London Fire: Grenfell Tower thread five

[RhythmAndStealth]

RIP

Five victims officially named
At least 79 victims expected, possibly more
Many displaced and struggling

To all those affected and all those helping

Thread four
Thread three
Thread three contains links to threads one and two.

Oh yeah, that Press. Always kicking off in meetings causing trouble

Gardengeek you could be right about what happened with the cladding being installed.

However what made it burn like a chimney up the side of the building was the lack of fire stopping, or fire breaks. I believe some of the other higg rises with the same cladding have had fire breaks put in. I can't find where I read that but I mentioned it to dp who is a builder and ex fireproofer as he just can't comprehend that this was allowed to happen.

What probably happened is company A tendered for the work at say 12 million using rockwool and firestopping. Company B tendered for the work using the cheapest panels and cheaper labour. Company B got the contract.

Then during the actual installation the subbies fitting the cladding would have been given the spec. DP is absolutely adamant that they would have asked about fire stopping. Sometimes it is done as you go along. Sometimes it is done afterwards. But any fixer who has been in the trade for any length of time would have known to do the fire breaks. So someone would have spoken up.

The problem is though how can a replaceable fixer speak up against the foreman, site gaffers, architect, clerk of works etc without losing their jobs? I am surprised that the press haven't tracked any of them down yet and asked what was happening on that site.

DP is old enough and ugly enough and good enough at his job to raise these issues. But he was also a trained fireproofer back in the late 80s and 90s so has the knowledge and skill base to back up what he is saying. He has stated he wouldn't have done it. Not because he could see what would happen in tje future but because he would be worried about it failing building inspections and us not getting paid as it's always the fixer that loses their wages first.

Something stinks massively with that contract. Public contracts usually do.

I don't know anything about fire breaks but would the fixers not have been told that concrete is a bit different and acts as it's own firebreak? Isn't that what the official line was?

The concrete wasn't continuous though, there were windows. Most modern buildings have numerous firebreaks in them especially flats and apartments. And the same rules apply to refurbishments. At least on the jobs we do. And other tower blocks with the exact same cladding on had fire breaks done so something went wrong on Grenfell.

The concrete wasn't continuous though, there were windows.

Yes it was. There were continuous top/bottom runs on all four corners and 2 or 3 continuous runs on each side. It seemed to be an engineering or architectural feature of Grenfell. They are a kind of triangular runner from top to bottom with no windows etc. The early fire photos clearly show the fire going up each one and then fanning out sideways.

Red, the decision by kcbc to hold a closed meeting stinks and just adds to the distrust of this lot. What have they to hide. The reason they give of fear of violence is bullshit. If that was the case why not just allow independent local press in to report back to local residents. Can anyone blame the residents for hating this lot? I hope they are all kicked out eventually.

It sounds like incompetence to me. They just seem to have no idea how to organise anything serious. Maybe it's all a front like it is with Boris Johnson (for example), maybe they are all just bumbling incompetents.

Yes batteries that as well. We are told we need to pay these people huge salaries as they are indispensable and vital. 'Piss up in a brewery' comes to mind.

It's everywhere though this attitude. We are told all these business leaders, bankers, need to be given vast salaries, bonus payments, attractive benefits or else they will not stay in the UK. They seem to be allowed to fuck up and then walk straight into another executive role. Same with politicians. Who you know not what you know for some. Meanwhile a nurse, firefighter, teacher makes one mistake and their career is over.

I read a comment on the Times website - a long description - by a man put in charge of fire safety checks somewhere. He pointed out something was unsafe. They had never had someone not just tick the boxes before. He complained 4 times as he did not want it just left. He got a warning from his boss. They had to send an expert out to check who then did agree with him and said he was definitely correct. There seems to have been too much looking only at the task you are given rather than the wider picture here - you someone on overall charge who can join all the dots.

There is a quite a good description in today's FT with pictures which you can access free but I think you might need to register first www.ft.com/content/bf6bcbd0-5b35-11e7-9bc8-8055f264aa8b.

What I mean is that if you are relying on the concrete protecting the residents in the flat you can't because of the windows, not that the concrete didn't run all way up the building.

I think there will be many failures found at Grenfell. I am not a builder but DP is adamant firestopping would have stopped the chimney effect of the cladding. Regardless of what it was made of. He does a lot of timber structures. Obviously timber burns but between floors and units there is always extensive firebreaks. So fires should be self contained to one floor and one apartment.

Yes Lucy that 'chain of command' protocol is rife. The attitude that how dare a lowly employee question decisions made by more senior managers. Do your job and don't ask questions. It used to be like that with safeguarding children. If concerns were raised people were told to mind your own business and let the experts deal with it. Thankfully new laws were put in place making it an offence not to report concerns and it applies to anyone who comes into contact with children at work.

If you google ft lax building rules the article is available without subscribing. Or at least it was for me.
I think the fact that Arconic has withdrawn the panels used from sale, in spite of our lax building rules, speaks volumes.

Frouby everything you say makes perfect sense /has the ring of truth to me .

I just hope that the workmen responsible for fitting the cladding don't have all the blame heaped on them . As you've said IIRC it's hard to protest when you're a small cog in a big machine and fear loosing your job .
What does your DP think about the role of site managers ,agents etc in this type of situation ? Do they have a responsibilty to check the work ,voice concerns if for example fire breaks weren't specified or backing ,fixing details for the cladding looked inadequate for fire protection ?

Or is that down to the sub contractor fitting the cladding ?

So many lives wrecked by this event .

They had never had someone not just tick the boxes before.

I think the "tick box" culture needs to end in all areas. Far too often, the questions are "weasel worded" so that it's easier to tick the box. Far too often, the people tasked with the box ticking aren't properly qualified/experienced and simply don't understand the bigger picture.

I've experienced it as an accountant. Our professional body sends out people to check our files. I remember one case where the person clearly wasn't a qualified accountant - all the points they raised were trivial, such as certain pages not cross-referenced properly - they never actually looked at the "job" itself - they completely failed to pick up a fundamental error in the set of accounts prepared - mainly because the page was neatly written, cross referenced, figures underlined in red, and added up properly - they checked all the noddy stuff but didn't see a glaring foul up which luckily our own internal review process picked up before any damage was done.

I'm told the same about food hygiene. The inspectors come in, have a look around to observe general tidiness, etc., but then move on to checking the paperwork, i.e. work instructions, staff handbook, etc. They don't do things like random checks of the temperature of food removed from the oven (as long as there's a piece of paper telling the staff to check it's x degrees they're happy). So basically, as long as the paperwork is correct, they just "assume" that the staff follow the paperwork instructions!

I wonder how the newer 'green' i.e. cladding panels with planting would fare wrt fire protection.
lot's of buildings (admittedly private developments and offices) are having those fitted atm

I agree Badbunny .

And altho it may not seem related I think corridor fire doors should be of the type that are linked to a fire alarm/smoke dectectors ,held open and released shut when activated .

Because of course they will be propped open to accomodate movement of people with heavy shopping ,frozen shoulders ,push chairs ,toddlers in tow etc etc .

it's not enough to tick the box by providing a fire door it has fit into the bigger picture .

One of the contributing factors in the Tenerife air disaster which killed over 500 peoplewas found to be that the junior pilot and the flight engineer didn't feel able to challenge the senior pilot when he decided to take off despite not being given clearance.
There have been similar findings in medical error/negligence cases as, due to the hierarchical nature of medicine, junior doctors didn't feel able to challenge consultants. This sounds like a systematic failure.

Here we go....

norman smith‏*@BBCNormanS*

The #Grenfelltower residents assoc say new judge lacks criminal background to establish blame/guilt
The #grenfelltower residents say treating inquiry like "contract dispute won't answer questions"
We are not prepared to wait 30 years for criminal charges like Hillsborough - #grenfelltower residents

Victoria Derbyshire‏ @VictoriaLIVE
Grenfell Tower victims' distrust in the establishment must be understood by government when setting up inquiry says lawyer @JolyonMaugham.
Link to video clip

Adam Wagner‏ @AdamWagner1
1. I agree with @JolyonMaugham that the #grenfalltower public inquiry has a huge amount to do - early - to bring families on board
2. As someone who has acted in 3 inquiries, you have to make sure the 'victim' groups are, and feel, properly involved FROM THE START
3. Grenfall Tower Inquiry is starting in a precarious position - it is only weeks after the tragedy and still a huge amount of emotion
4. It will be very easy to make mistakes now with involvement of relatives/victims which will not be reparable later
5. It is ESSENTIAL that the family/victim group/s are given full paid for representation early, really now. So they can feed into process
6. Victim/family groups must be involved in setting of terms of reference. They can't really do this without paid lawyers
7. No doubt there will be difficulties over whether families/victims are one group or many, but those difficulties must be dealt with early
8. The point of public inquiry is to address public concern. Moore-Bick must make victims/families the heart of the inquiry or it will fail

One of the contributing factors in the Tenerife air disaster which killed over 500 peoplewas found to be that the junior pilot and the flight engineer didn't feel able to challenge the senior pilot when he decided to take off despite not being given clearance.
There have been similar findings in medical error/negligence cases as, due to the hierarchical nature of medicine, junior doctors didn't feel able to challenge consultants. This sounds like a systematic failure.

There is an interesting angle to the case of air accidents. Failures where the co-pilot fails to challenge a superior is cultural - studies found that certain nationalities were far more prone to accidents as a direct result. Some airlines have recognised the problem and have gone to great lengths to train their staff to resist those cultural norms in doing their job.

I do think there is a particularly British cultural problem at the moment with challenging superiority. Its institutionalised and we have seen it raise its ugly head in other scandals in recent years. Stafford Hospital is one that springs to mind.

Its not merely restricted to the public sector. Its also present in the private sector.

I would suspect our class system and our greater level of inequality probably makes us much more susceptible to this - its not just purely an issue relating to prejudice to race or social class that makes such things more likely in this country but also the way in which we are conditioned and trained to respect and not challenge people in more senior roles in a way that is perhaps different to other cultures.

Bad, same with lawyers. What we really need is very strict checks on whether anyone is stealing the clients' money or acting for both sides where there is a conflict and instead lots of money is wasted prosecuting people who did nothing morally wrong, broke no rule, were not dishonest but did not do some very unimportant thing.

We need wider picture people, people able to say that person may even have complied with every rule but still that building is unsafe or that action even if not on the list is still a breach of trust or financial fraud.

Good point on the pilot issue too. I love it when junior people in meetings or talks I give point out something I have got wrong. I ask them too. If I put a mistake in a contract I don't want anyone worrying about how I will feel if they jmake me out to be an idiot - so what if they do, I don't want the mistake in there in the first place. I am sure my doctor brother would say the same - the most junior person in the place must feel able to speak out and say that's not safe or that surgical instrument has been left in the patient's body. Even if people point out things to me where clearly they just haven't a clue I would much rather they spoke out and then I dont' shout at them, I say I am really pleased they have pointed something out and then politely explain why they are wrong in that case but must continue to point things out. Otherwise you get emperor's new clothes situations - where every one is too scared to say the emperor is naked and the important obvious point is never mentioned.

I don't think the British are too bad actually at pointing out mistakes the boss makes compared to some very very compliant cultures out there where shame and how things look (Japanese type) are key or where women always kow tow to men.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-fire-inquiry-labour-mps-judge-sir-martin-moore-bick-survivors-theresa-may-calais-a7814221.html
Grenfell Tower fire: Senior Labour MPs fear judge chosen to lead the inquiry won't have confidence of survivors

Sir Martin Moore-Bick's ruling in a housing dispute triggered warnings local authorities would be able to “engage in social cleansing of the poor”

A large chunk of air disasters have hierarchical inter-crew communication as a contributing factor. See this article about the Asiana 214 crash in San Francisco www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/malcolm-gladwells-cockpit-culture-theory-everywhere-after-asiana-crash/313442/

Garuda Indonesia 200 is another one that sticks in my mind

I don't think the British are too bad actually at pointing out mistakes the boss makes compared to some very very compliant cultures out there where shame and how things look (Japanese type) are key or where women always kow tow to men.

I think in recent years pressure and increased demands in jobs have lead to more of a bullying culture which serves to threaten that in this country.

DH quit his last job partly because of the resistance to pointing out failings. I know a number of other people who have done the same. If the culture of a particular company or organisation is particularly resistant to it, the danger is higher.

Gareth Davies‏*@Gareth*_Davies09
In eight years of reporting local councils, I can't recall any occasion when public was barred from an entire meeting
That includes after the riots in Croydon (the hardest hit area of the country)
There were a number of occasions when part of the meetings were private (also questionable) but not the entire meeting
As this is allegedly only about disruption there is no reason why the meeting cannot be broadcast online

www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/west-london-news/grenfell-tower-fire-public-press-13255792
Grenfell Tower fire: Public and press BANNED from attending attending Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council Cabinet meeting about tragedy
The council is giving no explanation as to why press are banned from reporting on the important meeting

In an email to the council, getwestlondon requested attendance at the meeting and said: "We believe that:

A blanket ban on attendance is inappropriate, especially considering the nature of this incident
There is no risk to a reporter disrupting proceedings of the meeting, press simply observe and report
Our attendance and reporting of the meeting is a proportionate approach which combines the public's entitlement to know what was discussed by the council in the interests of transparency with managing any fear of disruption
It is appropriate for this meeting to be reported contemporaneously and not potentially days or weeks later, when minutes are made available on the council's website."
The NUJ has called for the ban to be lifted immediately, adding that the meeting is of the "utmost public interest"

NUJ = National Union of Journalists in case anyone is wondering.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/29/kctmo-company-in-charge-of-grenfell-tower-locks-community-out-of-therapy-centre?CMP=twt_gu
Company in charge of Grenfell Tower locks community out of therapy centre
Parents and children affected by the tragedy were left out in the street when the company KCTMO unexpectedly changed the locks on the centre