Grenfell Tower Fire | 14th June 2017

afrocentricity said:
Worst thing is know people living in high rises up that way that haven't been sorted out yet, imagine... fecking shambles.
Click to expand...

What? Where I‘m from you can, as tenant, get a company to do it yourself and send the bill to the landlord if he is not doing anything.
 
afrocentricity said:
Council high rises?
Click to expand...

Law of tenancy says that if the object has substantial shortcomings, which inadequate security surely can be subsumed under, the tenant can, if possible, get somebody to fix it himself at the cost of the landlord.
 
Javi said:
Law of tenancy says that if the object has substantial shortcomings, which inadequate security surely can be subsumed under, the tenant can, if possible, get somebody to fix it himself at the cost of the landlord.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that everyone in this highrise could band together theoretically, get the work done, then bill the council? Hmmmm.... :nervous:
 
This ''stay put'' idea is not a great one for me. I can see how it's originated now there are super-efficient alarms everywhere & the theory seems to be that all safety devices are in place & operating to the designed standard. Also allows the emergency services to take charge & work in the most ideal conditions is another justification.

It's perceived that residents are in more danger wandering around than remaining inside (supposedly) fire-proof units is the official line.

In practice the thing is a shambles & justifies not having to provide fire blankets & extinguishers. Also, as we've seen, the state of property & standard of safety work can never be guaranteed anyway.
 
montpelier said:
This ''stay put'' idea is not a great one for me. I can see how it's originated now there are super-efficient alarms everywhere & the theory seems to be that all safety devices are in place & operating to the designed standard. Also allows the emergency services to take charge & work in the most ideal conditions is another justification.

It's perceived that residents are in more danger wandering around than remaining inside (supposedly) fire-proof units is the official line.

In practice the thing is a shambles & justifies not having to provide fire blankets & extinguishers. Also, as we've seen, the state of property & standard of safety work can never be guaranteed anyway.
Click to expand...

The "stay put" policy works well if there're all fire compartmentation procedures in place. That means not only fire resistant cladding, but also fire resistant walls and floors, fire resistant doors with self closing mechanism and smoke strips, AOV system, fire alarm etc.
 
A report prepared as part of the police investigation into the Grenfell Tower fire has uncovered calamitous deficiencies in the installation of the windows, cavity barriers and cladding system, and their failure to meet building regulations.

The 210-page interim document, by fire investigation experts BRE Global, is set to dramatically assist the Metropolitan police in their wide-ranging investigation. It was leaked exclusively to the Standard and recounts in forensic detail how the original concrete building was turned from a safe structure into a tinderbox by the refurbishment between 2014 and 2016.

It not only finds the cladding material and insulation was combustible, but also exposes hitherto unknown areas of incompetence relating to the design and installation of the windows and cavity barriers. The latter are critical in closing the gap between the inner and outer skins of the building to prevent a chimney-like effect in the event of a blaze.

It reveals how in the early hours of June 14 last year, the fire started in a single fridge-freezer in a single flat on the fourth floor; travelled through an open window within a metre of the fridge; took hold in the cladding; and consumed an entire 24-storey, 70-metre-high building. A total of 71 lives were lost.

For the first time, the truth of how the refurbishment fell short of building regulations, and allowed a catastrophe to happen, is laid bare.

The first conclusion of the report is that the fire would not have spread beyond Flat 16 — the flat of origin — and would not have claimed even a single life if the original facade of the building had not been re-clad.

It states that the 2014-16 refurbishment failed, in several fundamental areas, to meet fire safety standards set out in the building regulations — known as Approved Document B. Taken together, these areas proved critical for the rapid spread of flames across the length and breadth of the building.

The report, dated 31 January 2018, says: “Grenfell Tower, as originally built, appears to have been designed on the premise of providing very high levels of passive fire protection.

“The original facade of Grenfell Tower, comprising exposed concrete and, given its age, likely timber or metal frame windows, would not have provided a medium for fire spread up the external surface. In BRE’s opinion … there would have been little opportunity for a fire in a flat of Grenfell Tower to spread to any neighbouring flats.”

The experts found instead that “deficiencies” in the construction of the new facade provided fuel for the fire to spread — and that it did so with such ferocity that if the original building had been built to less stringent modern standards of fire resistance, “it is likely the Tower would have collapsed, whether fully or partially”. The report identifies five significant breaches of building regulations that appear directly implicated in the loss of life:

Gaps that fanned fire

The cavity barriers — which in the event of fire are meant to expand and seal the gap between the concrete surface of the building and the cladding insulation — were of “insufficient size specification” to perform this vital function.

Some cavity barriers were installed “upside down” or “back to front”, further retarding their effectiveness.

They were “designed to close a gap of 25mm”, but the actual gap “measured up to 50mm”.

The result was to create a catastrophic chimney-like effect in the gap between the cladding and the concrete surface that “provided a route for fire spread”.

Window frames that helped flames spread

The window frames were “significantly narrower than the gap between the concrete surfaces of the columns, 150mm narrower”, leaving large gaps at either end.

These spaces were filled by a rubberised membrane, rigid foam insulation and uPVC lightweight plastic panels — but crucially “none of the materials used would be capable of providing 30 minutes fire resistance”.

The result was “a direct route for fire spread around the window frame into the cavity of the facade … and from the facade back into flats”.

This has added importance, as the first obstacle the fire encountered as it escaped from Flat 16 was the window frame which provided “fuel” instead of a barrier. BRE says: “The construction of the window did not provide any substantial barrier to fire taking hold on the facade outside.”

Combustible insulation

The insulation used was “combustible” and “provided a medium for fire spread up, across and within sections of the facade”. BRE notes that the 75mm insulation foam used on most of the spandrel beams had “no markings to identify the manufacturer of the foam”, unlike the 100mm Celotex foam insulation used on the columns. BRE records this oddity of the mystery manufacturer but does not further distinguish between the foam types, concluding both were “combustible”.

Flammable core

The aluminium composite material used in the facade had a polyethylene (plastic) core that “appears to be highly combustible” and “appears to have provided a medium for fire spread up and across the facade”.

Lack of door closers

The “absence of door closers” on many front doors to flats, contrary to building regulations, resulted in a significant number of doors being inadvertently left open when residents fled.

“Where this occurred, the fire in each flat appears to have emitted large quantities of smoke and later fire directly into the immediate lobby, and these have gone on to affect the lifts and single stairwell”.

This is a major failing because it created “shortcomings in compartmentation” of the fire and would have affected residents’ life chances as they sought to escape down the single stairwell.

BRE notes that individual breaches relating to the cladding system assume far greater importance when “considered in combination as opposed to when they occur in isolation”.

Firefighting weaknesses

Firefighting facilities were “deficient”, hampered by poor access and lack of installation of a wet rising main.

There was room for just “a single fire engine” on the hard standing at the base of the east side of the tower, as other sides of the tower were not accessible due to landscaping. This single fire engine would be “unlikely to provide sufficient pressure and flow of water for firefighting at the top of the tower” using the dry rising main.

The report says: “A building of Grenfell’s height ought to have been fitted with a wet rising main [which contains water at all times] as part of the refurbishment; instead the existing dry rising main [which has to be supplied from a fire engine] was extended and modified.” BRE cites two other breaches of building regulations — the absence of a sprinkler system and the single stairwell being 8cm too narrow. However it does not necessarily regard these weaknesses as directly responsible for loss of life. It adds that the stairwell would have been “difficult and expensive to change as part of any refurbishment”.

The draft report was submitted to the Metropolitan Police Service so that its interim conclusions could speed up “other parts of the MPS-led investigation”, including gathering documentation and interviewing contractors. BRE was asked to achieve three aims:

“To establish the circumstances surrounding as many deaths resulting from the fire as possible;”

“To establish any failings of duty of care owed to victims of the fire, both fatalities and surviving residents;”

“To provide expert witness support in relation to any criminal prosecution, public inquiry or inquest.”

The Standard understands, from a separate source, that the police investigation has already downloaded over 30 million emails and documents from the servers of Kensington and Chelsea council and the Tenant Management Organisation, and that they are beginning to trace and interview about 500 key contractors and sub-contractors involved in the refurbishment.
Click to expand...

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...t-turned-tower-into-a-tinderbox-a3814866.html

Politicians have blood on their hands.
 
and there's a BBC ''Panorama'' on it just finished

nothing new, but some quality ''doorstepping'' of a couple of the ''bad guys''
 
montpelier said:
and there's a BBC ''Panorama'' on it just finished

nothing new, but some quality ''doorstepping'' of a couple of the ''bad guys''
Click to expand...
Was a decent programme, albeit all of the protagonists can justifiably (sadly) hide behind the can't comment cos of the ongoing public enquiry defence.
 
Sweet Square said:
Speechless

Click to expand...


Not a lot shocks me on the internet these days but that has completely blown me away. Absolutely horrific.

I’ll never condone social media vigilantism but I won’t be in the slightest bit sympathetic if they expose these cretins and they lose their jobs.
 
Idiots that are better of ignored. But obviously the media will share the video and give them more attention to get as many clicks as they possibly can.
 
Even as someone who's of the mindset that you can joke about anything at any time, I'm sitting here thinking... Why? Really?
 
Pexbo said:
Not a lot shocks me on the internet these days but that has completely blown me away. Absolutely horrific.

I’ll never condone social media vigilantism but I won’t be in the slightest bit sympathetic if they expose these cretins and they lose their jobs.
Click to expand...

To be absolutely clear, I agree that this is in some of the worst taste imaginable!

I do not for one second condone it, but if that is in someone’s back garden (I assume it is) there is no crime committed and there are no grounds for someone to lose their job - on what grounds would they be fired, for being “insensitive in their private life” or having an “abhorrent sense of humour.”

I cannot fathom what would ever go through someone head to think that is a good idea, but I’m not sure someone should lose their entire livelihood for what is bad taste.
 
Heardy said:
To be absolutely clear, I agree that this is in some of the worst taste imaginable!

I do not for one second condone it, but if that is in someone’s back garden (I assume it is) there is no crime committed and there are no grounds for someone to lose their job - on what grounds would they be fired, for being “insensitive in their private life” or having an “abhorrent sense of humour.”

I cannot fathom what would ever go through someone head to think that is a good idea, but I’m not sure someone should lose their entire livelihood for what is bad taste.
Click to expand...
Yes anyone can be fired for being a massive arsehole. What can't happen is them facing jail time.
 
Sweet Square said:
Yes anyone can be fired for being a massive arsehole. What can't happen is them facing jail time.
Click to expand...

On what grounds? The two are entirely unconnected. Sure if it negatively impacted the employer or whatever i could see a link. What HR policy would that be in breach of? Without bringing the reputation of the company into disrepute the individual could have s case for unfair dismissal.

Anyone can be an arsehole in their private life, but that may have absolutely nothing to do with their job.

Again, I’m not trying to support the individual - to make a mockery of something like that is abhorrent, but I see no tangible link for them being fired.
 
Just don't get it. And that there isn't one person there who doesn't think that's acceptable?
 
Heardy said:
On what grounds? The two are entirely unconnected. Sure if it negatively impacted the employer or whatever i could see a link. What HR policy would that be in breach of? Without bringing the reputation of the company into disrepute the individual could have s case for unfair dismissal.

Anyone can be an arsehole in their private life, but that may have absolutely nothing to do with their job.

Again, I’m not trying to support the individual - to make a mockery of something like that is abhorrent, but I see no tangible link for them being fired.
Click to expand...

???

If a worker doesn't match with the corporate culture of the company, the managers have all the right to fire that ass asap.
 
Heardy said:
On what grounds? The two are entirely unconnected. Sure if it negatively impacted the employer or whatever i could see a link. What HR policy would that be in breach of? Without bringing the reputation of the company into disrepute the individual could have s case for unfair dismissal.

Anyone can be an arsehole in their private life, but that may have absolutely nothing to do with their job.

Again, I’m not trying to support the individual - to make a mockery of something like that is abhorrent, but I see no tangible link for them being fired.
Click to expand...

Many private companies would not be happy with that. You’re always representing the company even when off work. Many people don’t consider this but the company could be within their rights for firing the individuals if identities are confirmed. That’s why it’s not a good idea to have work colleagues on Facebook etc if you’re a bit of a dick
 
Heardy said:
On what grounds? The two are entirely unconnected. Sure if it negatively impacted the employer or whatever i could see a link. What HR policy would that be in breach of? Without bringing the reputation of the company into disrepute the individual could have s case for unfair dismissal.

Anyone can be an arsehole in their private life, but that may have absolutely nothing to do with their job.

Again, I’m not trying to support the individual - to make a mockery of something like that is abhorrent, but I see no tangible link for them being fired.
Click to expand...
This
George Owen said:
If a worker doesn't match with the corporate culture of the company, the managers have all the right to fire that ass asap.
Click to expand...
 
Fair enough. As I said previously, I am not for one second condoning the individuals actions and I think it’s totally unacceptable!

I guess I was coming from a technical “no actual crime has been committed” perspective, so is there reasonable grounds to fire someone for something in their private life that is not against the law.

I hate social media but it certainly makes one far more accountable for their actions!
 
I’m against firing people for things others disagree with, but what a shower of cnuts.
 
golden_blunder said:
Many private companies would not be happy with that. You’re always representing the company even when off work. Many people don’t consider this but the company could be within their rights for firing the individuals if identities are confirmed. That’s why it’s not a good idea to have work colleagues on Facebook etc if you’re a bit of a dick
Click to expand...

And what makes it even worse for cretins like this, is that they genuinely don’t think that they’re dicks. They will do something like this, and think that it’s perfectly okay, and when someone speaks out against them or they get fired, they will act like they’re victimized, PC gone mad etc etc
 
Cloud7 said:
And what makes it even worse for cretins like this, is that they genuinely don’t think that they’re dicks. They will do something like this, and think that it’s perfectly okay, and when someone speaks out against them or they get fired, they will act like they’re victimized, PC gone mad etc etc
Click to expand...
They probably don’t think it’s ok, that’s the point. They’re trying to be edgy. One of them probably sat there and asked “what’s literally the most offensive thing we can take along?”

It’s a bit like when people go to fancy dress parties as Adolf Hitler or a terrorist. They’re not doing it because they’re blissfully unaware of the context, they know only too well and that’s why they chose it in the first place.
 
golden_blunder said:
Many private companies would not be happy with that. You’re always representing the company even when off work. Many people don’t consider this but the company could be within their rights for firing the individuals if identities are confirmed. That’s why it’s not a good idea to have work colleagues on Facebook etc if you’re a bit of a dick
Click to expand...

Surely that would never stand up at an employment tribunal. How would you get gross misconduct out of that?

These people are sick, but they have broken no laws. Ostracism would, possibly, affect them more, but they are such utter cnuts, it probably wouldn't have any effect on them anyway.
 
They look and sound like adults too, not a bunch of stupid kids. Baffling they'd decide this was a goer.
 
These racist idiots with this appalling video should get a visit from a local fire crew who can show them how "fun" full thickness burns are or the effects of inhaling noxious chemicals and products of fire even hours after the fire has gone out.

Then they should get around 400 hours community service...100 hours picking cabbages in Norfolk, 100 hours cleaning the toilets in a city centre train station, 100 hours working as an escort and 100 hours working in an asylum centre or refuge.

We can then see if they still believe immigrants have it easy etc etc
 
Sassy Colin said:
Surely that would never stand up at an employment tribunal. How would you get gross misconduct out of that?

These people are sick, but they have broken no laws. Ostracism would, possibly, affect them more, but they are such utter cnuts, it probably wouldn't have any effect on them anyway.
Click to expand...
Employers normally have something in the contract about representing the company image. I know ours do.
 
Sassy Colin said:
Surely that would never stand up at an employment tribunal. How would you get gross misconduct out of that?

These people are sick, but they have broken no laws. Ostracism would, possibly, affect them more, but they are such utter cnuts, it probably wouldn't have any effect on them anyway.
Click to expand...
Remember Hargreaves Lansdown sacked a broker the other year for tweeting a bad joke about how he may of knocked a cyclist off his bike? Bringing the company into disrepute is easy to prove I guess?
 
Who decides what is disrepute though? You’re putting parameters on taste and asking Twitter, in all its wisdom, to be judge, jury and executioner.

If someone tweeted an opinion which didn’t totally follow the PC line and enough people were offended for it to gain a slight bit of momentum, how do they decide what is the correct level of outrage to take action? It all sounds a bit thought police-ish to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.