Grenfell Tower fire- thread three

[RhythmAndStealth]

Seventeen tragic deaths confirmed so far, six victims provisionally identified.
Number of those who perished feared to rise into triple figures as search proceeds
Search for remaining victims expected to take weeks, sadly it’s considered unlikely that it will be possible to identify all the victims
Names of those still missing start to emerge
Nearly 80 victims being treated across six hospitals, with 15 still in critical care
Hundreds of people displaced and dispossessed, concerned about when and where they will be rehoused

Public inquiry ordered.
Criminal investigation launched.
Serious questions being asked about fire safety regulations, management of social housing, austerity and inequality.
Fire Brigade search of building expected to take weeks due to complexity of building, extent of fire damage and the necessity of undertaking a painstaking fingertip search.

“There must be arrests after this monstrous crime” David Lammy MP

‘Families rehoused last night been left clueless about where to spend next nights. No word from #kccouncil. Chaos.” Emily Maitlis, BBC

“We have to act as if it was our friends, our family in that block” Nick Hurd MP, Policing and Fire Minister

“Someone needs to be held accountable. These deaths could have been prevented.” Local resident to Sadiq Khan

Thread 2
Thread 1

Barchester

Fire safety and making a building safe should never ever be a choice though. It should be a priority. It should never be a question of deciding where to spend x money.

I am amazed its not just a "requirement" or people cant live there full stop. But then it doesnt amaze me as I had to threaten all sorts to get a simple fire alarm sorted out and that was too much trouble....

The cladding was also chosen because of itsgreen rating and made block environmentally friendly or something.

@LanaKanesLeftNippleTassle #

This attitude about "we shouldn't pay politicians / HA chiefs / charity bb" is extremely naive and short sighted.

Don't you want the best people possible working in the third space? You can't be like "ooooh Mr Smith with his awesome Chief Exec skills, could command £15ok / year working for Private Co, or he could come and work for us and earn £30k.

Nope. Not going to attract the best people is it?

Also I'm not sure you understand what 'not for profit is'. It doens;t mean 'don't make a profit on basic services, don't pay people market rates' it means that you don't return profits to shareholders but instead reinvest in the business.

So like, TfL is not for profit. They make a profit on each tube journey, but that gets reinvested back into the infrastructure.

Well you are rude Poe. I've spoken from my experience. If someone else wants to provide more specific information they are very welcome to. I can't believe I'd be so rude to someone trying to answer a question I asked.

It basically involved them scrutinising planning permission, FINISHED drawings and FINISHED heating and electrics drawings.

No, but they had more firefighters, more stations, and more appliances.

Apparently irrelevant in this case. First engine arrived within 6 minutes. No reported shortage of engines nor firefighters. In fact, all we do know is that access was poor, they could only get one aerial platform appliance up to the building because of lack of access to the other sides due to no access road, mature trees and other buidings, leaving nowhere else to site another. We also know the dry risers didn't work. Can't see any sign at all of lack of resources!

This type of cladding has been banned (I believe) in Germany and the US. Why not here?

^^ with type of precedence and this sort of massive risk one wonders about back handers and corrupt Councillors to be honest.

The cladding itself massively hindered fire fighters efforts to douse it.

And furthermore, the same company DID sign off Fire safety certs for residential buildings.

Sylvia, the law around large domestic dwellings doesn't differ much from laws around commercial properties. You would have to meet different standards in a tower block than in a shopping centre or an airport (for example), but who is responsible for what (ie signing off plans and risk assessments) is pretty much the same.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/3804113/cladding-grenfell-london-tower-fire-cause/

^^ cladding already caused a fire but council was fined for failing fire safety but not for the cladding

HelenaDove My MP also voted against private homes being fit for human habitation.

I used to use the phrase 'Come the Revolution' lightheartedly. But when you see how little value is placed on the lives of the most vulnerable??

User, I honestly have not idea what you are talking about.

I'm trying to find out what the fire regulations and inspections are around domestic properties.

You've answered by talking about a commercial company, so I asked you if the commercial company built domestic housing, so that I could work out if what was being inspected were domestic premises.

How that is rude I have no idea.

It's clear London did not have the right equipment to help people

Look at the pictures of the site - there's no access for fire appliances. There used to be a car park, but they built on that. The site itself is very tight with very poor access.

But when you see how little value is placed on the lives of the most vulnerable??

^^ I agree but dont see it as policital party its cross party

Sylvia, there are two main considerations:

• Building regulations (for when I building is build / undergoes substantial changes)
• Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 for when a building is in use

I'm still puzzled by the stay in your flat advice. I know later it was changed to get out but for many it was too late.

Why should people stay in? I know it's probably obvious but I'd rather know for sure. Iirc in 9/11 people were told to stay/return back to their offices but I'm sure no one expected the towers to collapse .

Poe - They didn't build the properties! They inspected them for compliance with all fire safety regulation for commercial and residential properties.

Basically, it's an outsourced job to a specialised company.

'Sylvia, the law around large domestic dwellings doesn't differ much from laws around commercial properties. You would have to meet different standards in a tower block than in a shopping centre or an airport (for example), but who is responsible for what (ie signing off plans and risk assessments) is pretty much the same.'

Emily, I was wondering because I read this online:

'This is a brief guide for Responsible Persons (RP) as designated under The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and indicates how most UK fire authorities will conduct themselves. Fire and Rescue Services (FRS) conduct regular inspections on high risk non domestic premises to ensure they comply with the above order.'

This is from firesafe.org, so I was wondering who did inspect domestic premises, because someone in a previous thread said the law on this had changed and it was not the fire service.

I completely agree Idont. Go back to my example of when I started doing IRM exams. The firms who ditched the high risk cladding could afford to do that because it raised the risk of loss/damage to their business. They would have had to have sprinklers in the building because they wouldn't have been able to transfer their risk to insurers if they didn't.

This Council will probably self insure, it met the minimum standard required for whatever business it was in (landlord in this case). The poor tenants couldn't take the decisions to select a different cladding and install a sprinkler system. They were totally reliant upon the Council exceeding the minimum standard required, which they didn't.

But it's not simply austerity.

The lack of overall vision for safety is infuriating me.

They seem to take a system built with with overall safety in mind then do work that undermines it. But quite possibly the works did tick the boxes of current planning regulation.

Money was spent on that block.

'Sylvia, there are two main considerations:

• Building regulations (for when I building is build / undergoes substantial changes)
• Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 for when a building is in use'

Someone on the previous thread said that the law had been changed so that the fire service do not inspect after building work, and it has become a tick box exercise which is done by the owner. Is this not true?

No - If I build a property, I can't personally sign off on its fire safety. That has to be done by a professional authorised company.

I'm hoping in your case it's ignorance rather than rudeness.

A fire can't stay contained if apartment doors are left open or fire doors in a hallway propped open. The investigation will look into this I'm sure.
What baffles me is why a person wouldn't purchase (although often free) their own smoke detector? Especially since the tenants (assuming all tennents attended one or some of the meetings) and knew the current system was lacking modern features?

I hope many people will attend the protest tonight. I would do if I were in London.

Out2pasture, by the time the smoke hit the higher floors and activated their alarms, the building was smothered in smoke.
One lovely lady only got out because in her own words 'I woke up to pee and heard sirens outside'.

out I believe they had smoke alarms but not central fire alarms.