Grenfell Tower Fire | 14th June 2017

[Rams]

Hillsborough tactics is OTT - even the right wing rags have been fairly unanimous in expressing outrage over what has happened. And, at the risk of sounding unduly cynical, I have to be honest that I have had some doubts of the authenticity of one or two of interviewees I have seen over the last few days.

Rather than headlining stories on so called 'militant highjackers' surely headlines on 'why on earth flammable cladding was used and why haven't fire & safety regulations been tightened?' would have been more appropriate?!?!

 

[Manny]

'Militants', 'hijack' and two guys wearing their kurta pyjamas. Hmm...

Edit- Rams beat me to it

 

[dumbo]

Have been reading through all the Grenfell Action Group posts linked on https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com

Worse than I was expecting. Stupefying.

 

[finneh]

Contrary to the somewhat gushing responses of other posters, i actually find your reply to be close that of Clive Lewis'. You'll cast your net wide and draw in issues to suit pre-existing agendas.

My primary motivation is to learn the lessons pertaining to this horror and apportion culpability based upon what is reasonably known. I also tend toward the practical, so while it would be nice if May could be more instinctively open in her reactions, it doesn't take on a greater importance than it deserves. How long it takes us inspect other high-rises across the country, whether parliament will echo the regulatory position of the US or Germany, these are the sort of things which matter to me right now.

Spot on. There's a huge difference between rightly highlighting political failings in respect of policy or lack thereof that has contributed to this tragedy and scoring a party political tap-in with buzzwords like "austerity".

I'm all for apportioning blame once the facts are established but using the burning embers of corpses for party political purposes is in the height of distaste.

As an aside I'm in the Construction industry and the regulations on the product we sell are far, far, far more strict that even 5 years ago and on a different planet to 15 years ago.

Every different iteration of our product now must be tested to 30 or 60 minute (occasionally 90 or 120 min) requirements, rather than in the past 10-15 years the relevant bodies taking the view "of x passes then y should also be fine". Likewise fire officers are far more knowledgeable; a couple of months ago we had maybe £100k of product highlighted because it was 2 millimeters greater than the piece of paper suggested it should be. We knew for certain it still met the fire requirements but had to pay £5,000 to test that specific product which naturally passed and was then passed by the FO.

This isn't to say things are now bulletproof - obviously a rogue fitter and an incompetent fire officer can render regulations meaningless, but things are consistently moving towards greater fire safety.

 

[Rams]

Tomorrow's headline in The Daily Torygraph: 'shame of ungrateful Grenfell Tower residents after Kensington & Chelsea council hold free community BBQ'

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Government statement on cladding
Posted at12:31


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."

BBC

 

[Rams]

Spot on. There's a huge difference between rightly highlighting political failings in respect of policy or lack thereof that has contributed to this tragedy and scoring a party political tap-in with buzzwords like "austerity".

I'm all for apportioning blame once the facts are established but using the burning embers of corpses for party political purposes is in the height of distaste.

As an aside I'm in the Construction industry and the regulations on the product we sell are far, far, far more strict that even 5 years ago and on a different planet to 15 years ago.

Every different iteration of our product now must be tested to 30 or 60 minute (occasionally 90 or 120 min) requirements, rather than in the past 10-15 years the relevant bodies taking the view "of x passes then y should also be fine".

This isn't to say things are now bulletproof - obviously a rogue fitter and an incompetent fire officer can render regulations meaningless, but things are consistently moving towards greater fire safety.

What would you say to using polyethylene cladding in the facade of a 24 storey Tower Block where fire safety was originally designed on the basis of fire compartments?

 

[Pexbo]

How hard is it to coordinate a proper relief effort for those displaced? For anyone not needing to be hospitalised, you give them a dedicated support worker on call 24/7, you give them a prepaid mobile phone with pre-installed numbers to the support worker and any other key authority contacts, you put them up in a good hotel and give them enough cash to buy the food/clothing/supplies they need (or you go and get all that stuff for them and bring it to them).

You don't leave them on the floor in the shadow of the burnt out building indefinitely.

I was listening to someone on a video on Twitter saying that they had volunteered to do the logistics for pairing victims up with donations and they were having trouble finding enough victims for the donations they had been allocated. On talking to the locals and the victims they could find, the consensus was that the number of fatalities is so high that the donations they had been allocated was tragically optimistic. Whole families have been lost who will not yet be accounted for because there is nobody to report them missing.


I also find the starck contrast in government and media response to this and to terrorist attacks pretty unpalatable in regards to numbers and blame.

 

[Jippy]

Rather than headlining stories on so called 'militant highjackers' surely headlines on 'why on earth flammable cladding was used and why haven't fire & safety regulations been tightened?' would have been more appropriate?!?!

Playing devil's advocate, I'm pretty sure the shock about the cladding etc were headlines two or three days ago.
The papers have been unanimous in their shock and outrage- if protests turn to violence, of course it's news.

 

[Rams]

BBC

It's plastic 100%, I can see it from the pictures. No need for investigation to prove that.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

How long could it possibly take to discover what the cladding consists of given plenty of it remains relatively undamaged?

 

[Rams]

If I drive my car at excessive speed and kill someone I will be brought to justice and rightly so. The people in charge of the decision to use polyethylene cladding should be criminally prosecuted and brought to justice. Lock them up and throw away the keys to coin a phrase. This is where public anger should be directed to.

 

[finneh]

What would you say to using polyethylene cladding in the facade of a 24 storey Tower Block where fire safety was originally designed on the basis of fire compartments?

That would be outside of my area of expertise I'm afraid.

 

[Nuts]

Spot on. There's a huge difference between rightly highlighting political failings in respect of policy or lack thereof that has contributed to this tragedy and scoring a party political tap-in with buzzwords like "austerity".

I'm all for apportioning blame once the facts are established but using the burning embers of corpses for party political purposes is in the height of distaste.

As an aside I'm in the Construction industry and the regulations on the product we sell are far, far, far more strict that even 5 years ago and on a different planet to 15 years ago.

Every different iteration of our product now must be tested to 30 or 60 minute (occasionally 90 or 120 min) requirements, rather than in the past 10-15 years the relevant bodies taking the view "of x passes then y should also be fine". Likewise fire officers are far more knowledgeable; a couple of months ago we had maybe £100k of product highlighted because it was 2 millimeters greater than the piece of paper suggested it should be. We knew for certain it still met the fire requirements but had to pay £5,000 to test that specific product which naturally passed and was then passed by the FO.

This isn't to say things are now bulletproof - obviously a rogue fitter and an incompetent fire officer can render regulations meaningless, but things are consistently moving towards greater fire safety.

Social housing is unavoidably political. It's run by the state, who have to accept responsibility for what is clearly a lot of disgusting errors.

I've not seen 'political tap ins', I've seen politicians rightly asking questions about what, I'm sure, amounts to negligence.

 

[Rams]

How long could it possibly take to discover what the cladding consists of given plenty of it remains relatively undamaged?

Anyone with the slightest expertise can already confirm for 100% certainty that plastic combustible cladding was used just from looking at the pictures.

 

[Rams]

That would be outside of my area of expertise I'm afraid.

You work in the construction industry but you can't tell?!?! How come?

 

[finneh]

Social housing is unavoidably political. It's run by the state, who have to accept responsibility for what is clearly a lot of disgusting errors.

I've not seen 'political tap ins', I've seen politicians rightly asking questions about what, I'm sure, amounts to negligence.

I'm referring to posters frothing at the mouth regarding "Tory austerity", when there is literally no evidence of this being a contributory factor.

If the council had failed to modernise the building stating funding cuts and said modernisation would have prevented the tragedy then I'd be on board. However they just spent £9m on the block. If this money is proven to have been focused on aesthetics at the expense of safety then whoever is culpable deserves their punishment.

You work in the construction industry but you can't tell?!?! How come?

I work for a company that supplies fire rated doors and doorsets to the construction sector. Ask me anything about fire door regulations, requirements or testing procedure and I'll likely have an answer.

Ask me about cladding and I'm as ignorant as the next layman.

 

[Jippy]

If I drive my car at excessive speed and kill someone I will be brought to justice and rightly so. The people in charge of the decision to use polyethylene cladding should be criminally prosecuted and brought to justice. Lock them up and throw away the keys to coin a phrase. This is where public anger should be directed to.

The problem is it seems like the cladding was apparently legal at the time, according to some. Sounds like regulation failed to keep pace with materials development.


Arnold Tarling, 55, of the Association of Specialist Fire Protection, said the foam “went up like matchsticks”.

And he said the waterproof zinc coating made it even harder for firefighters to douse the blaze.

He said: “They clad the concrete of this building with flammable insulation panels and rain screen cladding with a 30mm gap, which acted like a chimney.

“All the burning material falls down, starting more fires below, and the flames spread up and across searching for oxygen.

“Meanwhile, crews can’t tackle the fire effectively because their water just bounces off the rain covers.

“The cladding looks lovely, it’s cheap, complies with regulations and gives the building a high environmental rating. But it’s a silent killer.

“When this block was built, it complied with the old fire regulations. Had it been left alone it would never have burned like this.”

Witnesses to the blaze described how the material “went up like paper”.

 

[Damien]

This thread is abhorrent.

So people have reached out and have seemingly been turned down.



Don't know if she still has flats available

 

[DomesticTadpole]

The problem is it seems like the cladding was apparently legal at the time, according to some. Sounds like regulation failed to keep pace with materials development.


Arnold Tarling, 55, of the Association of Specialist Fire Protection, said the foam “went up like matchsticks”.

And he said the waterproof zinc coating made it even harder for firefighters to douse the blaze.

He said: “They clad the concrete of this building with flammable insulation panels and rain screen cladding with a 30mm gap, which acted like a chimney.

“All the burning material falls down, starting more fires below, and the flames spread up and across searching for oxygen.

“Meanwhile, crews can’t tackle the fire effectively because their water just bounces off the rain covers.

“The cladding looks lovely, it’s cheap, complies with regulations and gives the building a high environmental rating. But it’s a silent killer.

“When this block was built, it complied with the old fire regulations. Had it been left alone it would never have burned like this.”

Witnesses to the blaze described how the material “went up like paper”.

Wow!

 

[MikeUpNorth]

The problem is it seems like the cladding was apparently legal at the time, according to some. Sounds like regulation failed to keep pace with materials development.


Arnold Tarling, 55, of the Association of Specialist Fire Protection, said the foam “went up like matchsticks”.

And he said the waterproof zinc coating made it even harder for firefighters to douse the blaze.

He said: “They clad the concrete of this building with flammable insulation panels and rain screen cladding with a 30mm gap, which acted like a chimney.

“All the burning material falls down, starting more fires below, and the flames spread up and across searching for oxygen.

“Meanwhile, crews can’t tackle the fire effectively because their water just bounces off the rain covers.

“The cladding looks lovely, it’s cheap, complies with regulations and gives the building a high environmental rating. But it’s a silent killer.

“When this block was built, it complied with the old fire regulations. Had it been left alone it would never have burned like this.”

Witnesses to the blaze described how the material “went up like paper”.

They should have an answer by now as to how many of the other 4,000 tower blocks are clad in this way. I bet they have the answer, but I bet it's not one they want to share right now.

 

[afrocentricity]

Stay classy, Clive.

Do you ever turn it off? Ever take off the Tory hat and look at things as a human being? Maybe you do and maybe you have done in this thread but in line of what has happened and the rightful feelings of anger and frustration I just find it strange that you can be in here acting as some kind of Tory defence force...

Good post.

The fact that people are still trying to argue that this isn't a politicised incident is disgusting quite frankly, given that there's history & proof of the residents warning the council multiple times, and the government at the time ignoring safety concerns.

And the idea that if you aren't directly related to this incident that you shouldn't be angry, or have no reason to be angry. Feck off, I know so many people who live in accommodation similar to Grenfell and if they were a part of this you damn right I would protest & riot if necessary.

You've got people criticising politicians for wanting to talk about the issues because they're perceived as trying to score points.
Then those same people arguing that this isn't a political issue.
There's clearly a pattern emerging and I don't think they have the vision to see it.

Good post...

 

[Nuts]

I'm referring to posters frothing at the mouth regarding "Tory austerity", when there is literally no evidence of this being a contributory factor.

If the council had failed to modernise the building stating funding cuts and said modernisation would have prevented the tragedy then I'd be on board. However they just spent £9m on the block. If this money is proven to have been focused on aesthetics at the expense of safety then whoever is culpable deserves their punishment

What more proof do you need that the £10,000,000 wasn't focused on safety other than picture of the block in its current state?

Forget austerity. I'm angry that residents were disrespected and not listened to. I'm concerned that the (Tory) councillor thought it ok yesterday to say he'd offered residents sprinklers and they'd said no. It's HIS job to make those desicions for them.

I'm angry that Barwell and others were paid lots of money to not act on reports from experts raising concerns about the safety of our social housing.

It's not about austerity, it's about negligence, arrogance and people in power running from responsibility.

 

[Rams]

The problem is it seems like the cladding was apparently legal at the time, according to some. Sounds like regulation failed to keep pace with materials development.


Arnold Tarling, 55, of the Association of Specialist Fire Protection, said the foam “went up like matchsticks”.

And he said the waterproof zinc coating made it even harder for firefighters to douse the blaze.

He said: “They clad the concrete of this building with flammable insulation panels and rain screen cladding with a 30mm gap, which acted like a chimney.

“All the burning material falls down, starting more fires below, and the flames spread up and across searching for oxygen.

“Meanwhile, crews can’t tackle the fire effectively because their water just bounces off the rain covers.

“The cladding looks lovely, it’s cheap, complies with regulations and gives the building a high environmental rating. But it’s a silent killer.

“When this block was built, it complied with the old fire regulations. Had it been left alone it would never have burned like this.”

Witnesses to the blaze described how the material “went up like paper”.

Even if it did comply to the regulations, which I'm no expert on, surely the culprits can prosecuted on the basis of gross negligence? What are your thoughts legal expert types?

 

[Rams]

I'm referring to posters frothing at the mouth regarding "Tory austerity", when there is literally no evidence of this being a contributory factor.

If the council had failed to modernise the building stating funding cuts and said modernisation would have prevented the tragedy then I'd be on board. However they just spent £9m on the block. If this money is proven to have been focused on aesthetics at the expense of safety then whoever is culpable deserves their punishment.



I work for a company that supplies fire rated doors and doorsets to the construction sector. Ask me anything about fire door regulations, requirements or testing procedure and I'll likely have an answer.

Ask me about cladding and I'm as ignorant as the next layman.

I see now. Fair enough. I've probably come across your products 100's of times btw.

 

[Silva]

A tory donor owned a stake in the refurb company through an off shore company, in "could have guessed that" news of the day.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

The problem is it seems like the cladding was apparently legal at the time, according to some. Sounds like regulation failed to keep pace with materials development.


Arnold Tarling, 55, of the Association of Specialist Fire Protection, said the foam “went up like matchsticks”.

And he said the waterproof zinc coating made it even harder for firefighters to douse the blaze.

He said: “They clad the concrete of this building with flammable insulation panels and rain screen cladding with a 30mm gap, which acted like a chimney.

“All the burning material falls down, starting more fires below, and the flames spread up and across searching for oxygen.

“Meanwhile, crews can’t tackle the fire effectively because their water just bounces off the rain covers.

“The cladding looks lovely, it’s cheap, complies with regulations and gives the building a high environmental rating. But it’s a silent killer.

“When this block was built, it complied with the old fire regulations. Had it been left alone it would never have burned like this.”

Witnesses to the blaze described how the material “went up like paper”.

Does that not mean that when the building complied with fire regs at the time of building and that the cladding currently complies with fire regs? I would be surprised if the cladding doesn't comply with current regs. Any party responsible would be crazy to put non-compliant stuff up. If the panels don't comply then corporate manslaughter charges will be definitely be brought. Personally I would expect the fault to lie with building reg or planning standards in that regard, which could fall on the toes of the local council or the government. I also read that the 'stay put' instructions should also include 'get out if in doubt' as well so the issuing of those instructions needs to be looked at. Then there is the gas works issues and other potential breaches of fire safety by the building owners.

Obviously this is a political issue but my opinion is that it isn't right to start party politicking whilst there are so many unknowns in terms of responsibility. Criticising the response is needed though, it seems to have been very poor from the local council in particular.

 

[Jippy]

They should have an answer by now as to how many of the other 4,000 tower blocks are clad in this way. I bet they have the answer, but I bet it's not one they want to share right now.

Yep. If I was a generalist or construction-focused journalist I'd be sending freedom of information requests to every Greater London council and the relevant government departments. I'd also see if that US company that made the cladding reveals how much of that shit they sell to the UK and elsewhere.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

A tory donor owned a stake in the refurb company though an off shore company, in "could have guessed that" news of the day.

How can people claim this thing isn't political? It encapsulates so many of the issues of our time.

 

[afrocentricity]

The problem is it seems like the cladding was apparently legal at the time, according to some. Sounds like regulation failed to keep pace with materials development.


Arnold Tarling, 55, of the Association of Specialist Fire Protection, said the foam “went up like matchsticks”.

And he said the waterproof zinc coating made it even harder for firefighters to douse the blaze.

He said: “They clad the concrete of this building with flammable insulation panels and rain screen cladding with a 30mm gap, which acted like a chimney.

“All the burning material falls down, starting more fires below, and the flames spread up and across searching for oxygen.

“Meanwhile, crews can’t tackle the fire effectively because their water just bounces off the rain covers.

“The cladding looks lovely, it’s cheap, complies with regulations and gives the building a high environmental rating. But it’s a silent killer.

“When this block was built, it complied with the old fire regulations. Had it been left alone it would never have burned like this.”

Witnesses to the blaze described how the material “went up like paper”.

Can you link where you've seen this? As it doesn't match-up with what follows.
What follows shows that the building met regs when it was built, not the renovations (when they went up).

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Can you link where you've seen this? As it doesn't match-up with what follows.
What follows shows that the building met regs when it was built, not the renovations (when they went up).

It's in the second quote from the bottom.

 

[Jippy]

Does that not mean that when the building complied with fire regs at the time of building and that the cladding currently complies with fire regs? I would be surprised if the cladding doesn't comply with current regs any party responsible would be crazy to put non-compliant stuff up, if they don't then corporate manslaughter charges will be brought. I would expect the fault to lie with building reg standards in that regard, which could fall on the toes of the local council or the government. I also read that the 'stay put' instructions should also include 'get out if in doubt' as well so the issuing of those instructions needs to be looked at. Then there is the gas works issues and other potential breaches of fire safety by the building owners.

Obviously this is a political issue but my opinion is that it is unwise to start party politiking whilst there are so many unknowns in terms of responsibility. Criticising the response is needed though, it seems to be very poor from the local council in particular.

I

I guess it depends whether the regulations are applied retrospectively. I've no idea, it's obviously not my area.

It is hard to understand why the relief effort seems to be so chaotic though.

 

[Jippy]

Can you link where you've seen this? As it doesn't match-up with what follows.
What follows shows that the building met regs when it was built, not the renovations (when they went up).

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....ladding-grenfell-london-tower-fire-blame/amp/

 

[Jippy]

They should have an answer by now as to how many of the other 4,000 tower blocks are clad in this way. I bet they have the answer, but I bet it's not one they want to share right now.

Oh, btw, I bet they have no fecking idea, which is arguably more scary. Having had to deal with various government bodies in my career, you give them far too much credit for their ability to record stuff or actually communicate with each other.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

They should have an answer by now as to how many of the other 4,000 tower blocks are clad in this way. I bet they have the answer, but I bet it's not one they want to share right now.

Manchester council are taking out an urgent audit on all similar buildings. I'd be surprised if all were deemed safe.

Even if it did comply to the regulations, which I'm no expert on, surely the culprits can prosecuted on the basis of gross negligence? What are your thoughts legal expert types?

I'm not a legal type but if you comply with building regs you comply. An inspector from the council will come out to site at certain points in any construction project that requires regs and either pass you to carry on with the construction or tell you to take down the part of the construction that fails and start again.

 

[Blodssvik]

Austerity, neglect, contempt of the most vulnerable in society. All part of the same mindset in my opinion.

 

[montpelier]

Political in the sense of the relationship between feckwit Landlord & Tenants. Not actually about austerity to start with because of the funding for quite extensive improvements being in place. Maybe starts to be about austerity if we find out the block was also grossly overcrowded & the death toll is completely ridiculous even for a building of 150 flats where only a few escaped.

I was expecting an understated death toll somehow - that's it's only 17 four days after this is faintly ridiculous to start with. You wonder how many nameless people might have perished with barely a trace of them ever having existed. I wouldn't expect 100's in this category though.

Is it an event with a strong political context in societal terms that can be utilised legitimately when talking about that? I dunno, I can see both sides. But there does seem to be a defiinte disconnect between the community & those in authority who should be moving swiftly to help them. And where those in authority are undoubtedly chums of the feckwit Kensington Landlords.

If this was 200 white middle class house owners that had died, I don't think Government would be dicking about wondering what to do with the survivors.

 

[finneh]

What more proof do you need that the £10,000,000 wasn't focused on safety other than picture of the block in its current state?

Forget austerity. I'm angry that residents were disrespected and not listened to. I'm concerned that the (Tory) councillor thought it ok yesterday to say he'd offered residents sprinklers and they'd said no. It's HIS job to make those desicions for them.

I'm angry that Barwell and others were paid lots of money to not act on reports from experts raising concerns about the safety of our social housing.

It's not about austerity, it's about negligence, arrogance and people in power running from responsibility.

I agree with you that the building clearly wasn't safe. However I imagine that everyone involved thought it was safe. I guarantee that if this cladding were a known ticking time bomb the contractors would not have used it. I know it's a great narrative that evil corporations put profits before safety but I really doubt that is the case after dealing with numerous contractors. It's more likely for example that the test in which the cladding passed isn't fit for purpose for this kind of building.

Whether that is abject negligence on the part of certain parties is yet to be ascertained and those parties should be punished if found culpable. If the material wasn't tested and the contactor used it anyway then they along with the fire officer should be punished. If the testing body knew about fundamental flaws in their testing likewise.

Unfortunately all Governments seem to only deal with problems like this once tragedies occur; not usually because of arrogance but more because of ignorance.

It won't satisfy people who want to see blood but there is a good chance no one is "guilty" of anything apart from ignorance. Ignorance of the testing procedure being flawed, ignorance of the product therefore being incompatible, ignorance of the significance of this and ignorant of the consequences of not acting on a report from several years ago.

 

[Nuts]

I agree with you that the building clearly wasn't safe. However I imagine that everyone involved thought it was safe. I guarantee that if this cladding were a known ticking time bomb the contractors would not have used it. I know it's a great narrative that evil corporations put profits before safety but I really doubt that is the case after dealing with numerous contractors. It's more likely for example that the test in which the cladding passed isn't fit for purpose for this kind of building.

Whether that is abject negligence on the part of certain parties is yet to be ascertained and those parties should be punished if found culpable. If the material wasn't tested and the contactor used it anyway then they along with the fire officer should be punished. If the testing body knew about fundamental flaws in their testing likewise.

Unfortunately all Governments seem to only deal with problems like this once tragedies occur; not usually because of arrogance but more because of ignorance.

It won't satisfy people who want to see blood but there is a good chance no one is "guilty" of anything apart from ignorance. Ignorance of the testing procedure being flawed, ignorance of the product therefore being incompatible, ignorance of the significance of this and ignorant of the consequences of not acting on a report from several years ago.

There's been fires in tower blocks before with this cladding. Before 2015 when it was fitted.

And don't forget the reports that we're ignored after the Lambeth fire.

There are reports a power surge may have started this, and that residents concerns over the surges were ignored.

There's lots of questions to answer...

 

[finneh]

There's been fires in tower blocks before with this cladding. Before 2015 when it was fitted.

And don't forget the reports that we're ignored after the Lambeth fire.

There are reports a power surge may have started this, and that residents concerns over the surges were ignored.

There's lots of questions to answer...

Absolutely agreed.