[Closed] Greenfell Tower Fire

The block was built in 1974, did 13 years of a Labour Government from 1997-2010 (never mind all those before) fund a fire alarm system ?

You wouldn't be trying to score political points there would you jamba? It was only, what, yesterday or the day before you were berating someone for doing the same. You hypocrite.

Kensington and Chelsea spent more than enough to make the building safer but priorities these days are "environmental"

Not just about environmental regs, insulating homes isnt just pandering to the green lobby, its also a benefit to the residents

Stop regurgitating whatever shit you read in the mail/telegraph and think for yourself

As pointed out on newsnight, paneling used is illegal in Germany due to fire safety rules and they already enforce sprinklers in high rises (anything above fire ladder height) that were recommended after lakanal house coroner's report

Kensington and Chelsea spent more than enough to make the building safer but priorities these days are "environmental"

FFS. Do you sit in front of your computer wondering how to reach new depths? It's on record that they opted for the cheaper option for the cladding. That was bollox all to do with environmental concerns. Also I think we all know why the building was cladded, and saving carbon emissions wasn't it.

chewkw -

The media is trying very hard to been seen as "people's champion" by stirring up emotions

I rarely post on the chat forum.

However, these are unusual times.

To be clear chewkw, your using the Trump method of political argument?

Is all the media's fault...

Do you seriously believe that? If you do you are entirely entitled to that view but it makes any input you have on this subject almost irrelevant at best.

I mean to say that you could blame almost any person or institution for for where we are tonight.

Is it the media's fault though?

No. It really isn't.

Poopscoop - Member
To be clear chewkw, your using the Trump method of political argument?

Is all the media's fault...

Do you seriously believe that? If you do you are entirely entitled to that view but it makes any input you have on this subject almost irrelevant at best.

They are ways to ask questions but certainly not leading questions.

I mean to say that you could blame almost any person or institution for for where we are tonight.

The matter needs to be investigated first as the PM has said.

Is it the media's fault though?

However, if you look at the way they questioned the PM don't you think they are trying to find a scapegoat?

No. It really isn't.

So who do you want to blame?

[b]chewkw[/b]

I appreciate the time you took segmenting my post but I regret I cannot do the same to yours.

Instead I wonder how you suggest you are not making a political argument?

Isn't it the media's remit to ask uncomfortable questions of politicians? Some would indeed call them leading questions no doubt. Politicians are generally well versed in avoiding answering questions in general hence they are pushed during interviews to answer leading ones as you phrase it.

By stating the media is "stirring up emotion" you are making a political argument. Not along party lines of course but effectively crediting the media with an agenda opposing Government for its own purpose is a very political statement by definition.

Regarding "blame".

I have no doubt you have not apportioned blame for the fire to any single person or entity. Nor is that what I meant.

You do seem to contend that the PM should not hold some responsibility/ accountability for where we are tonight, should only be asked questions she is already well briefed to answer or deflect? By nature of the position the PM is accountable and absolutely should be asked very inconvenient questions in my book.

Even more so when she seems [b]determined[/b] to avoid them from the general public.

Again I have to ask.

Do you apportion the situation in London tonight down to the media "stirring things up" by doing its job and asking our PM inconvenient,sorry leading, questions?

Purely rhetorical of course.

Frankly I don't expect you to back track one iota. Not one. That's the nature of online forums and intractable opinions. Some of which I also hold.

I just find it incredible how much Trump Logic is now used to justify anything. I genuinely, genuinely hate bringing "him" into this thread. He isn't worthy of being mentioned in it but the use of his very distinctive logic within it is just as unpleasant.

Asking a politician inconvenient questions? That's simply the media asking leading questions for their own agenda right?

The media absolutely should be held to account for what it does and does not do by the way.

The PM is also accountable for her actions/ inactions that have turned a tragedy into a brutally uncaring farce.

I think that having to answer a few questions is frankly the least she needs to do at this point.

That's a brave attempt to inform the nincompoop, but it's doomed to failure because - well - he's a nincompoop...

There's a lot of anger and the residents and survivors want answers that no one really has right now.

There's also anger about the immediate response and lack of leadership, coordination and communication,on the night and following days, it seems no one from the gov or council stepped in to oversee these things.
It's not like there aren't contingency plans in place for terror incidents, maybe not this exact situation, but no response?

Not sure whether that's because the PM was too busy with DUP negotiations, or just the general gov paralysis after the GE result.

I think an upfront apology from May about that might have helped, but, she seems to be about protecting her party at all costs and the Tories are more than happy to use her as a human shield right now, think I've seen javid, the 1 Tory MP from the fire safety group on newsnight and that's it, oh and Johnson popped his head up to slate Corbyn.

kimbers - Member
...oh and Johnson popped his head up to slate Corbyn.

Did he tell him to get stuffed?

As pointed out on newsnight, paneling used is illegal in Germany due to fire safety rules and they already enforce sprinklers in high rises (anything above fire ladder height) that were recommended after lakanal house coroner's report

Sprinklers should be mandatory: However, you have to look at the insurance industry here as they tend not to like sprinklers. This is because they can be set off accidentally (or deliberately) and can cause a lot of damage if they do, which the insurers then have to pay out for. Landlords don't like them for the same reason.

I've worked on blocks of flats for developers who insist on no sprinkler systems, for this reason. They play with people's lives by taking a gamble on the risks. All we can do is put it on record that we strongly recommend their installation. The sad thing is that building regulations still allow it.

I can actually imagine the discussions that were held between the building owners and the designers. Of course, I don't know for sure but I suspect they would have done anything to avoid using sprinkler systems.

I can't believe people are suggesting a riot is justified!

Yes people have rvery right to be angry but riot no.

At yesterday's council office incident there were approx 10 men seen running away from the area with faces covered.

I doubt they even cared what has happened in the tower block they just need an excuse to have a fight.

Yes it's May's fault but to suggest that it's ok for people to fight and injure the Poiice who last week were just being praised, to call out those same fire fighters to be bricked, and to put even more pressure on the pushed NHS staff.

There is no justification for a riot

Whereas many of the construction projects I have worked on have had sprinklers installed as a requirement of their insurer.

I would hope Boris doesn't step in

[img] [/img]

Whereas many of the construction projects I have worked on have had sprinklers installed as a requirement of their insurer.

However, many developers and landlords see any cost savings outweighed by the initial installation costs and on-going management issues of sprinkler systems.

OK, maybe my emphasis was wrong, but if both the insurers and building control insisted on them in all multiple occupancy buildings, then weasle developers and landlords won't be able to duck their responsibilities.

£80k spent per flat on refurb. Sprinkler cost estimates £1,500 per flat. Money was not the issue.

[b]Trying to make this party political and something about May personally is absolutely disgraceful.[/b]

Labour passed a law in 2007 requiring all high rise new build to have sprinklers, why not existing buildings ?

Sprinklers should be fitted at all buildings, a central alarm shstem fitted and this insulating cladding should be removed

Its a non-political cross party issue.

Trying to make this party political and something about May personally is absolutely disgraceful.

Yeah, itd be to much to ask for our PM to answer a question with a straight answer 🙄 did you see her on newsnight?

It's not just about cuts, our government pandering to telegraph reading idiots pledged to end 'health and safety culture' that was stifiling business, as someone who works in a lab surrounded by some very dangerous stuff, that sort of attitude really boils my piss,

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/16/government-ministers-congratulated-themselves-for-cutting-fire-regulations-6713967/#mv-b

Also

Trying to make this party political .... is absolutely disgraceful.

Labour passed a law in 2007 .....

Labour passed a law in 2007 requiring all high rise new build to have sprinklers, why not existing buildings ?

Why are you making this political?

Trying to make this party political and something about May personally is absolutely disgraceful.

With added emphasis, [b]hypocrite[/b].

Trying to make this party political and something about May personally is absolutely disgraceful.

Labour passed a law in 2007 requiring all high rise new build to have sprinklers, why not existing buildings ?

For heavens sake jamba - just shut up for once. Please.

Its a non-political cross party issue.

I'm going to remember you said that..

Why are the casualty figures so vague? I'm not in the UK so only seeing what's here and the BBC website. 30 dead but more expected sounds a bit optimistic.

Why are the casualty figures so vague? I'm not in the UK so only seeing what's here and the BBC website. 30 dead but more expected sounds a bit optimistic.

Massive raging inferno it's going to be very tricky to identify things.

Successive governments have failed to deal with this. Governments of all hues, red, blue and yellow and now blue.

Lakanal House was under a labour government, 6 people died, an enquiry was ordered but nothing was done. Subsequently other administrations have failed to deal with the situation. It is simply not acceptable.

Survivors still sleeping on a gym floor

What the actual fk!

As if there aren't enough hotel rooms in London !!!

Trying to make this party political and something about May personally is absolutely disgraceful.

Labour passed a law in 2007 requiring all high rise new build to have sprinklers, why not existing buildings ?

Sometimes it is impossible to tell if your posts are the work of absolute satirical genius and we should all be humbled by your skill or just the dullard warbling of a fool who just cannot see how they shoot their own argument in the foot.

I'm going to remember you said that..

30 dead but more expected sounds a bit optimistic.

Not saying this is true, but I heard rumours last night that the number was already known to be in the hundreds but that the information was under embargo.

The rumourer also went on to say that they thought it was because anger is already high, and if the true number was revealed it could pass a tipping point. By drip feeding the news bit by bit, inevitably anger dies down, people get back to 'normality', another news story comes along.....

Whether the rumour's right, I don't know. Whether the tactic is - i don't know either, it kind of morally feels wrong but we don't need riots on the streets right now, we need calm heads but urgent investigation and action.

you have to look at the insurance industry here as they tend not to like sprinklers.

This is completely untrue. Insurance companies always support and encourage the installation of sprinklers. Please do not post factual untruths like this because spreading this sort of thing makes it harder for people in the fire safety industry to persuade businesses, politicians and the public of the right course of action.

Insurance companies could not be more in favour of sprinkler systems: they discount their prices very steeply for sprinklered vs non-sprinklered buildings, and the greater the risk (both in terms of the financial value of property at risk and the hazardous nature of the occupation), the more likely it is that an insurer will insist on sprinklers.

This is because they can be set off accidentally (or deliberately) and can cause a lot of damage if they do, which the insurers then have to pay out for

Insurance companies do provide Sprinkler Leakage cover as standard for sprinklered buildings, and the amount that they notionally allocate of the insurance price for this cover is absolutely peanuts and only a small fraction of the amout of discount that they give for having the sprinklers.

Sprinklers can cause damage if activated accidentally, but this is rare: good design and maintenance and good operational management will greatly reduce that risk, and in those exceptional circumstances where it is 'essential' to a business that sprinkler water does not contaminate their goods etc., the system can be designed with failsafes which prevent water entering the pipework unless their is a fire.

if both the insurers and building control insisted on them in all multiple occupancy buildings, then weasle developers and landlords won't be able to duck their responsibilities.

It is not for insurance companies to be the arbiter for society of when sprinklers should be installed for life safety purposes. All that insurers do is pay out money, and it would be wrong for a decision that needs to be taken by politicians and society (informed by experts) to be taken instead by insurers based simply on a financial calculation. Moreover, even with property protection there are variations between different insurers as to when and whether sprinklers are essential. Because markets change, insurers also vary those decisions: if there is a lot of competition for business in some years, not only do prices drop, but also the insurers will accept some risks without sprinklers that they previously would not. The installation of sprinklers for life safety cannot be taken by insurers, because that would turn it into a purely commercial financial decision, which would be wrong.

Not saying this is true, but I heard rumours last night that the number was already known to be in the hundreds but that the information was under embargo.

That's been announced that's what they expect but there won't be an official figure until they've identified what they can and who is in hospitals and shelters.

Massive raging inferno it's going to be very tricky to identify things.

Sure but surely at least the identities of the residents are known, and can be compared with a list of survivors? Doesn't account for visitors I suppose, but gives a good estimate?

Trying to make this party political and something about May personally is absolutely disgraceful.

May made this political by utterly failing in her role to engage with the victims and their friends and family.

She had the opportunity, yes it would have been difficult and extremely uncomfortable, but tough shit, it's her ****ing job, and she failed miserably. You can deflect or distract as much as you want. But she is the prime minister at a time of a horrific incident, she is supposed to be their for all of us, and she wasn't and isn't!

Sure but surely at least the identities of the residents are known, and can be compared with a list of survivors? Doesn't account for visitors I suppose, but gives a good estimate?

The estimate is over 100 the confirmed is 30 up to now, come on your Dr you know how this works.

Trying to make this party political and something about May personally is absolutely disgraceful.

What you really mean is that people should stop criticising the tories and May because it's not their fault. Well, whether they like it or not, they are the government, and she is the head of it. There is plenty of evidence that it is their fault, but even assuming there wasn't, they still have responsibility. If they fail to accept that responsibility and exercise it, then they will be held to account and should step aside to allow others to step in and sort it out.

Even if you accept that what came before the fire is a cross-party issue, their response after has been truly shocking. They've left people on their own, they've completely abdicated any form of leadership or responsibility to take charge of the situation, and seem more interested in saving face. People are still sleeping on floors FFS!

May's behaviour is explained by her preferred team structure during the election.

Instead of involving her wider team, she relied on just two preferred advisors who were found wanting in the final analysis, leaving her exposed to events outside her control.

She evidently sees herself as a "Directive Leader" who keeps her distance from those under her, thinking that she can control without immediate contact.This is possibly because she is actually aware of her extremeley poor interpersonal skills.

So when the time comes for her to be "Prime ministerial" as a response to a crisis, the required character trait just isn't there.

This is possibly because she is actually aware of her extremeley poor interpersonal skills.

How anyone gets to the position of prime minister with poor interpersonal skills is astonishing. At my place of work they wouldn't get much further than the lower grades.

Labour passed a law in 2007 requiring all high rise new build to have sprinklers, why not existing buildings ?

Ignoring the political element of this statement, the reason that changes in standards such as this are almost never applied retrospectively is generally to do with costs being prohibitive and the practicalities of doing so being incredibly difficult if not impossible. And yes whether we like it or not, cost IS a factor even when it comes to things like safety.

To take another example would we think that retrospectively applying new electrical regulations to all domestic properties is a good idea? What if the regulations regarding the number of escape stairways was changed how would that be applied retrospectively.

"How anyone gets to the position of prime minister with poor interpersonal skills is astonishing."

:lol:Not the most exciting but at least coherant and acceptable. If thats a worry then thank god the wino-like Corbin didn't make it. Abut the only polititian more replusive than him was the grinning idiot- Blair.
Hate to say it but the blame lies with the person who caused the fire, not those who failed to prevent it.

To suggest otherwise is like saying that you caused your head injury by being knocked off your bike whilst not wearing your helmet. Should the person who caused the fire be alive they should be prosecuted for causing the deaths .
You can't blame someone higher up the food chain just because you disagree with their views or values. You target the real cause.

Lots of idealism here as usual. Just who was to finance all these wonderful upgrades?
We live in an age of compromise and we all have different values. Sadly many peoples lives have been ruined but to the majority of the country this will be on their radar for a few days and then it will be gone and personal priorities will take over. We all do that. In fact I doubt anyone can say that they do not put their own needs first. It most definitely happens here.

Wow. 😯 So much wrong with [s]that post[/s] those posts I'm not even sure where to start.

Wow. So much wrong with that post those posts I'm not even sure where to start.

Clearly, you start with the gentleman who negligently didn't unplug his fridge when he went to bed, like the rest of us do. 🙄

@mattscm

[img] [/img]

Some building have whats called a fire drench system , water is held in the system and can be released on command from a central control panel, unlike sprinklers which can be isolated or go off in a case of vandalism or a real fire.

As the fire spread externally an external fire drench system could have been fitted, as was fitted to the saudi tower block fire a few years ago.

Labour passed a law in 2007 requiring all high rise new build to have sprinklers, why not existing buildings ?

One of the drivers for the legislation being passed was probably the changes in construction methods that have increased in recent years. In other words there are greater risks with some of the more modern design techniques and materials compared with the past. The potential for hidden fire spread in cavities in modern buildings using lots of lightweight materials is a huge concern.

In contrast 1960s and 1970s brutalist reinforced concrete tower blocks are inherently simpler and safer in design: each of the flats is separated by substantial fire resisting walls, not plasterboard (or worse, plasterboard backed with polystyrene insulation) with a cavity in between which may extend God knows how far through the rest of the floor or even to other floors.

The problem is that modern materials and techniques were used to clad Grenfell Tower, and it looks almost cetain that without those there would not have been anywhere near the same loss of life. The big question is whether the cladding and its installation was compliant with Building Regs. If it was then retrospective legislation [i]will[/i] be needed to require all such cladding to meet new fire standards.

The rumourer also went on to say that they thought it was because anger is already high, and if the true number was revealed it could pass a tipping point. By drip feeding the news bit by bit, inevitably anger dies down, people get back to 'normality', another news story comes along.....

Mattsscm,

Just to be clear: currently the suggestion is the fire started in a residents flat as a result of a fault with a fridge? Are you suggesting the owner of that fridge is to blame for the fire? Or the person who designed/built it possibly 10 years ago?

The only way your logic makes sense to me is if the fire was started maliciously or perhaps, and even that is a push, if the owner had been warned of a risk which he ignored - the building is designed to contain fire within its source - clearly the failure is how that containment was achieved. Now it might be someone ignored the rules (in which case questions inevitably fall to those responsible for certifying the work/materials/design) or it might be the rules are wrong (in which case the questions fall to those who create the rules - especially if someone has already highlighted their deficiencies).

This is what I suspected. I s'pose there's no need for honesty in this case.

Well there is they've said the toll will likely be over 100 not a rumour, no drip feeding or mates down the pub who knows someone that works in the police.

Some building have whats called a fire drench system , water is held in the system and can be released on command from a central control panel, unlike sprinklers which can be isolated or go off in a case of vandalism or a real fire.

As the fire spread externally an external fire drench system could have been fitted, as was fitted to the saudi tower block fire a few years ago.

Drencher systems are usually only suitable in very specific applications providing protection to a relatively small area, usually in the high hazard industries, e.g. chemical plants etc. They are not suitable for protecting whole buildings or even large areas of buildings.

Sprinkler systems work by having only a relatively small number of heads activated directly over the fire, thus controlling the fire at an early stage before it has grown too large. Consequently a sprinkler system in a residential building only needs a relatively small tank and and pump, because the water demand is not that high. Drencher systems require large tanks and bigger pumps, which are both expensive and more difficult to accommodate in a building in a retrofit. A drencher system on the outside of Grenfell Tower would simply not be possible/viable. In any case, even if one had been installed, the external fire was either inside the cladding insulation or behind the cladding, and the water from a drencher system would not have reached the fire.

She had the opportunity, yes it would have been difficult and extremely uncomfortable, but tough shit, it's her **** job, and she failed miserably. You can deflect or distract as much as you want. But she is the prime minister at a time of a horrific incident, she is supposed to be their for all of us, and she wasn't and isn't!

I'm by no means of fan of hers, but is talking to the public face to face really the most efficient use of a prime minister's time?

Surely she could do more by directing things from behind the scenes?

Surely she could do more by directing things from behind the scenes?

That's Murdoch and Dacre's job.

Lots of idealism here as usual. Just who was to finance all these wonderful upgrades?

£7 billion pencilled in for the Houses of Parliament refurbishment
£370 million available for Buckingham Palace refurbishment
£200,000 for installation of life saving sprinklers in a social housing tower block seems like small change.
You can see why people get angry.

Just going to leave that here for you..

I'm by no means of fan of hers, but is talking to the public face to face really the most efficient use of a prime minister's time?

She found time to talk to a handful of people in a village hall in rural Aberdeenshire during the election!

She knows relatively **** all about fire safety and post disaster management, she's not going to add anything with her expertise to that on the day. Her job is is that of a politician, which ideally involves listening to those she represents and not running away from them. Then pushing through any recommendations based on expert professional advice.

I'm by no means of fan of hers, but is talking to the public face to face really the most efficient use of a prime minister's time?

She was already there, had taken time out of her precious day to be there. Saw the great unwashed and thought no thanks then legged it.

Hate to say it but the blame lies with the person who caused the fire, not those who failed to prevent it.

Yes, it's clearly their fault that the fire that started in their flat engulfed an entire block. FFS.

She was alos at a football match recently - do you think she is a fan and that is good use of her time?

Even if you accept that what came before the fire is a cross-party issue,

Its not. tories sat on reports detailing action to be taken, voted against improving standards for tenants, the cladding was never inspected by a tory council that has outsourced almost everything

Hate to say it but the blame lies with the person who caused the fire, not those who failed to prevent it.

****s sake.

I would imagine a lot of residents of the towers were not really supposed to be there . sub let rooms , flats etc...

Saw the great unwashed and thought no thanks then legged it.

Spot on.

Edit: as a women her response saddens me especially after that BBC interview last night. She just needed to listen and comfort those affected, they needed to feel that the highest ranking politician in the UK would do everything she could to help.

Disgraceful. 😐

Drac

Well there is they've said the toll will likely be over 100 not a rumour, no drip feeding or mates down the pub who knows someone that works in the police.

I think Drac is adding the stated '70 missing or dead' with the known 30. It's not clear, but I think that the 70 is actually meant to include the known 30. The Senior police officer did state that the numbers were 'unlikely' to enter triple digits.

Very hard for the authorities to get solid numbers in the early days with this incident; it's not like a stadium or aviation disaster where ticketing means a very good idea of numbers from the onset.

Yup I am.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/16/at-least-30-dead-in-grenfell-tower-fire-say-police

dazh - Member
This is possibly because she is actually aware of her extremeley poor interpersonal skills.
How anyone gets to the position of prime minister with poor interpersonal skills is astonishing...

It's almost as if she has something over them. Maybe those paedo files aren't really "lost".

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2017/jun/17/architects-grenfell-tower-fire-was-an-avoidable-tragedy ]The blame game has commenced, and this opinion seems to hit the nail firmly.[/url]

As for the numbers of the dead, a reasonable guess can be made by counting the number of survivors, and looking at how many flats there were. It was public housing so no one would have had the luxury of 2 or 3 bedrooms unless there were people to fill them.

There were 4x2brm and 2x1brm flats on a typical floor which gives a minimum of 10 people per floor, but likely 15-20. There were 20 residential floors, so that's between 200 and 400 people resident.

The survivors should all be known by now. I heard a figure of 76 mentioned. Is that true? If so we are looking at hundreds of deaths. Let's hope it is not so.

The govt needs to grasp this nettle and be upfront with the info, the damage is already done.

There was an expert on Newsnight last night talking about the difficulties involved identifying the remains and why they don't classify them as dead straight away instead of missing. Comparisons to 9/11 and the size and complexity of that task.
The overall opinion was this fire is much more difficult as 9/11 they could go to missing persons home to gather DNA and match against remains found. Even then 40% of the people missing were never identified and only after all avenues were exhausted that they'd be classified as dead.
Compared to Grenfall were their homes have been destroyed along with sample DNA to match remains to they would need familial DNA. Again whole families have been destroyed and with such large numbers of immigrants they would need to try and trace family from around the world.
I would assume the ones confirmed as dead so far are mainly found in their apartments and more easily identifiable.
All this demand for actual numbers of dead and the press being muted doesn't help and won't speed the process up either. I'm sure there are tenants that were/are on holiday or the apartment has been sublet or others living there that weren't registered on any records. Some may have been in hospital prior to the fire.
Until the remains have been identified and investigations into who was actually in the apartments I wouldn't want to be told Joe Bloggs is dead when he could be still alive or worse still A N Other and his wife and kids aren't recorded as dead as the records didn't show them as living there.

Precisely Craig.

press being muted

Opinion or proof?

The report of the press being muted:

https://order-order.com/2017/06/16/corbynistas-peddle-grenfell-d-notice-fake-news/

Oooh missed the bit about the press being muted and he was doing so well.

I didn't say the press were being gagged but others have stated it in here only retract it later. The gobshite Lily Allen is stating the press has been gagged.
The press are stating what they are being told through official channels only after an identity has been confirmed.

Oldracer you'd better to read what I said rather than misquote three words out of a sentence

I did read it - seemed fairly sound to the bit I quoted, hence why I quoted it..

Looks like may is going back down to meet the people affected today.

I had no idea that there had been any news about the cause of the fire started but yes, I believe that the person responsible for that is ultimately the person who should be blamed.
All the various issues about the state of the building may well be true but dodgy cladding or what ever did not start the fire. There are undoubtably things that could have reduced the consequences, I haven't said anyhere that this isn't the case but the person responsible for the fire is the person who caused it as surely as if they had lit a match.
If regulations have been ignored then those responsible for that will need a slap as well but I can't see anywhere in my posts where I have even mentioned or considered that.
To Kimbers. It would be nice to indicate what you find so funny. Makes life so much easier to discuss.

I can completely understand that those affected want answers, I would I assume, but to be fair, no one in authority is going to speculate or make any guesses are they? That is understandable, fair and sensible as speculation may well be wrong and lead to more trouble and grief than is good.

cranberry - Member
The report of the press being muted:

There's no excuse for spreading fake news, but this is as much a result of the leadership vacuum immediately after the event, without an authoritative voice to explain what was happening, rumours take over.

It also speaks to distrust of the establishment, the Government, much of the press, TV and many right-wingers who have spent the last few years gleefully demonising the very people who've been caught up in this tragedy.

They won't admit it though, they'll just try and blame corbynistas, amazed cranberry, able to show himself and post that !

It's looking like the key cause of the severe external fire was the specification of a composite panel which did not meet Building Regs.

It looks like the French manufacturer produces some panels (with a polyethylene insulation core) which do not meet the relevant European fire standard specified in Approved Document B. I'm surprised that it would even make sense to manufacture such panels, since there is probably very little market for them in Europe, but the panels fitted to the Dubai hotel which suffered a major fire were also polyethylene cored, so maybe there is a large market outside Europe which explains why they manufacture them.

I've never heard of polyethylene cored panels being used in the UK before, and the likes of Kingspan invariably use polyisocyanurate (PIR). Moreover, not only will the UK panel manufacturers' panels probably all meet the European or BS476 standard, most of them will meet the even more stringent standard required by insurers (LPCB Approval).

Someone in the chain responsible for the refurbishment contract, whether the specifier, the tenderer, the supplier etc. screwed up. I very much doubt it was deliberate cost cutting by the council or fraud by the supplier (supplying a cheaper product instead of a more expensive one). Rather I suspect carelessness, combined probably with a council/contractor ordering products from a foreign manufacturer's range whose products are not widely used in the UK and with whose range of products people are not familiar (whereas they would likely know which precise model of Kingpan panel was required without even looking it up).

The fact that the wrong panels could be ordered is still only part of the story: we should not have a system where a simple mistake like that could go without being picked up at some point, e.g. review of the specification, review of the tender, checking the products delivered at the site etc. Kingspan composite panels are labelled with the model no. and whether they are LPCB Approved on the edge of each panel.

You can see the blackened charred polyethylene foam in the panels where the outer metal skin has delaminated in this BBC photograph:

[img] [/img]

I believe that the person responsible for that is ultimately the person who should be blamed.

If you think that there will be one single cause if this disaster then I'm afraid you are being hopelessly naive. I don't know any details of this disaster but what do know from having reviewed the findings of others is that when disasters happen there is never a single cause. It is always a sequence of events. It might be comforting to think that there is a single villain of the piece but things are rarely so simple and I doubt it will the case here either.

If you think that there will be one single cause if this disaster then I'm afraid you are being hopelessly naive.

But the daily mail was able to instantly name the Ethiopian immigrant who's fridge caused this, they put it on the front page and everything

mattsccm - Member
I had no idea that there had been any news about the cause of the fire started but yes, I believe that the person responsible for that is ultimately the person who should be blamed.

Genuine question. Not baiting you here.

Has the tenant of the flat where the fire started been implicated in the fire in some way?

I mean, breaking safety codes or being plain negligent in some way?

I honestly haven't read that but news is trickling in from all over on this tragedy. 🙁

Even if he was running a meth lab the fire should have been contained at least to 1 or 2 flats.
Unless it was a deliberate act how can the flat tennent be blamed?
My tumble dryer went all smokie last year frying the motor winding and armature my fault???

Believe me I agree pk13.

I just wanted to know if the tenant has been implicated in any way as I can find nothing?

Mattsccm seems to be saying that the tenant is to *blame* for the fire rather than him just being massively unlucky to have the faulty appliance in his flat.

That's a massive.. Massive assertion for mattsccm to make, hence I wanted to clarify.