I’m a bit late to this story so sorry if it’s already been done.

A high profile peer, referring to the Grenfell Tower tragedy said:

“Had that been a block full of white people in there, they would have done everything to get them out as fast as possible.”

It makes no sense to me. I know a few firefighters and I find it impossible to believe they’d let families burn/suffocate because they thought a higher than average proportion of them were not white.

But beyond that there are practical objections:

– How would they know the ethnic makeup of the people involved in the incident?

– Surely promptly attending is in their own interests – fighting a fire in the early stages must be less risky than in the later stages.

– London Fire Brigade had the highest percentage of firefighters from the Asian, Black, Mixed and Other (including Chinese) ethnic groups. Wouldn’t one of them blow the whistle?

– Wouldn’t there be at least one non racist who would blow the whistle – or even an actual racist who wasn’t willing to stand by and let people burn. (Eg, I don’t like cats much, but I’d pull out all the stops to save one from burning.) I’d imagine racists would be the same, just because you don’t like X ethnicity doesn’t mean you’re going to let people of X ethnicity die horribly.

– If she’s saying it’s the control staff who prioritise on race rather than front line firefighters then it should be trivial to identify them and prosecute them (manslaughter).

FBU response here:
https://www.fbu.org.uk/news/racism-allegations-c4news

I’d be massively surprised is there was a widespread culture of racism in the LFB.

Like most places I’d expect a few racist biggots, but nothing more.

I’d be seriously wondering if that kind of comment wasn’t libelous. A lot of very brave firefighters dealt with an unprecedented situation that night, and while it’s easy to be wise with hindsight, to allege racism is an appalling insult.

What utter horseshite.

Frankly, it’s an appalling thing for her to say.

I have huge sympathy for her for everything she’s been put through and respect for a lot of what she’s done since, but taking her Grenfell remarks in isolation, she’s out of order.

Seems the very definition of a cheap shot.

I wonder what the ‘high profile peer’ has to gain from making such a statement. I would start my analysis there. Things usually become apparent quicker that way around when it comes to politicians.

What utter horseshite

Aye. That.

aye words failed me when I 1st read that.

I’ve every respect and sympathy for Dame Lawrence, but her comments, given that the building was filled with folk from every corner of the world, seem out of place. Is there something we’re missing from what she said, as it seems so wrong.

Seeing as it’s Baroness Lawrence you can understand her view might be skewed by her past experiences. Once upon a time she might even have had reason to think that bl(not that it would necessarily have been true) but not today. Think C4s editorial team should take the heat for this one.

It’s contemptible that. After what those firefighters went through…

It’s not even like you can say “Had that been a block full of white people in there, they would have done everything to get them cladded safely” because the fact is the people involved in those decisions don’t give a shit about anyone, regardless of colour. Race just had nothing to do with it.

What utter horseshite.

Very much this.

Is there something we’re missing from what she said, as it seems so wrong.

That’s always my first thought when people say something so incomprehensible so before posting I watched the quote for myself on youtube and it’s accurate and complete. People do make slips of the tongue so maybe later on in the interview or elsewhere they retracted it, if so I’d expect someone to say so in this thread.

It’s a **** disgraceful insult to those that risked their lives that night, a frankly vile comment.

It’s a **** disgraceful insult to those that risked their lives that night, a frankly vile comment.

I completely agree. No matter what may or may not have gone wrong that night, to suggest that the emergency services dealt with the incident differently because of their supposed perception of the race of the victims is quite horrible.

Bullshit called !

From a quick read of the C4 article she appears to be clumsily conflating the response on the night by the fire brigade with the response in the following months by the authorities. Accusations of racism ON THE NIGHT sound like utter garbage. Less so the response in the following months which are as likely socio-economic as racist.

I clearly remember seeing the photos of the exhausted fire crews sitting down, trying to grab what little rest they could, and the mixed ethnicity was obvious to anyone from even a cursory glance; has this woman never ever seen those photos? Is she so totally out of touch with the events around Grenfell, and those attending it?
Jesus H Christ.

See this guy. I can tell you from experience he will never ever get over that.

I've met @LondonFire & @LondonFBU. I am reassured race played no part in their response to the Grenfell Tower fire. Learning about the conditions firefighters faced that night has been insightful, apologies for any upset caused. I'm confident how valued equality is to LFB & FBU

— Doreen Lawrence OBE (@DLawrenceOBE) October 29, 2019

back pedalling now

At least she’s apologised, although if she did it via a better medium it would be a more powerful statement. e.g. BBC interview

Utterly disgraceful comment. The follow-up tweet does little to rectify it.

‘I am reassured race played no part in their response’.

What is outrageous is that such a vile thought would not only take residence in her brain, but she would feel sufficiently confident to let it ooze out into the media.

And then that it would require a meeting with the union and fire authority to make her reconsider it.

What is outrageous is that such a vile thought would not only take residence in her brain, but she would feel sufficiently confident to let it ooze out into the media.

I wonder what the ‘high profile peer’ has to gain from making such a statement. I would start my analysis there. Things usually become apparent quicker that way around when it comes to politicians

You do know who she is don’t you? I don’t find it at all incredible that her battles in the past have lead her to see racism in places where it isn’t. She is wrong in this case, but the hysterical reactions to her comments, and personal attacks on her for them are underlined by racism IMO.

“personal attacks on her for them are underlined by racism IMO”

Seriously?

What utter horseshite

Deserves repeating again

Seriously?

A mother of a murdered son, who battled institutional racism for years just to try and get some justice. Who the authorities treated like dog shit on a shoe and just tried to wipe off. But through her battles exposed the racism inherent within the institutions of power, who are meant to protect us all but failed so many.

She said something wrong, but if you can’t see that through the prism of her life, and just say “she is wrong, but I understand her history and why she could say that” and instead call her vile, suggest that her thoughts “ooze” then I am happy to believe those using such terms are driven by racism.

You need to know who she is to understand the context. She made an error. We all do.

You do know who she is don’t you?

I can honestly say, that when I posted above I did not realise it was Doreen Lawrence.

personal attacks on her for them are underlined by racism IMO

Not in my case, for the reason above. Not that I would anyway.

At the time I thought it was some other politician with an axe to grind against the FBU or somesuch.

It is good she has retracted her comments as they were out of order, no matter who she is.

The people who are lashing out at the fire brigade are going after the wrong people.

WOW, like the report/inquiry that just out, she is aiming the blame at the wrong people, firefighters are NOT to be blamed, IMO.
THe people who signed off/approving the non fireproof cladding are totally the reason so many people tragically lost their lives, I don’t think racism was behind that decision I think it was more to do with the low income area Grenfell is in. I really get the feeling if it was in a ricer part “town” the tower would have had the correct cladding.

Firefighters where following/doing what they thought was right as they didn’t know the cladding didn’t meet fire standards, as for dodgy equipment that wasn’t work well (radios) that is prob down to having years of funding cuts and not been able to by first choice equipment.

I don’t find it at all incredible that her battles in the past have lead her to see racism in places where it isn’t.

That might be fair comment in her case. What’s your excuse?

That might be fair comment in her case. What’s your excuse?

No need for excuses from me. You on the other hand have dug your own hole and trying to deflect onto me doesn’t unwrite your comments. If you want to convince anyone you are not racist, maybe start by explaining your own statements, I didn’t write them you did.

The people who signed off/approving the non fireproof cladding are totally the reason so many people tragically lost their lives, I don’t think racism was behind that decision I think it was more to do with the low income area Grenfell is in. I really get the feeling if it was in a ricer part “town” the tower would have had the correct cladding.

Rob, the cladding did meet building regulations that were in place at the time. The cladding material wasn’t the issue, it was the void between the cladding and building structure which created a Venturi effect helping accelerate the flames upwards. Not one contractor will go to prison because at the time nothing they did was wrong. Money was saved from the original spec and replaced with cheaper materials which still met building regs. There’s probably not a building in existence where costs have been saved from the original architects plans.

When catastrophic events such as Grenfell occur regulations then change, things are then made safer. Remember the Kings Cross fire? Caused by a fire under a wooden escalator. Today, nothing can be installed in an underground station unless it’s fire safe certified. This covers everything from a seat to the coating that protects it.
Regulations covering public buildings such as Grenfell changed late last year.

There are a number of ‘exclusive’ apartment homes all over the country decorated with wooden cladding. Given what we now know would you rather have aluminium cladding covering your abode or live in one of these tinder boxes?
Oh, one more thing. Let’s not get started on asbestos!

The cladding material wasn’t the issue

Hmm…

leeroysilk

Member

Rob, the cladding did meet building regulations that were in place at the time.

In fact, it did not. The cladding products were rated as class B by Arconic’s internal testing in 2008, but their subsequent testing of the product range in 2014 rated the riveted cladding as class C. They failed to tell the BBA of this new test result, and so the product remained officially graded and was marketed as class B despite the fact that the manufacturers knew it didn’t meet the standard. When independently tested after the fire, the same product again failed to pass the class b test.

Or to put it a different way, it had a certificate that said it passed the class B standard, but it did not. Of course, the BBA doesn’t actually test anything or even require independent testing- they purely grant certificates based on the company’s testing, which is definitely a totally legit way to test products that couldn’t possibly lead to any massive fires because a company doesn’t pass on unfavourable test results.

Worth remembering as ever that the actual regulations are disputed; the regs stated that class B was acceptable for the outside surface of a building over 18m, and developers interpreted that as allowing class B cladding; however the government maintains that the cladding is insulation rather than outside surface (ie that only the outer layer of the cladding is surface), and that accordingly it should have met Class A. Of course, it didn’t meet either, but it was only certified as meeting the lower of the two.

It seems like the argument that class B is acceptable is pretty reasonable, in the face of badly written codes, but still it depends on the developers looking at a poorly written code and choosing to interpret it in the less safe, cheaper way. Rather than, for instance, seeking clarity from the authorities. But that does seem as far as I’ve seen to be the worst that the developers themselves were actually guilty of.

But Arconic certainly knew their product didn’t meet the legal standards.

Northwind

Subscriber

In fact, it did not.

Thanks Northwind, I stand corrected. I appreciate you correcting me with details as opposed to a pointless “hmm…” as referenced by Kelvin.

You make an interest point regarding the interpretation of the code, it’s my understanding even the new code has points that could be interpreted in different ways:
“all structural components should be A1 certified” many would state cladding is not structural and should therefore be A2.
“Materials should not be used which may impede safe evacuation during a fire”. Some might interpret this as all materials should meet A1 requirements.

Before Grenfell, my company saw a competitors product claiming to be A1 rated, when reviewing the test report from an independent lab it became clear their product had been supplied to the lab just outside of an industry specification enabling it to pass, in the real world there’s no way it could have passed. Fortunately this competitor didn’t monopolies on their A1 certificate, however post Grenfell we’ve started seeing A1 certified products from other competitors which when tested in spec would not meet A1.

“Or to put it a different way, it had a certificate that said it passed the class B standard, but it did not. Of course, the BBA doesn’t actually test anything or even require independent testing- they purely grant certificates based on the company’s testing, which is definitely a totally legit way to test products that couldn’t possibly lead to any massive fires because a company doesn’t pass on unfavourable test results.”

I won’t pretend to know much about this whole case, just what I’ve seen on the news, but blaming LFB and saying they’re racist seems flimsy. Surely a lack of appliances in London able to deal with fires in tall buildings is a much greater issue.
Companies self certifying safety testing seems ludicrous. I’m sure it’s “efficient” I.e. cheap, and my worry is we will see more of this in the future the way things are going.
The worst of it is there have been calls for years for sprinklers and other fire safety measures to be retrofitted to buildings, but there’s no money for silly things like that. But if you want votes from nutters in NI, or 50p coins…

You do know who she is don’t you? I don’t find it at all incredible that her battles in the past have lead her to see racism in places where it isn’t

She is being racist herself here. She assumes that the LFB are all white and made their judgements from that standpoint.

Just because she has met some who do, not everyone with a white face thinks that people of colour are worth less than themselves.

She’s using her prejudice to distract from the real culprits. @Northwind has it bang on

The fires penetrated inside the building because the window frames were timber and many of the windows were open, creating almost perfect conditions for the fire in the void to spread inwards.

In the many videos of cladding fires in tower blocks in the middle east, the blocks are newer so they have aluminium window frames, which are usually closed because the buildings are air-conditioned, meaning the advice to stay put may have some validity.

Here’s the FBU response:

https://www.fbu.org.uk/news/2019/10/30/fbu-response-grenfell-tower-inquiry-phase-one-report