Huge Fire In Block Of Flats

[ikarl]

Globs said:

Cuts to the fire services never help though do they? Fewer, busier, more tired people seldom do a better job.

I guess the fire itself was the main evidence that cuts made a difference. If there were routine inspections of tower blocks by firemen this cladding danger would have been caught a long time ago on building #1, not after building #600 and a deadly fire.

It is clearly a false economy to ignore fire, fire inspections should be a basic part of our domestic security.

Would it?

[zarjaz1991]

PurpleMoonlight said:

No need for an investigation and enquiry then as you have already decided the outcome.

Perhaps there's some other reason why dozens of tower blocks with similar cladding are now having it all urgently removed. I'm all ears.

[Eddie Strohacker]

hyphen said:

Has this been established as deliberate cost and corner cutting? As from bits I have read, it doesn't seem to have been established whose oversight this was, wherever it was installers/architects/council and also I have see nothing of there being multiple tenders for the work and the council having chosen the cheapest.

Since the tower had cladding and insulation added it to it many years after it was built, there appears to have been an attempt to actually improve things and spend money on improving efficiency/aesthetics where these was no essential reason to do so.

Could this not be a case of human error but with underlying good intentions?

It's possible. Set against that is every tower tested so far failing fire tests. Some on here have open minds, some will politic it to the ends of the earth because that's how they are but when it starts to quack like a duck & waddle like a duck, it's reasonable to start thinking it's a duck & what is beyond dispute is local authorities have taken years of swingeing budget cuts from central government leading to difficult all kinds of decisions for councils.

This isn't a case for Poirot, joining the dots up is pretty straightforward imo. One dangerously clad tower can equal human error. 60 & counting looks like something altogether different.

[zarjaz1991]

hyphen said:

Has this been established as deliberate cost and corner cutting? As from bits I have read, it doesn't seem to have been established whose oversight this was, wherever it was installers/architects/council and also I have see nothing of there being multiple tenders for the work and the council having chosen the cheapest.

Since the tower had cladding and insulation added it to it many years after it was built, there appears to have been an attempt to actually improve things and spend money on improving efficiency/aesthetics where these was no essential reason to do so.

Could this not be a case of human error but with underlying good intentions?

The cladding was primarily to appease the green gestapo, additionally it was to increase profits by making the blocks look more attractive. Talk to most residents of these places and they never wanted it.

Having established the above "need", it was then imperative to cut costs as much as possible in order to increase profits for the private contractors involved. Many councils are saying the cladding used has not been in line with their specifications. Costs cut and profits increased in the hope nobody would ever know. Well, 79 people now DO know, and people need to be in jail for this. I'm sick of hearing excuses.

I'm only suprised nobody's blamed the victims themselves yet.

[Gargamel]

gooner1 said:

Yeah, let's all have a fiddle while Rome burns.
What bigger picture do you need if a 21 storey building, full of people and fully ablaze, isn't sufficient.

Not sure I understand this post. There should be a full inquiry, and if necessary criminal prosecutions. We have a brilliant system both through the coroners offices, public inquiry and the Courts. I suggest some patience whilst that machinery gets into action.

A senior politician is openly blaming the cuts and politicising this tragedy. That in my view is poor form.

To comment as other posters have that the reason for this horrible incident is that the lives of the poor have lower value is both ridiculous and is a deliberate attempt to turn this into a "class war" event, when it is no such thing.

[jmorgan]

JasperT said:

zarjaz1991 said:

79 people died due to deliberate cost and corner cutting.
I fl to see how it's anything else.

This!

Would it not be better for Corbyn and his cohorts to ask and ensure a proper investigation is held, it is held promptly and fairly and with speed rather than apportioning blame? Then take action?

Rather than apportion blame now for political gain, which is what they are doing. That does not help.

[The Surveyor]

Globs said:

Cuts to the fire services never help though do they? Fewer, busier, more tired people seldom do a better job.

I guess the fire itself was the main evidence that cuts made a difference. If there were routine inspections of tower blocks by firemen this cladding danger would have been caught a long time ago on building #1, not after building #600 and a deadly fire.

It is clearly a false economy to ignore fire, fire inspections should be a basic part of our domestic security.

You have to be very careful making assumptions based upon headlines.

The responsibility for fire inspections is, and always has been primarily on the building managers. The Fire Reform Act increased the onus on those in charge of these building to undertake fire safety inspections, and made them directly responsible. That means that the basic fire protection measure 'should' be checked more regularly than in the past when operators did nothing between vary rare fire brigade visits. Nobody has stopped fire inspections, the changes clarified responsibility.

Also, firemen would not inspect the cladding, especially when there is no evidence that the cladding has failed to meet the Building Regulations standards. Again, be very careful with your interpretation of what is a cladding danger as so far there is no evidence that the actual materials used at Grenfell Tower are in breach of the standards. The Building Regs, allows the use of products with 'limited combustibility' like those found at Grenfell on the outside of such buildings. If Building Control approved their use based upon the manufacturers product data, and fire test data, and that it meets the Building Regulations Standard, the fire brigade would not condemn, so again your suggestion that cuts are to blame may be misguided.

Grenfell was a tragedy but it does not mean there has to be blame. With the limited genuine information available at the moment and the number of other buildings which have been flagged up for concern, to me it looks like the Building Regulations standards are area in need of tightening.

[OldGermanHeaps]

If it was a genuine case of cost cutting there would be no expensive insulation and cladding applied at all, and none of this fire spread risk at all, but there would still be endless whining that no one cares about the poor. It's impossible to win.

[gooner1]

ikarl said:

Globs said:

Cuts to the fire services never help though do they? Fewer, busier, more tired people seldom do a better job.

I guess the fire itself was the main evidence that cuts made a difference. If there were routine inspections of tower blocks by firemen this cladding danger would have been caught a long time ago on building #1, not after building #600 and a deadly fire.

It is clearly a false economy to ignore fire, fire inspections should be a basic part of our domestic security.

Would it?

It certainly would have increased the % of being found with inspections, as to whether it would definitely have found the faults, we'll never actually know.

[PurpleMoonlight]

zarjaz1991 said:

The cladding was primarily to appease the green gestapo, additionally it was to increase profits by making the blocks look more attractive. Talk to most residents of these places and they never wanted it.

Having established the above "need", it was then imperative to cut costs as much as possible in order to increase profits for the private contractors involved. Many councils are saying the cladding used has not been in line with their specifications. Costs cut and profits increased in the hope nobody would ever know. Well, 79 people now DO know, and people need to be in jail for this. I'm sick of hearing excuses.

I'm only suprised nobody's blamed the victims themselves yet.

I'm sick of reading people jimping to conclusions before any investigation, but hey ...

[Kermit power]

Globs said:

Gargamel said:

I have seen absolutely no evidence that cuts to the Fire Service made the slightest bit of difference to the incident at Grenfell Towers

Cuts to the fire services never help though do they? Fewer, busier, more tired people seldom do a better job.

I guess the fire itself was the main evidence that cuts made a difference. If there were routine inspections of tower blocks by firemen this cladding danger would have been caught a long time ago on building #1, not after building #600 and a deadly fire.

It is clearly a false economy to ignore fire, fire inspections should be a basic part of our domestic security.

That's not true. Most other Western countries have already done the testing and determined that the form of cladding used on Grenfell Tower shouldn't be used on buildings of more than two floors. The FAQ section of the manufacturer's website about whether to use fire resistant cladding or not is even different for the UK than for most of the rest of the world.

You could've had daily routine inspections by firemen and it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference so long as building regulations continued to allow the use of that type of cladding, and equally, if building regs had banned that form of cladding and enforced the retrofitting of sprinklers, then you arguably wouldn't need fire brigade inspections anything like as frequently anyway.

The problem here very much looks to be one of successive governments responding to all the whinging about there being too much red tape and nanny statism going on in this country.

[saaby93]

Possibly some knee jerk comments up there?
The idea with cutting the red tape was to allow Britain to become more innovative
It doesnt mean the designers shouldnt design things properly and assess the risks
it should give more scope for bringing in freelance bodies
http://www.thefpa.co.uk/
Whether some councils are going OTT with the risks is also an assessment to be made

We should have reports coming through soon as to why it went wrong

[Kermit power]

zarjaz1991 said:

98elise said:

John McDonnell is calling it Murder by the Tory council. tt.

79 people died due to deliberate cost and corner cutting.
I fail to see how it's anything else.

The sooner some decision makers are behind bars, the faster the message will go out that making profits by killing people is not going to carry on.

It's almost certainly manslaughter, but for it to be murder, the decision makers would've had to set up to deliberately kill the victims.

Yes, they were still killed as a result of the actions or inactions of those decision makers, but calling it murder just to try and score political points is also fairly repugnant.

[Globs]

Gargamel said:

To comment as other posters have that the reason for this horrible incident is that the lives of the poor have lower value is both ridiculous and is a deliberate attempt to turn this into a "class war" event, when it is no such thing.

Perhaps, but there does seem to be a difference in how their safety is treated:

Byker28i said:

Government brought in a bill that
All Private sector landlords are required from 1 October 2015 to have at least one smoke alarm installed on every storey of their properties and a carbon monoxide alarm in any room containing a solid fuel burning appliance (eg a coal fire, wood burning stove). After that, the landlord must make sure the alarms are in working order at the start of each new tenancy.

Unfortunately, Landlords who are registered providers of social housing are excluded

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/smoke-a...

[Munter]

Isn't the current failure with the suppliers. The ones who's panels are not up to the standard testing that's currently being carried out.

Everybody else specifying and inspecting them would have done the correct thing. No matter how many of them there are.

[rscott]

zarjaz1991 said:

The cladding was primarily to appease the green gestapo, additionally it was to increase profits by making the blocks look more attractive. Talk to most residents of these places and they never wanted it.

Having established the above "need", it was then imperative to cut costs as much as possible in order to increase profits for the private contractors involved. Many councils are saying the cladding used has not been in line with their specifications. Costs cut and profits increased in the hope nobody would ever know. Well, 79 people now DO know, and people need to be in jail for this. I'm sick of hearing excuses.

I'm only suprised nobody's blamed the victims themselves yet.

You mean by improving the insulation of the buildings so they were cheaper to heat and cooler in summer? How dare they do something which might actually save the tenants money and improve their quality of life?

[Kermit power]

Munter said:

Isn't the current failure with the suppliers. The ones who's panels are not up to the standard testing that's currently being carried out.

Everybody else specifying and inspecting them would have done the correct thing. No matter how many of them there are.

Nope. In most other countries, they say "these panels should only be used on buildings of two floors or lower". Here, they say words to the effect of "check local building regulations".

There is no onus on manufacturers to make all their panels fire resistant. There is onus on the people who write building regs to make sure they're fit for purpose, and on developers to make sure they comply with those regs.

[dazwalsh]

Think il avoid the BBC for my daily news now, Mcdonnell on the front saying Grenfall tower victims were murdered by political choices over the decades, and Corbyn proclaiming he will be PM in 6 months.

tts both of them.

They are full lock left this shower of st that I'm forced to pay for.

[poo at Paul's]

PurpleMoonlight said:

zarjaz1991 said:

79 people died due to deliberate cost and corner cutting.
I fail to see how it's anything else.

The sooner some decision makers are behind bars, the faster the message will go out that making profits by killing people is not going to carry on.

Edited by zarjaz1991 on Monday 26th June 08:53

No need for an investigation and enquiry then as you have already decided the outcome.

Yeah, he has been on this planet for a whole 26 years, he knows how it is and I for one am happy to take his word as "gospel".

So come on zarjaz, who are you going to put in prison and for how long?


(reportedly £10M quid on a refurb, for 120 flats, is £88k a flat. Attrocious cost cutting and all because of the poor people living there).

[Munter]

Kermit power said:

Munter said:

Isn't the current failure with the suppliers. The ones who's panels are not up to the standard testing that's currently being carried out.

Everybody else specifying and inspecting them would have done the correct thing. No matter how many of them there are.

Nope. In most other countries, they say "these panels should only be used on buildings of two floors or lower". Here, they say words to the effect of "check local building regulations".

There is no onus on manufacturers to make all their panels fire resistant. There is onus on the people who write building regs to make sure they're fit for purpose, and on developers to make sure they comply with those regs.

How do you do a destructive test on every panel before fitting it?

From what was on the news yesterday: The panels do not meet the current regs. The testing being done is stated to be being done to the regs. The panels are advertised as meeting the regs they are being tested against.

Which to me means the people supplying the panels that "meet the regs" when they do not, is likely to be in a bit of trouble.