Chat Forum
It is currently Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:43 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1873 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 43, 44, 45, 46, 47  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39020
MungoMan wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
Ted. wrote:
For those that are interested, some insight into spread of flame, wall assemblies, rain screens and insulation, the Grenfell tower fire from a North American perspective, by Building Science Corp's, Joseph Lstiburek.

You don't have to be a fire or facade engineer to get most of this. It's pretty basic stuff, which makes it all the more surprising that it happened at all. There seems to be a serious disconnect within the UK building professions, standards setters and regulators.

Interesting read, and basically points to the use of the combustible outer panel as the culprit, combined to some extent with moving the window outwards, although I'd not be surprised at the cladding fire breaking back in through originally placed windows.

FWIW, since the Grenfell fire, Dublin Fire Brigade investigated any multistorey (3 floors and up) building in Dublin either fitted or retrofitted with a similar cladding style, and found no examples of a combustible outer cladding having been used.

I still find it unbelievable that it was in frequent use in the UK.

Pehaps the Irish aren't quite so convinced that folk with meagre bank accounts and unfashionable accents are disposable?

Without the requisite fire regulations, I'm sure we'd have no shortage of developers willing to clad with the cheapest shit available.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:17 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12713
Location: Coalfalls
camroc1 wrote:
MungoMan wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
Ted. wrote:
For those that are interested, some insight into spread of flame, wall assemblies, rain screens and insulation, the Grenfell tower fire from a North American perspective, by Building Science Corp's, Joseph Lstiburek.

You don't have to be a fire or facade engineer to get most of this. It's pretty basic stuff, which makes it all the more surprising that it happened at all. There seems to be a serious disconnect within the UK building professions, standards setters and regulators.

Interesting read, and basically points to the use of the combustible outer panel as the culprit, combined to some extent with moving the window outwards, although I'd not be surprised at the cladding fire breaking back in through originally placed windows.

FWIW, since the Grenfell fire, Dublin Fire Brigade investigated any multistorey (3 floors and up) building in Dublin either fitted or retrofitted with a similar cladding style, and found no examples of a combustible outer cladding having been used.

I still find it unbelievable that it was in frequent use in the UK.

Pehaps the Irish aren't quite so convinced that folk with meagre bank accounts and unfashionable accents are disposable?

Without the requisite fire regulations, I'm sure we'd have no shortage of developers willing to clad with the cheapest shit available.

As would be true of any place where the desire to make money bubblefarts (sic) any residual concerns about others' welfare.

But the point is, you seem to have such regulations...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13112
Location: Melbourne
Mick Mannock wrote:
Openside wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
I was actually involved in a comical UK accident once. An immigrant guy flew off the road in his car, and smashed into a brick wall. Nothing moved, including a few builders at the nearby property. I jogged to the scene and saw the guy was struggling so called the emergency number (Kiwi, had to ask my UK mate for the emergency number). They ambo turned up in a station wagon. A tory landowner fuckwit turned up in a tweet blazer asking about insurance details with the audacity to ask the paramedic who couldnt have given less of a fudge. Both me and my mate had to give statements to the cops a few weeks later. Mine was worth less of course as the Kiwi about to fly out. Builders asked us if everything was alright as we walked away and we said yeah, no thanks to you from my mate. Weird situation.



If some twat had piled off the road into my wall I would be interested in getting insurance details too.

I love it, just because someone owns a house that are a Tory :? or was he wearing a rosette??


Good point. Good question.


If I was a betting man....

It wasn't a serious generalisation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1578
camroc1 wrote:
Ted. wrote:
For those that are interested, some insight into spread of flame, wall assemblies, rain screens and insulation, the Grenfell tower fire from a North American perspective, by Building Science Corp's, Joseph Lstiburek.

You don't have to be a fire or facade engineer to get most of this. It's pretty basic stuff, which makes it all the more surprising that it happened at all. There seems to be a serious disconnect within the UK building professions, standards setters and regulators.

Interesting read, and basically points to the use of the combustible outer panel as the culprit, combined to some extent with moving the window outwards, although I'd not be surprised at the cladding fire breaking back in through originally placed windows.

FWIW, since the Grenfell fire, Dublin Fire Brigade investigated any multistorey (3 floors and up) building in Dublin either fitted or retrofitted with a similar cladding style, and found no examples of a combustible outer cladding having been used.

I still find it unbelievable that it was in frequent use in the UK.


In other news from Ireland

Quote:
A number of apartment blocks and terraced homes here are potential death traps, fire fighting experts have warned, in the wake of the London tower inferno.

‘The potential for such a disaster in Ireland is here already,’ warned fire fighter union boss Ross MacCobb.

And fire engineer Noel Manning fears that as many as 80pc of all Irish homes pose a fire risk; he added that some terraced and semi-detached houses are as dangerous as apartment blocks.

Meanwhile, Kevin Hollingsworth, of the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland, explained that while safety features are supposed to ensure it would take a fire an hour to spread from apartment to apartment, out of the 29 he examined, ‘very few’ lived up to the regulations.

A combination of shoddy work during the Celtic Tiger era and the ‘widespread’ use of the same controversial building material believed to have played a deadly role in the Grenfell Tower tragedy mean many Irish people could be living in potentially lethal homes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23040
Lobby wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
Ted. wrote:
For those that are interested, some insight into spread of flame, wall assemblies, rain screens and insulation, the Grenfell tower fire from a North American perspective, by Building Science Corp's, Joseph Lstiburek.

You don't have to be a fire or facade engineer to get most of this. It's pretty basic stuff, which makes it all the more surprising that it happened at all. There seems to be a serious disconnect within the UK building professions, standards setters and regulators.

Interesting read, and basically points to the use of the combustible outer panel as the culprit, combined to some extent with moving the window outwards, although I'd not be surprised at the cladding fire breaking back in through originally placed windows.

FWIW, since the Grenfell fire, Dublin Fire Brigade investigated any multistorey (3 floors and up) building in Dublin either fitted or retrofitted with a similar cladding style, and found no examples of a combustible outer cladding having been used.

I still find it unbelievable that it was in frequent use in the UK.


In other news from Ireland

Quote:
A number of apartment blocks and terraced homes here are potential death traps, fire fighting experts have warned, in the wake of the London tower inferno.

‘The potential for such a disaster in Ireland is here already,’ warned fire fighter union boss Ross MacCobb.

And fire engineer Noel Manning fears that as many as 80pc of all Irish homes pose a fire risk; he added that some terraced and semi-detached houses are as dangerous as apartment blocks.

Meanwhile, Kevin Hollingsworth, of the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland, explained that while safety features are supposed to ensure it would take a fire an hour to spread from apartment to apartment, out of the 29 he examined, ‘very few’ lived up to the regulations.

A combination of shoddy work during the Celtic Tiger era and the ‘widespread’ use of the same controversial building material believed to have played a deadly role in the Grenfell Tower tragedy mean many Irish people could be living in potentially lethal homes.

Shush now, Cammy's having one of his turns


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17115
camroc1 wrote:
Ted. wrote:
For those that are interested, some insight into spread of flame, wall assemblies, rain screens and insulation, the Grenfell tower fire from a North American perspective, by Building Science Corp's, Joseph Lstiburek.

You don't have to be a fire or facade engineer to get most of this. It's pretty basic stuff, which makes it all the more surprising that it happened at all. There seems to be a serious disconnect within the UK building professions, standards setters and regulators.

Interesting read, and basically points to the use of the combustible outer panel as the culprit, combined to some extent with moving the window outwards, although I'd not be surprised at the cladding fire breaking back in through originally placed windows.

FWIW, since the Grenfell fire, Dublin Fire Brigade investigated any multistorey (3 floors and up) building in Dublin either fitted or retrofitted with a similar cladding style, and found no examples of a combustible outer cladding having been used.

I still find it unbelievable that it was in frequent use in the UK.


Like all things, it is a combinations of factors that have aggravated the seriousness of the event. Without the oversized drained cavity, the insulation wouldn't have gone up like it did and there wasn't a directed pathway past the window to the interior via vertical spread of flame and the windows themselves wouldn't have experienced such intense heat. Though, I imagine there was some sort of fire-stop material between the drained cavity and insulation, and the interior and window and cladding and cavity, which I assume is not shown in the cross section below for simplicity? A bit of ali angle supporting the window frames (at head, sill and presumably jamb) on its own is not a suitable stop.

Spoiler: show
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:31 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12713
Location: Coalfalls
Ted. wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
Ted. wrote:
For those that are interested, some insight into spread of flame, wall assemblies, rain screens and insulation, the Grenfell tower fire from a North American perspective, by Building Science Corp's, Joseph Lstiburek.

You don't have to be a fire or facade engineer to get most of this. It's pretty basic stuff, which makes it all the more surprising that it happened at all. There seems to be a serious disconnect within the UK building professions, standards setters and regulators.

Interesting read, and basically points to the use of the combustible outer panel as the culprit, combined to some extent with moving the window outwards, although I'd not be surprised at the cladding fire breaking back in through originally placed windows.

FWIW, since the Grenfell fire, Dublin Fire Brigade investigated any multistorey (3 floors and up) building in Dublin either fitted or retrofitted with a similar cladding style, and found no examples of a combustible outer cladding having been used.

I still find it unbelievable that it was in frequent use in the UK.


Like all things, it is a combinations of factors that have aggravated the seriousness of the event. Without the oversized drained cavity, the insulation wouldn't have gone up like it did and there wasn't a directed pathway past the window to the interior via vertical spread of flame and the windows themselves wouldn't have experienced such intense heat. Though, I imagine there was some sort of fire-stop material between the drained cavity and insulation, and the interior and window and cladding and cavity, which I assume is not shown in the cross section below for simplicity? A bit of ali angle supporting the window frames (at head, sill and presumably jamb) on its own is not a suitable stop.

Spoiler: show
Image


Planporn now, Ted? Tsk tsk.

You've probably given JTB a bone a dog would break its teeth on.


Last edited by MungoMan on Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6262
Ted. wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
Ted. wrote:
For those that are interested, some insight into spread of flame, wall assemblies, rain screens and insulation, the Grenfell tower fire from a North American perspective, by Building Science Corp's, Joseph Lstiburek.

You don't have to be a fire or facade engineer to get most of this. It's pretty basic stuff, which makes it all the more surprising that it happened at all. There seems to be a serious disconnect within the UK building professions, standards setters and regulators.

Interesting read, and basically points to the use of the combustible outer panel as the culprit, combined to some extent with moving the window outwards, although I'd not be surprised at the cladding fire breaking back in through originally placed windows.

FWIW, since the Grenfell fire, Dublin Fire Brigade investigated any multistorey (3 floors and up) building in Dublin either fitted or retrofitted with a similar cladding style, and found no examples of a combustible outer cladding having been used.

I still find it unbelievable that it was in frequent use in the UK.


Like all things, it is a combinations of factors that have aggravated the seriousness of the event. Without the oversized drained cavity, the insulation wouldn't have gone up like it did and there wasn't a directed pathway past the window to the interior via vertical spread of flame and the windows themselves wouldn't have experienced such intense heat. Though, I imagine there was some sort of fire-stop material between the drained cavity and insulation, and the interior and window and cladding and cavity, which I assume is not shown in the cross section below for simplicity? A bit of ali angle supporting the window frames (at head, sill and presumably jamb) on its own is not a suitable stop.

Spoiler: show
Image

Good read that, thanks Ted.

They probably would have mentioned it in the article if there was some fire-stop material? The insulation was supposed to be fire retardant... did they think that was enough in itself?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 3:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3094
Will Lily Allen and others who were publicly screaming about the death toll being much higher than official figures, apologise .


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... d-missing/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1578
Glaston wrote:
Will Lily Allen and others who were publicly screaming about the death toll being much higher than official figures, apologise .


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... d-missing/


More pertinently, will thick as sh*t MP David Lammy now accept that the real number of the dead were not being 'covered up'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:39 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64171
Lobby wrote:
Glaston wrote:
Will Lily Allen and others who were publicly screaming about the death toll being much higher than official figures, apologise .


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... d-missing/


More pertinently, will thick as sh*t MP David Lammy now accept that the real number of the dead were not being 'covered up'


You monster, we will have to remove your vote for that comment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 37085
Location: Planet Rock
Lobby wrote:
Glaston wrote:
Will Lily Allen and others who were publicly screaming about the death toll being much higher than official figures, apologise .


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... d-missing/


More pertinently, will thick as sh*t MP David Lammy now accept that the real number of the dead were not being 'covered up'

You have no idea you bloody idiot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21574
Lobby wrote:
Glaston wrote:
Will Lily Allen and others who were publicly screaming about the death toll being much higher than official figures, apologise .


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... d-missing/


More pertinently, will thick as sh*t MP David Lammy now accept that the real number of the dead were not being 'covered up'


I don't think he is thick. Just tried to make political capital out of death.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:49 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64171
Anonymous. wrote:
Lobby wrote:
Glaston wrote:
Will Lily Allen and others who were publicly screaming about the death toll being much higher than official figures, apologise .


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... d-missing/


More pertinently, will thick as sh*t MP David Lammy now accept that the real number of the dead were not being 'covered up'

You have no idea you bloody idiot.



More of an idea than Lammy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 37085
Location: Planet Rock
bimboman wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Lobby wrote:
Glaston wrote:
Will Lily Allen and others who were publicly screaming about the death toll being much higher than official figures, apologise .


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... d-missing/


More pertinently, will thick as sh*t MP David Lammy now accept that the real number of the dead were not being 'covered up'

You have no idea you bloody idiot.



More of an idea than Lammy.

What did Lammy say that would make you say that ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:40 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64171
Lammy says lots of very stupid and racist things. I'm suprised you're a fan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 37085
Location: Planet Rock
bimboman wrote:
Lammy says lots of very stupid and racist things. I'm suprised you're a fan.

I'm not surprised you think I'm a fan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:49 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64171
Anonymous. wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Lammy says lots of very stupid and racist things. I'm suprised you're a fan.

I'm not surprised you think I'm a fan.




Why? I'm normally very fair towards your weirdness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19929
Owns a sub standard tower block with same insulation as Grenfell but it's his tenants' responsibility to upgrade the building for him?
Residents of tower with Grenfell-style cladding told they must foot £2m bill

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... _clipboard


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 12:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:00 pm
Posts: 911
Andrew O’Hagan in the London Review of Books on Grenfell Tower. An extraordinary piece, if you’ve got a couple of hours.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n11/andrew-ohagan/the-tower


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39020
Ramming Speed wrote:
Andrew O’Hagan in the London Review of Books on Grenfell Tower. An extraordinary piece, if you’ve got a couple of hours.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n11/andrew-ohagan/the-tower

That's an excellent read, and a good description of how the press works today. High on opinion, low on facts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 3:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1911
Ramming Speed wrote:
Andrew O’Hagan in the London Review of Books on Grenfell Tower. An extraordinary piece, if you’ve got a couple of hours.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n11/andrew-ohagan/the-tower


thank you for posting that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 4:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 39109
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns
Lobby wrote:
Glaston wrote:
Will Lily Allen and others who were publicly screaming about the death toll being much higher than official figures, apologise .


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... d-missing/


More pertinently, will thick as sh*t MP David Lammy now accept that the real number of the dead were not being 'covered up'

Can someone Google what this thick as shit MPs educational attainment are.
I'm on my phone, isn't the thick bastard a Harvard graduate and a barrister?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 5:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1578
c69 wrote:
Lobby wrote:
Glaston wrote:
Will Lily Allen and others who were publicly screaming about the death toll being much higher than official figures, apologise .


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... d-missing/


More pertinently, will thick as sh*t MP David Lammy now accept that the real number of the dead were not being 'covered up'

Can someone Google what this thick as shit MPs educational attainment are.
I'm on my phone, isn't the thick bastard a Harvard graduate and a barrister?


This would be the same David Lammy who complained that the BBC reporting on the election of the new Pope was racist, because they asked if there was any white smoke yet, and who produced these answers when on Celebrity Mastermind:

1) What was the married name of the scientists Marie and Pierre who won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1903 for their research into radiation? Antoinette

2) Which fortress was built in the 1370s to defend one of the gates of Paris, and was later used as a state prison by Cardinal Richelieu? Versailles

3) Who succeeded to the English throne aged nine on the death of his father Henry VIII in 1547? Henry VII

4) Which country's Rose Revolution of 2003 led to the resignation of President Edward Shevardnadze? Yugoslavia.

His comments in the aftermath of the fire, when he claimed there was a deliberate cover up to hide the true number of people who died without any evidence to support his claims were also idiotic and prejudicial.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:41 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28261
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50230188

"Grenfell: Resign now, survivors tell fire chief after critical inquiry report"

Anniversary of the tragedy.

One thing I'm a but critical of today is why the survivors are demanding the Fire chief loses their job on their response. Now, as far as I'ma ware, the firefighters advice to stay in their homes was sound and the right advice Firefighters are educated on. Now it was tragically wrong on the day, but all buildings are different and the fire's expansion was down to the cladding, not the firefighters who risked their lives.

It seems demands for the fire chief to resign feels a like a witch hunt here, if the advice and procedures she followed were the recommended advice to follow at the time, then she did nothing wrong. Likewise claiming they should have changed tact quicker is easy to say now, but it's not as if Firefighters deal with a Grenfell on a regular basis. It's easy to say what was right or wrong in hindsight, but hindsight conclusions in this context shouldn't put pressure on people to lose their jobs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7398
Location: FTFT
I've purposefully stayed away from any reports. The LFB were always going to used as scapegoats.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39020
The problem was that sombody specified, and someone else approved, the use of what were essentially firelighters to clad a multi-storey building in contradiction of Building Regs.

Blaming firefighters is missing the point in a spectacular way.

Lessons to be learned certainly, but blame ? No.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:47 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28261
OptimisticJock wrote:
I've purposefully stayed away from any reports. The LFB were always going to used as scapegoats.


Yeah, it's sad to see them attacked for "political purposes" (if that's the right term) here. In seems in enquires they always want some establishment blood whatever the rationality of the event.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:48 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28261
camroc1 wrote:
The problem was that sombody specified, and someone else approved, the use of what were essentially firelighters to clad a multi-storey building in contradiction of Building Regs.

Blaming firefighters is missing the point in a spectacular way.

Lessons to be learned certainly, but blame ? No.


My sentiment exactly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7398
Location: FTFT
camroc1 wrote:

Lessons to be learned certainly, but blame ? No.

Yup, nothing wrong with "after action reports" and some "reflective practice" carried out by relevant people.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24462
They should have started this report with the cause of the fire and the sense of attaching firelighters to the side of buildings. Not how the resultant fire was dealt with. If the accepted protocol was stay put that is the advice they gave, look at whether that was the problem by all means but don’t condemn the LFB for doing their job...
If they had said run for it and seventy people had died of smoke inhalation whilst the fire was contained people would be up in arms!! Damned if they do damned if they don’t!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4704
eldanielfire wrote:
OptimisticJock wrote:
I've purposefully stayed away from any reports. The LFB were always going to used as scapegoats.


Yeah, it's sad to see them attacked for "political purposes" (if that's the right term) here. In seems in enquires they always want some establishment blood whatever the rationality of the event.


Well, arguably there should be establishment blood shed.

I'm just not sure that the fire chief is the right part of the establishment, or even if the fire service IS the establishment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 39109
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns
I suspect part 2 of the report with it's specific remit will be a lot more damning.
A cultural and sytemic issue across the Uk which will herald a new social housing revolution.
But the big question many will ask , is it a priority, should it be left to the private and third sector and can we afford it and can we afford to remedy the issues of all those living in death trap high rises as I heard them called today


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:38 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28261
c69 wrote:
I suspect part 2 of the report with it's specific remit will be a lot more damning.
A cultural and sytemic issue across the Uk which will herald a new social housing revolution.
But the big question many will ask , is it a priority, should it be left to the private and third sector and can we afford it and can we afford to remedy the issues of all those living in death trap high rises as I heard them called today


I certainly hope so. But we'll see. How many Governments or London Mayors ave promised to build more housing to x amount? It never seems to happen. I'd like to see government build housing and sell it at reduced prices, or have cheap rents, just because, well the south east/London is ridiculous, £700 for a small single bed bedroom in this city. I'm certainly part of the problems of the economy and shrinking of the high street is that to many people's pay cheques are tried into basic living with too little left as disposable income. Rather then being spread around other parts of the economy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5797
eldanielfire wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
The problem was that sombody specified, and someone else approved, the use of what were essentially firelighters to clad a multi-storey building in contradiction of Building Regs.

Blaming firefighters is missing the point in a spectacular way.

Lessons to be learned certainly, but blame ? No.


My sentiment exactly.


My first reaction was the same as yours; that blaming the firefighters was an understandable, but wrong, knee jerk reaction by the bereaved relatives. But then the report I was listening to gave some more details the stay in place policy that was in place, & somewhere along the line a switch flicked.

The brigades stay in place policy was based on the premise that a fire in an apartment will be contained for 60 mins; which gives the brigade plenty of time respond, & make sure the fire doesn't spread.

Now this might be a sound premise, if everything was constructed as per regulations, & nothing out of the ordinary had occurred; but on the contrary, the 999 calls were telling the brigade that these core assumptions weren't holding; the 999 calls were telling the brigade that the fire wasn't being confined, it was spreading rapidly, across multiple floors, & people were even telling them the mechanism that it was breaking thru the containment .... & crucially, the brigade didn't react to this information ! they just kept reading from the prepared policy; even when they were being told that this was fatal mistake.

Now; This is only part I of the inquiry; & it doesn't need a particularly cynical mind to wonder why it was chosen that that this part of in the incident was chosen for phase I, & the investigation of what actually caused the fucking tragedy occurred doesn't happen until later phases :x ; but there are (to my mind), legitimate, & serious questions to be asked of the LFB, & the advice they give to people in these circumstances.

People are already fixated on getting the head of the LFB fired; & no-one is looking to get whoever certified the external cladding, or whoever decided that cladding a tower block in flammable cladding was a great idea; because the safe option was too expensive !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:02 am
Posts: 4105
I have never been in a situation anything like this, and I would doubt that very many of us have.


But I wonder who would be brave enough, and cool enough under enormous pressure, to change what must be pretty rigid procedures on the spot. These firefighters are presumably heavily trained to follow standard operating procedures. If those procedures are based on a false premise, the blame might well lie elsewhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7398
Location: FTFT
fishfoodie wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
The problem was that sombody specified, and someone else approved, the use of what were essentially firelighters to clad a multi-storey building in contradiction of Building Regs.

Blaming firefighters is missing the point in a spectacular way.

Lessons to be learned certainly, but blame ? No.


My sentiment exactly.


My first reaction was the same as yours; that blaming the firefighters was an understandable, but wrong, knee jerk reaction by the bereaved relatives. But then the report I was listening to gave some more details the stay in place policy that was in place, & somewhere along the line a switch flicked.

The brigades stay in place policy was based on the premise that a fire in an apartment will be contained for 60 mins; which gives the brigade plenty of time respond, & make sure the fire doesn't spread.

Now this might be a sound premise, if everything was constructed as per regulations, & nothing out of the ordinary had occurred; but on the contrary, the 999 calls were telling the brigade that these core assumptions weren't holding; the 999 calls were telling the brigade that the fire wasn't being confined, it was spreading rapidly, across multiple floors, & people were even telling them the mechanism that it was breaking thru the containment .... & crucially, the brigade didn't react to this information ! they just kept reading from the prepared policy; even when they were being told that this was fatal mistake.

Now; This is only part I of the inquiry; & it doesn't need a particularly cynical mind to wonder why it was chosen that that this part of in the incident was chosen for phase I, & the investigation of what actually caused the fucking tragedy occurred doesn't happen until later phases :x ; but there are (to my mind), legitimate, & serious questions to be asked of the LFB, & the advice they give to people in these circumstances.

People are already fixated on getting the head of the LFB fired; & no-one is looking to get whoever certified the external cladding, or whoever decided that cladding a tower block in flammable cladding was a great idea; because the safe option was too expensive !

If I had a quid for every 999 I've attended in the last fortnight that has been accurate I'd probably have a quid.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6769
Location: Middle of the Lothians
fishfoodie wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
The problem was that sombody specified, and someone else approved, the use of what were essentially firelighters to clad a multi-storey building in contradiction of Building Regs.

Blaming firefighters is missing the point in a spectacular way.

Lessons to be learned certainly, but blame ? No.


My sentiment exactly.


My first reaction was the same as yours; that blaming the firefighters was an understandable, but wrong, knee jerk reaction by the bereaved relatives. But then the report I was listening to gave some more details the stay in place policy that was in place, & somewhere along the line a switch flicked.

The brigades stay in place policy was based on the premise that a fire in an apartment will be contained for 60 mins; which gives the brigade plenty of time respond, & make sure the fire doesn't spread.

Now this might be a sound premise, if everything was constructed as per regulations, & nothing out of the ordinary had occurred; but on the contrary, the 999 calls were telling the brigade that these core assumptions weren't holding; the 999 calls were telling the brigade that the fire wasn't being confined, it was spreading rapidly, across multiple floors, & people were even telling them the mechanism that it was breaking thru the containment .... & crucially, the brigade didn't react to this information ! they just kept reading from the prepared policy; even when they were being told that this was fatal mistake.

Now; This is only part I of the inquiry; & it doesn't need a particularly cynical mind to wonder why it was chosen that that this part of in the incident was chosen for phase I, & the investigation of what actually caused the fucking tragedy occurred doesn't happen until later phases :x ; but there are (to my mind), legitimate, & serious questions to be asked of the LFB, & the advice they give to people in these circumstances.

People are already fixated on getting the head of the LFB fired; & no-one is looking to get whoever certified the external cladding, or whoever decided that cladding a tower block in flammable cladding was a great idea; because the safe option was too expensive !


I haven't read the report but I would find it astonishing if someone was immediately able to establish why the fire was spreading so badly and would be in a position to provide reliable information to the FB which would have made them deviate from a well know policy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:25 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28261
fishfoodie wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
The problem was that sombody specified, and someone else approved, the use of what were essentially firelighters to clad a multi-storey building in contradiction of Building Regs.

Blaming firefighters is missing the point in a spectacular way.

Lessons to be learned certainly, but blame ? No.


My sentiment exactly.


My first reaction was the same as yours; that blaming the firefighters was an understandable, but wrong, knee jerk reaction by the bereaved relatives. But then the report I was listening to gave some more details the stay in place policy that was in place, & somewhere along the line a switch flicked.

The brigades stay in place policy was based on the premise that a fire in an apartment will be contained for 60 mins; which gives the brigade plenty of time respond, & make sure the fire doesn't spread.

Now this might be a sound premise, if everything was constructed as per regulations, & nothing out of the ordinary had occurred; but on the contrary, the 999 calls were telling the brigade that these core assumptions weren't holding; the 999 calls were telling the brigade that the fire wasn't being confined, it was spreading rapidly, across multiple floors, & people were even telling them the mechanism that it was breaking thru the containment .... & crucially, the brigade didn't react to this information ! they just kept reading from the prepared policy; even when they were being told that this was fatal mistake.

Now; This is only part I of the inquiry; & it doesn't need a particularly cynical mind to wonder why it was chosen that that this part of in the incident was chosen for phase I, & the investigation of what actually caused the fucking tragedy occurred doesn't happen until later phases :x ; but there are (to my mind), legitimate, & serious questions to be asked of the LFB, & the advice they give to people in these circumstances.


Even if the advice was based upon the 60 minute concept, there was still nothing like Grenfell that Firefighters likely had experience dealing with. On the cuff decisions are usually even more deadly and I'm sure it's hard to break protocol when the head of the operation is receiving multiple bits of information in a situation they have never dealt with before. I genuinely doubt anyone at the time had a certain picture or the specific knowledge of how the fire was spreading.

This is the sad worry about pitchfork and lawyer culture. There is the possibility by breaking the standard advice earlier more lives are saved but those that directly die from inhaling smoke or by burning after leaving their homes, are still used to bash the Fire Brigade with. As said protocols followed, lessons learned, lets not try to hunt down good members of the LFB with political pressure.

Quote:

People are already fixated on getting the head of the LFB fired; & no-one is looking to get whoever certified the external cladding, or whoever decided that cladding a tower block in flammable cladding was a great idea; because the safe option was too expensive !


I agree. The cladding issue is what should be the focus.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7717
I find it amazing that the FB got there 5 mins after the first call
Was also glad to read that the poor man in whose flat it started got absolved of all blame


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1873 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 43, 44, 45, 46, 47  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bimboman, Chilli, Diabhal, eldanielfire, Google Adsense [Bot], Lazy Couch potato, Mr Mike, Mullet 2, MungoMan, Nieghorn, sewa, sonic_attack, tc27, Tussock, Zakar, ZappaMan and 87 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group