Grenfell firemen didn’t save people because of their skin colour

[Moved To Differently]

In the court of public opinion this will be decided in the simplest of possible terms, and it already has. Instead of waiting for the full findings these little bits have been "leaked". From this point any findings that can put responsibility on others will be swept under the carpet or diminished. It's simple control of information.

I suppose the big question is; of all the failures from Greenfell what makes the failings of the fire service more prevalent and damaging than years or neglect and ignorance from officials who were repeatedly warned that this sort of thing could happen?

Perhaps, but even if that's the case what do you do about people in powerful positions covering themselves? Being surprised about that is a bit like being surprised by a dog that chooses to bark. Surely the onus is on people to see through this and hold elected people to account better, if it turns out that doesn't happen then purely and simply people got the representatives they deserve.

What I'm gauging from your second point is that the council were at fault for installing the doomed material in the first place and not doing anything about it when they were warned of the danger. No argument from me there. They'd say (perhaps not openly) that they were under-funded and there was pressure on them to implement cost-cutting measures across the board in terms of local authority provision. Their hands were tied; do they spend extra money on the building materials by diverting cash from other services merely displacing the hazard to some other area? Then the question is: was the refurbishment necessary in the first place? Undoubtably no it wasn't, but if you have wealthy residents saying they don't like the look of the building and they're responsible for the vast majority of your income, to what extent do you try to placate them? Or do you ignore them entirely and risk them moving out of the area and now you have a lot less cash to spend on anything? With the benefit of hindsight, the answer is clear, but it's not obvious how many things are teetering on the brink of catastrophe given the state of public finances and it's only by good fortune that this disasterous potential doesn't become reality. The only reasonable course of action is to take the least risky pathway. Identifying that pathway is the product of conscientious deliberation by well co-ordinated and clever thinkers, anyone who's worked for a local authority will generally attest to the fact that by and large that isn't what happens. Does that make them criminally, morally or institutionally culpable? It's a hard problem and it only gets more complex and less actionable the more you think about it, supposing your understanding is correct.

On the other hand, you have the LFB, who knew the cladding was a hazard. You could say it shouldn't be there in the first place because it's an increased hazard (obviously true in this case) but there are plenty of substances and materials and environments were an increased hazard is present and the principle is: there is an onus on those responsible to mitigate risk as much as possible however undesirable the situation is. The question is did the LFB take reasonable steps to mitigate the risk given the prior knowledge they had and the most recent findings are that they didn't - they didn't foresee the behaviour of the fire spreading along the cladding and instead stuck rigidly to their 'stay put' policy, they had no plan to evacuate the building at any point even if they'd wanted to.

Think about this investigation in it's entirety as like a stress test. Multiple components are liable to fail (likely to be culpable) but the system will blow out at the weakest point (the point most identifiable and the most easy to ameliorate). That could very easily be the LFB in this case unfortunately for them and saying others were also in part responsible doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable and procedures improved for dealing with something like this in the future, and the system by which systems are improved itself shouldn't be improved within the fire service.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Perhaps, but even if that's the case what do you do about people in powerful positions covering themselves? Being surprised about that is a bit like being surprised by a dog that chooses to bark. Surely the onus is on people to see through this and hold elected people to account better, if it turns out that doesn't happen then purely and simply people got the representatives they deserve.

Without trying to come across as offhandish; you're being intentionally obtuse.

Your entire comment tries to come across as balanced but it's not. Your focus is on the fire service and how it's their faults, but somehow if others are to blame it'll be a toss up.

The LFB knew the cladding was dangerous, and reported it all the way to Eric Pickles, who promptly did what all government figures did with the warnings the LFB and residents gave them; feck all. They also cut budgets. How in the absolute feck can you expect a squeezed service to invest in specialist equipment that they can't afford, or get a different response from the government to dangers they've reported time and time again, or somehow understand and create a plan for a situation they've never experienced before on the fly when it turns out that the standard stop and wait procedure, which should be effective for a minimum of four hours in a building that is up to code and thus prevents a stampede of elderly and children hurling themselves down a single staircase that is not only filled with smoke but engulfed with fire, is worthless because they're effectively dealing with s high rise tinderbox.

The only thing, the absolute only thing that can be put on the LFBs doorstep as a failure is their failure to tell the residents to run down the single stairwell and out of the building. A stairwell that would have been s coffin for many of those who attempted to go down it. The bigger scandal is how this danger was left in the state it was in after repeated warnings. But, yeah, let's let those responsible for that off the hook for the time being because they might get their day in the public eye, but if the public somehow don't put the blame on them as well and continue to purely blame the LFB (due to, oh I don't know, press manipulation...because that NEVER happens) it's pretty much just "oh well, tough shit, people get what they deserve".

feck me.

 

[Moved To Differently]

Without trying to come across as offhandish; you're being intentionally obtuse.

Your entire comment tries to come across as balanced but it's not. Your focus is on the fire service and how it's their faults, but somehow if others are to blame it'll be a toss up.

The LFB knew the cladding was dangerous, and reported it all the way to Eric Pickles, who promptly did what all government figures did with the warnings the LFB and residents gave them; feck all. They also cut budgets. How in the absolute feck can you expect a squeezed service to invest in specialist equipment that they can't afford, or get a different response from the government to dangers they've reported time and time again, or somehow understand and create a plan for a situation they've never experienced before on the fly when it turns out that the standard stop and wait procedure, which should be effective for a minimum of four hours in a building that is up to code and thus prevents a stampede of elderly and children hurling themselves down a single staircase that is not only filled with smoke but engulfed with fire, is worthless because they're effectively dealing with s high rise tinderbox.

The only thing, the absolute only thing that can be put on the LFBs doorstep as a failure is their failure to tell the residents to run down the single stairwell and out of the building. A stairwell that would have been s coffin for many of those who attempted to go down it. The bigger scandal is how this danger was left in the state it was in after repeated warnings. But, yeah, let's let those responsible for that off the hook for the time being because they might get their day in the public eye, but if the public somehow don't put the blame on them as well and continue to purely blame the LFB (due to, oh I don't know, press manipulation...because that NEVER happens) it's pretty much just "oh well, tough shit, people get what they deserve".

feck me.

My initial paragraph was in response to your 'court of public opinion' comment. Real as it may be, I don't think you can consider that a reasonable gauge upon which to predicate your thinking on a complex matter like this. What is it people are after? 'Justice'? What exactly is justice here assuming it exists in absolute terms and that the 'court of public opinion' is on those terms? It's possible people are using Grenfell for disparate reasons. Some are framing it sociologically because they have a problem with wealth inequality. Some are contextualizing it economocially because they don't like austerity. Some are viewing it politically because they don't like conservatives. Some are using it ethically because they don't like corruption or negligence by those in charge. Some see Grenfell as the microcosm for the morality of the perceived disregard by the wealthy for the poor. There are disparate lens through which people view this tragedy and the problems it highlights and that means there are many different ideas of 'justice' - how these different motivations formulate 'public opinion' proportionally speaking isn't clear.

My point is that what is 'justice' here? There's no doubt some want a singular person or set of people who they can point the finger at as being criminally culpable for this, but what if that person doesn't exist? So the next commensurate solution is to find a body of people to direct criminal responsibility at, well unfortunately you can't hold a 'body' criminally responsible, you can however highlight their failings and implement measures to reduce the likelihood or prevent altogether the possibility of a similar undesirable outcome occurring again in the future. I think that's the closest we'll get to 'justice' here and I think the reality is you've got to settle for that. That's as good an outcome as you can expect.

 

[Drainy]

Without trying to come across as offhandish; you're being intentionally obtuse.

Your entire comment tries to come across as balanced but it's not. Your focus is on the fire service and how it's their faults, but somehow if others are to blame it'll be a toss up.

The LFB knew the cladding was dangerous, and reported it all the way to Eric Pickles, who promptly did what all government figures did with the warnings the LFB and residents gave them; feck all. They also cut budgets. How in the absolute feck can you expect a squeezed service to invest in specialist equipment that they can't afford, or get a different response from the government to dangers they've reported time and time again, or somehow understand and create a plan for a situation they've never experienced before on the fly when it turns out that the standard stop and wait procedure, which should be effective for a minimum of four hours in a building that is up to code and thus prevents a stampede of elderly and children hurling themselves down a single staircase that is not only filled with smoke but engulfed with fire, is worthless because they're effectively dealing with s high rise tinderbox.

The only thing, the absolute only thing that can be put on the LFBs doorstep as a failure is their failure to tell the residents to run down the single stairwell and out of the building. A stairwell that would have been s coffin for many of those who attempted to go down it. The bigger scandal is how this danger was left in the state it was in after repeated warnings. But, yeah, let's let those responsible for that off the hook for the time being because they might get their day in the public eye, but if the public somehow don't put the blame on them as well and continue to purely blame the LFB (due to, oh I don't know, press manipulation...because that NEVER happens) it's pretty much just "oh well, tough shit, people get what they deserve".

feck me.

This inquiry is a disgrace.

An absolute stitch up designed to misdirect anger at the frontline. If it's true that this phase doesn't even model the smoke or internal structural damage then making criticisms of decisions made on the ground (in a narrow 20-40 min window, btw) at the point is negligence.

 

[Cockney Phil]

Anyone who saw one of Adam Curtis’ first BBC documentaries in the 1980s would have seen the condition of modern tower blocks. Councils were facing Thatcher’s cuts and the glaring horrors of shoddy buildings and in a deteriorating condition. Originally they were a good idea but irresponsibility dating back to the 1960s rendered them very dangerous and unhealthy. No government has wanted to face the dilemma of pulling them down because of the costs. We need a Royal Commission to examine all tower buildings and make recommendations to improve their safety.

The London Fire Brigade by the end of 2016 was well and truly screwed. Boso had already started a massive programme of selling off their station sites like Downham Road in Hackney which was a major facility for training and support. There were also serious cases of firemen being attacked by idiots while doing their job. The LFB was not in a good place by 2017 and consequently there were managerial failings. We don’t learn anything if we throw out those involved and run witch hunts, their experience would be lost causing further resentment and drop in morale. The LFB needs to be properly examined in a Royal Commission because all our safety is at stake, not hounded and publicly disgraced.

I hope this report is used to restore the capability of the LFB and begin the removal of these tower blocks. Buildings should be limited to the size of the ladders or have extensive fire precautions regularly renewed and revised during their lifetime.

 

[11101]

I hope this report is used to restore the capability of the LFB and begin the removal of these tower blocks. Buildings should be limited to the size of the ladders or have extensive fire precautions regularly renewed and revised during their lifetime.

The rest of the world manages it just fine. I used to live in a building that was way beyond any ladder but it was fireproofed and had refuge floors, sprinkler systems etc. It's surprising that's not law in the UK but these are old council buildings and installing it costs a lot of money.

 

[Maticmaker]

Very unhelpful comment from Ms Lawrence; however everyone seems to be 'saying what they feel' out aloud these days, about anything and everything whether they have anything to do with it or not, then getting blasted for it!

The blame landing on the Brigade yesterday for me doesn't square with the TV pictures seen just after the tragic event, when local residents were seen to be treating the Firemen as heroes, as indeed many of them were that night, and the horror and the sadness of all involved seemed very real to me!

The issue seemed clear, the standing orders for residents in such tower blocks when a fire broke out was to stay in their flats, technical issues relating the fire doors and other fire safety apparatus was deemed capable of containment and giving at least 30 minutes safety, enough time for an evacuation to take place. However no one it appears in the fire brigade knew about the flammable cladding and the rate at which a fire could spread on the outside of the building once this cladding was alight. Tragedy struck!

In the next phase of the enquiry we should hear about that cladding and whether the existing fire safety precautions i.e. fire-doors and fire breaks were all so up to the job and if not who is to blame?

 

[Cockney Phil]

The rest of the world manages it just fine. I used to live in a building that was way beyond any ladder but it was fireproofed and had refuge floors, sprinkler systems etc. It's surprising that's not law in the UK but these are old council buildings and installing it costs a lot of money.

It’s not surprising and these tower blocks are not secured like foreign towers with proper safety regulations.

My family refused to move into a tower in Manchester back in 1970 because of the known problems. I began my post with the Adam Curtis programme from the 1980s - it’s on YouTube - which offers an insight how bad it was then. Since the 1980s successive cuts by councils and progressive privatisation to sleazy landlords has seen a massive reduction in fire prevention through profiteering. The Lakanal House fire in 2009 where 6 people were killed was a warning that went unheard.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...g-to-happen-fire-expert-slams-uk-tower-blocks

 

[SteveTheRed]

An inquiry isn't meant to attribute blame but is designed to identify learning.

It seems all this is doing is causing people to believe this is the LFBs fault.

Very sad really.

Very true, changes to safety training/actions sadly seem to always come at a cost of life.

There are certainly some aspect of the report which identify problems in the LFB...but the reality is it is a due to a massive chain of events and the real blame should never fall on those brave enough to even attend that fire.

We need to continue pressing up the chain for those who are truly responsible for this disaster. Very sad.

 

[TheReligion]

I'm not particularly comfortable with the narrative around trying to force her to resign and lose her pension either. She's been in the fire service since she was 19 and has paid a fortune into her pension pot. Yes her comments were ill advised but that doesn't ruin the 30 years of service she's dedicated to the public.

 

[2 man midfield]

I'm not particularly comfortable with the narrative around trying to force her to resign and lose her pension either. She's been in the fire service since she was 19 and has paid a fortune into her pension pot. Yes her comments were ill advised but that doesn't ruin the 30 years of service she's dedicated to the public.

Who are they trying to force to resign? I haven’t seen that

 

[TheReligion]

Who are they trying to force to resign? I haven’t seen that

A number of people, including some from the Grenfell group, have stated she should resign and not pick up her pension.

She retires in March 2020.

 

[2 man midfield]

A number of people, including some from the Grenfell group, have stated she should resign and not pick up her pension.

She retires in March 2020.

Who’s this though? The chief of the London fire brigade? Has she made some comments which have rubbed people up the wrong way?

 

[TheReligion]

Who’s this though? The chief of the London fire brigade? Has she made some comments which have rubbed people up the wrong way?

Yeah sorry the Chief. She said at the inquiry that they wouldn't do anything differently as you can't plan for such unforseen circumstances (cladding etc). Obviously an inquiry is to identify learning and essentially the stay put policy is outdated and cost lives.

She has since apologised.

 

[Drainy]

Who’s this though? The chief of the London fire brigade? Has she made some comments which have rubbed people up the wrong way?

I've seen journos pressing her on the subject. She defended the frontline fire services judgement on the night

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

What the report found:

• The London Fire Brigade's planning and preparation for such a fire "was gravely inadequate."
• The policy of having people stay in their apartments to await rescue was not lifted until the building was engulfed in flames.
• If the building had been evacuated more quickly, fewer people would have died.
• Brigade Commissioner Dany Cotton was accused of "remarkable insensitivity" for testifying that she would not have done anything differently.
• The fire was started by an electrical fault in a refrigerator in a fourth-floor apartment.
• New aluminum cladding was the "principal reason" the fire spread so quickly up the building.

and

Matt Wrack, the head of the Fire Brigades Union, said that Commissioner Cotton shouldn't be vilified when the fire was the result of the failures of several governments.

"Nobody has ever evacuated a residential building in those circumstances in Britain," he told BBC Radio 4. "Nobody's explained how you would alert residents when there's no common fire alarm system."

Looks to be pretty basic flaws and lack of foresight and planning for all contingencies.

https://www.dw.com/en/grenfell-tower-report-criticizes-london-fire-brigade-response/a-51040916

 

[Drainy]

and



Looks to be pretty basic flaws and lack of foresight and planning for all contingencies.

https://www.dw.com/en/grenfell-tower-report-criticizes-london-fire-brigade-response/a-51040916

I'd say a fire like Grenfell is not a basic event to plan for. It took around half an hour for the fire to become basically unmanageable due to the inadequacies of the building.

The report essentially says that there was a 20 minute window (around half an hour after the first started) where they should have (IN HINDSIGHT) ordered an evacuation and it could have saved lives- not factoring in internal structural problems or smoke ventilation in the flats.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

I'd say a fire like Grenfell is not a basic event to plan for.

I meant not only in firefighting, but in building fire planning too, as in lack of alarms, bad materials, not enough exits, no regular checks etc etc. Like what was quoted, it's failure of several governments

 

[2 man midfield]

Yeah sorry the Chief. She said at the inquiry that they wouldn't do anything differently as you can't plan for such unforseen circumstances (cladding etc). Obviously an inquiry is to identify learning and essentially the stay put policy is outdated and cost lives.

She has since apologised.

Of course they can learn from Grenfell, as you can learn from anything, but to crucify her for basically defending her fire fighters is stupid. I understand the general public wanting a blood sacrifice for what happened that night, but they’re looking in the wrong place. The fire fighters can only fight what’s in front of them, and if that happens to be a giant cube of petrol then their job is a whole lot harder than it needs to be. Far more blame lies with the local authorities who clearly didn’t give a shit that these people were living in an accident waiting to happen, even though they had years to start giving a shit.

I've seen journos pressing her on the subject. She defended the frontline fire services judgement on the night

As she should. In my opinion, anyone blaming the fire services for anything that happened that night needs to have a look at themselves.

 

[TheReligion]

I'd say a fire like Grenfell is not a basic event to plan for. It took around half an hour for the fire to become basically unmanageable due to the inadequacies of the building.

The report essentially says that there was a 20 minute window (around half an hour after the first started) where they should have (IN HINDSIGHT) ordered an evacuation and it could have saved lives- not factoring in internal structural problems or smoke ventilation in the flats.

If the LFB had gone against policy and evacuated the tower any subsequent loss of life (which in a fire like that there would have been) would have had them crucified in the media for failing to adhere to policy.

Its an impossible situation.

 

[Moved To Differently]

I've seen journos pressing her on the subject. She defended the frontline fire services judgement on the night

Of course they can learn from Grenfell, as you can learn from anything, but to crucify her for basically defending her fire fighters is stupid. I understand the general public wanting a blood sacrifice for what happened that night, but they’re looking in the wrong place. The fire fighters can only fight what’s in front of them, and if that happens to be a giant cube of petrol then their job is a whole lot harder than it needs to be. Far more blame lies with the local authorities who clearly didn’t give a shit that these people were living in an accident waiting to happen, even though they had years to start giving a shit.



As she should. In my opinion, anyone blaming the fire services for anything that happened that night needs to have a look at themselves.

Or you could say she cleverly diverted the perceived criticism toward the 'frontline' in order to protect the more senior players in her ranks as well as herself from accusations of ineptitude knowing full well the public would quite rightly have no sympathy for the idea that a firefighter that enters a burning building to save lives was responsible for the loss of life. It doesn't make sense to me that people interpret any possible criticism of the Fire Brigade as an attack on the actual firefighters. If a pundit criticizes a manager for a sub-optimal outcome as a result of poorly devised strategy are they necessarily criticizing the players? No, the two aren't mutually inclusive and we're capable of differentiating the two, so why don't people seem to be doing that here? You'd imagine the LFB like any major public service has a sizable organisational structure that's in some ways entirely seperate from the actual firefighters. Why can't they be held to account if the perception is, or the evidence suggests they got it wrong? What if their planning was inadequate and that needlessly endangers the lives of both the public and the firefighters who follow their policy?

This commissioner could be playing the game of diverting attention to the actual frontline knowing full well no one would pull the trigger and so the seniors are protected.

 

[Moved To Differently]

If the LFB had gone against policy and evacuated the tower any subsequent loss of life (which in a fire like that there would have been) would have had them crucified in the media for failing to adhere to policy.

Its an impossible situation.

That's absolutely not the case, we all saw the pictures of the building entirely ablaze and the charred skeleton it left behind. There's no way a reasonable person could see that and believe they were wrong to order an evacuation.

 

[TheReligion]

That's absolutely not the case, we all saw the pictures of the building entirely ablaze and the charred skeleton it left behind. There's no way a reasonable person could see that and believe they were wrong to order an evacuation.

You can't say that with certainty at all.

 

[Moved To Differently]

You can't say that with certainty at all.

Almost nothing can be said with certainty, but surely we can agree that only an idiot would believe someone would have had a better chance surviving if they'd had stayed given the outcome. The evacuation methods may have been criticized if there was loss of life/ injury because of timing or people being trampled on the stairwell that could have been prevented, not the evacution decision as such.

 

[LilyWhiteSpur]

Almost nothing can be said with certainty, but surely we can agree that only an idiot would believe someone would have had a better chance surviving if they'd had stayed given the outcome. The evacuation methods may have been criticized if there was loss of life/ injury because of timing or people being trampled on the stairwell that could have been prevented, not the evacution decision as such.

Just an example here, the firemen tell everyone to evacuate which in turns causes a panic and a crush ensues causing loss of life, this goes against the policy of the LFB, and therefore whoever ordered the breach of policy can be held accountable. The policy was clearly wrong though and needs reworking.