Rees Mogg uses common sense to flee burning building.

[longwayoff]

Or, he would, if he were to find himself in that situation. Having previously insulted the medical knowledge and expertise of a leading neurologist, he now advises ignoring fire service advice, saying those who died in Grenfell lacked common sense and should have left the building. AIBU to say this man's ignorance is an embarrassment and he is unfit for public service?

ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/the-grenfell-tower-fire-as-a-breach-of-the-right-to-life/

The Grenfell Tower Fire as a Breach of the Right to Life
Daniela Nadj - 6th November 2019 OXHRH
Access to Justice
"Considered one of the worst man-made disasters in post-World War II Britain, the Grenfell Tower fire of June 14th, 2017 is a breach of the right to life, an assault on human dignity and a manifestation of stark inequality in the UK. The fire was a foreseeable consequence of collective political inaction to regulate health and safety in tower blocks. It was also the result of decades of deregulation in the housing sector.

The fire started in a faulty fridge freezer on the 4th floor of the 24storey, 120-flat residential block in West London, rapidly spreading throughout most of the building and engulfing the outside cladding within 45 minutes. 72 people lost their lives, 70 were injured, and 223 people escaped the building. Most of the residents were working class and of BAME background.

The fire speaks to the failure of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, one of the wealthiest boroughs in the country, to adequately regulate social housing. In April 1996 it had sub-contracted the management of its entire social housing stock to a private entity, the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (‘KCTMO’). Yet neither deemed it necessary to provide adequate health and safety regulations, such as sprinklers, and working fire alarms, which could have saved lives on the night, as stated in the recent Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 Report. And most significantly the Council signed off on a refurbishment contract with the contractor Rydon, which wrapped the tower in highly flammable ACM cladding in a drive to save cost.

The lack of health and safety regulation is therefore a clear a failure on the part of the state to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’) 1950. The Human Rights Act 1998 requires public authorities to act in a manner that is compatible with the ‘Convention rights’ set out in section 1. (HRA 1998, s 6) It also requires domestic courts to interpret legislation so far as possible in a manner that is compliant with the ECHR, and empowers courts to award damages where Convention rights have been violated. The ECHR must be interpreted ‘in the light of its object and purpose’. Central to this is the doctrine of ‘effectiveness’, which requires courts to give the fullest weight and effect to the underlying purpose of protecting human rights. The justification for the doctrine of effectiveness is that member states cannot protect Convention rights simply by inactivity but under certain circumstances are required to undertake positive actions to protect rights, even if this requires expenditure.

Article 2 therefore includes a positive substantive obligation on states to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within their jurisdiction. Where a violation of the substantive positive obligation – namely, the state being obliged to institute and maintain an ‘effective system of deterrence’ against the threat to life in Article 2 – is established, compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage are in principle possible as part of the range of redress available. It is therefore possible, that the Council could be made liable in judicial review proceedings for its systemic regulatory failures, as the residents only discovered, post-Grenfell, that their homes were unsafe. This could form an ongoing violation of Article 2 of the ECHR, even in a domestic court of law.

On the 14th of every month, the community around Grenfell gathers to remember those whose lives were lost on the night of the fire. Walking in silence has taken on a symbolic power; it is an expression of quiet defiance in the face of a tremendous amount of injustice and institutional indifference. The residents who have formed the umbrella group Grenfell United, have vowed not to give up their fight for justice until they get it. Such justice must encompass potential lawsuits under the Human Rights Act 1998, as well as criminal charges against those entities who manufactured the ACM cladding and were instrumental in the refurbishment of the tower"

Well he was right in one way. The Ethiopian man whose apartment the fire started in used his common sense and saved many lives. He ran in his bare feet telling his neighbours that they needed to get out, actually being shocked and berating one neighbour for packing a bag.

So I do see what he means, when common sense was being used people were escaping. It was only when the fire brigade got involved and started with rules and procedures that it went wrong?

I don’t know if anyone watched the TV ‘A Confession’ recently. It is the true story of a serial killer, Chris Halliwell. He was arrested for kidnapping a young woman called Sian O’Callaghan a few days earlier. The arresting officer asked where Sian was without reading him his rights (including right to silence) or waiting for a solicitor. He led them to Sian who had been dead from just after she went missing. Normally at that point he should have been cautioned and taken to a solicitor at the station. But then he suddenly said he was going to take them to another body (later confirmed to be Becky Godden-Edwards) which he did, still without being cautioned because the officer knew if he was cautioned he’d clam up. This was true, he’s never admitted anything else despite telling his daughter he killed 8 women and a stash of 60 items of womens’ ‘trophy’ clothing found including Sian’s boots and Becky’s cardigan.

When it went to court his confession about Sian was accepted despite no caution because she may still have been alive so it was acceptable to do whatever it took to locate her.

But the judge ruled that his confession to Becky Godden-Edwards murder and the fact he’d led them was inadmissible because he hadn’t been cautioned properly so that was dropped. It took her family 6 years to eventually get justice.

If that policeman hadn’t acted as he did they probably wouldn’t have found either of their bodies, they were well hidden and the police weren’t looking in those areas. He would still be out there now killing more women if he’d stuck to pace, neither of them would ever have been found and returned to their families. And he would have been released in another 15 years if Godden’s family hadn’t fought to get justice for her. Halliwell now has a whole life tariff.

The policeman concerned was drummed out of his job, lost his pension and has to earn a living as security in Mogadishu now, which is incredibly dangerous. The families of other murderer cases and both Becky and Sian’s families support him and what he did - but it makes no difference.

He used his common sense. He realised that if someone is confessing to multiple murders, the last thing you need to do is discourage them from confessing.

I think this is a similar sort of thing, sometimes when rules and procedures aren’t going to work in a a particular situation it should be made easier for professionals to use their judgement and scrap rules that clearly aren’t working.

Because that Ethiopian man saved many lives by using his common sense, the fire brigade did not.

Maybe we should put him in a burning tower block with blocked stairwells and see how he calmly uses his common sense to leave safely.

Because that Ethiopian man saved many lives by using his common sense, the fire brigade did not.

Many other residents did the same - banging on their neighbours doors to tell them to get out as they passed towards the stairs, and some, once outside, phoning their neighbours to tell them to get out when they could see the scale of the fire.

Whilst he has shown complete lack of compassion and whilst it was against the FB advice - it's not the first block to go up and I would have left. Common sense doesndictate that. I can state this with certainty as i was on floor 26 of a block that had a fire in Asia and i left until it was out.

Obviously you would stay put as the fire service suggest rather than take on many flights of stairs in the dark and thick smoke.

The death toll would have been far higher. Lots of residents got themselves out without being rescued by the fire service who never got above the 15th floor, whereas many people living above that level got out and survived.

I'm no friend to JRM, but the same day as he said this we had the residents' meeting of our flats and we came to the same conclusion. Forget the advice - get out.

The problem is that in many cases the stay put advice is absolutely right. There have been numerous cases of fires in flats that never spread beyond that flat, and people have been safer staying in their own flats than being part of a panicked dash down a narrow stairway. No-one accuses the people who follow Fire Brigade advice in those cases of lacking common sense. The difference is, of course, that those cases have happened in blocks of flats that have been built properly.

There have been numerous cases of fires in flats that never spread beyond that flat

But also many cases where the fire HAS spread. There was Lakanal House long before Grenfell and two others before that in London. Since, we've had the Barking fire which spread from balcony to balcony and also another fire in a timber clad flats building which spread and gutted the entire building (Worcester Park) also London.

Also before Grenfell there were several other high rise fires across the world which spread across the exterior. Breach of compartmentation wasn't a "one off" - it's happened many times.

the cause of the deaths was not fire service advice. It was allowing the landlord to wrap a building in flammable material.

ww.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/13/samuel-garside-residents-move-back-despite-fire-safety-fears?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Barking fire: social tenants told to return despite safety fears

Residents of east London flats say they are being forced back before safety assessments

Social housing residents of a block of flats in east London that was recently engulfed in flames say they are being forced to move back despite safety fears.

All residents at Samuel Garside House in Barking were evacuated after a fire on 9 June. About 100 firefighters and 15 fire engines were dispatched to deal with the blaze. The majority of residents were put in hotel accommodation, while others were rehomed in temporary accommodation.

The landlord for social tenants, Southern Housing Group, has now informed residents that they will no longer receive financial support to stay in alternative accommodation and must return to their flats

Leaseholders will continue to receive financial support for alternative accommodation until September

Social housing residents said they were being forced to move back in before safety assessments were carried out by the building control department of the borough of Barking and Dagenham. These assessments are due to start on 21 August and be completed on 29 August.

The cause of the fire has not yet been determined but experts had previously warned that the building’s wooden balconies could “accelerate fire spread”.

While some of the cladding has been removed, residents have been told it will take several months for it all to be removed. Though a report in June recommended that the existing wooden cladding on the building be sprayed with fire retardant in the interim, this has yet to happen.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more

Twenty flats were destroyed by the flames and a further 10 were damaged by heat and smoke. The worst-affected flats were in blocks C and D, which are largely owned by leaseholders or privately rented. Social housing tenants largely reside in blocks A and B, which were not badly affected.

Peter Mason, the chair of the Barking Reach residents’ association, described the decision to force social housing residents to move back as “disgraceful”. He said: “We will be contacting Southern Housing urgently to protest

“Although they’ve partially removed some decorative portion of the cladding, the vast majority of it remains. If a balcony caught fire, it would spread rapidly from flat to flat. I don’t think they have removed the danger.

Shaun Murphy, a senior solicitor at Edwards Duthie Shamash, is representing several residents at Samuel Garside House. He said: “We are very concerned about the decision of Southern Housing Group to withdraw financial support for the residents. All this has happened prior to the completion of safety reports due at the end of the month, to be undertaken by the London borough of Barking and Dagenham.”

He added: “There is also the outstanding issue of the recommendation of existing cladding still not having been sprayed with adequate fire retardant. All of this has been ignored by Southern Housing Group in forcing residents to go back into Samuel Garside House now.”

The local MP, Margaret Hodge, said: “It is not right that social housing tenants of Samuel Garside House are forced to return to the block whilst private tenants and leaseholders have until September. These families and individuals deserve equal treatment

“I urge Southern Housing to reconsider. Their tenants must be allowed to stay in their temporary accommodation until further repair works and the next fire safety assessments are completed.

A spokesperson for Barking and Dagenham council said: “Residents are understandably concerned about returning home and, despite our limited powers to intervene as this is not a council block, they have asked if we can assess the block’s safety. We have appointed an independent HHSRS [housing health and safety rating system] assessor to determine whether there are any category 1 or 2 hazards and this assessment is due to start on 21 August.”

Chris Harris, the customer services director of Southern Housing Group, said: “Our priority is always the safety and wellbeing of our residents. From the moment the fire was reported, Southern Housing Group has worked with London borough of Barking and Dagenham(LBBD), the London fire service and other stakeholders to ensure that the people affected could return to their homes and normality as soon as possible. None of the properties occupied by Southern Housing Group’s residents were directly damaged by the fire and so they are not being inspected by LBBD. Indeed, the properties were deemed safe for the return of residents by LFS’s fire safety engineer shortly after the fire was extinguished and residents started to return from the afternoon of Tuesday 11 June.”

Harris added: “At no time has there been any suggestion from the London fire service, the council or independent fire safety inspectors that it is unsafe to for Southern Housing Residents to return home.

Case study

Jacqueline, 52, a social housing tenant at Samuel Garside House, said she has not been able to sleep in her room since moving back into her flat. She sleeps in the living room with the lights on instead. She fears the block is not safe to live in, but said her social housing provider has left her with no other option.

“If anything happens, I need to know I can get out quickly because I don’t trust their system to wake me up on time,” she explained. “I live on my own, which makes it even worse.”

Southern Housing, the social housing provider, told Jacqueline that as of Monday 12 August, she would no longer be receiving financial support to stay in alternative accommodation and she could return to her flat.

“My first thought was: is the property safe? What are we moving back into? I don’t feel safe or comfortable at all but I don’t have any choices,” she said.

Jacqueline had lived in her flat for five years and said she became emotional when she thought about the fire tearing through the building while she was sitting in her flat. While there was no physical damage to her flat, she worried that the wooden cladding, which experts have previously warned could accelerate a fire, had not been sprayed with fire retardant and could take months to remove.

“I know people suffered more than me, but no one gets where we are coming from because they just want people in the flats,” Jacqueline said. “I know it’s not on the scale of Grenfell, but it’s only for the grace of God that no one died that day.

If that cladding was on Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle or the Houses of Parliament you can guarantee it would be stripped off and refurbished at taxpayers expense in an instant - no delay, no risks taken.

This highlights what the Tories are all about...yet people will still vote for them next month- to get Brexit done. Sigh.
What planet are the electorate on?

If that cladding was on Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle or the Houses of Parliament you can guarantee it would be stripped off and refurbished at taxpayers expense in an instant-no delay, no risks taken.

Not sure about that - the Palace of Westminster (Houses of Parliament) caught fire 40 times between 2008 and 2012;

"Britain’s Parliament is broken. It is a fire risk. It is insanitary. Asbestos worms its way through the building. Many of the pipes and cables that carry heat, water, electricity and gas were installed just after the war and should have been replaced in the 1970s."

www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/01/a-tale-of-decay-the-houses-of-parliament-are-falling-down

This highlights what the Tories are all about...yet people will still vote for them next month- to get Brexit done. Sigh.
What planet are the electorate on?

They probably assume it would have been no better under any other government.

not only no better, but when you see what else to vote for, the alternative is a lot worst.

So there you go.

And this is why there will be another Grenfell It wont neccessarily be because of cladding. But because of utter utter incompetence like this.........THREAD....,

twitter.com/improvementpls/status/1192114465203982337?s=20

And the hypocritical tokenism over fire safety while they are pulling stunts like this.

WOW - just heard Boris Johnson on Channel 4 news blaming the people in flooded areas of the north of England for their current predicament because 'they have not been heeding the advice of the emergency services'.

Can't believe he dared say it - 2hat will Rees Mogg say? (Oh wait, he isn't being allowed on the campaign trail)

Boris Johnson said: "The worry for me is that there are some people who are continuing not to listen to the advice of the emergency services. I would just say to people – the emergency services do have sound advice. When they advise you to evacuate, you should do so"

........presumably when they advise you not to evacuate, you don't evacuate?

Jesus that article about the HoP is astonishing. If they go up surely it would also put the surrounding buildings (businesses, houses?) and people in danger too? Utter utter madness, why on earth haven't they renovated it decades ago? What's with all the pooh-poohing of sensible advice? Sounds like it's not a case of if, but when

BertieBotts because the House of Commons and House of Lords have had several debates on whether to stay and have the building renovated around them or whether to move out to new premises (not available immediately in Central London) - a cheaper and quicker option.
The building renovations will be extensive and expensive. There is a reluctance of Parliament to move further north to cheaper and more readily available alternatives.
Parliamentarians don't live in Parliament so are not as much as risk as people in buildings were individuals like in self contained homes (with appliances etc not regularly checked)

Yes i saw that report too. Boris and Rees Mogg both victim blaming and goalpost moving.

Did anyone else watch the report on Jaywick,

@StoneofDestiny, saw and heard that and nearly burst a blood vessel. Smirking as he said it. Shameless

Yes - Jaywick has been the subject of many documentaries, but nothing changes. I'm furious benefits money is being handed over to these slum landlords without any prosecutions being brought against them.

Well of course, but I still would think it would be a risk to surrounding buildings, no? I don't really understand why it would be a debate - if it was any other place of work, health and safety would have condemned it. But I don't pretend to be very clued up about politics. And obviously it is even more concerning when thousands of homes around the country (that nobody gets to have any debate about leaving/staying) are still massive fire hazards.