Huge Fire In Block Of Flats
Discussion
Interesting that we are starting to see the media looking beyond the cladding to other issues. Widespread lack of fire doors and hence fire compartmentation for example.
I still maintain that, no matter how badly the Grenfell Tower cladding performed, it should not have impacted life safety.
The cladding is only one piece of the puzzle here. If everything else had been OK we would be looking at an insurance issue relating to property damage. Not a human tragedy.
I still maintain that, no matter how badly the Grenfell Tower cladding performed, it should not have impacted life safety.
The cladding is only one piece of the puzzle here. If everything else had been OK we would be looking at an insurance issue relating to property damage. Not a human tragedy.
Willy Nilly said:
Bloke on the news earlier who's wife died and he couldn't get to the funeral because his passport and everything else has been destroyed. As it turned out the Home Office pulled it out of the bag for him and got him a new passport. So, when you've had all of your paper work destroyed, which makes it hard to prove who you are, how do you go about getting your paper work back in order?
I'd assume that as a passport holder they've already got his photo and personal details on file so all they need to do is get him to confirm them.I was irked by the over-dramatising the whole story by the drippy reporter. "How do you feel about not being able to accompany your dead wife's body to her funeral?" FFS!!! And then the reveal that he's got a new passport anyway. Hooray! f
k right off. There are far more important things about this whole fking mess than making up bloody fairy stories.Elysium said:
Interesting that we are starting to see the media looking beyond the cladding to other issues. Widespread lack of fire doors and hence fire compartmentation for example.
I still maintain that, no matter how badly the Grenfell Tower cladding performed, it should not have impacted life safety.
The cladding is only one piece of the puzzle here. If everything else had been OK we would be looking at an insurance issue relating to property damage. Not a human tragedy.
We've both said that earlier. Cladding. insulation. FRA, smoke suppression...etc etcI still maintain that, no matter how badly the Grenfell Tower cladding performed, it should not have impacted life safety.
The cladding is only one piece of the puzzle here. If everything else had been OK we would be looking at an insurance issue relating to property damage. Not a human tragedy.
I met a 'major breather membrane' rep earlier today. Seems the industry may be pointing a finger to that too. Don't quote me on that.
Manufacturers finger pointing all around then, but the cladding is coming off and is failing 'tests' conducted by who?
Don't live very far from the tower block, a few miles to the west.
Passed the tower a few times on the tube from work, complete carnage on the ground. So much debris.
Seeing how tall the tower block is and it completely burnt out hits out at the amount of suffering those wo were trapped went through. Completely unnecessary.
I'm no expert on building or fire regs but it just sounds like the council has dropped the ball so many times:
- Not listening to genuine concerns from tenants (or government from authorities)
- Issues with smoke alarms
- The cladding
- Stairwell not fire proof
- Rubbish in communal areas not helping
And the gov't really has dropped the ball with so many other council tower blocks using this cladding. WTF?
Passed the tower a few times on the tube from work, complete carnage on the ground. So much debris.
Seeing how tall the tower block is and it completely burnt out hits out at the amount of suffering those wo were trapped went through. Completely unnecessary.
I'm no expert on building or fire regs but it just sounds like the council has dropped the ball so many times:
- Not listening to genuine concerns from tenants (or government from authorities)
- Issues with smoke alarms
- The cladding
- Stairwell not fire proof
- Rubbish in communal areas not helping
And the gov't really has dropped the ball with so many other council tower blocks using this cladding. WTF?
It's interesting how some reporting is misleading. The 'missing firedoors' aren't actually missing as in 'they were there but are now gone'. From the reporting it would be easy to assume someone's actually been stealing them, but that's not the case.
A decision was made at some time in the past that the front entry doors of individual flats need not be firedoors. Now someone has changed their minds, and advised the council that they should be fire doors. So the doors need to be changed.
No one has said the sprinkler systems are missing. They just weren't installed due to a decision taken by someone. Same with these 'missing' fire doors.
Is there a law that states front doors to hi rise flats should be fire doors? If there is, someone needs prosecuting for the lack of fire doors. But let's not say they've somehow gone missing as if they were there and are no longer.
A decision was made at some time in the past that the front entry doors of individual flats need not be firedoors. Now someone has changed their minds, and advised the council that they should be fire doors. So the doors need to be changed.
No one has said the sprinkler systems are missing. They just weren't installed due to a decision taken by someone. Same with these 'missing' fire doors.
Is there a law that states front doors to hi rise flats should be fire doors? If there is, someone needs prosecuting for the lack of fire doors. But let's not say they've somehow gone missing as if they were there and are no longer.
Everyone is just covering their own arse, and won't admit that there is an element of risk to everyones lives every minute of the day and night and there is not a bottomless pit of money to minimise that risk to the lowest possible level.
Buildings need to comply with the relevant regulations at the time of construction and any subsequent adaptions, such as the cladding, needs to comply with the relevant regulations at the time of adaption.
Buildings need to comply with the relevant regulations at the time of construction and any subsequent adaptions, such as the cladding, needs to comply with the relevant regulations at the time of adaption.
Halmyre said:
I'd assume that as a passport holder they've already got his photo and personal details on file so all they need to do is get him to confirm them.
I was irked by the over-dramatising the whole story by the drippy reporter. "How do you feel about not being able to accompany your dead wife's body to her funeral?" FFS!!! And then the reveal that he's got a new passport anyway. Hooray! fk right off. There are far more important things about this whole fking mess than making up bloody fairy stories.
You forgot the " I'm sorry to ask but" from the obviously emotionally wrecked, tear stained reporter. And on that point, why the fI was irked by the over-dramatising the whole story by the drippy reporter. "How do you feel about not being able to accompany your dead wife's body to her funeral?" FFS!!! And then the reveal that he's got a new passport anyway. Hooray! f
k right off. There are far more important things about this whole fking mess than making up bloody fairy stories.k do female reporters, feel the need to simulate oral sex with their head movements, when narrating their reports.TTmonkey said:
It's interesting how some reporting is misleading. The 'missing firedoors' aren't actually missing as in 'they were there but are now gone'. From the reporting it would be easy to assume someone's actually been stealing them, but that's not the case.
A decision was made at some time in the past that the front entry doors of individual flats need not be firedoors. Now someone has changed their minds, and advised the council that they should be fire doors. So the doors need to be changed.
No one has said the sprinkler systems are missing. They just weren't installed due to a decision taken by someone. Same with these 'missing' fire doors.
Is there a law that states front doors to hi rise flats should be fire doors? If there is, someone needs prosecuting for the lack of fire doors. But let's not say they've somehow gone missing as if they were there and are no longer.
Fire doors. That caught me when it was mentioned on the news, think Laurel Green pointed it out to me that it is not what it seems. Beeb reported it as have other news outlets but seems it was from a statement given in the house?A decision was made at some time in the past that the front entry doors of individual flats need not be firedoors. Now someone has changed their minds, and advised the council that they should be fire doors. So the doors need to be changed.
No one has said the sprinkler systems are missing. They just weren't installed due to a decision taken by someone. Same with these 'missing' fire doors.
Is there a law that states front doors to hi rise flats should be fire doors? If there is, someone needs prosecuting for the lack of fire doors. But let's not say they've somehow gone missing as if they were there and are no longer.
This is why I hate second guessing but is desperation to get information out due to the politicking of the event forcing errors?
Edit. ITV twitter link to the statement in the house.
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/879398250268286...
I take nothing as read at this.
Edited by jmorgan on Tuesday 27th June 07:02
BIANCO said:
BlackLabel said:
David Lammy on newsnight again repeating his claims that 'dozens of people jumped out of their flats to their death'. Yet the fire service say only 9 or 10 bodies were found on the ground. He seems to be picking his figures from his arse.
I was amazed by it, his argument because people have been through a traumatic event anything they say most be believed and real was astonishing. The man is a fool of the highest order. Exactly like Corbyn and McDonnell. Never admit it but just say enough to get people riled up.
TTmonkey said:
It's interesting how some reporting is misleading. The 'missing firedoors' aren't actually missing as in 'they were there but are now gone'. From the reporting it would be easy to assume someone's actually been stealing them, but that's not the case.
A decision was made at some time in the past that the front entry doors of individual flats need not be firedoors. Now someone has changed their minds, and advised the council that they should be fire doors. So the doors need to be changed.
No one has said the sprinkler systems are missing. They just weren't installed due to a decision taken by someone. Same with these 'missing' fire doors.
Is there a law that states front doors to hi rise flats should be fire doors? If there is, someone needs prosecuting for the lack of fire doors. But let's not say they've somehow gone missing as if they were there and are no longer.
Fire doors to separate or 'compartment' occupied areas like flats, from 'means of escape' like lobbies and staircases, are the most basic component of any fire safety strategy. There are no circumstances under which it is OK not to have them.A decision was made at some time in the past that the front entry doors of individual flats need not be firedoors. Now someone has changed their minds, and advised the council that they should be fire doors. So the doors need to be changed.
No one has said the sprinkler systems are missing. They just weren't installed due to a decision taken by someone. Same with these 'missing' fire doors.
Is there a law that states front doors to hi rise flats should be fire doors? If there is, someone needs prosecuting for the lack of fire doors. But let's not say they've somehow gone missing as if they were there and are no longer.
The Housing Act 2004 requires local authority landlords to asses the safety of housing. Anyone properly carrying out these duties could not fail to notice that fire doors were not installed.
When Sajid Javid says they are 'missing' he does not mean they have been stolen, he simply means that something which should clearly and obiously have been provided by a competent housing authority is 'not there'.
It is a confirmation that local authorities have failed in their duties.
Guardian reporting the BRE tested the cladding, but in isolation and not as part of a complete insulation system.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/26/to...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/26/to...
Elysium said:
TTmonkey said:
It's interesting how some reporting is misleading. The 'missing firedoors' aren't actually missing as in 'they were there but are now gone'. From the reporting it would be easy to assume someone's actually been stealing them, but that's not the case.
A decision was made at some time in the past that the front entry doors of individual flats need not be firedoors. Now someone has changed their minds, and advised the council that they should be fire doors. So the doors need to be changed.
No one has said the sprinkler systems are missing. They just weren't installed due to a decision taken by someone. Same with these 'missing' fire doors.
Is there a law that states front doors to hi rise flats should be fire doors? If there is, someone needs prosecuting for the lack of fire doors. But let's not say they've somehow gone missing as if they were there and are no longer.
Fire doors to separate or 'compartment' occupied areas like flats, from 'means of escape' like lobbies and staircases, are the most basic component of any fire safety strategy. There are no circumstances under which it is OK not to have them.A decision was made at some time in the past that the front entry doors of individual flats need not be firedoors. Now someone has changed their minds, and advised the council that they should be fire doors. So the doors need to be changed.
No one has said the sprinkler systems are missing. They just weren't installed due to a decision taken by someone. Same with these 'missing' fire doors.
Is there a law that states front doors to hi rise flats should be fire doors? If there is, someone needs prosecuting for the lack of fire doors. But let's not say they've somehow gone missing as if they were there and are no longer.
The Housing Act 2004 requires local authority landlords to asses the safety of housing. Anyone properly carrying out these duties could not fail to notice that fire doors were not installed.
When Sajid Javid says they are 'missing' he does not mean they have been stolen, he simply means that something which should clearly and obiously have been provided by a competent housing authority is 'not there'.
It is a confirmation that local authorities have failed in their duties.
Having lived in such blocks in the past, I would expect that many other instances of internal modification by tenants can and will be found.
PZR said:
Last week I saw a TV news report covering the emergency inspections of other tower blocks (I believe they were in the Chalcots Estate in the borough of Camden) and on looking around inside a tenant's flat the inspectors found that an internal door had been removed by the resident, presumably for their own convenience and more 'open plan' living. It was the door to the kitchen. Tenant (I believe an Eastern European lady) seemed somewhat nonplussed to be told this was a contravention of fire safety rules and that it would have to be replaced.
Having lived in such blocks in the past, I would expect that many other instances of internal modification by tenants can and will be found.
I wouldn't be surprised myself to find fire doors wedged opened for convenience too. I run a HMO and I've had people tampering with the fire system so that they could smoke inside, they remove the self closers on their doors more often than not. Light bulbs taken from communal areas because their own has blown. Emergency lighting tampered with?! That one puzzled me.Having lived in such blocks in the past, I would expect that many other instances of internal modification by tenants can and will be found.
People don't give a s
t about fire safety, I've had a tenant remove the back up batteries from her smoke alarms to put them in a child's toy ffs. She didn't put the cable back on properly when putting them back up either so they weren't functioning at all.rscott said:
Guardian reporting the BRE tested the cladding, but in isolation and not as part of a complete insulation system.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/26/to...
The article fails to explain the key point:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/26/to...
The building regs specify levels of combustibility for cladding components, as tested by small scale tests in isolation (BS476). The regs distinguish between "external surface" and "insulation/filler". The combustibility requirement for "insulation" is more stringent than for "external surface".
The government has said that ACM rainscreen is classed as "insulation" in this context, not as "external surface". As a result, rainscreen which is being removed from buildings is failing all over the place, because it is being tested as "insulation", when everyone involved in the installation had assumed that it only needed to meet the "external surface" requirements.
WatchfulEye said:
The article fails to explain the key point:
The building regs specify levels of combustibility for cladding components, as tested by small scale tests in isolation (BS476). The regs distinguish between "external surface" and "insulation/filler". The combustibility requirement for "insulation" is more stringent than for "external surface".
The government has said that ACM rainscreen is classed as "insulation" in this context, not as "external surface". As a result, rainscreen which is being removed from buildings is failing all over the place, because it is being tested as "insulation", when everyone involved in the installation had assumed that it only needed to meet the "external surface" requirements.
That's very helpful thanks.The building regs specify levels of combustibility for cladding components, as tested by small scale tests in isolation (BS476). The regs distinguish between "external surface" and "insulation/filler". The combustibility requirement for "insulation" is more stringent than for "external surface".
The government has said that ACM rainscreen is classed as "insulation" in this context, not as "external surface". As a result, rainscreen which is being removed from buildings is failing all over the place, because it is being tested as "insulation", when everyone involved in the installation had assumed that it only needed to meet the "external surface" requirements.
Do you happen to know when the Government made that statement?
spaximus said:
The rules are there to protect people and there are enough communal parks and gardens even in London to allow most activities. Do you think the "rich" who own flats thinks "fk it" I will have a barbeque on my balcony? No they understand if they want a garden they pay more for one or do without.
IIRC the cladding fire in Melbourne was started by a balcony barbecue - in a "rich person's" flat.k it" I will have a barbeque on my balcony? No they understand if they want a garden they pay more for one or do without.spaximus said:
The rules are there to protect people and there are enough communal parks and gardens even in London to allow most activities. Do you think the "rich" who own flats thinks "fk it" I will have a barbeque on my balcony? No they understand if they want a garden they pay more for one or do without.
Rich doesnt make people sensible, which is demonstrated on frequent basis.k it" I will have a barbeque on my balcony? No they understand if they want a garden they pay more for one or do without.AW111 said:
spaximus said:
The rules are there to protect people and there are enough communal parks and gardens even in London to allow most activities. Do you think the "rich" who own flats thinks "fk it" I will have a barbeque on my balcony? No they understand if they want a garden they pay more for one or do without.
IIRC the cladding fire in Melbourne was started by a balcony barbecue - in a "rich person's" flat.k it" I will have a barbeque on my balcony? No they understand if they want a garden they pay more for one or do without.PurpleMoonlight said:
That's very helpful thanks.
Do you happen to know when the Government made that statement?
22nd June 2017. It was hidden in a footnote to a guidance letter to local authorities explaining what to do if a building safety check fails.Do you happen to know when the Government made that statement?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff