To just leave, despite what emergency services say!

[beckysamantha91]

Long time lurker, first time poster, however - I'm watching a documentary on Grenfell, everyone who got told to stay to basically died and everyone who ignored it and left survived. It was exactly the same for the 2nd tower in 9/11 - they were all told to stay and those who did ended up dying.

Is it just me who thinks if I am ever in a dangerous situation and told to stay, I'm better off taking my family and running?

I also understand that the emergency service s are doing the best they can, but I still think in those situations where communication (and knowledge) is limited but critical, you're better off taking your chances?

Get out and stay out

Yep. That’s what I’d do.

I work in construction, and it really doesn’t matter what a building is designed to do, it matters how it was constructed and how it is operated.

Do you trust the guy on minimum wage to properly install the fire barrier? The over stretched building inspector to check every seal? The hired-because-they-were-cheapest contractor not to drive down costs on hidden materials? The other tenants to keep fire doors closed and not store combustibles in the corridor?

Fire plans are theoretical, designed using computer programmes based on real world scenarios but with best case assumptions. Twin towers were thought to be capable of withstanding an aircraft impact. But when they were designed, the big aircraft were not widely used. And recent renovations had damaged fire protection, as did the impact, that’s why they fell.

On the other hand, evacuation plans, especially in newer buildings are over designed and assume all the seemingly bizarre human behaviours. If it’s on fire, I’m getting out.

I'm a get out & stay out girl. I have had it pointed out to me before that selfish survives & in these situations, the urge to save your own life kicks in strongly. It's a cliche example, but I remember reading that along side reasons such as crew procedure failure & design flaws, one of the biggest killers on Titanic was that people who were used to being told what to do waited to be told what to do- by which point it was too late. Third class survivor Margaret Manion noted that a lot of fellow survivors didn't necessarily display the best side of human nature in getting themselves to positions of safety - but they survived.

Also having worked as shop staff, if we tell you to get out of a building because we believe there's a fire or a bomb threat- FUCKING GET OUT. We are responsible for getting you out. We don't care that you "just want to buy one thing", we have a duty to get you out. But we're not going to die because you had to have new socks. I'm no good to me dead.

Also having worked as shop staff, if we tell you to get out of a building because we believe there's a fire or a bomb threat- FUCKING GET OUT. We are responsible for getting you out. We don't care that you "just want to buy one thing", we have a duty to get you out. But we're not going to die because you had to have new socks. I'm no good to me dead.

Amen to that! Having worked in hotels, pubs and restaurants and a shop in a train station, it's a bit of a no win situation. On the one hand when the alarm sounds and there's no immediate sign of danger (smoke or flames) then many want to finish their pint/meal/transaction before they leave. But once there's an imminent danger, like smoke, flames or a confirmed terror threat, panic sets in and there's a stampede.
And yes to whoever said people will automatically try and leave the same way they came in, I have seen this in practice a few times.
Namely in a hotel where we had a sensitive fire alarm and shit design meant that a shower set the fire alarm off if the bathroom door wasn't fully shut. I worked nights, alone, and I had plenty of practice because the damned thing used to go off regularly at night. But each and every time there would be someone (at least one) who had walked past several fire exits to leave by the main door. Half asleep and not thinking straight. I think because mentally we know the way out as the way we came in and we are so used to seeing fire exit signs and instructions that they don't stand out. It was only when I intercepted them and said to leave by the nearest exit that they had a lightbulb moment and used a fire exit. Had the main exit been blocked I'd like to think they'd have that lightbulb moment and use the nearest one.
Of course the temptation as well was to be complacent in this scenario, thank God I never was because one night there was a fire, in a room, caused by smoking out of the window (pissed) and catching the voile alight.
They fled the room, I investigated on the alarm sounding and saw smoke coming from under the door. Terrifying moment, I was frozen with indecision. But I evacuated the hotel and called the fire brigade, I didn't open the door due to the fire training I had. To do so would have put the whole building at risk, more so because I was the only member of staff, had I opened that door and been overcome by smoke or flames had come out with a flashover the end result might have been catastrophic. Instead I had everyone out, including an elderly couple who needed assistance and the fire was contained in the room. I often think about how I'd feel if someone had still been in the room, but I had no way of knowing what the concequences of me opening that door were going to be. It was the first place the fire brigade went. I'd already accounted for the guest by then but it was an awful decision to make.

My husband works in NYC and we have several friends who were at 9/11. He has 100% decided if there was anything happening anywhere near the floor of the building he’s on, he’ll get the hell out of there as quickly as possible.

Rick Rescorla, the Head of Security for Morgan Stanley on 9/11, led over 2,000 people out of the twin towers. He perished after going back in to lead more people to safety. Thank God they didn’t stay in the building.

I used to live in a 6 floor appartment block (built in 1925 - no idea what fire safety features there were).

Twice there was a fire. Once ground floor. Once 5th & 6th floor.

Neither times we evacuated. We could see police & fire brigade outside. DH went out to investigate but we were told to stay put. Both times we had very young children. I was a bit anxious but didn't want to drag them out in the middle of the night in the rain (January) and I didn't want to panic my eldest.

We've since moved to a flat that is easier to evacuate and I do feel better about it.

The event I was most pissed off about was going off to work one day to find a car downstairs being investigated by the bomb disposal squad. They didn't evacuate nearby flats, and let me walk right by them

Also having worked as shop staff, if we tell you to get out of a building because we believe there's a fire or a bomb threat- FUCKING GET OUT. We are responsible for getting you out. We don't care that you "just want to buy one thing", we have a duty to get you out. But we're not going to die because you had to have new socks. I'm no good to me dead

My DH is a fire warden in his office and had refresher training this week. He said that the trainer said that last time they did a drill there were people on the 10th floor having a meeting who airily said it was a drill and wouldn't move. They didn't know it was a drill. I think I would lose it, badly. Like "get the f out of here RIGHT NOW because I am not dying because you are f-ing selfish and full of your own importance". Might be career-limiting but what is wrong with these people?

It used to really scare me when I was a manager, that if I was in charge of getting everyone out in a fire, someone could kill me because they were more interested in trying on skirts than saving their own lives & taking mine with them because I would have to stay (against my own instinct to flee asap) and get them out. I had a mental "fuck this I'm off" point if anyone really proved stubborn but I would have been held responsible had they died ... they wouldn't have been held liable if I'd died trying to get them out.

A friend once had to evacuate her store due to water flooding her electrics, fire dept said to calmly but firmly tell everyone to get out asap. She had people complaining that they hadn't been able to make their purchase (through her computerised, wired in till) before they left, despite the lights flicking & crackling!

I remember as a child watching a programme that gave me nightmares, it was a drama but based on Bethnal Green tube station in the war - people were killed in the crush getting in or out (can’t remember which) of the air raid shelter. That’s presumably part of the reason for people staying out, as well as the fact that it was believed the flat construction was safe ie fire doors etc, no one knew the cladding danger

*put, not staying out

"@jennymor123 Which means that the Grenfell residents will still be experiencing health issues from this decades from now."

They are and will be. Survivors and nearby residents all suffer from "the Grenfell cough". But toxicology tests were either not undertaken on the deceased or any that were are being kept under wraps. Blood tests on survivors were not taken until over two weeks after the event. No blood tests were taken from firefighters. Now the NHS is going on about spending £50m to screen Grenfell residents for asbestos. But they're not talking about screening for hydrogen cyanide; I wonder why? It's sneaked out between the lines that many people died from toxic fumes, however - so surely the survivors/ residents need to be screened for those, not just asbestos.

When residents phoned fire service operators, they were asked if they could see/smell smoke and if they couldn't that they should stay put. But what I want to know is why doesn't the stay put policy take account of the fact that the deadliest fumes are not detectable with human senses? Yes, if fire-stopping is perfect, it might not be a problem; but it's debatable if that's the case in any tower block; and certainly wasn't the case at Grenfell - which the fire services knew about, or should have.

I used to work in the MOD as a civvie. Advice was always to evacuate, except in the event of a mortar attack when we had some specific instructions.

@jennymor123 the way they have been treated is horrific.

I once had to run a "secret" evacuation drill at work. I had to pick random envelopes from a pile that told me what time to trigger the alarms, what the reason was for the alarm and then I did it. We were observed and the company risk assessment were updated as a result. The staff members who evacuated quickly to the muster point would, in the scenario given to me killed us all by lighting up cigarettes once out as we were evacuated an imaginary gas leak scenario. Sobering when the observers told us that we were "dead".

Really made me appreciate drills though.

@HelenaDove

I agree. I've been working closely with survivors and have had to reverse the way I look at the Grenfell Inquiry. Instead of listing what the government/authorities have failed to do, it's simpler to list what they actually have done by way of helping the survivors get the truth and justice. And, honestly, I'm struggling to think of anything.

There are examples everywhere of the failures, although many don't seem obvious unless you push below the surface. For example, how come it's only now that survivors are giving their witness statements? Shouldn't they have been first? Then, those that followed could have been questioned on specific issues raised by the survivors.

Also, the Inquiry is following the tried and tested establishment practice of rather than investigate what went on, they instead simply record people's statements. The first survivor last week brought up the fact that the new windows let in air even when closed. This should of course have been opened up by an investigation: who's responsible? But instead, the Inquiry solicitor just makes a note and moves on.

There is so much money involved that there is a reluctance to push too far below the surface.

A lot of the companies and contractors are carrying on as normal. As the attitude towards the Chalcots residents proves.

I agree. Someone else on here brought up the issue of how the contribution that burning furniture made to Grenfell Tower is being suppressed. It's no surprise: as they said, the government proved a few years back that the UK's furniture flammability regulations mostly don't work. This means we're all paying for sofas/mattresses full of toxic chemicals that do not prevent fire spread anyway. The government has the means to put it right but is failing to do so. Because of this the fire/toxicity in Grenfell was worse than it should have been.

Imagine if that becomes fully revealed? The chemical industry will lose millions per year for a start (because they're products are not needed in furniture). But so will the UK furniture industry, if only by millions of people demanding recalls. And the government will be considerably embarrassed - as it should be.

Not to mention those who make a lot of money by promoting flame retardant chemicals, some of them unfortunately high up fire safety officials.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/12/toxins-found-in-grenfell-tower-soil-study-finds

I can’t remember where I heard it but “those who move survive” has stuck in my head for years

@HelenaDove

PHE England have been bordering on criminally negligent. Without going into too many details, Stec had to all but sneak those soil samples out because no one was cooperating. PHE have also failed to produce any results on measuring the levels of flame retardant dust in UK homes, despite purchasing a massively expensive machine to do so around 5 years ago. (Prof. S Harrad has been doing that work for some time and discovering that UK homes have the highest concentration of some of the most toxic FR dust in the world - wonder why PHE wouldn't want to expose that?).

Anna Stec was also one of the authors of a paper in December last year that proves that a chemically treated UK sofa (which just about all of them are) is actually more dangerous than an untreated EU sofa (which most of them aren't) - because a UK sofa gives off large amounts of hydrogen cyanide from the flame retardants in it as soon as it catches fire:

www.researchgate.net/publication/321631839_Flame_retardants_in_UK_furniture_increase_smoke_toxicity_more_than_they_reduce_fire_growth_rate

Stec knows that furniture contributed massively to the toxic smoke and fall-out debris, etc, from the Tower, so let's hope she raises the issue now she's an Expert Witness to the Inquiry. She's also been trying to get hold of figures for cancers in firefighters but is consistently blocked by fire service sector officials who let's say are very fond of flame retardants.

Good God.

Matt there is a long running thread on the In the News board which ive kept updated with articles about and relating to Grenfell and social housing. I also have a thread on here "Housing Associations are you having problems"

Im a social housing tenant myself and have experienced sharp tactics from a HA But the things i have read and known about relating to/similar to Grenfell (attitudes to tenants) have been some of the worst things i have seen in my life.

MattRess that is extremely alarming information, but good that you are bringing it to our attention.

I've spent many years working on the issue of flame retardants in furniture (and other products). Believe me, it's one of the biggest scandals affecting every single person in the UK. The FR industry is immensely rich and powerful (Tony Blair has strong connections with them and indeed was one of the main movers for getting the Furniture Flammability Regulations put in place - however, if you check his Hansard speeches, it's interesting that he keeps referring to the need for chemically treated furniture, even though the law doesn't specify chemicals) and has been manipulating the Grenfell Inquiry from Day One - well, actually from some time before Day One.

Check out, for example, Dr Malcolm Tunnicliffe:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/14/doctor-recounts-night-of-grenfell-tower-fire-our-first-wave-of-patients-came-in-at-345am

There is much that is highly suspicious about this, not least that he's speaking on the very day of the fire. First, why was he talking to the press at all? Any surgeon would know this could prejudice the inevitable inquiry. Second, how would he know there was no cyanide poisoning without testing? Especially, when his own hospital contradicted him later anyway, stating that 3 of the victims he treated did in fact have cyanide poisoning. But most suspicious of all, why he is talking about furniture - how would he know - and why is he lying? i.e. while it's true that older foam in furniture can be toxic; foam in newer (post-1988) is far more toxic because it contains FRs.

This is exactly the same line that the FBU is taking, and they know it's untrue. Why? Well, remember I mentioned that some high-ranking fire officials are in the pay of the FR industry . . .

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/10/grenfell-survivor-says-firefighters-had-to-abandon-rescue-of-disabled-father?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Add message | Report | Message poster
HelenaDove Sat 13-Oct-18 15:15:19

i dont know why the link is showing the wrong title.

"Grenfell refurb details 'kept secret to protect commercial interests'

Demand for information from landlord was denied to protect contractor, inquiry told

A Grenfell Tower resident’s demand for information from his landlord about how decisions were being made about the building’s refurbishment was dismissed to protect the “commercial interests” of the contractor Rydon, it has emerged.

In September 2014, almost three years before the disaster that claimed 72 lives, Ed Daffarn made a request under the Freedom of Information Act to see the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation monthly minutes about the refurbishment project, including input from Rydon and the architecture firm Studio E. The request was refused because release might “prejudice the commercial interests of the contractor”.
Grenfell: the 72 victims, their lives, loves and losses
Read more

On Wednesday Daffarn told the inquiry into the disaster that the minutes could have revealed that two months earlier zinc cladding had been swapped for combustible plastic-filled cladding, which leaked emails have shown saved the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea almost £300,000.

“If we had seen that they had replaced non-combustible materials with combustible materials we could have publicised it and campaigned against it,” he said. “I didn’t have the information I needed to know just how unsafe our homes really were. The thought that if I had been given this information I could have done something about it continues to cause me anguish.”

Daffarn complained separately to the landlord that residents were not asked about the type of cladding and that they had not seen samples of new windows, newly released emails show.

The tenant management organisation (TMO) said residents had been consulted, but Daffarn told the inquiry: “As far as I can see, we were only ever informed about the zinc product. The fact that the product was changed, and the reasons for the change, were withheld from us.”

The cheaper combustible cladding was instrumental in spreading the fire, experts have told the inquiry, and it has been banned by the government on residential buildings more than 18 metres tall

Several of the bereaved and survivors giving evidence have complained about the way the refurbishment was handled. Daffarn claimed that the TMO had threatened to “smash down the door” of any tenant or leaseholder that failed to cooperate, but this was denied by the TMO.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more

Earlier on Wednesday Samuel Daniels, whose disabled father, Joseph Daniels, died in the fire, described the relationship between residents and Rydon as “toxic”. He told the inquiry it was clear the project was “designed to benefit those looking at the block, not those of us who were living in it”.

Daniels described how firefighters who tried to save his father appeared not to be wearing breathing apparatus and had to abandon the mission amid confusion about the layout of the building. He said they turned back “totally petrified” from an attempt to save his father who he had left on the 16th floor flat because he was disorientated and could not be persuaded to leave. Joseph Daniels was found dead in the lobby outside his flat.

“They could not tell which floors they were on as there were no signs,” he said. “I ran with the firemen, and it felt like I was running away from my father.”

He described how fire alarms that worked before the refurbishment did not go off and that for at least 30 minutes he smelled smoke but did not try to evacuate because he heard no alarm

When he got to the base of the blazing tower he looked up and felt sure his father was dead, he said.
Grenfell survivors tell how they ignored advice to 'stay put'
Read more

“I could see countless people in their flats looking out of their windows or hammering on their windows not knowing what to do; sometimes it was entire families,” he said. “People were jumping from their windows.”

Branislav Lukic, who lived on the 11th floor, told the inquiry he went back into his flat to make sure his flatmate made it out, and he rescued Clarita Ghavimi, who he found in a panic on the 10th floor as thick black smoke filled the communal areas. He threw her over his shoulder and took her down to safety.

“I still have feelings of guilt that I was not able to help more people who did not make it out. We lost two people from my floor, and I could not help them when I was escaping the building,” he said.

Describing the smoke and the heat, he said: “I remember what it felt like every day. I am really struggling with my mental health, and am finding it really difficult to cope.”

He said the fire had “made me an entirely different person”.

The inquiry continues."

I never thought of something as trivial as having signs to say which floor could be so important. Thanks to the last two posters for posting that information, horrifying though it is.