Grenfell Tower block disaster

nmc said:
I thought that too - those doors won’t be one offs - there’s thousands of them across the U.K. The question is - was the test faulty that certificated them or are those in production not the same as the ones tested. A few Tory MPs who publicly declared war on red tape over the last 10 or so years and who oversaw the shredding of standards in many areas are going to have a lot of difficult questions to answer.
Click to expand...

What has this got to do with the tories?

In this instance the doors failed a safety test which means they were not built to the certification standard required. The test says 30 minutes and the doors they made could only manage 15. That means the regs didn't fail, the company making the doors did.

Why is it the rule that is at fault as oppposed to quite simply the company who built them may of decided to (criminally) ignore them or was incompetent in doing so?

Or, are you saying the tories are engaged in reducing regulation at the cost of safety? In the words of Corbyn, I would like to see the evidence first because that is definitely not true in my industry where safety is critical.
 
TCIB said:
This is people intentionally misinterpreting new or relaxed regulations for their own financial gain. I dislike the idea red tape and regulation are married. There is much red tape in business that could really do with streamlining or replacing for a more coherent and sensible operation.

Let us say i am the owner of the communal area fire doors sales company. I have sold these doors as fireproof to xyz standard and asking that price. However the reality is the doors are only good to a level or two below. I am not saying anyone here has done that either, it is simply a good example. Now i could not live with myself if a fire raged through a building with my doors that were properly used and people died. There are a lot that can seemingly get along just fine if they get paid enough.

"It's just business" well no it's not, you can't arbitrarily make a moral division in your actions on such a nonsensical basis. It is a cop out term for heartless fuckers to make a load of cash usually at every other buggers expense. I'll just kill the wife, it is a financially prudent life path decision, it's just business :-D

Sorry for that rant at the end, i detest that term.
Click to expand...

I can see your point but let’s wait to see what happened at Grenfell and when we do we can safely assume it’s almost certainly not a one off. Cutting of red tape unfortunately seems to have walked hand in hand with the cutting of standards I’m sure that wasn’t everyone’s intention but some clearly seized upon it. At the very point we relaxed the standards we seem to have made the fatal error of slashing any resources we had in terms of inspection and compliance. Hence we have thousands of people living in dwellings that could be death traps but landlords, local authorities, Fire authorities and the govt have simply no idea whether they are safe or not? How could we get into this mess? If a serious fire broke out in a high rise tonight - It would be a game of chance because there’s no requirement for sprinklers, we know the majority of cladding is faulty and now we have concerns about fire doors.
 
inbetween said:
What has this got to do with the tories?

In this instance the doors failed a safety test which means they were not built to the certification standard required. The test says 30 minutes and the doors they made could only manage 15. That means the regs didn't fail, the company making the doors did.

Why is it the rule that is at fault as oppposed to quite simply the company who built them may of decided to (criminally) ignore them or was incompetent in doing so?

Or, are you saying the tories are engaged in reducing regulation at the cost of safety? In the words of Corbyn, I would like to see the evidence first because that is definitely not true in my industry where safety is critical.
Click to expand...


Tory minister sat on a report for two years saying that the Fire regs needed to be tightened up and did nothing....

Strange how the refurb of the Houses of parliament include the retro fitting of a sprinkler system ......
 
nmc said:
I can see your point but let’s wait to see what happened at Grenfell and when we do we can safely assume it’s almost certainly not a one off. Cutting of red tape unfortunately seems to have walked hand in hand with the cutting of standards I’m sure that wasn’t everyone’s intention but some clearly seized upon it. At the very point we relaxed the standards we seem to have made the fatal error of slashing any resources we had in terms of inspection and compliance. Hence we have thousands of people living in dwellings that could be death traps but landlords, local authorities, Fire authorities and the govt have simply no idea whether they are safe or not? How could we get into this mess? If a serious fire broke out in a high rise tonight - It would be a game of chance because there’s no requirement for sprinklers, we know the majority of cladding is faulty and now we have concerns about fire doors.
Click to expand...

What standards? What standards have been slashed??

The standards would be the problem if all of the cladding and doors had been tested and passed but Grenfell still burnt down, that is not what happened.

The difference here is according to the rules the doors should hold back fire for 30 minutes, they didn't. The cladding should also not combust but it did and both failed all tests against what the regulations say is the minimum.

That is a massive failure because when safety is involved you build in a factor of safety where you don't actually design your doors or whatever for the minimum 30 minutes, you design them for 40, 50 or more!

In my industry (aviation) the factor of safety is around 1.5, so whatever the minimum safety requirement is you have to prove your product is at least 50% better! In this case they failed by 50% which is a massive total failure that is the fault of only whoever built the things.

The irony in all of this is the hypocritcal nature of the people jacking the tories as though they are at fault, so as Corbyn pointed out this week, lets see the evidence....?
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
Tory minister sat on a report for two years saying that the Fire regs needed to be tightened up and did nothing....

Strange how the refurb of the Houses of parliament include the retro fitting of a sprinkler system ......
Click to expand...

We have had 4 Labour governments since Grenfell was built, I'm assuming you are going to blame them too?
 
inbetween said:
We have had 4 Labour governments since Grenfell was built, I'm assuming you are going to blame them too?
Click to expand...


No ....other than for the lessening of controls under Gordon Browns watch (which was frankly a disgrace)...however there was a lesser fire that occurred at Lakanal House in 2009... in which 6 died and 20 were injured. From that a report was developed and placed on Gavin Barwells desk for four years (not two) as I originally posted


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...w-housing-minister-tory-theresa-a7792966.html
 
nmc said:
I can see your point but let’s wait to see what happened at Grenfell and when we do we can safely assume it’s almost certainly not a one off. Cutting of red tape unfortunately seems to have walked hand in hand with the cutting of standards I’m sure that wasn’t everyone’s intention but some clearly seized upon it. At the very point we relaxed the standards we seem to have made the fatal error of slashing any resources we had in terms of inspection and compliance. Hence we have thousands of people living in dwellings that could be death traps but landlords, local authorities, Fire authorities and the govt have simply no idea whether they are safe or not? How could we get into this mess? If a serious fire broke out in a high rise tonight - It would be a game of chance because there’s no requirement for sprinklers, we know the majority of cladding is faulty and now we have concerns about fire doors.
Click to expand...
Sadly you are right, it saddens me that is the reality though. I dearly wish we were...better, just better at being decent to others especially when we are in positions where our judgements and decisions affect so many others.
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
No ....other than for the lessening of controls under Gordon Browns watch (which was frankly a disgrace)...however there was a lesser fire that occurred at Lakanal House in 2009... in which 6 died and 20 were injured. From that a report was developed and placed on Gavin Barwells desk for four years (not two) as I originally posted


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...w-housing-minister-tory-theresa-a7792966.html
Click to expand...

I still get cross about Theresa May's lying performance last year. Two lies, that Labour changed the regs - they did change fire regs but not those affecting building materials, and that the first high rise fire involving cladding was under Labour (it was Knowsley Heights in Huyton in 1991). No-one at the time seemed to call her out on it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/theres...-labour-jeremy-corbyn-pmqs-live-a7812726.html
 
nmc said:
I can see your point but let’s wait to see what happened at Grenfell and when we do we can safely assume it’s almost certainly not a one off. Cutting of red tape unfortunately seems to have walked hand in hand with the cutting of standards I’m sure that wasn’t everyone’s intention but some clearly seized upon it. At the very point we relaxed the standards we seem to have made the fatal error of slashing any resources we had in terms of inspection and compliance. Hence we have thousands of people living in dwellings that could be death traps but landlords, local authorities, Fire authorities and the govt have simply no idea whether they are safe or not? How could we get into this mess? If a serious fire broke out in a high rise tonight - It would be a game of chance because there’s no requirement for sprinklers, we know the majority of cladding is faulty and now we have concerns about fire doors.
Click to expand...

I thought there was a vote last year where 310 Tories voted against making homes fit to live in?

Would these Grenfell incidents come under that vote?
 
I thought Grenfell would be a game-changer for social housing. Alas, nothing will change. The housing crisis will continue and dodgy landlords will continue to make money, hand-over-fist, out of the poor.
 
According to today’s Guardian 367 of 489 tower blocks tested in Greater Manchester did not meet fire safety standards. That’s a 75% failure rate.
 
Ricster said:
I thought there was a vote last year where 310 Tories voted against making homes fit to live in?

Would these Grenfell incidents come under that vote?
Click to expand...

Nobody voted against making homes fit to live in. What happened was Labour tabled an amendment to the Housing and Planning Act which stated homes must be fit for human habitation. The reason it was voted down was because local authorities already have enforcement powers when this is not the case. Under the Housing Act, local authorities have powers of enforcement against hazards. For the purpose of the act, a hazard is defined as follows:

“hazard” means any risk of harm to the health or safety of an actual or potential occupier of a dwelling or HMO which arises from a deficiency in the dwelling or HMO or in any building or land in the vicinity (whether the deficiency arises as a result of the construction of any building, an absence of maintenance or repair, or otherwise).​
 
Mustard Dave said:
Nobody voted against making homes fit to live in. What happened was Labour tabled an amendment to the Housing and Planning Act which stated homes must be fit for human habitation. The reason it was voted down was because local authorities already have enforcement powers when this is not the case. Under the Housing Act, local authorities have powers of enforcement against hazards. For the purpose of the act, a hazard is defined as follows:

“hazard” means any risk of harm to the health or safety of an actual or potential occupier of a dwelling or HMO which arises from a deficiency in the dwelling or HMO or in any building or land in the vicinity (whether the deficiency arises as a result of the construction of any building, an absence of maintenance or repair, or otherwise).​
Click to expand...
The amendment was to give tenants the power to take landlords to court if their home was unfit. It was supported by the Tory government....and voted down by Tory landlord MPs.
 
Vic said:
The amendment was to give tenants the power to take landlords to court if their home was unfit. It was supported by the Tory government....and voted down by Tory landlord MPs.
Click to expand...

Points 1 and 2 are incorrect:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm160112/debtext/160112-0003.htm

Point 3 is irrelevant.

Ricster said:
Yep ive just researched this.

Its pretty disgusting to see people putting their own greed as more important than the safety of human life.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.indy100.com/article/72-mps-vote-human-habitation-living-standards-private-landlords-grenfell-tower-7790891?amp
Click to expand...

The statistics in that article are meaningless out of context. This amendment would not have prevented the Grenfell tragedy or prevent justice taking its course.
 
The fire door fire test failure issue on top of the cladding fire test issue proves that both:
1. The relaxation of the fire regs back in 2005 that allowed materials made from materials that have passed the fire test to no longer have to be retested is clearly a serious error. AND
2. business simply cant be trusted to stick to the regs
So, going forward, every piece of fire safety equipment has to be tested and then retested in the manner it will be deployed to a high density housing project.
 
Last edited:
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