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

I think they can investigate the composition of the cladding very quickly.

From the BBC:

Government statement on cladding
Posted at
12:31
There has been speculation over whether the cladding used to cover Grenfell Tower contributed to the speed at which the fire spread.

BBC Newsnight has reported that the exterior cladding on Grenfell Tower, added in 2015, had a polyethylene - or plastic - core instead of a more fireproof alternative.

Now comes a statement from the Department for Communities and Local Government: "Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance.

"This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.

"We cannot comment on what type of cladding was used on the building - this will be subject to investigations"

X-post with Rhythm.

I guess it depends on "guidance" and what happens if you don't follow it.

I totally see with this Bertie:

-- Notes - I don't know if it's helpful in this case to go after the source of the fire if it was a common source such as a malfunctioning appliance or a discarded cigarette. Faulty wiring which could have been addressed with proper checks and maintenance, yes, but tenant furniture, smoking, cooking errors etc are not fully realistic to prevent, and in any case, the major problem here was the fact that the fire wasn't contained, not that it started in the first place. Fires start every day, but few cause this scale of devastation. For the same reason although I can see that flame "retardant" furniture may have exacerbated issues I don't know that it's a major factor to look at in this case as residents could potentially have any kind of problematic contents in their houses, for example hoarding of papers, combustible chemicals, as well as old furniture which doesn't meet requirements. Both are important issues, but I don't (personally) think they are relevant to Grenfell.

The problem is that the fire spread, and spread rapidly, from its original source. Apparently because of the cladding. Everything else in the list is secondary to that.

Guidance is not legally binding, as far as I'm aware. It is just a recommendation, compared to the regs themselves which are legally binding statutory instruments.

It sounds like maybe the plan after Lakanal House was to update the regs to include issues like the cladding composition in regs rather than just guidance - but this was then delayed as we all know :(

That should say "I totally agree" not see.

Completely non-professional opinion, but surely it takes 10mins to look inside and see if the core is polyurethane or mineral? Surely they look very different?

Is there a reason why this being "official" needs to wait for an enquiry and not be released by the LFS?

I am sure that they- the company who manufactured the panels, the company who fitted the panels and those who ordered and paid for the panels, together with the LFB know what the panels are made from.

What's the link for that quote?

I don't see it on the BBC.

PigletJohn

www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-london-40239008

Scroll down the timeline to 12.31

I also don't see it on the website of the Department for Communities and Local Government:

www.gov.uk/government/announcements?departments%5B%5D=department-for-communities-and-local-government

thanks

The statement says very clearly "this material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height". Saying 'should' implies that the guidance has some force and compliance is required.

If that is the case, this should most definitely lead to corporate manslaughter prosecutions.

I want to thank Rhythm and Stealth for keeping this thread going, and again thank Helena for having drawn attention to these issues over and over again.

They can establish the material pretty much immediately though. There are chunks of it on and around the tower for testing, and the company that made it will record the materials it uses.

The company that installed it looks dodgy AF - it's gone bust but was bought by another company owned by the same person. A classic phoenix company scenario. No wonder the owner is in hiding.

It will be interesting to study the actual text of the regulation they have in mind.

I was interested to see that the announcement uses the word "should" and not "must."

I have just noticed that this thread, and the two preceding ones, are in chat and will disappear after 90 days. I'm not sure if that's right-although it might be- I feel like he questions and answers and information shouldn't be lost.

www.facebook.com/presstvuk/videos/1808430345850347/

Has this been posted already?

Thanks for this thread
News orgs are not providing much info tbh.

"Guidance" is the get out clause for many things isn't it.

Very powerful lobsterface.

DH and I were saying yesterday that if this had happened in South America or Indonesia then the Red Cross, International Rescue etc would be there within hours. Could the Army not even be called into help and at least make it look like the authorities gave a damn.

I used to work in a role that had mandatory procedures, and also guidance.

The mental gymnastics utilised by the management to interpret the meaning of words to get us to cut corners was immense.

'Should' & 'must' are two perfect examples of that (pigletjohn's post).

Some of us refused point blank to do things that we believed were not in the spirit of the wording, some did whatever they were told, many refused but caved under pressure.

This happens everywhere.

I think BRC are there. The argument I've heard is why did we know almost immediately how many people died on 11/9 but we have no idea for this? I guess that there are signing in procedures in an office which makes that easier but then all of that would have gone when they collapsed.

I saw the BBC said around 500 people lived there - I don't believe it's a conspiracy but I am baffled as to where some 400 people are if only 30 are missing.