In the shadow of Grenfell Tower- thread four

[RhythmAndStealth]

Rest in Peace

Isaac Shawo, 5
Khadija Saye, 24
Mohammed Alhalaji, 23

At least thirty people confirmed to have died

Six further deceased victims provisionally identified

Many more people feared to have died. They have yet to be reunited with their names

Nineteen people still in hospital, with ten in critical care

Many people homeless and dispossessed

Many bereaved

Many traumatised

“…it is difficult to escape a very sombre national mood.” The Queen.

Three investigations launched- Fire, Police and Public Inquiry
£5m Government Emergency Fund created
£3m donated by public
Peaceful protesters demand justice and answers.

Thread three (includes links to threads one and two)

Brutal yes. But that and the 'bits of body' theory are relevant.

People need to understand just how difficult it is for the police to come up with a figure and how the council aren't exactly helping matters in various ways.

There definitely needs to be discussion of the 'falling through the cracks' phenomenon too as those at the edge of social are most vulnerable to it. The danger of becoming invisible because of someone's status to people who do care and have the ability to pressure because of their status but just don't know the problems involved.

You have people somewhere in this, who know about this but are not able to whistleblow / challenge it.

That's institutionalised failing of a system.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Contingencies_Act_2004

Stat I agree . I drove past the building today . I cannot envisage how a body could not have been obliterated . I also don't believe they would deliberately downplay it .

That said . Still enough to write To my MP about

I've said upthread, I strongly suspect the council have no bloody idea how many were living there - obviously visitors etc will be more random but IME of council housing admin, they'll be utterly clueless.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/36/pdfs/ukpga_20040036_en.pdf

Civil Contingencies Act 2004

1 Meaning of “emergency”
(1) In this Part “emergency” means—
(a) an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom,
(b) an event or situation which threatens serious damage to the environment of a place in the United Kingdom, or
(c) war, or terrorism, which threatens serious damage to the security of the United Kingdom.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) an event or situation threatens damage to human welfare only if it involves, causes or may cause—
(a) loss of human life,
(b) human illness or injury,
(c) homelessness,
(d) damage to property,
(e) disruption of a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,
(f) disruption of a system of communication,
(g) disruption of facilities for transport, or
(h) disruption of services relating to health.

Well that seems to cover this quite easily.

2 Duty to assess, plan and advise
(1) A person or body listed in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 1 shall—
(a) from time to time assess the risk of an emergency occurring,
(b) from time to time assess the risk of an emergency making it necessary or expedient for the person or body to perform any of his or its functions,
(c) maintain plans for the purpose of ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, that if an emergency occurs the person or body is able to continue to perform his or its functions,
(d) maintain plans for the purpose of ensuring that if an emergency occurs or is likely to occur the person or body is able to perform his or its functions so far as necessary or desirable for the purpose of—
(i) preventing the emergency,
(ii) reducing, controlling or mitigating its effects, or
(iii) taking other action in connection with it,
(e) consider whether an assessment carried out under paragraph (a) or (b) makes it necessary or expedient for the person or body to add to or modify plans maintained under paragraph (c) or (d), (f) arrange for the publication of all or part of assessments made and plans maintained under paragraphs (a) to (d) in so far as publication is necessary or desirable for the purpose of— (i) preventing an emergency, (ii) reducing, controlling or mitigating the effects of an emergency, or (iii) enabling other action to be taken in connection with an emergency, and (g) maintain arrangements to warn the public, and to provide information and advice to the public, if an emergency is likely to occur or has occurred.

CATEGORY 1 RESPONDERS: GENERAL
Local authorities

1 In relation to England—
(a) a county council,
(b) a district council,
(c) a London borough council,
(d) the Common Council of the City of London, and
(e) the Council of the Isles of Scilly.

Well....

....Notable that leader of the council Paget-Brown says that he thinks the council's response has been efficient, when everyone else is saying its not, in that context.

It's almost as if he is aware that, if he makes an admission that he's not, he's making himself open to an admission that he is in breech of this Act.

I would suggest that guy on the BBC might have something of a point...

It does rather seem that he might, indeed, have a point

This is the biggest catalogue of failings i have ever seen.

voxpoliticalonline.com/2013/01/27/the-truth-about-social-housing/

mikesivier.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/more-home-truths-about-social-housing/

Grenfell Tower Fund.

Minimum payment of £5,500 for those whose homes destroyed.

£5000 in their bank accounts from Monday.

500 in cash.

I think ive got that all right Was on BBC News.

I posted upthread how a woman tried to go to the bank and was turned away. So i hope they find a way to make sure they actually recieve the money

"Those whose homes were destroyed". As has already been mentioned, how do they prove that? Apparently no council list, and even if there was- what about those potentially in sublet properties or over crowded properties or who status isn't that clear-cut?

Do they all even have bank accounts?

Exactly Burn A woman has already been turned away from the bank because she had no ID.

that was on Theresa's To Do list, ensuring people could access their bank accounts. But there have been massive flaws if survivors are finding everything a catch 22 of needing id to prove they were Grenfell residents to access cash and donations meant for them.

Helena is this per person or family? On one hand it's great but if they're trying to pay for s private rental or something 5k won't stretch to more than a month or so plus deposit surely?

I feel like there's so little information - I want to donate but I don't want it to not actually get to the right place.

Is that per person or the lead tenant?

I donated to the Just Giving page Tom Hardy made, it was so hard to find where to donate so I just went with his appeal because I know he's a real person.

www.justgiving.com/fundraising/tom-hardy6

They didnt make that clear Im assuming the £5"500 is per household.

But it wont go that far.

If any of the Grenfell residents are affected by the benefit cap will it be waived so they can access a private rental and keep more of this five grand so that they can buy washing machines, sofas beds?

From BBC: for each household made homeless

Posted at18:03

The Prime Minister has confirmed details of how the emergency Grenfell Tower Residents' Discretionary Fund, worth £5m, will be distributed:

Every household whose home has been destroyed as a result of the fire will receive a guaranteed £5,500 minimum down payment from the fund. This will be made up of a £500 cash payment and £5,000 delivered through the Department of Work and Pensions into bank accounts or similar in a single payment

The £500 cash payment has already begun to be made available to those affected and further payments are available immediately from the Council at the Westway Centre or from Monday through the Post Office in Portobello Road, as and when families need it

The £5,000 payment will be available from Monday and support workers will assist households in accessing it - including those who do not have bank accounts

The discretionary fund is also being made available to meet funeral costs, and to top up payments for those households with complex or additional needs.

The fund will be kept under review and will increase if necessary

According to ITV News the 500 cash is included in the £5"500

So reporting this differently.

Also from BBC regarding the legality of the cladding (further down their live feed are the statements by Philip Hammond and others that it's illegal):

A cladding believed to have been used on Grenfell Tower was not banned in the UK.

John Cowley, managing director of CEP Architectural Facades which fabricated the rainscreen panels and windows for Grenfell Tower's cladding sub-contractor Harley Facades Ltd, said: "Reynobond PE is not banned in the UK.

"Current building regulations allow its use in both low-rise and high-rise structures.

"The key question now is whether the overall design of the building's complete exterior was properly tested and subsequently signed off by the relevant authorities including the fire officer, building compliance officer and architect before commencement of the project."

The BBC has previously reported that the Department for Communities and Local Government has said such material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m high.

That chimes more with what PigletJohn and I found - there's no absolute ban on this crap being on buildings.

The guide from the NHBC which I linked upthread has diagrams which seem...remarkably accurate

This is a summary of the various regs and guidance which they've produced for builders, but it says

"Where the building exceeds 18m in height, it is considered that there are four suitable options:-

Option 1
The use of materials of limited combustibility (MOLC) for all elements of the cladding system both above and below 18m. This includes the insulation, internal lining board and the external facing material. Smaller gasket parts and similar low-risk items can be
excluded from this requirement. The definition of a MOLC is stated in Table A7 of AD B2.

Option 2
An acceptable alternative approach (see AD B2 paragraph 12.5) is for the client to submit evidence that the complete proposed external cladding system has been assessed according to the acceptance criteria in BR135 – Fire Performance of External Thermal Insulation for Walls of Multistorey Buildings. The preferred method of demonstrating compliance is via a fire test carried out in accordance with BS8414:1 Fire performance of external cladding systems – Part 1: Test method for non-loadbearing external cladding systems applied to the face of the building or BS8414-2 Fire performance of external cladding systems – Part 2: Test method for non-loadbearing external cladding systems fixed to and supported by a structural steel frame. The test should be carried out by an independent UKAS
accredited testing body. The BS8414 tests do not give a PASS/FAIL answer because the data obtained is used by different bodies with different minimum requirements.
Hence, for Building Regulation purposes, any test using this method needs to be supported with a Classification Report for the proposed specification confirming that the acceptance criteria of BR135 have been met. These acceptance criteria are listed in Annex A or Annex B of BR135 and include the following:
External fire spread – determined by a 600oC rise in temperature on the external face of the building (measured at a point approximately one storey above the fire floor) for thirty seconds or more during the initial fifteen minutes of the test.
Internal fire spread – determined by a 600oC rise in temperature on the internal face of the building (measured at a point approximately one storey above the fire floor) for thirty seconds or more during the initial fifteen minutes of the test.
Mechanical performance – determined by an assessment of system collapse, spalling, delamination, flaming debris or pool fires.

Option 3
If no actual fire test data exists for a particular system, the client may instead submit a desktop study report from a suitably qualified fire specialist stating whether, in their opinion, BR135 criteria would be met with the proposed system. The report should be supported by
test data from a suitable independent UKAS accredited testing body (BRE, Chiltern Fire or Warrington Fire) and so this option may not be of benefit if the products have not already been tested in multiple
situations/arrangements. The report should also specifically reference the tests which have been carried out on the product.

Option 4
If none of the above options are suitable, the builder may consider a holistic fire engineered approach for the entire building. Approved Document B – Volume 2 recognises that fire safety engineering is an
acceptable alternative approach to fire safety and cites the British Standard BS 7974, Fire safety engineering in buildings suite of documents as a suitable framework on which to base the design and
assessment of all fire safety measures in buildings.

Sorry, fairly long but summarises a lot of the info in one place

full doc link is here with multistory buildings from P16 onwards

Natalie‏*@natalieisonline*
Spent the morning reading RBKC Housing Committee minutes which refer to TMO and #GrenfellTower

Thread follows:
twitter.com/natalieisonline/status/876017521169772544

Seems to be ongoing. Its examining what the Council, the housing management and the residents say and when.

Lots of muck to be raked in there by the look of it.

red
sorry to be ignorant but why would those staying with friends not be among those counted? (you are right of course, 49 households rehoused does not count those staying with nephews etc) but in terms of tally of survivors?
this was posted on another thread by bigyellow
www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/what-official-grenfell-tower-death-10642134
Leader of the council had originally talked of hundreds being there. Was the 150 in danger you mentioned from calls logged to 999?
Some of those who made it out alone are documented here.
www.smh.com.au/world/anatomy-of-londons-highrise-horror-20170615-gws221.html

Fucking Toby Young on Channel 4 news saying "we mustnt politicise this tragedy " and avoiding questions about social housing.