Grenfell Tower block disaster

mekonmcfc said:
there will be a huge investigation and someone will go to prison, It looks like they didnt use fire stops between the floors to me
Click to expand...

If there's one thing public sector administrators and politicians are adept at, it's passing the parcel. Each link in the chain will blame the next so it will be variously the fault of the local authority, the fire service, central government, outdated fire regulations, the building contractors and the tenant management company. Everyone will say "lessons to be learned" and nobody will be prosecuted because no individual(s) will be pinned down.

Just hope I'm wrong but the concept of accountability is pretty alien in their world. Nailing jelly to the wall is generally a more productive pastime.
 
Magicpole said:
Just saw on the news that people are being treated for the effects of cyanide poisoning from foam in furniture.

How the fuck can anything that produces cyanide be allowed in the first place?
Click to expand...
This goes back to the Woolworth's fire in Manchester, many of the victims suffered inhalation of toxic gases from the burning foam, and the law was finally changed in the late 80s to force manufacturers to use flame-resistant foam. It seems there was either some very old furniture in there or some hookey furniture that didn't meet regulations.
 
Not sure how any of the contractors can be held to account for this unless they lied to the council say for example with respect to the nature of the internal element of the panels. The council signed it all off so the buck stops with them. If they didn't sign it off the contractors would have had to sort it.
 
johnmc said:
Not sure how any of the contractors can be held to account for this unless they lied to the council say for example with respect to the nature of the internal element of the panels. The council signed it all off so the buck stops with them. If they didn't sign it off the contractors would have had to sort it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Some of the papers are playing a dangerous game trying to point the finger at individuals at this stage. But they did exactly the same with Hillsborough and we all know who took the lion's share of that blame for the next 25+ years.
 
Dubai Blue said:
Exactly. Some of the papers are playing a dangerous game trying to point the finger at individuals at this stage. But they did exactly the same with Hillsborough and we all know who took the lion's share of that blame for the next 25+ years.
Click to expand...

It will be easy to find out who's to blame, there will be a paper trail leading right up to the individual that sanctioned it.
 
Dubai Blue said:
Exactly. Some of the papers are playing a dangerous game trying to point the finger at individuals at this stage. But they did exactly the same with Hillsborough and we all know who took the lion's share of that blame for the next 25+ years.
Click to expand...

Also there is a lot of talk about sprinklers. I doubt sprinklers would have made a difference in this case. The fire took hold on the external element of the building and spread quickly on outside of the building where sprinklers wouldnt have made a difference. It would have been too intense once it got into other floors. That said I would expect all high rises to be sprinklered going forward.

Anyway i attended a talk on the Dubai fires you alluded to in the thread. I seem to recall that there was some luck involved with the wind direction in it not being as serious as it could have been
 
cleavers said:
They won't have a clue, because some of the occupied flats will have been sublet anyway, so the single 'resident' may have sublet to a family of 12, whilst he/she is safe.

Subletting of social housing is generally illegal, but that doesn't stop it.
Click to expand...

That's out of order and a pretty big assumption to make there.

Just because the odd episode of "Can't Pay Take It Away" shows a sub letting case doesn't mean it's the case here at all.

You should be above lazy stereotyping in your "role"
 
Raheem's On Fire said:
That's out of order and a pretty big assumption to make there.

Just because the odd episode of "Can't Pay Take It Away" shows a sub letting case doesn't mean it's the case here at all.

You should be above lazy stereotyping in your "role"
Click to expand...
I'd be very surprised if none of those hundred n odd flats were sub let.
 
Raheem's On Fire said:
That's out of order and a pretty big assumption to make there.

Just because the odd episode of "Can't Pay Take It Away" shows a sub letting case doesn't mean it's the case here at all.

You should be above lazy stereotyping in your "role"
Click to expand...

In 2012 it was claimed that over one fifth of all council properties were being illegally sublet according to HJK Assoc who specialise in housing fraud investigation.
 
I hope the people who have lost everything get a new home/council housing and not just replaced with some flats for millionaires like in the rest of london. I think there is a serious problem with london councils and the people in charge. According to one the residents ( channel 4 news) of the flats the council/people higher up threatened legal action against some of the tower block residents for wanting to upgrade the building and make it meet fire safety standards. the people couldn't afford a lawyer though. that might not be true, but thats what I've been seeing people say/online.

another thing I've heard is that the cladding on the outside of the building was put there to make the building look nicer to the other flats ( richer people). there have been numerous reports of whole estates being forced out in london and then flats or land sold for millions. it seems they want rid of the poor people and arent investing or listening to the people already there.
 
johnmc said:
Anyway i attended a talk on the Dubai fires you alluded to in the thread. I seem to recall that there was some luck involved with the wind direction in it not being as serious as it could have been
Click to expand...
I certainly remember the night of the fire at The Torch was extremely windy. And Sulafa Tower is in a bit of a wind tunnel anyway, so there's always a breeze around there. I don't know if the wind helped lessen the impact at all, but both buildings had two fires burning at the same time on different sides because the wind had blown lit cladding over.

The NYE fire at The Address Hotel is perhaps a better comparison as pretty much the whole exterior cladding of that building was on fire (unlike the other two), yet everyone was still able to get out. That's down to the difference in how interiors are designed now and how they were designed in the 1970s, plus the existence of sprinklers, alarms, and multiple fire-safe stairwells.

Combustible cladding shouldn't be used, full-stop. But it seems that the dangers are greatly reduced when it's used on a modern structure with all the above in place. Using it on an old building with none of those fail-safes in place is a recipe for disaster. And it seems plenty of people warned them about this.
 
No doubt corners will have been cut, financial pressure placed on contractors, most likely down to human greed.
 
A report on the BBC last night said that following a government review in 2013, the report produced recommended making it mandatory for existing building that are rented out have to be retrofitted to meet current safety standards, not just new builds as is currently the case. The government did not bring forward legislation to enact this. The opposition parties (BBC report did not make clear whether it was all the opposition parties or just some) added an amendment to another bill to enact this. The amendment was defeated by the government. The argument put forward by the government was that it was too expensive in this time of austerity.

I havent had time to check the sources, but if the fire could in any way have been reduced had more modern safety systems been in place then some serious questions will need to be asked.
 
Raheem's On Fire said:
I'm sure it's likely there were, but to "families of 12"??

That's unlikely. Quite rightly he was calling on people to not politicise the thread but maybe another agenda that should be left out of this is the lazy stereotyping of so called benefits scroungers as well.

He's basically implying that someone who is potentially still missing or worse is a criminal. That's out of order and in terrible taste. If it was one of us, banned
Click to expand...
Dont talk bollocks,Cleavers had stated nothing that isnt a possible reality.

So,stop the shit stirring,especially in regards to your Mod agenda..
 
yeseye said:
What about the elderly? There was a 80 yr old fella who died stuck up on the 20th floor. The poor man should be in a bungalow tending to his flowers, it's all wrong.
Click to expand...

It's a horrible way to go, weather your 6, 21, 40 or 80. These towers are safe if they had fire alarms that people could hear, also if the building wasn't wrapped with flammable material.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top