[Closed] Greenfell Tower Fire

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.

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

There is obviously an issue with the cladding, which should not have been fitted to a building such as this, but has been in nearly 100 similar buildings according to the report that I saw.

Metro is reporting this:

[url= http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/15/man-whose-flat-started-grenfell-blaze-packed-luggage-before-raising-alarm-6710853/ ]http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/15/man-whose-flat-started-grenfell-blaze-packed-luggage-before-raising-alarm-6710853/[/url]

So mattsccm - if as has been suggested the fire started with a fridge who is to blame? Surely the owner of a fridge can't be to blame if he was using it as intended? You are saying is just as blameworthy as if they lit a match - can you tell me what it is YOU do to stop your fridge catching fire?

Can you imagine the guilt that guy whose fridge it was must feel?
Actually, do we even know if he survived?

Just saw that Theresa May interview. Wow.
She is truly awful. Professionally and personally. A "publi servant"?
Can't believe that after their knock back in the election and then the handling of this fire and the way everyone is looking at is as a reflection of austerity policy that that is our "strong and stable" leader going off to start our Leaving the EU negotiations tomorrow.

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.

Having in the distant past, worked for the main contractor in charge of the overall contract, I'd be surprised if this was the case, but I guess it will become clear in time.

Can you imagine the guilt that guy whose fridge it was must feel?

well I'd be feeling terrible about the whole disaster. But guilt no, not unless I'd tampered with the fridge or was somehow using it as not indented.