Chat Forum
It is currently Thu May 28, 2020 2:13 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1875 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 43, 44, 45, 46, 47
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7715
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  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21208
I wonder what sunntzu (RIP) thought of Mrs Lawrence’s comments about how the fire brigade would have saved more people if ....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 11092
eldanielfire wrote:
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.


The head of the LFB said at the inquiry that even with the benefit of hindsight she wouldn't do anything differently. The report suggests that as an institution, the LFB is not open to change and won't learn from mistakes.

I think that is part of why she is getting so much criticism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 38852
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns
When is part 2 announced?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
Delingpole's take:

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/1 ... rrectness/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27667
A5D5E5 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
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.


The head of the LFB said at the inquiry that even with the benefit of hindsight she wouldn't do anything differently. The report suggests that as an institution, the LFB is not open to change and won't learn from mistakes.

I think that is part of why she is getting so much criticism.


Is it not possibly that in most cases that original protocol is still the safest ongoing protocol when faced with a burning building, even if Grenfell had it's own unique situation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:16 pm
Posts: 1344
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.


It’s not that simple in the slightest. There are buildings all over the U.K. that don’t comply (and don’t have to) with modern building regs. The fact that this particular cladding wasn’t up to current regs when installed is neither here nor there when discussing how firefighters tackle blazes.

The fire brigade attended the incident and then left thinking that they had put out the fire - they hadn’t, and they need to accept that they need new protocols to ensure that that doesn’t happen again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:43 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38503
eldanielfire wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
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.


The head of the LFB said at the inquiry that even with the benefit of hindsight she wouldn't do anything differently. The report suggests that as an institution, the LFB is not open to change and won't learn from mistakes.

I think that is part of why she is getting so much criticism.


Is it not possibly that in most cases that original protocol is still the safest ongoing protocol when faced with a burning building, even if Grenfell had it's own unique situation.

All those LA tower blocks were designed such that each individual flat is a self contained fire compartment with 60 minutes fire resistance (including hall door and external windows). This means that any fires within apartments shouldn't spread, either horizontally or vertically, for one hour (in reality much longer) in which time the FB will have arrived and extinguished it. That was the basis of the FB advice to stay put until the brigade come and get you. And it is still sound advice.

It does not take account of the building being clad in fire lighters, nor the replacement of fire doors and windows with non fire rated ones during refurbishment. I'm not sure you can develop a plan that ensures the safety of all occupants in those circumstances; all you can do is try to organise a general evacuation that will, inevitably, turn to panic.

The fault lies with the specifier, and approver of the cladding material, pure and simple.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 6:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 8283
A5D5E5 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
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.


The head of the LFB said at the inquiry that even with the benefit of hindsight she wouldn't do anything differently. The report suggests that as an institution, the LFB is not open to change and won't learn from mistakes.

I think that is part of why she is getting so much criticism.



Even if with hindsight I can imagine they'd have been very worried about so many people trying to descend a single staircase in the dark and smoke, she might have anticipated that could have gone very badly. I'm not from a position of ignorance willing to say there were good options they could have chosen, it might simply have been a very shitty situation. Certainly the fire service are at fault for not having protocols for the cladding not working as expected, there are issues around their equipment and communication. We also need action on the testing and installation of materials, on the number of fire safety officers in addition to considering protocols where things are going wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27667
camroc1 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
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.


The head of the LFB said at the inquiry that even with the benefit of hindsight she wouldn't do anything differently. The report suggests that as an institution, the LFB is not open to change and won't learn from mistakes.

I think that is part of why she is getting so much criticism.


Is it not possibly that in most cases that original protocol is still the safest ongoing protocol when faced with a burning building, even if Grenfell had it's own unique situation.

All those LA tower blocks were designed such that each individual flat is a self contained fire compartment with 60 minutes fire resistance (including hall door and external windows). This means that any fires within apartments shouldn't spread, either horizontally or vertically, for one hour (in reality much longer) in which time the FB will have arrived and extinguished it. That was the basis of the FB advice to stay put until the brigade come and get you. And it is still sound advice.

It does not take account of the building being clad in fire lighters, nor the replacement of fire doors and windows with non fire rated ones during refurbishment. I'm not sure you can develop a plan that ensures the safety of all occupants in those circumstances; all you can do is try to organise a general evacuation that will, inevitably, turn to panic.

The fault lies with the specifier, and approver of the cladding material, pure and simple.


Yes, 100% agree.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 11092
eldanielfire wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
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.


The head of the LFB said at the inquiry that even with the benefit of hindsight she wouldn't do anything differently. The report suggests that as an institution, the LFB is not open to change and won't learn from mistakes.

I think that is part of why she is getting so much criticism.


Is it not possibly that in most cases that original protocol is still the safest ongoing protocol when faced with a burning building, even if Grenfell had it's own unique situation.


I have no idea. But after seeing what happened, I'd have been saying that with the benefit of hindsight I'd consider that my policies might not always work as intended.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24614
Location: Big Willi Style
Blame is with Building Control, you can specify and fit straw dipped in petrol if you so desire, but they aren’t compelled to sign off anything that can’t prove it’s fire rating.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:40 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38503
DragsterDriver wrote:
Blame is with Building Control, you can specify and fit straw dipped in petrol if you so desire, but they aren’t compelled to sign off anything that can’t prove it’s fire rating.

I disagree.

Regardless of Building Control approval, an architect or engineer is legally(not to say also ethically) bound to specify something that is fit for purpose


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27667
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:57 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22858
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.

Whoever signed off that cladding should be locked up


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:53 pm
Posts: 2524
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.


https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fi ... 51681.html

"Firefighters have come back to Labour today because we finally found a leader worth backing in Jeremy Corbyn"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 38852
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns
When is phase 2 of the report sent out?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27667
happyhooker 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.

Whoever signed off that cladding should be locked up


That I agree on. also questions for who inspected it and cleared it later on. But that's not who this lot are baying for blood for.

A few comments in the Telegraph and elsewhere, points out that it's all being muddied as the current local MP, was in charge of housing up until 2012, and even if decisions was finalised later, there is a whole domino effect of people who could fall for this. Amplified by the fact Labour have made real political capital out of this an the Tories don't see how they can make any by getting involved directly, hence the silent non-investigation into who made what decision.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27667
c69 wrote:
When is phase 2 of the report sent out?


Sometime in 2020.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 36019
Location: Planet Rock
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27667
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5598
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 8283
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 8283
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2533
Location: Italia
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)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:01 am
Posts: 1350
Location: SW London
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:19 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38503
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 36019
Location: Planet Rock
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 36019
Location: Planet Rock
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2319
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5598
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 36019
Location: Planet Rock
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 8283
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 8283
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2020 8:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 36019
Location: Planet Rock
Slags trying to get immunity from prosecution before testifying. I couldn't give a toss about the inquiry. Criminal trials is where its at


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1875 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 43, 44, 45, 46, 47

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: camroc1, Chilli, clementinfrance, DragonKhan, easyray, EverReady, Evil_G, Fangle, happyhooker, henry, HighKingLeinster, Joost, La soule, Laurent, message #2527204, Mr Mike, Newsome, OomPB, PCPhil, penguin, Raggs, Saint, Ulsters Red Hand, Willie Falloon, ZappaMan and 125 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