent job renovating such a large building, so it's perhaps less the sum of money being spent and more how it's spent.

We keep hearing this is a cheap piece of work which was done to less affluent residents, but the same problems around building materials, fire compartmentalisation zones being effective, a lack of fire safety officers and thus inspections by those officers, all these problems are replicated in plenty of buildings with wealthy residents. Trying to make this a class issue isn't helpful to addressing the underlying issues. We also need building standard to pay more attention to global standards, some of the cladding for instance wouldn't have been deemed fit for purpose on such a tall building in Germany, and we're still waiting for central government to revise standards on the testing of materials, and to fund local authorities so they can discharge the duties expected of them.

Never mind Germany, you couldn't use it on anything more than 2 storey's high in Ireland. Someone, somewhere muddied the agrement cert enough to let someone else dodgily specify it.

piquant wrote:

Anonymous. wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:Tragically the Grenfell group are turning on Labour MPs for daring to back the fire brigade and suggest it's building massive tower blocks with flammable materials which is the problem.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ion-widget

You start to get the feeling that they will never be happy unless someone is locked away.

You are only now starting to get that feeling. Is it possible you actually feel no one did anything criminal

Those associated with Grenfell are speaking out of anger, pain and frustration. They're not to be ignored as a result, so if you're Theresa May should still be turning up to get yelled at by them, but they don't get to influence future policy unless they're able to move onto substantive suggestions beyond the pain and anger, and I make no demand they do move on, it's a horrendous thing to even try and move on from.

I think we all know that but that's got nothing to do with what I was asking EDF

piquant wrote:Cladding was hardly the only issue, beyond the cladding there's the single staircase problem and that the renovations saw the fire compartmentalisation zones disturbed or at least not work as they should on the interior of the building. There's also an issue with the washing machine manufacturer trying to be quiet about a faulty product. Oddly in this instance I don't know if money is a problem, the figures from the time of the fire being bandied around would be ballpark what you'd expect to spend to do a competent job renovating such a large building, so it's perhaps less the sum of money being spent and more how it's spent.

We keep hearing this is a cheap piece of work which was done to less affluent residents, but the same problems around building materials, fire compartmentalisation zones being effective, a lack of fire safety officers and thus inspections by those officers, all these problems are replicated in plenty of buildings with wealthy residents. Trying to make this a class issue isn't helpful to addressing the underlying issues. We also need building standard to pay more attention to global standards, some of the cladding for instance wouldn't have been deemed fit for purpose on such a tall building in Germany, and we're still waiting for central government to revise standards on the testing of materials, and to fund local authorities so they can discharge the duties expected of them.

Money was obviously "a problem". less than half a mile down the road Hammersmith & Fulham council were cladding their tower blocks with cladding that had fire retardant rockwool cores. To save money Kensington & Chelsea decided to use cheaper less fire resistant cladding on Grenfell. Then to save even more money they scrapped that cladding and went for cladding filled with plastic that was just fuel for a fire.

What is the reason for splitting delivery of the report? Would it have made more sense to report on the cause of the fire's destruction, and then deal with the response? Perhaps fire brigade will need to modify their protocols in future, but that cannot happen until they know just what sort of roman candles they are entering.

Dunnikin Diver wrote:What is the reason for splitting delivery of the report? Would it have made more sense to report on the cause of the fire's destruction, and then deal with the response? Perhaps fire brigade will need to modify their protocols in future, but that cannot happen until they know just what sort of roman candles they are entering.

I think it's become a, 'Best Method', for complex inquiries like this; otherwise you have a hundred lawyers in the room, & no-one can keep track of what, or where you are, & you've witness statements on fifteen different parts of the inquiry, on any given day. Even reporting on the inquiry becomes a joke.

If it's done honestly, & without political interference, then it can work just fine, with an initial scoping by the investigating Judge who then comes up with their own schedule, & order for the investigation; & they then go thru the parts in the order they decide.

Dunnikin Diver wrote:What is the reason for splitting delivery of the report? Would it have made more sense to report on the cause of the fire's destruction, and then deal with the response? Perhaps fire brigade will need to modify their protocols in future, but that cannot happen until they know just what sort of roman candles they are entering.

They already had the recommendations after a previous enquiry resulting from a cladding fire with multiple deaths in London. The government sent out new guidelines regarding the stay put policy but . the LFB modified nothing. I'm guessing a lack of funds for training may be blamed. More People died this time so maybe they will do the right thing going forward.

In their defence had the fire been 12 months earlier there would have been no cladding and stay put would have been the right policy.

Anonymous. wrote:

piquant wrote:Cladding was hardly the only issue, beyond the cladding there's the single staircase problem and that the renovations saw the fire compartmentalisation zones disturbed or at least not work as they should on the interior of the building. There's also an issue with the washing machine manufacturer trying to be quiet about a faulty product. Oddly in this instance I don't know if money is a problem, the figures from the time of the fire being bandied around would be ballpark what you'd expect to spend to do a competent job renovating such a large building, so it's perhaps less the sum of money being spent and more how it's spent.

We keep hearing this is a cheap piece of work which was done to less affluent residents, but the same problems around building materials, fire compartmentalisation zones being effective, a lack of fire safety officers and thus inspections by those officers, all these problems are replicated in plenty of buildings with wealthy residents. Trying to make this a class issue isn't helpful to addressing the underlying issues. We also need building standard to pay more attention to global standards, some of the cladding for instance wouldn't have been deemed fit for purpose on such a tall building in Germany, and we're still waiting for central government to revise standards on the testing of materials, and to fund local authorities so they can discharge the duties expected of them.

Money was obviously "a problem". less than half a mile down the road Hammersmith & Fulham council were cladding their tower blocks with cladding that had fire retardant rockwool cores. To save money Kensington & Chelsea decided to use cheaper less fire resistant cladding on Grenfell. Then to save even more money they scrapped that cladding and went for cladding filled with plastic that was just fuel for a fire.

I suspect they thought they were selecting from a list of approved building materials, so there's a question around how items get onto an approved list, and tbh given the sums spent on the refurbishment they should have been able to do an adequate job. And again there are plenty of buildings in which some very rich people live with some questionable build materials, some questionable fire containment zones exist, that suffer a lack of sufficient exits and a lack of fire suppression systems, and that suffer the same problem around a like of fire safety inspections. Money is always going to form part of an explanation and a solution, but this doesn't simply break down as a class issue so we're better resolving the issue for what it is rather than trying to make it a class issue. There are hardly a shortage of actual class issues if what people want to argue about is class rather than fire safety.

camroc1 wrote:

piquant wrote:Cladding was hardly the only issue, beyond the cladding there's the single staircase problem and that the renovations saw the fire compartmentalisation zones disturbed or at least not work as they should on the interior of the building. There's also an issue with the washing machine manufacturer trying to be quiet about a faulty product. Oddly in this instance I don't know if money is a problem, the figures from the time of the fire being bandied around would be ballpark what you'd expect to spend to do a competent job renovating such a large building, so it's perhaps less the sum of money being spent and more how it's spent.

We keep hearing this is a cheap piece of work which was done to less affluent residents, but the same problems around building materials, fire compartmentalisation zones being effective, a lack of fire safety officers and thus inspections by those officers, all these problems are replicated in plenty of buildings with wealthy residents. Trying to make this a class issue isn't helpful to addressing the underlying issues. We also need building standard to pay more attention to global standards, some of the cladding for instance wouldn't have been deemed fit for purpose on such a tall building in Germany, and we're still waiting for central government to revise standards on the testing of materials, and to fund local authorities so they can discharge the duties expected of them.

Never mind Germany, you couldn't use it on anything more than 2 storey's high in Ireland. Someone, somewhere muddied the agrement cert enough to let someone else dodgily specify it.

There's been very little coverage as to what the process should be around collating information on best (standard) practice around the UK and in comparable nations, it's not even clear anyone is tracking any such thing other than on the back of something going badly wrong.

Slags trying to get immunity from prosecution before testifying. I couldn't give a toss about the inquiry. Criminal trials is where its at