Huge Fire In Block Of Flats

[bitchstewie]

Gaz. said:

It was his own neighbours who told the press and live TV crews that he didn’t warn them, had packed a suitcase and didn’t close his front door behind him.

Is there a source for that that isn't the same media which printed the lies though?

[rscott]

Gaz. said:

I appreciate that it flies in the face of your belief that it was a building full of saints but multiple neighbours said the same thing during the morning after the night before to live TV and assembled media. This is where the story originated.

Reports like this:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4605324/Ho...

Which mention him knocking on doors nearby and that a suitcase was outside his flat, with the door open.
We now know that the case belonged to someone else in the flat and I'd guess the door was open because someone was still in there. Also that the owner of the case was told to leave it, but she refused.

It also quotes another resident saying that she spoke to a tall slim white British man who said the fire started when his fridge exploded.

That can't be accurate either, given the photos we've all seen of the poor man.


I think this shows that the desperation by the media to be first to report means they're doing an awful job of fact checking nowadays.

[bitchstewie]

Gaz. said:

I appreciate that it flies in the face of your belief that it was a building full of saints but multiple neighbours said the same thing during the morning after the night before to live TV and assembled media. This is where the story originated.

I didn't say it was a building of saints.

I simply asked if there was any attributable source for the stories printed or simply "Neighbours told us".

[Randy Winkman]

rscott said:

I think this shows that the desperation by the media to be first to report means they're doing an awful job of fact checking nowadays.

I would say that's because they are more interested in causing trouble than telling us the facts, so fact-checking isn't that high on their agenda. People dismiss what's in The Mail for a good reason.

[bitchstewie]

Gaz. said:

If you think the neighbours statements to the press are not worth a damn, why are the same residents giving statements to the enquiry?

I haven't said that I think that.

I asked if the untruths in the tabloid press had any attributed source or simply "residents told us".

The Grenfell inquiry is public and will presumably have attribution of evidence/statements to individuals.

I believe that witnesses give evidence under oath i.e. a bit higher standard than a tabloid requires.

[andy_s]

An enquiry will also be able to pull together testimony.

A: 'I saw him outside with his suitcase'

B: 'I left my suitcase outside his door'

Tabloids only pick up A's comment and extrapolate for drama and hyperbolise for sales, instead of asking A 'how did you know it was his suitcase...'

[Slaav]

a headline I have just seen and skim read was that the commander on site has said - "I don't remember any training on that subject" or similar. I do wonder if that is a lawyer's answer after a 17 second wait while he thought?

The poor chap probably has absolute nightmares but it appears he was the first 'commander' on site that night and I am guessing, simply went by the book rather than appraised 'on the hoof' which would probably get him in trouble even if correct!

Hopefully the truth will finally come out whatever that may be and not just 'lessons learned'.

[Mark300zx]

I don't think he can get into trouble for his decisions as they all appear to be supported by FB policy and upon first inspection, he didn't do anything against policy. To ask for a full evacuation of a building would be against policy and taken by a much higher ranking officer, if you view my replies on this subject it may give you some reasons?

[rambo19]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5882703/Gr...

[Blue Oval84]

Mark300zx said:

I don't think he can get into trouble for his decisions as they all appear to be supported by FB policy and upon first inspection, he didn't do anything against policy. To ask for a full evacuation of a building would be against policy and taken by a much higher ranking officer, if you view my replies on this subject it may give you some reasons?

I read on Sky News today that actually there was guidance that dictated criteria when a "stay put" approach is no longer appropriate and should be cancelled (which I imagine Grenfell met) and a full evacuation carried out. He's claimed he didn't know that such guidance was in place.

[Mark300zx]

Blue Oval84 said:

.

I read on Sky News today that actually there was guidance that dictated criteria when a "stay put" approach is no longer appropriate and should be cancelled (which I imagine Grenfell met) and a full evacuation carried out. He's claimed he didn't know that such guidance was in place.

I haven't heard of any change of policy and therefore he wouldn't have heard of it either, as said in my previous comment that level of decision would be made by a higher ranking officer anyway!

[Sa Calobra]

As soon as the fire spread beyond one storey he should have evacuated. In his position he should know that decisions are made on the spot on dynamic situations. Sticking to policy on an unprecedented situation is ridiculous.

He seems to me to have lacked initiative. How did he get into his position?

When I first heard the fire brigade was being investigated I said why??! Now it makes perfect sense.

[PRTVR]

Sa Calobra said:

As soon as the fire spread beyond one storey he should have evacuated. In his position he should know that decisions are made on the spot on dynamic situations. Sticking to policy on an unprecedented situation is ridiculous.

He seems to me to have lacked initiative. How did he get into his position?

When I first heard the fire brigade was being investigated I said why??! Now it makes perfect sense.

Is it not the world we live in now?
Do not think for yourself, follow procedures, imagine if you started to evacuate and there was a large loss of life,
the fire had not historically traveled up the outside of a building on London flats, having said that you would have hoped that after the twin towers different scenarios would have been planned for, including the need to evacuate if necessary.

[Slaav]

Sa Calobra said:

As soon as the fire spread beyond one storey he should have evacuated. In his position he should know that decisions are made on the spot on dynamic situations. Sticking to policy on an unprecedented situation is ridiculous.

He seems to me to have lacked initiative. How did he get into his position?

When I first heard the fire brigade was being investigated I said why??! Now it makes perfect sense.

I may have given a different impression earlier but I am not calling for this chap to be hung out to dry! I also think the post immediately above (will edit to include if I can) misses the point somewhat?

It appears that there was cast iron process to change the advice and policy in such a dynamic situation - fire accelerating up the outside of the building (was it 12 floors in 7 minutes) would very clearly show an experienced and relatively senior officer that something was not 'performing' as expected? From the very early floors, it would be clear that fire was ENTERING flats from the outside which was rapidly spreading all over the building and racing up floors in a way that hadn't been modelled or predicted? 2+2= (not 7)?

The 'stay put' was (WITH HINDSIGHT) clearly not the best in this situation although who knows what would have happened during a total evac with one stairwell and smoke etc? And deficient fire doors? Would the full evac have led to MORE casualties? Should that decision have been made? And by whom?

My point in the post a few up is one that really doesn't sit well with me:

"I have no memory of such training!"

That sounds different to "I had no training and was unaware of such decisions or options" - it stuck out to me as a lawyer's answer or one guided by lawyers/FBU.

The chap must think about this every single day of his life but if you take the promotion, you take the risk of having lives depend on you!!! One comes with the other.

Personally, I would like to think that if it were me, I would have been screaming down the phone to a superior to make the call on my advice that it was a freak occurrence and 'stay put' wasn't correct - again with hindsight. A much more telling probe would be to ask him if he did try and escalate the decision? Did it ever (at any point) occur to him that this fire was behaving abnormally? Did his training (that would be logged) ever touch on buildings higher than 5 floors etc?

Every ounce of my own CPD is logged and detailed in every instance as well as full aims/objectives and outcomes logged. The LFB will be more robust; one would assume? Nobody dies if I mess up.....

[Slaav]

Mark300zx said:

Blue Oval84 said:

.

I read on Sky News today that actually there was guidance that dictated criteria when a "stay put" approach is no longer appropriate and should be cancelled (which I imagine Grenfell met) and a full evacuation carried out. He's claimed he didn't know that such guidance was in place.

I haven't heard of any change of policy and therefore he wouldn't have heard of it either, as said in my previous comment that level of decision would be made by a higher ranking officer anyway!

My comment on this is just above as messed up the double quoting.... Assuming you are serving LFB or similar, why would you have heard of the change (assuming there is such a policy) if you were too junior to even be allowed to discuss that change? Or should everybody have 'better' training and be aware of such issues? No doubt things will change going forwards.... one would hope?

I don't mean to have a go or be anything other than open ended in that para - hopefully it comes across ok?

[Mark300zx]

Slaav said:

Mark300zx said:

Blue Oval84 said:

.

I read on Sky News today that actually there was guidance that dictated criteria when a "stay put" approach is no longer appropriate and should be cancelled (which I imagine Grenfell met) and a full evacuation carried out. He's claimed he didn't know that such guidance was in place.

I haven't heard of any change of policy and therefore he wouldn't have heard of it either, as said in my previous comment that level of decision would be made by a higher ranking officer anyway!

My comment on this is just above as messed up the double quoting.... Assuming you are serving LFB or similar, why would you have heard of the change (assuming there is such a policy) if you were too junior to even be allowed to discuss that change? Or should everybody have 'better' training and be aware of such issues? No doubt things will change going forwards.... one would hope?

I don't mean to have a go or be anything other than open ended in that para - hopefully it comes across ok?

I'll be more direct and meant in a nice way, there is no change in policy. The real question is Michael Dowden is a low-level officer, he would be in charge of one shift at a fire station with two fire engines, why was he left in charge of an incident for an hour that required someone at least three ranks above to take over and now the poor sod is being hung out to dry for doing something exactly as he was trained to do.

[Mark300zx]

A few facts:

There is no evacuation policy.

To evacuate people from a tower block means that 100s of people are coming downstairs, therefore no firefighters can go upstairs and deal with the fire.

If one person falls/is ill/disabled they can block the stairs and can cause numerous people to be crushed to death and block the staircase stopping everyone else leaving.

If there is an evacuation procedure how can the emergency services tell everyone to evacuate, in all the tower blocks I have seen there are no inter-flat emergency tannoy system.

If WM Dowden did want everyone evacuated how would he tell them to get out when it was the operators at the Control Centre telling everyone to stay put and had the only line of communications with individuals.

The LFB policies are based on legal, building and fire safety standards, and it is very apparent that these standards were not met in this refurb. For WM Dowden to evacuate he would have needed a system built into the building to help him do that and so would any other officer.

To try and point the finger at this poor individual and saying he is responsible is just believing all the media hype.

Edited by Mark300zx on Tuesday 26th June 21:16

[Slaav]

I've just seen a FBU post on FaceBook stating how disgusting it is that this poor chap is being hung out to dry. The insinuation is that he was effectively 'just' a watch commander or similar as Mark has already mentioned and that Snr Brass will allow him to take the fall to protect themselves.

The FBU are up in arms at his treatment and also the comments are (unfortunately not) unbelievable. Cuts this, unfair that, rich neighbours fault for forcing cladding etc etc.

Why don't we see if the various parties all get quizzed and allow the Enquiry to find out the truth shall we?? It does seem pretty clear to my VERY UNTRAINED EYE that people have already made their minds up although (admittedly proving my own point) the combustibility of the cladding seems to be the real cause/culprit here? Whoever signed all of that off must be getting fully lawyered up as I type?

[Vipers]

Slaav said:

I've just seen a FBU post on FaceBook stating how disgusting it is that this poor chap is being hung out to dry. The insinuation is that he was effectively 'just' a watch commander or similar as Mark has already mentioned and that Snr Brass will allow him to take the fall to protect themselves.

The FBU are up in arms at his treatment and also the comments are (unfortunately not) unbelievable. Cuts this, unfair that, rich neighbours fault for forcing cladding etc etc.

Why don't we see if the various parties all get quizzed and allow the Enquiry to find out the truth shall we?? It does seem pretty clear to my VERY UNTRAINED EYE that people have already made their minds up although (admittedly proving my own point) the combustibility of the cladding seems to be the real cause/culprit here? Whoever signed all of that off must be getting fully lawyered up as I type?

Including who ever signed off the windows, and doors which didn't match the standard for fire doors.

[Slaav]

Vipers said:

Including who ever signed off the windows, and doors which didn't match the standard for fire doors.

Indeed.... they will all get a real grilling I guess which is why we have a very respected and senior JUDGE leading the enquiry and not a Politician. but I bet when there are many faults uncovered/proven, we will get the usual anti government nonsense. (Although ultimately, I wouldn't want to be the Minister who heads the department that effectively oversees Building Regs etc....)