Grenfell Tower

[Bulletguy]

Violet1956 - 2017-09-20 11:08 AM

 

antony1969 - 2017-09-20 6:23 AM

 

http://news.sky.com/story/grenfell-tower-fire-death-toll-may-be-lower-than-first-feared-police-say-11043094 ... Fraud , thefts ... Who'd have thought it possible ... The community that stands together were robbing off each other as the fire was going and others have since attempted to benefit from the tragedy ... Wheres the fella who packed his wife and kids off , packed his bags and his fridge exploded ??? ... Nice people

 

The statement in the article from which you draw your conclusions appears to be “Detectives are also looking into eight cases of fraud involving people who claimed money following the disaster and four possible thefts from flats on the lower levels of the tower block”.

 

Where in that statement is it indicated that those being investigated form part of “the community” and how does it stack up that they are in some way representative of the morals of the entire community?

 

I suggest that you ought to follow your own advice Antony and just wait until these investigations are complete before drawing any conclusions.

 

Veronica

He can't wait though!!

 

Tbh i never even bothered opening the link.....a cursory glance over his potty post was enough to tell me it was just another typical Antony xenophobic rant.

 

 

pepe63 - 2017-09-20 12:29 PM

 

For heaven's sake Veronica, why on earth did you even respond to such a post...?

 

It was clearly just another of his 6-6.30am Bile-bulletins, posted with the intention of goading others (usually Bulletguy) into a response, in the hope it'd help fill his day...

 

They waste enough of their own time, don't let the forum's bitter, resentful time-sponges waste too much of yours...

Exactly......using the same old stale bait that's been on his hook for years. He might get more 'bites' if he chucked out some decent bait now and then! ;-)

[antony1969]

Bulletguy - 2017-09-20 1:50 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-09-20 11:08 AM

 

antony1969 - 2017-09-20 6:23 AM

 

http://news.sky.com/story/grenfell-tower-fire-death-toll-may-be-lower-than-first-feared-police-say-11043094 ... Fraud , thefts ... Who'd have thought it possible ... The community that stands together were robbing off each other as the fire was going and others have since attempted to benefit from the tragedy ... Wheres the fella who packed his wife and kids off , packed his bags and his fridge exploded ??? ... Nice people

 

The statement in the article from which you draw your conclusions appears to be “Detectives are also looking into eight cases of fraud involving people who claimed money following the disaster and four possible thefts from flats on the lower levels of the tower block”.

 

Where in that statement is it indicated that those being investigated form part of “the community” and how does it stack up that they are in some way representative of the morals of the entire community?

 

I suggest that you ought to follow your own advice Antony and just wait until these investigations are complete before drawing any conclusions.

 

Veronica

He can't wait though!!

 

Tbh i never even bothered opening the link.....a cursory glance over his potty post was enough to tell me it was just another typical Antony xenophobic rant.

 

 

pepe63 - 2017-09-20 12:29 PM

 

For heaven's sake Veronica, why on earth did you even respond to such a post...?

 

It was clearly just another of his 6-6.30am Bile-bulletins, posted with the intention of goading others (usually Bulletguy) into a response, in the hope it'd help fill his day...

 

They waste enough of their own time, don't let the forum's bitter, resentful time-sponges waste too much of yours...

Exactly......using the same old stale bait that's been on his hook for years. He might get more 'bites' if he chucked out some decent bait now and then! ;-)

 

"Xenophobic rant" ... Who to , what race or nationality did I pick on ? ... If it's allowed you to use your favourite word and take some pleasure then all's good ... Enjoy

[Tracker]

This forum would be a better and more interesting place if the usual suspects would stop trying to score points and impress everyone else, which they fail to do, as well as reduce their postings of boring monotonous and repetitive rubbish.

[Violet1956]

Tracker - 2017-09-20 5:11 PM

 

This forum would be a better and more interesting place if the usual suspects would stop trying to score points and impress everyone else, which they fail to do, as well as reduce their postings of boring monotonous and repetitive rubbish.

 

 

I admit that I respond all too quickly to provocation at times. Pepe had a point. More discipline and effective time management should be my mantra; ‘tis better perhaps to give some posts the attention they deserve. Have you got any more jokes for us Rich? I am in need of some light relief from the cares the day.

 

Veronica

[antony1969]

Violet1956 - 2017-09-20 5:27 PM

 

Tracker - 2017-09-20 5:11 PM

 

This forum would be a better and more interesting place if the usual suspects would stop trying to score points and impress everyone else, which they fail to do, as well as reduce their postings of boring monotonous and repetitive rubbish.

 

 

I admit that I respond all too quickly to provocation at times. Pepe had a point. More discipline and effective time management should be my mantra; ‘tis better perhaps to give some posts the attention they deserve. Have you got any more jokes for us Rich? I am in need of some light relief from the cares the day.

 

Veronica

 

Yep ... Poor defenceless little washer woman Veronica was provoked and unable to control herself in responding to a post that mentioned no names and had the word "community" in it that according to some half wit demands outrage and a 70s style xenophobic name calling response ... I thought poor defenceless little lady Veronica had bigger balls than most of the blokes on here and wouldn't appreciate a public roasting ... How wrong one can be

[Tracker]

antony1969 - 2017-09-20 5:53 PM

Yep ... Poor defenceless little washer woman Veronica was provoked and unable to control herself in responding to a post that mentioned no names and had the word "community" in it that according to some half wit demands outrage and a 70s style xenophobic name calling response ... I thought poor defenceless little lady Veronica had bigger balls than most of the blokes on here and wouldn't appreciate a public roasting ... How wrong one can be

 

That is a thoroughly nasty and needless thing to post Antony and I hope that Veronica reports it to the Administrators.

That is exactly what I mean about unprovoked nastiness often allegedly disguised as humour degrading the forum.

[Violet1956]

antony1969 - 2017-09-20 5:53 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-09-20 5:27 PM

 

Tracker - 2017-09-20 5:11 PM

 

This forum would be a better and more interesting place if the usual suspects would stop trying to score points and impress everyone else, which they fail to do, as well as reduce their postings of boring monotonous and repetitive rubbish.

 

 

I admit that I respond all too quickly to provocation at times. Pepe had a point. More discipline and effective time management should be my mantra; ‘tis better perhaps to give some posts the attention they deserve. Have you got any more jokes for us Rich? I am in need of some light relief from the cares the day.

 

Veronica

 

Yep ... Poor defenceless little washer woman Veronica was provoked and unable to control herself in responding to a post that mentioned no names and had the word "community" in it that according to some half wit demands outrage and a 70s style xenophobic name calling response ... I thought poor defenceless little lady Veronica had bigger balls than most of the blokes on here and wouldn't appreciate a public roasting ... How wrong one can be

 

How on earth did you discover I was a slave to the overflowing laundry basket Antony? My cover has been blown. There I was pretending to have an interest in the big issues of the day.

 

 

Veronica (lol)

[antony1969]

Tracker - 2017-09-20 6:01 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-09-20 5:53 PM

Yep ... Poor defenceless little washer woman Veronica was provoked and unable to control herself in responding to a post that mentioned no names and had the word "community" in it that according to some half wit demands outrage and a 70s style xenophobic name calling response ... I thought poor defenceless little lady Veronica had bigger balls than most of the blokes on here and wouldn't appreciate a public roasting ... How wrong one can be

 

That is a thoroughly nasty and needless thing to post Antony and I hope that Veronica reports it to the Administrators.

That is exactly what I mean about unprovoked nastiness often allegedly disguised as humour degrading the forum.

 

From the man who re-invented himself on here after being banned ... You report it Richard in your new moderator role but first lay out exactly why its thoroughly nasty

[antony1969]

Violet1956 - 2017-09-20 6:18 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-09-20 5:53 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-09-20 5:27 PM

 

Tracker - 2017-09-20 5:11 PM

 

This forum would be a better and more interesting place if the usual suspects would stop trying to score points and impress everyone else, which they fail to do, as well as reduce their postings of boring monotonous and repetitive rubbish.

 

 

I admit that I respond all too quickly to provocation at times. Pepe had a point. More discipline and effective time management should be my mantra; ‘tis better perhaps to give some posts the attention they deserve. Have you got any more jokes for us Rich? I am in need of some light relief from the cares the day.

 

Veronica

 

Yep ... Poor defenceless little washer woman Veronica was provoked and unable to control herself in responding to a post that mentioned no names and had the word "community" in it that according to some half wit demands outrage and a 70s style xenophobic name calling response ... I thought poor defenceless little lady Veronica had bigger balls than most of the blokes on here and wouldn't appreciate a public roasting ... How wrong one can be

 

How on earth did you discover I was a slave to the overflowing laundry basket Antony? My cover has been blown. There I was pretending to have an interest in the big issues of the day.

 

 

Veronica (lol)

 

Seems you still have your sense of humour Veronica unlike some B-)

[Bulletguy]

 

Doors for flats in Grenfell Tower could only hold back a fire for half the time they were designed to, a police investigation has found.

 

Experts said a door was supposed to resist fire for 30 minutes, but only lasted 15 minutes in tests. :-(

 

Housing Secretary Sajid Javid said the risk to public safety in buildings with the same doors remains low. 8-)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43413989

 

 

[antony1969]

Tha's been a few cases of fraud claims from foreign type folk with Grenfell ain't tha and didn't someone get done for running a cannabis farm or something from one of the flats ... Shocking

[Brian Kirby]

Bulletguy - 2018-03-15 9:54 PM

 

 

Doors for flats in Grenfell Tower could only hold back a fire for half the time they were designed to, a police investigation has found.

 

Experts said a door was supposed to resist fire for 30 minutes, but only lasted 15 minutes in tests. :-(

 

Housing Secretary Sajid Javid said the risk to public safety in buildings with the same doors remains low. 8-)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43413989

 

What was said was that the fire resistance requirement for the front doors fitted to flats at Grenfell Tower was 30 minutes. The requirement is set through the Building Regulations.

 

The police, presumably on the basis of reasonable suspicion, removed an undamaged door and send it for a fire test, where it failed after 15 minutes. So, the doors do not comply with Building Regulations. That does not mean that all 30 mins f/r doors are deficient: it merely means that door, as tested, was deficient. Other doors from Grenfell, and presumably other buildings, will now be tested.

 

It is clear that the Grenfell door was of the wrong type, and it is possible that is the result of accident, incompetence, or fraud, either on the part of the specifier, the manufacturer, the supplier, the fitter, or a combination thereof. That will be revealed in due course.

 

Primary responsibility for ensuring that the correct door is fitted lies with the building owner and, through the building owner, down the whole chain of supply, from those who specified the door, to those who installed it. That will, again, be revealed in due course.

 

What was Javid supposed to say? "Oh my Gawd, all fire doors on all buildings are now suspect, so everyone please panic?

 

Any such risk only arises in the event of a fire. Fires, fortunately, are not that common in comparable buildings. When the doors have been subjected to further testing, and doors in comparable buildings have been inspected to confirm compliance, any that are found to be defective can be replaced. Until then, there is little in practical terms that can be done, and even less can be achieved by fomenting widespread panic.

 

Though what the Hell that has to do with the honesty, nationality, or preferences for recreational drugs, of the inhabitants, living and/or dead, totally escapes me.

 

Political tribalism has an awful lot to answer for!

[StuartO]

As I recall this fire spread quickly partly because the occupier of the flat left the door open.

 

Of course the extra 15 minutes of fire resistance of the door might have helped some of those who stayed in their flats waiting to be rescued.

 

[Bulletguy]

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-16 10:13 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-03-15 9:54 PM

 

 

Doors for flats in Grenfell Tower could only hold back a fire for half the time they were designed to, a police investigation has found.

 

Experts said a door was supposed to resist fire for 30 minutes, but only lasted 15 minutes in tests. :-(

 

Housing Secretary Sajid Javid said the risk to public safety in buildings with the same doors remains low. 8-)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43413989

 

What was said was that the fire resistance requirement for the front doors fitted to flats at Grenfell Tower was 30 minutes. The requirement is set through the Building Regulations.

 

The police, presumably on the basis of reasonable suspicion, removed an undamaged door and send it for a fire test, where it failed after 15 minutes. So, the doors do not comply with Building Regulations. That does not mean that all 30 mins f/r doors are deficient: it merely means that door, as tested, was deficient. Other doors from Grenfell, and presumably other buildings, will now be tested.

 

It is clear that the Grenfell door was of the wrong type, and it is possible that is the result of accident, incompetence, or fraud, either on the part of the specifier, the manufacturer, the supplier, the fitter, or a combination thereof. That will be revealed in due course.

 

Primary responsibility for ensuring that the correct door is fitted lies with the building owner and, through the building owner, down the whole chain of supply, from those who specified the door, to those who installed it. That will, again, be revealed in due course.

 

What was Javid supposed to say? "Oh my Gawd, all fire doors on all buildings are now suspect, so everyone please panic?

 

Any such risk only arises in the event of a fire. Fires, fortunately, are not that common in comparable buildings. When the doors have been subjected to further testing, and doors in comparable buildings have been inspected to confirm compliance, any that are found to be defective can be replaced. Until then, there is little in practical terms that can be done, and even less can be achieved by fomenting widespread panic.

It's an important safety factor though Brian and the failure time is pretty significant, not just by a couple of minutes but half the required standard. That's unacceptable.

 

I don't know about domestic rated fire doors as i've never lived anywhere that required them but my workplace had industrial ones all over the place. We used to joke about them as we all knew if ever the place suffered an explosion, no fire door would save us but they were a legal requirement and i remember once the s**te hitting the fan when one was found with a broken lock (the plastic part to the bolt) and it had gone unnoticed. We did once suffer a pretty serious explosion in one of the powder cell rooms which ripped a "blast proof" (so called!) door off and eventually discovered almost 200 metres away. Fortunately nobody was in the block at the time but a major inquiry went on for six months.

 

No i think Javid should have said, "as a result of what we've found at Grenfell, fire doors are to be replaced in all tower block buildings". I'd feel more confident in that than being told "the risk is fairly low". That's not good enough and imo, a pretty dismissive remark.

 

Not quite the same but similar, look at how vehicle manufacturers react when any fault is found in a new model. All between whatever dates concerned get recalled by the factory to have 'X' modification/part fitted. They act very proactively because it's not just reputation of the brand at stake, potentially it's peoples lives.

 

Though what the Hell that has to do with the honesty, nationality, or preferences for recreational drugs, of the inhabitants, living and/or dead, totally escapes me.

 

Political tribalism has an awful lot to answer for!

I agree and find it quite sad a tiny minority seek to use such a horrendous tragedy as a platform to spout forth their 'tribalist' views.

 

I've been in contact with one of the relatives of this young couple who lost their lives on the 23rd floor. They are just two of the 71 killed. It's an interview which won't ever leave my mind and would do some a power of good to watch and listen.......but i doubt they will.

 

https://www.channel4.com/news/italian-parents-of-grenfell-victim-thank-the-british-people-for-support

[Brian Kirby]

StuartO - 2018-03-16 10:55 AM

 

As I recall this fire spread quickly partly because the occupier of the flat left the door open. Of course the extra 15 minutes of fire resistance of the door might have helped some of those who stayed in their flats waiting to be rescued.

Not as I understand it, Stuart. The fire spread up the outside of the building via the flammable insulation and cladding. A fire started in the kitchen of one of the flats, reportedly caused by a fridge. It appears that the fire was contained within the kitchen until the kitchen window failed under the heat, at which point the fire "flashed over" and attacked the flammable cladding and insulation on the outside wall. This allowed the fire to spread up and out from that flat, the heat shattering the windows of other flats as it went, so setting fire to their interiors in succession. It is at this point that the fire resistance of the front doors becomes critical as, with a growing number of flats on fire, if the front doors fail to contain the fire, the escape stair will be inaccessible to the occupants. Those two factors together probably explain the large number of deaths.

 

It is quite possible that numerous people left their doors open as they escaped, but as the doors were fire doors, all should have been fitted with automatic closers, so all should have closed once the last occupant had left. However, self-closing doors bring a nuisance factor (which is why one can often see them propped open with a fire extinguisher in office blocks :-)), so it is possible some residents may have removed or disabled the self-closers. Even so, with the fire spreading rapidly up the outside of the building, whether or not the doors were left open will have little impact on the speed at which it spread. What it would have affected, as above, is the ability of residents from upper floors to get down the fire escape.

 

These buildings were designed to contain fire in any flat in which it started, and as part of that design the external walls were required to be non-flammable precisely to prevent it spreading externally. The installation of flammable insulation and cladding completely negated the fire compartmentation of the original design, substituting nothing in its place. Take away that insulation and cladding, and the fire could not have spread as it did.

 

The first fire fighters to attend had reportedly extinguished the fire in the kitchen and were leaving the building, when their colleagues outside drew their attention to fire on the outside of the building, of which, from the inside, they had been unaware. They did not, at that point, have the necessary high reach hoses and ladders (because, with non-flammable external walls there would not be an external fire) and, by the time these had arrived, the fire was hopelessly out of control.

 

As I said, all this is what I have understood since the fire. I'm more than happy to be corrected if anyone has gained better information in the meantime.

[Brian Kirby]

Bulletguy - 2018-03-16 3:48 PM............................No i think Javid should have said, "as a result of what we've found at Grenfell, fire doors are to be replaced in all tower block buildings". I'd feel more confident in that than being told "the risk is fairly low". That's not good enough and imo, a pretty dismissive remark..................................

But, fire resisting doors have to be tested in order to be sold as fire resisting. They are coded with coloured inserts to identify them. They usually have intumescent strips let into their edges that will swell in the presence of heat to provide a complete seal against the passage of smoke. It would be an enormous task, taking considerable time, to replace the front doors on every tower block throughout the UK, and would require a major diversion of resources by joinery manufacturers to produce the necessary quantity of doors.

 

Besides which, there is no logical reason to suspect that all fire doors will fail in the same way as this one door failed. The first logical step would be to test a few more doors and then, ifmore fail, to launch an inspection all fire doors in multi-story residential buildings. I obviously don't know, but I would be very surprised if the great majority of such doors were found to be of the wrong type. Then, any doors that are of the wrong type, or are from the same manufacturer as the Grenfell doors (assuming that the door is, actually, defective - as it is still possible that the door in question was not manufactured to be a 30 min fire door, but was fitted in error), should be replaced.

 

People are already jittery enough about high rise residential buildings so, until there is some evidence of a wider problem, I think it would be irresponsible to cause further alarm in the light of a disaster that was not caused as a result of a failed fire door, but by the application of (I think illegal) flammable insulation and cladding to the external walls, giving any fire the potential to spread externally so negating the fire performance of the building.

 

Yes, fire doors are important but, relative to flammable insulation and cladding, they aren't that significant a contributor to fire spread.

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-16 10:13 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-03-15 9:54 PM

 

 

Doors for flats in Grenfell Tower could only hold back a fire for half the time they were designed to, a police investigation has found.

 

Experts said a door was supposed to resist fire for 30 minutes, but only lasted 15 minutes in tests. :-(

 

Housing Secretary Sajid Javid said the risk to public safety in buildings with the same doors remains low. 8-)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43413989

 

What was said was that the fire resistance requirement for the front doors fitted to flats at Grenfell Tower was 30 minutes. The requirement is set through the Building Regulations.

 

The police, presumably on the basis of reasonable suspicion, removed an undamaged door and send it for a fire test, where it failed after 15 minutes. So, the doors do not comply with Building Regulations. That does not mean that all 30 mins f/r doors are deficient: it merely means that door, as tested, was deficient. Other doors from Grenfell, and presumably other buildings, will now be tested.

 

It is clear that the Grenfell door was of the wrong type, and it is possible that is the result of accident, incompetence, or fraud, either on the part of the specifier, the manufacturer, the supplier, the fitter, or a combination thereof. That will be revealed in due course.

 

Primary responsibility for ensuring that the correct door is fitted lies with the building owner and, through the building owner, down the whole chain of supply, from those who specified the door, to those who installed it. That will, again, be revealed in due course.

 

What was Javid supposed to say? "Oh my Gawd, all fire doors on all buildings are now suspect, so everyone please panic?

 

Any such risk only arises in the event of a fire. Fires, fortunately, are not that common in comparable buildings. When the doors have been subjected to further testing, and doors in comparable buildings have been inspected to confirm compliance, any that are found to be defective can be replaced. Until then, there is little in practical terms that can be done, and even less can be achieved by fomenting widespread panic.

 

Though what the Hell that has to do with the honesty, nationality, or preferences for recreational drugs, of the inhabitants, living and/or dead, totally escapes me.

 

Political tribalism has an awful lot to answer for!

 

I thought the post title was Grenfell Tower Brian so my post was defo Grenfell related wasn't it ... I'm sorry if mentioning the fraudulent claims many have made with regards to the fire upsets your delicate stomach but I didn't make the dodgy claims on the back of the dead they did ... Have I somewhere told a lie ??? ... No didn't think so and what the hell political tribalism has to do with right and wrong I don't know

[Brian Kirby]

antony1969 - 2018-03-16 7:09 PM...................................

I thought the post title was Grenfell Tower Brian so my post was defo Grenfell related wasn't it ... I'm sorry if mentioning the fraudulent claims many have made with regards to the fire upsets your delicate stomach but I didn't make the dodgy claims on the back of the dead they did ... Have I somewhere told a lie ??? ... No didn't think so and what the hell political tribalism has to do with right and wrong I don't know

I know what I said Antony, most of which was not relevant to your comments, so no need to repeat it all. Yes, the title is Grenfell Tower, and the post was started in relationship to the fire, and the numbers killed and injured by it.

 

The post you replied against was Bullet's, commenting on the discovery of defective fire doors to flats. That's your context, so no, I don't see how you comments relate to what was being discussed.

 

Still, any peg to hang a (grubby) hat on, eh?

[Bulletguy]

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-16 6:44 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-03-16 3:48 PM............................No i think Javid should have said, "as a result of what we've found at Grenfell, fire doors are to be replaced in all tower block buildings". I'd feel more confident in that than being told "the risk is fairly low". That's not good enough and imo, a pretty dismissive remark..................................

But, fire resisting doors have to be tested in order to be sold as fire resisting. They are coded with coloured inserts to identify them. They usually have intumescent strips let into their edges that will swell in the presence of heat to provide a complete seal against the passage of smoke. It would be an enormous task, taking considerable time, to replace the front doors on every tower block throughout the UK, and would require a major diversion of resources by joinery manufacturers to produce the necessary quantity of doors.

 

Besides which, there is no logical reason to suspect that all fire doors will fail in the same way as this one door failed. The first logical step would be to test a few more doors and then, ifmore fail, to launch an inspection all fire doors in multi-story residential buildings. I obviously don't know, but I would be very surprised if the great majority of such doors were found to be of the wrong type. Then, any doors that are of the wrong type, or are from the same manufacturer as the Grenfell doors (assuming that the door is, actually, defective - as it is still possible that the door in question was not manufactured to be a 30 min fire door, but was fitted in error), should be replaced.

 

People are already jittery enough about high rise residential buildings so, until there is some evidence of a wider problem, I think it would be irresponsible to cause further alarm in the light of a disaster that was not caused as a result of a failed fire door, but by the application of (I think illegal) flammable insulation and cladding to the external walls, giving any fire the potential to spread externally so negating the fire performance of the building.

 

Yes, fire doors are important but, relative to flammable insulation and cladding, they aren't that significant a contributor to fire spread.

Aren't the fire doors (in tower blocks) just fitted at the entry/exit point of each stairwell? If so then in the case of Grenfell that would only be 24 doors which doesn't seem much to pay out by the few tower blocks we have in UK.

 

Maybe the future of tower block residential builds is questionable and perhaps we should be looking at alternatives? Certainly the cladding issue was something i believe was raised by residents numerous times....but they were ignored.

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-17 11:58 AM

 

antony1969 - 2018-03-16 7:09 PM...................................

I thought the post title was Grenfell Tower Brian so my post was defo Grenfell related wasn't it ... I'm sorry if mentioning the fraudulent claims many have made with regards to the fire upsets your delicate stomach but I didn't make the dodgy claims on the back of the dead they did ... Have I somewhere told a lie ??? ... No didn't think so and what the hell political tribalism has to do with right and wrong I don't know

I know what I said Antony, most of which was not relevant to your comments, so no need to repeat it all. Yes, the title is Grenfell Tower, and the post was started in relationship to the fire, and the numbers killed and injured by it.

 

The post you replied against was Bullet's, commenting on the discovery of defective fire doors to flats. That's your context, so no, I don't see how you comments relate to what was being discussed.

 

Still, any peg to hang a (grubby) hat on, eh?

 

Don't recall quoting Bulletgay or passing comment on what he said ??? Maybe you can show where I did ... Sorry if Grenfell criminality isn't what you want to read about

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-17 11:58 AM

 

I know what I said Antony, most of which was not relevant to your comments, so no need to repeat it all. Yes, the title is Grenfell Tower, and the post was started in relationship to the fire, and the numbers killed and injured by it.

 

Maybe it's time to start a thread about those who are trying to profit from it? :-| .......

 

Both legally and illegally *-) ........

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

antony1969 - 2018-03-17 2:23 PM..................Don't recall quoting Bulletgay or passing comment on what he said ??? Maybe you can show where I did ..............

Here:

Bulletguy - 2018-03-15 9:54 PM

Doors for flats in Grenfell Tower could only hold back a fire for half the time they were designed to, a police investigation has found.

 

Experts said a door was supposed to resist fire for 30 minutes, but only lasted 15 minutes in tests. :-(

 

Housing Secretary Sajid Javid said the risk to public safety in buildings with the same doors remains low. 8-)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43413989

Immediately beneath which you replied, as you must surely know:

antony1969 - 2018-03-16 8:18 AM

Tha's been a few cases of fraud claims from foreign type folk with Grenfell ain't tha and didn't someone get done for running a cannabis farm or something from one of the flats ... Shocking

If you want to know what the string is about, try looking at the original post.

 

Your post, as quoted above, appears to be arguing that they all deserved their fates, because a) some of them were "foreign type folk" and b) one resident was producing, and selling, cannabis oil. That sentiment really is shocking, but, above all, it is totally irrelevant to the fire, its outcome, or its causes.

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2018-03-17 3:11 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-17 11:58 AM

 

I know what I said Antony, most of which was not relevant to your comments, so no need to repeat it all. Yes, the title is Grenfell Tower, and the post was started in relationship to the fire, and the numbers killed and injured by it.

 

Maybe it's time to start a thread about those who are trying to profit from it? :-| .......

 

Both legally and illegally *-) ........

 

Fire away, then, Dave. Be interesting to who responds.

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-17 3:52 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-03-17 2:23 PM..................Don't recall quoting Bulletgay or passing comment on what he said ??? Maybe you can show where I did ..............

Here:

Bulletguy - 2018-03-15 9:54 PM

Doors for flats in Grenfell Tower could only hold back a fire for half the time they were designed to, a police investigation has found.

 

Experts said a door was supposed to resist fire for 30 minutes, but only lasted 15 minutes in tests. :-(

 

Housing Secretary Sajid Javid said the risk to public safety in buildings with the same doors remains low. 8-)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43413989

Immediately beneath which you replied, as you must surely know:

antony1969 - 2018-03-16 8:18 AM

Tha's been a few cases of fraud claims from foreign type folk with Grenfell ain't tha and didn't someone get done for running a cannabis farm or something from one of the flats ... Shocking

If you want to know what the string is about, try looking at the original post.

 

Your post, as quoted above, appears to be arguing that they all deserved their fates, because a) some of them were "foreign type folk" and b) one resident was producing, and selling, cannabis oil. That sentiment really is shocking, but, above all, it is totally irrelevant to the fire, its outcome, or its causes.

 

But he didn't quote BG's post did he? ;-) .......

 

Just sayin .......That you're trying to put words into Antony's mouth :-| .......

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-17 3:53 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-03-17 3:11 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-17 11:58 AM

 

I know what I said Antony, most of which was not relevant to your comments, so no need to repeat it all. Yes, the title is Grenfell Tower, and the post was started in relationship to the fire, and the numbers killed and injured by it.

 

Maybe it's time to start a thread about those who are trying to profit from it? :-| .......

 

Both legally and illegally *-) ........

 

Fire away, then, Dave. Be interesting to who responds.

 

Thinking about it ;-) .......But I'm currently on overload with being early retired ........I never realised doing nothing took up so much time 8-) ............

 

Plus I already have my Brexit agenda which is I hate to say it more important than a tragedy caused by a fridge :-| .........