From reading a part of is that the dockside is under land regs, the ship under sea regs or something like that it it seems more than minor - its about escape routes which are insufficient and fire alarm and supression sytems - and a conflict between the land and sea based regs
Basically in a fire everyone on board would be trapped.
It's nothing a few bottles of Prosecco and a cheap hotdog won't fix.
Think positive.
We are giving the asylum seekers hot dogs (with decent mustard) and Prosecco, right?
Basically in a fire everyone on board would be trapped.
Yes, but they'd be burning to death in the UK and not some African or Middle East hellhole, so they should be grateful
Yes, but they’d be burning to death in the UK and not some African or Middle East hellhole, so they should be grateful
That's a very interesting point... are the prison barges technically 'off shore'? so technically UK/EU law doesn't apply?
Suellas very own little Guantanamo Bay?
It has been used to house construction workers in Sweden and Scotland so I doubt that it is considered to be a death trap. It has also been used by the Dutch and German governments to house asylum seekers btw.
It has been used to house construction workers in Sweden and Scotland so I doubt that it is considered to be a death trap. It has also been used by the Dutch and German governments to house asylum seekers btw.
Since arriving in the UK its been refitted to double its capacity. I'd imagine that has a pretty significant impact on fire safety and all manner of other things.
If you were being cynical you might possibly suggest that this has all been cobbled together on the back of a fag packet to satisfy tomorrows Daily Mail headlines rather than offer anything resembling a workable, practical solution
and from an earlier article
The Times reported serious fire safety concerns about the barge, with fire service approval pending.
Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service said it had advised on a fire risk assessment drawn up by the vessel’s operators, Landry & Kling.
Since arriving in the UK its been refitted to double its capacity. I’d imagine that has a pretty significant impact on fire safety and all manner of other things.
Not at all. The cabins are modular and are designed to reconfigured very easily. They have clipped in extra bunks to go from single to double occupancy. Wouldn't effect the fire safety. These things are a more protected than a hotel on land.
I am not defending the use of this barge at all, it's ludicrous on so many levels, not least of all on the finances, but it's incorrect to make it out to be an uncomfortable and dangerous place to be is not true. Although as I highlighted on an earlier post, due to the circumstances, it will probably become a toxic and unpleasant place to be.
I have no idea what effect the refit might have had on fire prevention requirements but reading this article yesterday I got the impression that whatever issues Dorset FB raised were reasonably minor.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-66361426
Whereas the times / guardian reports seem to imply its much more serious.
I guess a part of the issue is that when its construction workers on board you can assume that they are trained in how to respond in the event of a fire and are all able to understand instructions. When its refugees this assumption cannot be made and thus the risk assessment is altered hugely. YOu would need far more fire marshalls to ensure safe evacuation for example
Ill take a pie based bet that its many weeks or months if ever that any refugees get placed on this boat
Some of the the language used in that Guardian article is nonsense. Comparing it to Grenfell is just nonsense.
It is not made of flammable material.
It's not 24 stories high.
The occupants will not be instructed to stay put and the photo shows it has 3 gangways, 1 for each level.
The internal stairwells will have fire protected doors and there will be sprinklers in every space.
The risk assessment issues, I guess will be as TJ highlighted, down to evacuating untrained non-marine personnel safely and quickly. A basic induction and regular fire drills should cover it.
The real scandal here is the cost and the nature of the non-competitive contract award. That barge is now earning more money than it ever has before and ever will doing it's dayjob.
A basic induction and regular fire drills should cover it.
Need to be pretty thorough. Remember some of these folk will not speak english. Some will be traumatised and mistrustful. That basic induction and fire drills will have to be done in multiple languages. i think the grenfell point was that the evacuation routes are insufficient for the number of people since they doubled occupancy. Whats sufficient to evacuate 300 folk who understand the instructions and will co operate is no where near sufficient for 600 people who are unable to understand instructions and will be fearful
Need to be pretty thorough.
Not really. "Hear this noise and go this way".
How is it worse than a hotel?
It will have much better fire division and fire suppression systems.
It has multiple exits, 1 on each level of accommodation.
However, I will say again, this is a ****ing stupid idea and makes no sense but safety is a bit of a red herring.
Not really. “Hear this noise and go this way”.
In how many languages? Remember these folk may be very distrustful and thus not follow instructions. Having done a few evacuations in hospitals even with well trained and co operative folk they are always chaotic. I don't think its as simple as you think. Some may think " I'm about to be deported" and hide.
Having done a few evacuations in hospitals even with well trained and co operative folk they are always chaotic.
I was a deck officer on cruise liners for 9 years, we had weekly drills for the crew and the passengers were mustered at the beginning of every cruise, roughly every 2 weeks.
The largest ships I worked on had 1000 crew and 3000 passengers, the drills were not chaotic.
Some may think ” I’m about to be deported” and hide.
So why wouldn't they behave like that in a hotel? What's the difference?
"It has multiple exits, 1 on each level of accommodation."
If this was bricks and mortar building a single exit per level wouldn't be accepted given the number of units/occupants, travel distances.
Is it known that they're is smoke control, sprinklers fitted?
You can compare it to Grenfell as that was systematic failure by multiple agencies, much like this could be.....
If this was bricks and mortar building a single exit per level wouldn’t be accepted given the number of units/occupants, travel distances.
What buildings have an exit to the outside on every level???
This thing will have multiple stairwells connecting the levels internally.
Is it known that they’re is smoke control, sprinklers fitted?
Will have fire dampers in the ventilation, fire screen doors in alleyways and stairwells. Sprinklers in every space and CO2 flooding in machinery spaces.
These things are designed to be operated offshore, you don't have the option of walking out the door if there's a fire, so the level of protection is much higher than a building ashore.
Blocks of flats over three storey with more than 4 units per floor
you'd have two exits per floor to protecte routes that would lead to a place of safety i.e. the external air.
Unless you have personal experience of the accommodation in question everything else you say is supposition and speculation imo, it's not like the Government has a record for using best practice is it?
Unless you have personal experience of the accommodation in question everything else you say is supposition and speculation imo
I don't need personal experience of that barge.
It is Classed by Lloyds Register. It will require those things and more to obtain this classification.
the pics show 3 exits total
It doesn't meet the lloyds stuff by my reading - thats a part of the issue. perhaps due to the doubling of occupancy
Again from my superficial read the government tried to use the looser land based assessment
What a lovely looking prison ship.
Where does the sewage go?
passengers were mustered at the beginning of every cruise, roughly every 2 weeks.
Did the passengers try and set fire to the ship as a protest against their conditions?
It's been tried before...
From Mars to Dundee: The prison ship that shaped generations | HeraldScotland
It doesn’t meet the lloyds stuff by my reading – thats a part of the issue. perhaps due to the doubling of occupancy
Of course it does, or it would be uninsurable.
Where does the sewage go?
Through a treatment plant and then to holding tanks, which will be pumped out by vac trucks.
Did the passengers try and set fire to the ship as a protest against their conditions?
No. But the fleet did have rare occasions of arsonists onboard, both crew and passengers, who were unsuccessful due to the safety systems in place.
Look, I'm not defending this thing, it's completely unsuitable on some many levels but to try and infer it's a tinder box waiting to go up in flames is just incorrect.
I suppose this kind of illustrates the point about why they've done it.
We're here discussing the relative merits of the fire safety of a barge. In a few weeks we'll be talking about keeping people in tents without access to sanitation or whatever.
All dead cats really.
What we're not talking about is the complete inability of the Home Office to actually do their job and process asylum claims properly or the utter failure of clowns like Braverman and the rest of these idiots to come up with any workable solutions, instead of stupid headline-grabbing gimmicks
Look, I’m not defending this thing, it’s completely unsuitable on some many levels
I think that, like the Rwanda policy, there is widespread agreement on that one! The hotel policy probably saved the only hotel in our village, the residents seem pleasant enough, and last time I looked, it's not burned down 😉 . The ship-based solution is gesture politics and should be viewed as such. A couple of days of good weather and it will be full anyway. There are more serious issues. Like processing, and a labour shortage.
What we’re not talking about is the complete inability of the Home Office to actually do their job and process asylum claims properly or the utter failure of clowns like Braverman and the rest of these idiots to come up with any workable solutions, instead of stupid headline-grabbing gimmicks
I agree.
Although thing that is going under the radar is the nature of the contract award.
In a previous life I worked in the civil service and we had to charter offshore vessels from time to time. The process was strictly control, 2 bids from each operator,1 priced for the commercial team and 1 unpriced for the operational team.
If we had just used an existing enabling contract for something vaguely related and hired something for about 10 times the market rate, we would of been sacked and possibly prosecuted.
There is something so corrupt about this contract award it is beyond incompetence, it breaks every rule and safeguard in the book.
It does appear that the changes made to the tendering process during covid lockdowns now seem to have been normalised and now they simply dispense with all those formalities and just Whatsapp one of their mates to award the contract to them and arrange the subsequent backhander
There's no need for a backhander. that's built into the exorbitant price up front.
Of course it does, or it would be uninsurable.
thats the point- it doesn't meet whatever the fire regs are for this sort of thing - whether its insurable as a "boat" is irrelevant. the doubling of occupancy ( my guess) has made it not meet the fire regs for floating accomodation ( widely reported)
thats the point- it doesn’t meet whatever the fire regs are for this sort of thing – whether its insurable as a “boat” is irrelevant. the doubling of occupancy ( my guess) has made it not meet the fire regs for floating accommodation ( widely reported)
The question about the fire safety has been raised by the local fire brigade. T
The vessel is Classed by Lloyds register, its equipment and fittings will be up to spec, the local fire brigade will have no knowledge or training of what those requirements are. It will be a question over their operating procedures and risk assessments, particularly regarding evacuation of untrained personnel.
The solution will be to "train" them and the vessel "crew" and adopt emergency procedures as appropriate.
whether its insurable as a “boat” is irrelevant.
It's really not. The whole history of regulation of ships and other marine assets goes back to which ships could be insured or not. It's the main lever that is used to make sure ships are safely operated.
No owner would leave their valuable asset uninsured.
Remember these folk may be very distrustful and thus not follow instructions.
Asking the UK to provide them with asylum after a long and dangerous journey suggests a certain level of trust, why would they not follow the instructions in the event of a fire?
Do you think that they may also distrust and not follow the instructions of an RNLI crew coming to rescue them from a leaky overcrowded vessel?
Gobuchal - the point is it may be "insurable" It does not meet fire regs for that number of occupants - and part of this is that the local fire brigade and the maritime agencies have been passing the buck and have different standards. the local fire brigade have no jurisdiction over a ship they say and its up to the maritime agencies. Uk government say land based regs is enough. Maritime agencies say its not fit.
Its a right mess and real info is not easy to get - but its clear it simply does not meet the standards required to house 600 people - and it may be impossible to do so because of the lack of exits and so on
And while all this pointless nonsense continues, the costs continue to escalate and the Home Office still fails to process their claims
I wonder what the total amount is of money so far wasted on Rwanda, barges, military bases, tents, pods on the moon etc? It must be multiples of billions by now and not a single person has been housed in any of them yet, nor are they looking likely to be
Its an expensive business this callous posturing, isn't it?
Gobuchal – the point is it may be “insurable” It does not meet fire regs for that number of occupants – and part of this is that the local fire brigade and the maritime agencies have been passing the buck and have different standards. the local fire brigade have no jurisdiction over a ship they say and its up to the maritime agencies. Uk government say land based regs is enough. Maritime agencies say its not fit.
Sauces?
When has the MCA said it's not fit?
You're are right that the local fire brigade would have no authority, or knowledge regarding marine standards.
The MCA don't set a lot of the standards anymore, they don't have the resource and they are one of the largest organisations of their type in the World, the vast majority of it is left to the Classification Societies.
You’re are right that the local fire brigade would have no authority, or knowledge regarding marine standards.
However according to my earlier link the Fire safety manager of the Dorset & Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service said:
"We do not conduct fire risk assessments or provide an approval process prior to occupation of a premises, but will exercise our enforcement powers to address any significant areas of non-compliance where necessary."
premises
That's the problem, their powers will cover "premises".
I worked on ships and offshore stuff for over 30 years, a lot of the time on UK flagged ships out of UK ports.
The only time I had any interaction with a local fire brigade was in Southampton, Hampshire Fire & Rescue would visit the cruise ships to help them understand what equipment we had and the unique problems they would have to deal with, if we had a fire in port.
They never once inspected or audited equipment or documentation, it was nothing to do with them.
Sources - multiple newspaper reports and quotes from the local tory ( nimby) mp
firstly the home office said 1 day delay which would mean something minor. Now its "no timeline" which in my book means something much more fundamental.
My understanding is that the home office thought onshore standards would apply. Now its become clear MCA standards apply and my understanding is they are both higher and different in detail
I stand by my bet that it will be weeks or months until anyone gets warehoused there - if ever.
This local MP?
Mr Drax said he and fellow Tory MP Chris Loder were still waiting for a response after writing to Home Secretary Suealla Braverman and Transport Minister Baroness Vere calling for the Marine Coastguard Agency (MCA) to carry out a safety assessment on the Bibby Stockholm over plans to house double the number of people it was designed for.
No mention of any inspection actually taking place. However, I would be very surprised if they don't do an inspection.
He just doesn't want 500 bored and pissed off young men wandering around Portland.
The double the number of people stuff is incorrect as well. Nothing unusual about having twin berth cabins.
Aye him - thats why I put Nimby in brackets 🙂
Gobuchal – the point is it may be “insurable” It does not meet fire regs for that number of occupants
If it didn't meet the fire regs, nobody would insure it, effectively making it un-insurable. In commercial insurance their inspectors have massive powers to require safe systems and demand improvement actions if they find degradation or non-conformance with regulations. This includes cancelling or refusing policies in extreme circumstances. I have some dealings with this, albeit in a different sector.
I reckon Gobuchal's marine experience is makes him the most qualified to comment here.
But Binners points are also bang on the money.
I reckon Gobuchal’s marine experience is makes him the most qualified to comment here.
for sure - but there is something here that just does not add up
If it didn’t meet the fire regs, nobody would insure it, effectively making it un-insurable.
Is there a differnce between insuring it when unoccupied and when occupied ie the insurance is for 222 people ( the number housed when it was used before) and 550 - the number they want to put on it. So its insurable now but not with 500+ people onboard?
