Grenfell Tower Fire | 14th June 2017

[Snowjoe]

I'm game for a good old fashioned mob going after the ministers who turned a blind eye to it.

That’s a long long line of Tory and Labour ministers so I’d imagine we’d have a job of it.

Although that does sound good, take them all down and start fresh.

 

[sullydnl]

If it’s found through the investigation that someone’s broken the law then absolutely send them down and hit them with the book, no problems with that at all. But in the meantime I just feel it’s a better use of advertising to focus protests like this on ensuring safety on existing properties where people are still living.

A less accusatory message would be also be less effective at drawing attention back to the tragedy though. Plus it wouldn't really fit the motif they've lifted from the three billboards film either.

 

[Kag]

I like the idea. It's irrefutable that this disaster has fallen away from public consciousness. It's been demonstrated time and time again that keeping something within the public eye can lead to results. Good on them.

 

[Pexbo]

I like the idea. It's irrefutable that this disaster has fallen away from public consciousness. It's been demonstrated time and time again that keeping something within the public eye can lead to results. Good on them.

This is my view as well @Snowjoe, I appreciate the sentiment of spending money more constructively but history has shown that all gets forgotten when things fall out of the public eye and people who should have been held accountable are allowed to slip off quietly.

As much as anything, this isn't just about justice. The Government promised money to ensure this wouldn't happen again and as yet this is yet to transpire. It's not a case of "I told you so" if a similar indecent happened, it would be a case of more lives tragically lost and families destroyed so it's important that it's kept in the public consciousness and difficult questions continue to be asked.

 

[Damien]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[ShadesOfTomato]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Must say, he went up in my estimations last night.

 

[Valar Morghulis]

Flammable exterior materials need to be banned on apartments. Simple.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Flammable exterior materials need to be banned on apartments. Simple.

Looks like they banned you instead.

I agree @Snowjoe that sort of nonsense on billboards I find very childish, better to work on ways to ensure it does not happen again.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

BBC: Grenfell Tower doors 'resisted fire for half the time expected'

A door from Grenfell Tower could only hold back a fire for half the time it had been designed to, a police investigation has found.

Experts said the flat door was supposed to resist fire for 30 minutes, but only lasted 15 minutes.

A Kensington and Chelsea Council spokesman confirmed three doors were tested and provided "less protection than guidelines recommend", but said test results are "as yet inconclusive".

Synseal [The new owners of the door manufacturers] said that the products in question were no longer being sold.

 

[afrocentricity]

Worst thing is know people living in high rises up that way that haven't been sorted out yet, imagine... fecking shambles.

 

[villain]

And the people who's homes got destroyed are still having to live out of a suitcase and in hotels/accommodation.

It's a disgrace that should get daily condemnation.

 

[Javi]

Worst thing is know people living in high rises up that way that haven't been sorted out yet, imagine... fecking shambles.

What? Where I‘m from you can, as tenant, get a company to do it yourself and send the bill to the landlord if he is not doing anything.

 

[afrocentricity]

What? Where I‘m from you can, as tenant, get a company to do it yourself and send the bill to the landlord if he is not doing anything.

Council high rises?

 

[Javi]

Council high rises?

Law of tenancy says that if the object has substantial shortcomings, which inadequate security surely can be subsumed under, the tenant can, if possible, get somebody to fix it himself at the cost of the landlord.

 

[afrocentricity]

Law of tenancy says that if the object has substantial shortcomings, which inadequate security surely can be subsumed under, the tenant can, if possible, get somebody to fix it himself at the cost of the landlord.

So you're saying that everyone in this highrise could band together theoretically, get the work done, then bill the council? Hmmmm....

 

[Javi]

So you're saying that everyone in this highrise could band together theoretically, get the work done, then bill the council? Hmmmm....

Yup. Just probably not in the UK.

 

[afrocentricity]

exactly.

 

[Jippy]

Jesus, bad timing.

1. Peter Apps‏ @PeteApps 9m9 minutes ago
   The fire alert was a very loud recorded voice saying a fire had been discovered in the building, and everyone should stay where they are while it was investigated.
   
   Show this thread
2. 
   Peter Apps‏ @PeteApps 29m29 minutes ago
   Good lord. Fire alert goes off at the Grenfell Inquiry and everyone is told to 'stay put'. This must be difficult.
   

 

[montpelier]

This ''stay put'' idea is not a great one for me. I can see how it's originated now there are super-efficient alarms everywhere & the theory seems to be that all safety devices are in place & operating to the designed standard. Also allows the emergency services to take charge & work in the most ideal conditions is another justification.

It's perceived that residents are in more danger wandering around than remaining inside (supposedly) fire-proof units is the official line.

In practice the thing is a shambles & justifies not having to provide fire blankets & extinguishers. Also, as we've seen, the state of property & standard of safety work can never be guaranteed anyway.

 

[Mihai]

This ''stay put'' idea is not a great one for me. I can see how it's originated now there are super-efficient alarms everywhere & the theory seems to be that all safety devices are in place & operating to the designed standard. Also allows the emergency services to take charge & work in the most ideal conditions is another justification.

It's perceived that residents are in more danger wandering around than remaining inside (supposedly) fire-proof units is the official line.

In practice the thing is a shambles & justifies not having to provide fire blankets & extinguishers. Also, as we've seen, the state of property & standard of safety work can never be guaranteed anyway.

The "stay put" policy works well if there're all fire compartmentation procedures in place. That means not only fire resistant cladding, but also fire resistant walls and floors, fire resistant doors with self closing mechanism and smoke strips, AOV system, fire alarm etc.

 

[Silva]

A report prepared as part of the police investigation into the Grenfell Tower fire has uncovered calamitous deficiencies in the installation of the windows, cavity barriers and cladding system, and their failure to meet building regulations.

The 210-page interim document, by fire investigation experts BRE Global, is set to dramatically assist the Metropolitan police in their wide-ranging investigation. It was leaked exclusively to the Standard and recounts in forensic detail how the original concrete building was turned from a safe structure into a tinderbox by the refurbishment between 2014 and 2016.

It not only finds the cladding material and insulation was combustible, but also exposes hitherto unknown areas of incompetence relating to the design and installation of the windows and cavity barriers. The latter are critical in closing the gap between the inner and outer skins of the building to prevent a chimney-like effect in the event of a blaze.

It reveals how in the early hours of June 14 last year, the fire started in a single fridge-freezer in a single flat on the fourth floor; travelled through an open window within a metre of the fridge; took hold in the cladding; and consumed an entire 24-storey, 70-metre-high building. A total of 71 lives were lost.

For the first time, the truth of how the refurbishment fell short of building regulations, and allowed a catastrophe to happen, is laid bare.

The first conclusion of the report is that the fire would not have spread beyond Flat 16 — the flat of origin — and would not have claimed even a single life if the original facade of the building had not been re-clad.

It states that the 2014-16 refurbishment failed, in several fundamental areas, to meet fire safety standards set out in the building regulations — known as Approved Document B. Taken together, these areas proved critical for the rapid spread of flames across the length and breadth of the building.

The report, dated 31 January 2018, says: “Grenfell Tower, as originally built, appears to have been designed on the premise of providing very high levels of passive fire protection.

“The original facade of Grenfell Tower, comprising exposed concrete and, given its age, likely timber or metal frame windows, would not have provided a medium for fire spread up the external surface. In BRE’s opinion … there would have been little opportunity for a fire in a flat of Grenfell Tower to spread to any neighbouring flats.”

The experts found instead that “deficiencies” in the construction of the new facade provided fuel for the fire to spread — and that it did so with such ferocity that if the original building had been built to less stringent modern standards of fire resistance, “it is likely the Tower would have collapsed, whether fully or partially”. The report identifies five significant breaches of building regulations that appear directly implicated in the loss of life:

Gaps that fanned fire

The cavity barriers — which in the event of fire are meant to expand and seal the gap between the concrete surface of the building and the cladding insulation — were of “insufficient size specification” to perform this vital function.

Some cavity barriers were installed “upside down” or “back to front”, further retarding their effectiveness.

They were “designed to close a gap of 25mm”, but the actual gap “measured up to 50mm”.

The result was to create a catastrophic chimney-like effect in the gap between the cladding and the concrete surface that “provided a route for fire spread”.

Window frames that helped flames spread

The window frames were “significantly narrower than the gap between the concrete surfaces of the columns, 150mm narrower”, leaving large gaps at either end.

These spaces were filled by a rubberised membrane, rigid foam insulation and uPVC lightweight plastic panels — but crucially “none of the materials used would be capable of providing 30 minutes fire resistance”.

The result was “a direct route for fire spread around the window frame into the cavity of the facade … and from the facade back into flats”.

This has added importance, as the first obstacle the fire encountered as it escaped from Flat 16 was the window frame which provided “fuel” instead of a barrier. BRE says: “The construction of the window did not provide any substantial barrier to fire taking hold on the facade outside.”

Combustible insulation

The insulation used was “combustible” and “provided a medium for fire spread up, across and within sections of the facade”. BRE notes that the 75mm insulation foam used on most of the spandrel beams had “no markings to identify the manufacturer of the foam”, unlike the 100mm Celotex foam insulation used on the columns. BRE records this oddity of the mystery manufacturer but does not further distinguish between the foam types, concluding both were “combustible”.

Flammable core

The aluminium composite material used in the facade had a polyethylene (plastic) core that “appears to be highly combustible” and “appears to have provided a medium for fire spread up and across the facade”.

Lack of door closers

The “absence of door closers” on many front doors to flats, contrary to building regulations, resulted in a significant number of doors being inadvertently left open when residents fled.

“Where this occurred, the fire in each flat appears to have emitted large quantities of smoke and later fire directly into the immediate lobby, and these have gone on to affect the lifts and single stairwell”.

This is a major failing because it created “shortcomings in compartmentation” of the fire and would have affected residents’ life chances as they sought to escape down the single stairwell.

BRE notes that individual breaches relating to the cladding system assume far greater importance when “considered in combination as opposed to when they occur in isolation”.

Firefighting weaknesses

Firefighting facilities were “deficient”, hampered by poor access and lack of installation of a wet rising main.

There was room for just “a single fire engine” on the hard standing at the base of the east side of the tower, as other sides of the tower were not accessible due to landscaping. This single fire engine would be “unlikely to provide sufficient pressure and flow of water for firefighting at the top of the tower” using the dry rising main.

The report says: “A building of Grenfell’s height ought to have been fitted with a wet rising main [which contains water at all times] as part of the refurbishment; instead the existing dry rising main [which has to be supplied from a fire engine] was extended and modified.” BRE cites two other breaches of building regulations — the absence of a sprinkler system and the single stairwell being 8cm too narrow. However it does not necessarily regard these weaknesses as directly responsible for loss of life. It adds that the stairwell would have been “difficult and expensive to change as part of any refurbishment”.

The draft report was submitted to the Metropolitan Police Service so that its interim conclusions could speed up “other parts of the MPS-led investigation”, including gathering documentation and interviewing contractors. BRE was asked to achieve three aims:

“To establish the circumstances surrounding as many deaths resulting from the fire as possible;”

“To establish any failings of duty of care owed to victims of the fire, both fatalities and surviving residents;”

“To provide expert witness support in relation to any criminal prosecution, public inquiry or inquest.”

The Standard understands, from a separate source, that the police investigation has already downloaded over 30 million emails and documents from the servers of Kensington and Chelsea council and the Tenant Management Organisation, and that they are beginning to trace and interview about 500 key contractors and sub-contractors involved in the refurbishment.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...t-turned-tower-into-a-tinderbox-a3814866.html

Politicians have blood on their hands.

 

[Dave89]

https://news.sky.com/story/grenfell-campaigner-theresa-may-is-on-another-planet-11367010

 

[nickm]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...t-turned-tower-into-a-tinderbox-a3814866.html

Politicians have blood on their hands.

Surely the building inspectors do too? It's not just politicians here, surely it's the people who didn't follow the existing regs?

 

[esmufc07]

Inquiry starts today.

 

[montpelier]

and there's a BBC ''Panorama'' on it just finished

nothing new, but some quality ''doorstepping'' of a couple of the ''bad guys''

 

[Jippy]

and there's a BBC ''Panorama'' on it just finished

nothing new, but some quality ''doorstepping'' of a couple of the ''bad guys''

Was a decent programme, albeit all of the protagonists can justifiably (sadly) hide behind the can't comment cos of the ongoing public enquiry defence.

 

[Dave89]

This inquiry is heartbreaking.

 

[Silva]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/grenfell-tower-fire-latest-news-corporate-manslaughter-kensington-council-kctmo-met-police-a7863616.html

 

[Sweet Square]

Speechless

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Pexbo]

Speechless

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Not a lot shocks me on the internet these days but that has completely blown me away. Absolutely horrific.

I’ll never condone social media vigilantism but I won’t be in the slightest bit sympathetic if they expose these cretins and they lose their jobs.

 

[Snowjoe]

Idiots that are better of ignored. But obviously the media will share the video and give them more attention to get as many clicks as they possibly can.

 

[Tommy]

Even as someone who's of the mindset that you can joke about anything at any time, I'm sitting here thinking... Why? Really?

 

[George Owen]

Even as someone who's of the mindset that you can joke about anything at any time, I'm sitting here thinking... Why? Really?

what's the joke?

All i see is just a group of racist white supremacists scumbags being just that.

 

[Heardy]

Not a lot shocks me on the internet these days but that has completely blown me away. Absolutely horrific.

I’ll never condone social media vigilantism but I won’t be in the slightest bit sympathetic if they expose these cretins and they lose their jobs.

To be absolutely clear, I agree that this is in some of the worst taste imaginable!

I do not for one second condone it, but if that is in someone’s back garden (I assume it is) there is no crime committed and there are no grounds for someone to lose their job - on what grounds would they be fired, for being “insensitive in their private life” or having an “abhorrent sense of humour.”

I cannot fathom what would ever go through someone head to think that is a good idea, but I’m not sure someone should lose their entire livelihood for what is bad taste.

 

[Sweet Square]

To be absolutely clear, I agree that this is in some of the worst taste imaginable!

I do not for one second condone it, but if that is in someone’s back garden (I assume it is) there is no crime committed and there are no grounds for someone to lose their job - on what grounds would they be fired, for being “insensitive in their private life” or having an “abhorrent sense of humour.”

I cannot fathom what would ever go through someone head to think that is a good idea, but I’m not sure someone should lose their entire livelihood for what is bad taste.

Yes anyone can be fired for being a massive arsehole. What can't happen is them facing jail time.

 

[Eire Red United]

Twats. What kind of person would even joke about that.

 

[Heardy]

Yes anyone can be fired for being a massive arsehole. What can't happen is them facing jail time.

On what grounds? The two are entirely unconnected. Sure if it negatively impacted the employer or whatever i could see a link. What HR policy would that be in breach of? Without bringing the reputation of the company into disrepute the individual could have s case for unfair dismissal.

Anyone can be an arsehole in their private life, but that may have absolutely nothing to do with their job.

Again, I’m not trying to support the individual - to make a mockery of something like that is abhorrent, but I see no tangible link for them being fired.

 

[VeevaVee]

Just don't get it. And that there isn't one person there who doesn't think that's acceptable?

 

[George Owen]

On what grounds? The two are entirely unconnected. Sure if it negatively impacted the employer or whatever i could see a link. What HR policy would that be in breach of? Without bringing the reputation of the company into disrepute the individual could have s case for unfair dismissal.

Anyone can be an arsehole in their private life, but that may have absolutely nothing to do with their job.

Again, I’m not trying to support the individual - to make a mockery of something like that is abhorrent, but I see no tangible link for them being fired.

???

If a worker doesn't match with the corporate culture of the company, the managers have all the right to fire that ass asap.

 

[golden_blunder]

On what grounds? The two are entirely unconnected. Sure if it negatively impacted the employer or whatever i could see a link. What HR policy would that be in breach of? Without bringing the reputation of the company into disrepute the individual could have s case for unfair dismissal.

Anyone can be an arsehole in their private life, but that may have absolutely nothing to do with their job.

Again, I’m not trying to support the individual - to make a mockery of something like that is abhorrent, but I see no tangible link for them being fired.

Many private companies would not be happy with that. You’re always representing the company even when off work. Many people don’t consider this but the company could be within their rights for firing the individuals if identities are confirmed. That’s why it’s not a good idea to have work colleagues on Facebook etc if you’re a bit of a dick