Bulletguy Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 antony1969 - 2017-06-16 8:23 PM Bulletguy - 2017-06-16 8:16 PM John52 - 2017-06-16 7:47 PM Violet1956 - 2017-06-16 7:24 PM I can understand that security concerns may have restricted what the Prime Minister could do in terms of meeting the public Veronica I don't think anyone expected her to walk among the people like Jeremy Corbyn. But she avoided them altogether. Could she not have met some of them in a safe location like the Queen did?. It seems she met relatives of the missing in a nearby church.....but then scurried away when the crowd began shouting "get her out" as there were fears May could be "trapped in the church"! She left by a back door to shouts of "coward".......and that's from the Torygraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/16/london-fire-latest-updates-grenfell-tower-fire-victims/ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40298473 What they shouted they shouted , Im sure she's heard worse ... The local residents are being used by a much more intelligent left wing attempt to politicise the fire ... They are being used and dont realise it. Really? Are you sure? It brought this right wing fascist scumbag out baiting Muslims at a nearby mosque there to help the fire victims. Sick vile racist thug peddling his usual message of hatred. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-first-grenfell-tower-fire-muslims-help-victims-racist-london-islamophobia-east-london-mosque-a7790991.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 antony1969 - 2017-06-17 6:55 PM Brian Kirby - 2017-06-17 5:47 PM The police are now saying the number of suspected dead and missing is 58, and expected to rise. Whatever their status or origins, these were people. To read some of the comments in this string, one could imagine they might have been rodents. Humanity seems in short supply in some quarters, with this catastrophic failure being used to promote some posters' pet political and ethnic prejudices. It seems to me basic decency to await the facts, rather than continue using a human tragedy on this scale to score petty political points on an internet forum primarily dedicated to motorhoming. Is it just me? Wrong ... Its not petty political points on a motorhome forum you need to be concerned about ... The petty political point scoring as a whole by the left aimed at the gullible has been disgraceful and it started almost immediately after the event ... On here I think everyone is set in their ways and opinions don't change regardless of whats posted ... In the bigger world especially with the young as targets they are swung by nonsense at times , this seems to be one of those moments and its disgraceful FGS Antony......58 human beings are missing presumed dead with the figure set to rise. Show some humanity........show some compassion.........show some respect. If you have any at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 Bulletguy - 2017-06-17 7:21 PM antony1969 - 2017-06-17 6:55 PM Brian Kirby - 2017-06-17 5:47 PM The police are now saying the number of suspected dead and missing is 58, and expected to rise. Whatever their status or origins, these were people. To read some of the comments in this string, one could imagine they might have been rodents. Humanity seems in short supply in some quarters, with this catastrophic failure being used to promote some posters' pet political and ethnic prejudices. It seems to me basic decency to await the facts, rather than continue using a human tragedy on this scale to score petty political points on an internet forum primarily dedicated to motorhoming. Is it just me? Wrong ... Its not petty political points on a motorhome forum you need to be concerned about ... The petty political point scoring as a whole by the left aimed at the gullible has been disgraceful and it started almost immediately after the event ... On here I think everyone is set in their ways and opinions don't change regardless of whats posted ... In the bigger world especially with the young as targets they are swung by nonsense at times , this seems to be one of those moments and its disgraceful FGS Antony......58 human beings are missing presumed dead with the figure set to rise. Show some humanity........show some compassion.........show some respect. If you have any at all WTF are you on about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 antony1969 - 2017-06-17 6:55 PM............................Wrong ... Its not petty political points on a motorhome forum you need to be concerned about ... The petty political point scoring as a whole by the left aimed at the gullible has been disgraceful and it started almost immediately after the event ... On here I think everyone is set in their ways and opinions don't change regardless of whats posted ... In the bigger world especially with the young as targets they are swung by nonsense at times , this seems to be one of those moments and its disgraceful I agree that the political points scoring is disgraceful, Antony, so it seems the only narrow point on which we may differ, is that I think it equally disgraceful that it follows over onto here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-06-17 6:41 PM It was inevitable that political point scoring would form part of the aftermath of this tragedy. Having started this thread about the Prime Minister’s response I am a little regretful I must say. I have asked myself is it likely that she feels no concern about what happened and the answer must be that this is highly unlikely. Whatever one’s politics the government of the day and especially the Prime Minister is going to face criticism. It is becoming more evident that it was not safe for her to enter the very volatile atmosphere at the site of this disaster. I will have more respect for Jeremy Corbyn if he acknowledges how much easier it was for him to engage with the people who had been affected than the Prime Minister. For now let us hope that nothing like this ever happens again. Veronica Just to be clear, Veronica, my comments were not directed against you, or your post. I was what happened next that got to me. These people will have died an appalling death. It seems to me totally lacking in humanity, and completely tasteless, to use their deaths to further irrelevant political arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 Kensington & Chelsea - the council responsible, is a Tory council so any criticism will be labelled Left Wing by Anthony & the Torygraph. The BBC at least gives some figures so you can make up your own mind http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40290158 This is not just about the Grenfell Tower residents because others may be at risk. Theresa May sending £5m to kensington & Chelsea - the richest Borough in the country is like throwing money at a spoilt child. The problem is not shortage of money - its bad management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 Brian Kirby - 2017-06-17 8:19 PM I agree that the political points scoring is disgraceful, Antony, How can we say anything about the Tory council responsible for this unspeakable tragedy without being accused of politiical points scoring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 Brian Kirby - 2017-06-17 8:26 PM Violet1956 - 2017-06-17 6:41 PM It was inevitable that political point scoring would form part of the aftermath of this tragedy. Having started this thread about the Prime Minister’s response I am a little regretful I must say. I have asked myself is it likely that she feels no concern about what happened and the answer must be that this is highly unlikely. Whatever one’s politics the government of the day and especially the Prime Minister is going to face criticism. It is becoming more evident that it was not safe for her to enter the very volatile atmosphere at the site of this disaster. I will have more respect for Jeremy Corbyn if he acknowledges how much easier it was for him to engage with the people who had been affected than the Prime Minister. For now let us hope that nothing like this ever happens again. Veronica Just to be clear, Veronica, my comments were not directed against you, or your post. I was what happened next that got to me. These people will have died an appalling death. It seems to me totally lacking in humanity, and completely tasteless, to use their deaths to further irrelevant political arguments. Just for a bit of balance Brian ... Those that died in Manchester and London terrorist attacks also died an appalling death and not through any accident , those events also quickly turned to political argument regarding police cuts but I didn't see you taking any stand against that ... Why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nowtelse2do Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 PJay - 2017-06-17 3:13 PM nowtelse2do - 2017-06-16 6:28 PM I know there are a lot of questions to be asked. My first question would be, " what the hell was in the fridge to enable an explosion that could blow the door off"? Dave A bomb Maybe? He helped the fire to spread by leaving his door open and not containing the fire PJay I doubt it Pauline. The chap has been here about 20yr I believe. There is some type of gas in a fridge that is flammable, but how much gas I've no idea. There's also a compressor so a fault in that could be a factor. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-06-17 6:41 PM I will have more respect for Jeremy Corbyn if he acknowledges how much easier it was for him to engage with the people who had been affected than the Prime Minister. Veronica Fair point - its a Tor council responsible so it must have been harder for a Tory to engage with them. Is there any suggestion Jeremy Corbyn doesn't acknowledge that? But since she didn't talk to any of the victims what was the point of going at all? Does she want credit for sending £5 million to the richest borough in the country with its council tax a tiny fraction of that paid in poor areas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 nowtelse2do - 2017-06-17 8:55 PM PJay - 2017-06-17 3:13 PM nowtelse2do - 2017-06-16 6:28 PM I know there are a lot of questions to be asked. My first question would be, " what the hell was in the fridge to enable an explosion that could blow the door off"? Dave A bomb Maybe? He helped the fire to spread by leaving his door open and not containing the fire PJay I doubt it Pauline. The chap has been here about 20yr I believe. There is some type of gas in a fridge that is flammable, but how much gas I've no idea. There's also a compressor so a fault in that could be a factor. Dave A spark from thermostat contacts could ignite gas if there was a leak elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 Brian Kirby - 2017-06-17 5:47 PM The police are now saying the number of suspected dead and missing is 58, and expected to rise. Whatever their status or origins, these were people. To read some of the comments in this string, one could imagine they might have been rodents. Humanity seems in short supply in some quarters, with this catastrophic failure being used to promote some posters' pet political and ethnic prejudices. This fire should not have been possible. Each flat is supposed to be a fire compartment that, under normal circumstances of a domestic fire, will retain its integrity so that the fire cannot spread. That is the reason people are advised to stay put while the fire brigade extinguishes the fire. Mass evacuation of the estimated 400-600 inhabitants would lose valuable time, as the staircase would be choked by the evacuees, preventing the fire brigade from gaining access. There is a procedure for approving the form of construction, the materials used, the way pipes and cables pass from one fire compartment to another, the position and specification of doors, both inside flats and on escape routes, to ensure that these standards are observed, and the work is inspected as it progresses. Occupation can only take place when all approvals have been granted and the finished work certified completed to standard. This fire did not appear to spread internally, but by breaking out of a window of the flat first affected, and then igniting thermal insulation that had been applied to the exterior of the building. At 24 storeys, the building will have been a little over 200 feet tall. So, you now have 200+ feet of vertical insulation enveloping the building. It is clear from the pictures that the fire ran up the exterior, so will have broken in to upper floors through windows, either open or shattered by the heat. My experience of fire regulations in London is that no combustible material may be used on the exterior of a building, even to the extend of insisting that timber battens could not be used to attach metal cladding, and that non-combustible battens must be substituted. National Building Regulations also ban the use of combustible materials in or on the external walls of residential buildings in multiple occupation, for exactly the reason that fire could then spread vertically from floor to floor. Unless someone has catastrophically relaxed the regulations over the past few years, and I'm unaware that they have, that fire should not have been possible. That it did occur, and that it spread up the building so fast, points to an error of almost unimaginable proportions somewhere in the design, approval, installation, inspection, or certification process. It is there, and not which politician went walkabout first, or which party had a majority in the council or government at the time, that the answers will be found. The nature of the design, the procedure for approval, the adherence to specification, the inspection regime, and the certification for occupation are all documented, and all those involved at each stage all have copies of drawings, specifications, and contracts. Because of the high loss of life there will be a criminal investigation, and documents will be combed to establish who authorised what, and on what conditions. The lower floors of the building still have apparently undamaged cladding in place. Those will be examined to verify that what was used was what had been specified. I would imagine tests will be set up at the Fire Research Station to replicate, and observe, how the materials behave in fire, and whether the materials themselves behave as they were supposed to. When all the facts are known it seems to me likely that prosecution, possibly prosecutions, will follow. Whether those will be of individuals or companies, or both, will have to await the outcomes of the various investigations now proceeding. Only then will we know what went wrong, and why. It seems to me basic decency to await the facts, rather than continue using a human tragedy on this scale to score petty political points on an internet forum primarily dedicated to motorhoming. Is it just me? Thatcher shifted the onus on fire prevention from the fire authority to the landlord. Spending money on cheap combustible pretty cladding instead of fire sprinklers is not the decision of a fireman is it? Thats the decision of a politician :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 John52 - 2017-06-17 9:25 PM Thatcher shifted the onus on fire prevention from the fire authority to the landlord. Spending money on cheap combustible pretty cladding instead of fire sprinklers is not the decision of a fireman is it? Thats the decision of a politician :-( Remind me John?........For how many years after Thatcher were Labour in power? >:-) ........ More shameless loony lefty bullsh*t *-) ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-06-17 9:45 PM ..For how many years after Thatcher were Labour in power? >:-) ........ [/quote Well none actually - that was 'New Labour But thats beside the point What part of my post do you disagree with. ... Thatcher shifted the onus on fire prevention from the fire authority to the landlord. Spending money on cheap combustible pretty cladding instead of fire sprinklers is not the decision of a fireman is it? Thats the decision of a politician Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 John52 - 2017-06-17 9:25 PM................................ 1 Thatcher shifted the onus on fire prevention from the fire authority to the landlord. 2 Spending money on cheap combustible pretty cladding instead of fire sprinklers is not the decision of a fireman is it? 3 Thats the decision of a politician :-( 1 Not on any project I've even been involved in. If I said where's your evidence for that, what would you say? 2 According to statements made by the senior fire officer involved, as I understand him, yes, it still is. Sprinklers are not a panacea for safety, and have always been second preference to compartmentation. I wouldn't want to bet on which would have been the cheapest, the sprinklers or the cladding, but I'd be a mite surprised if either would prove much different in cost to the other. 3 Well who actually made that decision? Do you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 nowtelse2do - 2017-06-16 6:28 PM I know there are a lot of questions to be asked. My first question would be, " what the hell was in the fridge to enable an explosion that could blow the door off"? Dave How about a can of drink? Pressure rises with temperature, so a boiling can of fizz (fire in kitchen) would be liable to burst. Pressure bursts have considerable force. Not suggesting, just speculating. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 Brian Kirby - 2017-06-17 10:36 PM John52 - 2017-06-17 9:25 PM................................ 1 Thatcher shifted the onus on fire prevention from the fire authority to the landlord. 2 Spending money on cheap combustible pretty cladding instead of fire sprinklers is not the decision of a fireman is it? 3 Thats the decision of a politician :-( 1 Not on any project I've even been involved in. If I said where's your evidence for that, what would you say? 2 According to statements made by the senior fire officer involved, as I understand him, yes, it still is. Sprinklers are not a panacea for safety, and have always been second preference to compartmentation. I wouldn't want to bet on which would have been the cheapest, the sprinklers or the cladding, but I'd be a mite surprised if either would prove much different in cost to the other. 3 Well who actually made that decision? Do you know? I read it recently about Thatcher moving fire inspection responsibilities from the Fire Brigade I think in the FT and will try and find it again The link I posted earlier compares the cost of sprinklers and cladding http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40290158 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 Brian Kirby - 2017-06-17 10:36 PM Well who actually made that decision? (to spend the money on flammable pretty cladding instead of fire sprinklers) Do you know? No - but I can't believe it was a fireman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 £500 per week per unit in Grenfell ... Wonder who paid most of those rents at £25.000 a year ... Suppose its the same in many of Londons tower blocks ... The tax payer pays a lot out for little or no return Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 John52 - 2017-06-17 10:46 PM.......................I read it recently about Thatcher moving fire inspection responsibilities from the Fire Brigade I think in the FT and will try and find it again Thanks. The link I posted earlier compares the cost of sprinklers and cladding http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40290158 Yes but using figures from the BASFA (a trade association whose function is to promote the installation of sprinklers - plus the Beeb used 2012 figures from a BASFA report without adjusting for 2017 prices!)! Nevertheless, the conclusion was that installation of sprinklers would have been a lot cheaper (£K128) than the cladding job (£M2.6), so that hardly supports the idea that this was a cheapo solution. But, the reason for installing the cladding doesn't seem to have been fire protection, it seems it was because they were upgrading the heating systems in the flats and, under current Building Regulations, they needed to also upgrade the thermal insulation of the building to gain approval for that work. That would have been the reason for upgrading the windows (double glazed etc.) and for the addition of external insulation (installing internal insulation would, presumably, have been impractical), so the cladding would presumably have been added to provide impact and weather protection to the insulation. The product used is manufactured by a French subsidiary of Alcoa, and is (apparently) Reynobond. Looking at the spec, it certainly won't have been cheap. So, the questions really comedown to whether the correct grade of Reynobond was approved (there appear to be 3, one that has no designated fire performance, one that is classed fire retardant, and one that is classed fire resistant), whether the approved grade was actually fitted, whether the insulation fitted behind the cladding panels was properly approved, and whether the approved material was actually fitted, and if not in any of these cases, why? One is looking for error, incompetence, or possibly, fraud. Interesting mix, no? :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 John52 - 2017-06-18 7:13 AM Brian Kirby - 2017-06-17 10:36 PM Well who actually made that decision? (to spend the money on flammable pretty cladding instead of fire sprinklers) Do you know? No - but I can't believe it was a fireman. It wouldn't have been, but the person who approved it's use should have been a fire officer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 antony1969 - 2017-06-18 9:55 AM £500 per week per unit in Grenfell ... Wonder who paid most of those rents at £25.000 a year ... Suppose its the same in many of Londons tower blocks ... The tax payer pays a lot out for little or no return Try as I might, Antony, I can't see what relevance that has to the fire. :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 John52 - 2017-06-17 10:46 PM Brian Kirby - 2017-06-17 10:36 PM John52 - 2017-06-17 9:25 PM................................ 1 Thatcher shifted the onus on fire prevention from the fire authority to the landlord. 2 Spending money on cheap combustible pretty cladding instead of fire sprinklers is not the decision of a fireman is it? 3 Thats the decision of a politician :-( 1 Not on any project I've even been involved in. If I said where's your evidence for that, what would you say? 2 According to statements made by the senior fire officer involved, as I understand him, yes, it still is. Sprinklers are not a panacea for safety, and have always been second preference to compartmentation. I wouldn't want to bet on which would have been the cheapest, the sprinklers or the cladding, but I'd be a mite surprised if either would prove much different in cost to the other. 3 Well who actually made that decision? Do you know? I read it recently about Thatcher moving fire inspection responsibilities from the Fire Brigade I think in the FT and will try and find it again The link I posted earlier compares the cost of sprinklers and cladding http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40290158 Apart from the known extreme divisions in the London wealth gap, this bit in that linked article stood out to me. The International Fire Sprinkler Association (IFSA) says that automatic fire sprinkler systems are the single most effective fire protection measure available, and are able to make up for a wide range of other fire protection deficiencies. There has never been a multiple loss of life from a fire developing in a building protected by a properly designed, installed and maintained fire sprinkler system. While fire sprinkler systems have been required in new high-rise residential buildings in England since 2007, it is not compulsory to retrofit them into existing buildings. So Grenfell Tower had none. From it's build history Grenfell Tower seems to be yet another 'modern day' slum which should have been condemned years ago, but we continue to hold on to these shoddy relics The same can be said for new build estates....tiny little boxes with folk living cheek by jowl. It's just a modern version of 1930's terraced property though possibly poorer built. UK has masses open land but the only way to realise just how much is taking a flight on one of those rare cloudless blue sky days. Estates are clumped together like wagon trains from the wild west, then absolutely nothing but open land for mile after mile.....until the next estate appears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 Brian Kirby - 2017-06-18 11:45 AM antony1969 - 2017-06-18 9:55 AM £500 per week per unit in Grenfell ... Wonder who paid most of those rents at £25.000 a year ... Suppose its the same in many of Londons tower blocks ... The tax payer pays a lot out for little or no return Try as I might, Antony, I can't see what relevance that has to the fire. :-S The same relevance that's been thrown about by the wets regarding the rich and poor of London ... if living rent free to the tune of 25 grand a year in a 10 million quid renovation block is poor then I don't how to describe my poor departed old grandparents lot in life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 antony1969 - 2017-06-18 12:30 PM Brian Kirby - 2017-06-18 11:45 AM antony1969 - 2017-06-18 9:55 AM £500 per week per unit in Grenfell ... Wonder who paid most of those rents at £25.000 a year ... Suppose its the same in many of Londons tower blocks ... The tax payer pays a lot out for little or no return Try as I might, Antony, I can't see what relevance that has to the fire. :-S The same relevance that's been thrown about by the wets regarding the rich and poor of London ... if living rent free to the tune of 25 grand a year in a 10 million quid renovation block is poor then I don't how to describe my poor departed old grandparents lot in life £10 million 'renovation' is the sort of money people like Rinat Akhmetov or John Caudwell would spend on new light fittings for their apartment at One Hyde Park. Whether "living rent free to the tune of 25 grand a year" or not (do you have statistics to support that claim?) does not excuse lax and unsafe housing. This was a preventable accident just waiting to happen and concerns had been raised before......but they were deemed "trouble makers" and ignored. Well, they are dead now. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-fire-london-dead-legal-action-campaign-fire-safety-mariem-elgwahry-nadia-choucair-a7795586.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.