Grenfell Tower

[antony1969]

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 Brian your conveniently skipping that I did not quote Bulletgay or mention anything he's said in the post before me ...What you mean is I've brought up the fraud and criminality on a thread titled Grenfell Tower and you don't like it ... Tough

[Brian Kirby]

Bulletguy - 2018-03-17 1:39 PM.................................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.

No. Because the fire fighting concept is of compartmentation, each flat being constructed to contain the fire for a minimum period of time. Floors and separating walls are (usually) 1 hour, and any doors in those walls are (usually) 30 minutes. The idea is to allow time for a) occupants of a flat where a fire starts to escape in safety and call the fire brigade, and b) to give time for the fire brigade to arrive, deal with the fire, and assess the risk to occupants of other flats, before the fire can spread to other flats.

 

The idea is that the brigade then decides the extent to which evacuation of other flats may be necessary, and provide whatever assistance may be required to assist those affected to leave. This reduces the risk of large numbers all trying to evacuate at the same time.

 

It is a well tried and tested methodology, but it relies implicitly on the fire compartmentation periods being achieved and maintained, and above all on the external walls not allowing a fire to spread externally, so leap-frogging across compartment barriers. That is why the use of flammable external insulation and cladding at Grenfell had such disastrous consequences.

 

The fire brigade would have expected the fire compartmentation to be as designed, and the standard advice to residents is that the safest thing to do is to remain in their flats, windows and doors closed, until advised otherwise by the fire brigade.

 

Apparently, the first fire fighters on the scene had quickly dealt with the fire inside the flat, but were unaware that the fire had escaped into the cladding until alerted by their colleagues outside. Even then, they did not at first understand what was happening because their training was based on the external walls being non flammable. They then had to radio for further rigs to deal with the external fire and, because of the speed at which the fire spread externally, by the time those rigs were deployed the fire was out of control.

 

This necessitated a full scale evacuation of the building, for which the escape stairs were inadequate, because they had not been designed on that basis. The result was chaos on the stairs, which would have been full of people of all ages and varying degrees of mobility and agility. The burning cladding created dense smoke externally that entered through vents intended to evacuate smoke from a fire within the building, so reducing visibility on the stairs and no doubt creating a measure of panic. In the face of all of this, other fire fighters were trying to make their ways up the stairs to reach anyone still remaining or needing assistance.

 

It is a nightmare vision that only arose because of the illegal use of flammable insulation and cladding. The building regulations are abundantly clear on the need for external cladding on tall, multi occupancy, residential buildings, to be non-flammable, and I cannot (yet) begin to understand how an error of such magnitude could possibly have been made. It is already mired in politics, and I fear that the eventual enquiry report may be clouded by the political game playing. I hope it will not, and that the trail of evidence showing how that catastrophic error came to be made will be forensic and irrefutable. It needs to be.

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2018-03-17 3:56 PM

 

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 :-| .......

 

I do sometimes wish you'd read before you post, Dave! I didn't say that Antony had quoted BG. It was Antony's (false) claim that I'd done so, whereas what I had I said was that he'd replied to BG with his irrelevant post about foreign type folk and cannabis farms - as your above cut and paste demonstrates. Strewth!

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-17 6:15 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-03-17 3:56 PM

 

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 :-| .......

 

I do sometimes wish you'd read before you post, Dave! I didn't say that Antony had quoted BG. It was Antony's (false) claim that I'd done so, whereas what I had I said was that he'd replied to BG with his irrelevant post about foreign type folk and cannabis farms - as your above cut and paste demonstrates. Strewth!

 

Show us where I replied to Bulletguy please Brian

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-17 6:15 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-03-17 3:56 PM

 

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 :-| .......

 

I do sometimes wish you'd read before you post, Dave! I didn't say that Antony had quoted BG. It was Antony's (false) claim that I'd done so, whereas what I had I said was that he'd replied to BG with his irrelevant post about foreign type folk and cannabis farms - as your above cut and paste demonstrates. Strewth!

 

The Russians made me do it 8-) .......

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

antony1969 - 2018-03-17 4:35 PM.....................But Brian your conveniently skipping that I did not quote Bulletgay or mention anything he's said in the post before me ...What you mean is I've brought up the fraud and criminality on a thread titled Grenfell Tower and you don't like it ... Tough

As I've already said to Dave, I did not claim you had quoted BG. That was your (incorrect) claim.

 

Your post is immediately below BG's post, apparently in reply to it. If you didn't mean that, tougher still!

 

Sadly, I think you'll find fraud and criminality in all parts of the UK - but what conceivable relevance that has to the fire - or to Grenfell Tower - is way beyond me. Please enlighten.

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-17 6:31 PM

Sadly, I think you'll find fraud and criminality in all parts of the UK - but what conceivable relevance that has to the fire - or to Grenfell Tower - is way beyond me. Please enlighten.

 

Well wasn't that the whole point of this thread?.......For the loony lefties to try claim the moral high ground? *-) .......

 

Dam that fridge has a lot to answer for :-| .......

 

 

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-17 6:31 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-03-17 4:35 PM.....................But Brian your conveniently skipping that I did not quote Bulletgay or mention anything he's said in the post before me ...What you mean is I've brought up the fraud and criminality on a thread titled Grenfell Tower and you don't like it ... Tough

As I've already said to Dave, I did not claim you had quoted BG. That was your (incorrect) claim.

 

Your post is immediately below BG's post, apparently in reply to it. If you didn't mean that, tougher still!

 

Sadly, I think you'll find fraud and criminality in all parts of the UK - but what conceivable relevance that has to the fire - or to Grenfell Tower - is way beyond me. Please enlighten.[/QUOT

 

Brian the thread title says Grenfell Tower doesn't it ... My comment about the fraudulent claims are totally to do with Grenfell ... I know you'd prefer not to talk about it but it's reality , not made up , not a lie but what's happened ... Just tell me what's acceptable to talk about when the thread title says Grenfell Tower and I'll try to stick to it in future so as not to upset your stomach ... By the way if you have now decided all on your own that when someone posts they are replying to only the previous post it might be nice for you to inform all the other members of a change of policy

[Bulletguy]

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-17 6:01 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-03-17 1:39 PM.................................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.

No. Because the fire fighting concept is of compartmentation, each flat being constructed to contain the fire for a minimum period of time. Floors and separating walls are (usually) 1 hour, and any doors in those walls are (usually) 30 minutes. The idea is to allow time for a) occupants of a flat where a fire starts to escape in safety and call the fire brigade, and b) to give time for the fire brigade to arrive, deal with the fire, and assess the risk to occupants of other flats, before the fire can spread to other flats.

 

The idea is that the brigade then decides the extent to which evacuation of other flats may be necessary, and provide whatever assistance may be required to assist those affected to leave. This reduces the risk of large numbers all trying to evacuate at the same time.

 

It is a well tried and tested methodology, but it relies implicitly on the fire compartmentation periods being achieved and maintained, and above all on the external walls not allowing a fire to spread externally, so leap-frogging across compartment barriers. That is why the use of flammable external insulation and cladding at Grenfell had such disastrous consequences.

 

The fire brigade would have expected the fire compartmentation to be as designed, and the standard advice to residents is that the safest thing to do is to remain in their flats, windows and doors closed, until advised otherwise by the fire brigade.

 

Apparently, the first fire fighters on the scene had quickly dealt with the fire inside the flat, but were unaware that the fire had escaped into the cladding until alerted by their colleagues outside. Even then, they did not at first understand what was happening because their training was based on the external walls being non flammable. They then had to radio for further rigs to deal with the external fire and, because of the speed at which the fire spread externally, by the time those rigs were deployed the fire was out of control.

 

This necessitated a full scale evacuation of the building, for which the escape stairs were inadequate, because they had not been designed on that basis. The result was chaos on the stairs, which would have been full of people of all ages and varying degrees of mobility and agility. The burning cladding created dense smoke externally that entered through vents intended to evacuate smoke from a fire within the building, so reducing visibility on the stairs and no doubt creating a measure of panic. In the face of all of this, other fire fighters were trying to make their ways up the stairs to reach anyone still remaining or needing assistance.

 

It is a nightmare vision that only arose because of the illegal use of flammable insulation and cladding. The building regulations are abundantly clear on the need for external cladding on tall, multi occupancy, residential buildings, to be non-flammable, and I cannot (yet) begin to understand how an error of such magnitude could possibly have been made. It is already mired in politics, and I fear that the eventual enquiry report may be clouded by the political game playing. I hope it will not, and that the trail of evidence showing how that catastrophic error came to be made will be forensic and irrefutable. It needs to be.

Appreciate the read of that Brian which cleared the smog after yet another afternoon of inane rubbish from the Beano boys. The cladding issue is now causing an absolute nightmare involving legal disputes over owners of other tower blocks who say it's not their responsibility to replace and resident leaseholders must pay. The judge has suggested they sue local government, the council, cladding manufacturer or builder.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/16/sitting-on-a-timebomb-tower-block-residents-on-life-after-grenfell

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43388473

 

And to think, all this could have possibly been avoided had KCTMO listened to Grenfell residents complaints. Also read somewhere that KCTMO have temporarily handed back responsibility for all of it's properties to the council, saying it can no longer guarantee to meet the standards expected by residents.

 

I'm also at a loss to figure why when Grenfell underwent it's refit of the cladding, a sprinkler system was never fitted which seems pretty insane to me. How much extra that may have cost in comparison to the cladding i expect would have been little more than peanuts.

[Guest pelmetman]

Bulletguy - 2018-03-17 8:53 PM

 

I'm also at a loss to figure why when Grenfell underwent it's refit of the cladding, a sprinkler system was never fitted which seems pretty insane to me. How much extra that may have cost in comparison to the cladding i expect would have been little more than peanuts.

 

.......and of course Labour councils up and down the land used different cladding and installed sprinkler systems didn't they? ;-) ........

 

Just askin :D .......

 

 

[antony1969]

One million pound fraud case at the moment I see ... The Naqbashidi family or something that sounds similar are claiming that 15 of them lived in a 3 bedroom flat in Grenfell though only 4 were on the original tenancy agreement ... One million pound fraud from just one family living in Grenfell , shocking they are trying to make money on the back of death but suppose I'll be the bad guy for bringing it up ... It's not what the delicates on here want to read is it but it is very much Grenfell related ... One of those uncomfortable truths one might say

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2018-03-17 6:36 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-17 6:31 PM

Sadly, I think you'll find fraud and criminality in all parts of the UK - but what conceivable relevance that has to the fire - or to Grenfell Tower - is way beyond me. Please enlighten.

 

Well wasn't that the whole point of this thread?.......For the loony lefties to try claim the moral high ground? *-) .......

 

Dam that fridge has a lot to answer for :-| .......

 

Sorry Dave, but your making less sense to me the more you say. Who is on about moral high ground - apart from you?

[Brian Kirby]

antony1969 - 2018-03-17 6:55 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-17 6:31 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-03-17 4:35 PM.....................But Brian your conveniently skipping that I did not quote Bulletgay or mention anything he's said in the post before me ...What you mean is I've brought up the fraud and criminality on a thread titled Grenfell Tower and you don't like it ... Tough

As I've already said to Dave, I did not claim you had quoted BG. That was your (incorrect) claim.

 

Your post is immediately below BG's post, apparently in reply to it. If you didn't mean that, tougher still!

 

Sadly, I think you'll find fraud and criminality in all parts of the UK - but what conceivable relevance that has to the fire - or to Grenfell Tower - is way beyond me. Please enlighten.

 

Brian the thread title says Grenfell Tower doesn't it ... My comment about the fraudulent claims are totally to do with Grenfell ... I know you'd prefer not to talk about it but it's reality , not made up , not a lie but what's happened ... Just tell me what's acceptable to talk about when the thread title says Grenfell Tower and I'll try to stick to it in future so as not to upset your stomach ... By the way if you have now decided all on your own that when someone posts they are replying to only the previous post it might be nice for you to inform all the other members of a change of policy

Please explain Antony, how your comments are relevant to Grenfell Tower (a building) or the fire that resulted in its destruction?

 

It seems to me they are about the behaviour of people, some of who lived, or fraudulently claimed to have lived, at Grenfell Tower. On that tenuous basis you might as well include the thoughts of the local postman as well, or anyone who could see Grenfell Tower, or anyone who had ever visited, or lived in, Grenfell Tower.

 

It's got nothing to do with what I can stomach, and everything to do with you trying to subvert yet another string into an opportunity for you to go off on one of your anti-immigrant (those "foreign type folk") rants. What people do, whether they are honest, and where they came from, has no bearing on the building or the fire which, if you would just read from the top, you would see are clearly the subject of the string.

 

If you want to start a string on the behaviour of Grenfell Tower residents and where they came from, as far as I am concerned you are completely at liberty to do so. What I'm objecting to is you polluting this string with your usual biased bile, where it has no rational place or relevance and merely serves as a distraction.

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-18 12:58 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-03-17 6:55 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-17 6:31 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-03-17 4:35 PM.....................But Brian your conveniently skipping that I did not quote Bulletgay or mention anything he's said in the post before me ...What you mean is I've brought up the fraud and criminality on a thread titled Grenfell Tower and you don't like it ... Tough

As I've already said to Dave, I did not claim you had quoted BG. That was your (incorrect) claim.

 

Your post is immediately below BG's post, apparently in reply to it. If you didn't mean that, tougher still!

 

Sadly, I think you'll find fraud and criminality in all parts of the UK - but what conceivable relevance that has to the fire - or to Grenfell Tower - is way beyond me. Please enlighten.

 

Brian the thread title says Grenfell Tower doesn't it ... My comment about the fraudulent claims are totally to do with Grenfell ... I know you'd prefer not to talk about it but it's reality , not made up , not a lie but what's happened ... Just tell me what's acceptable to talk about when the thread title says Grenfell Tower and I'll try to stick to it in future so as not to upset your stomach ... By the way if you have now decided all on your own that when someone posts they are replying to only the previous post it might be nice for you to inform all the other members of a change of policy

Please explain Antony, how your comments are relevant to Grenfell Tower (a building) or the fire that resulted in its destruction?

 

It seems to me they are about the behaviour of people, some of who lived, or fraudulently claimed to have lived, at Grenfell Tower. On that tenuous basis you might as well include the thoughts of the local postman as well, or anyone who could see Grenfell Tower, or anyone who had ever visited, or lived in, Grenfell Tower.

 

It's got nothing to do with what I can stomach, and everything to do with you trying to subvert yet another string into an opportunity for you to go off on one of your anti-immigrant (those "foreign type folk") rants. What people do, whether they are honest, and where they came from, has no bearing on the building or the fire which, if you would just read from the top, you would see are clearly the subject of the string.

 

If you want to start a string on the behaviour of Grenfell Tower residents and where they came from, as far as I am concerned you are completely at liberty to do so. What I'm objecting to is you polluting this string with your usual biased bile, where it has no rational place or relevance and merely serves as a distraction.

 

Brian your promoting yourself to some moderator style.position me thinks ... First you say I'm obviously replying to Bulletgay because his post was the last one before mine though I don't quote him or mention anything he's said ... Now on a thread titled Grenfell Tower I post a Grenfell related issue you don't like and you start to throw insults which to be fair isn't normally your style ... If I'm so wrong for posting my Grenfell related post why are you so right to post yours about fire doors and cladding when the original post title mentions neither ... I'll tell you why because you don't like negative talk around the Grenfell issue though all I'm doing is repeating what some scumbags have done off the back of a disaster ... If that's bile then so be it ... Like other certain issues best to ignore and brush them under the carpet because they don't sit too well with your cosy world ... Tough

[Bulletguy]

pelmetman - 2018-03-18 9:04 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-03-17 8:53 PM

 

I'm also at a loss to figure why when Grenfell underwent it's refit of the cladding, a sprinkler system was never fitted which seems pretty insane to me. How much extra that may have cost in comparison to the cladding i expect would have been little more than peanuts.

 

.......and of course Labour councils up and down the land used different cladding and installed sprinkler systems didn't they? ;-) ........

 

Just askin :D .......

If "just askin'" which you seem to be doing a lot of lately in posts after making snide insinuations without backing them up with any constructive, factual, or even logical comments, i can't help but think you haven't taken this thread seriously at all and your use of grinning emoticons shows that.

 

To use the deaths of 71 people who died under the most horrific conditions as a game of political point scoring is pretty disgusting.

 

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-18 12:58 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-03-17 6:55 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-17 6:31 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-03-17 4:35 PM.....................But Brian your conveniently skipping that I did not quote Bulletgay or mention anything he's said in the post before me ...What you mean is I've brought up the fraud and criminality on a thread titled Grenfell Tower and you don't like it ... Tough

As I've already said to Dave, I did not claim you had quoted BG. That was your (incorrect) claim.

 

Your post is immediately below BG's post, apparently in reply to it. If you didn't mean that, tougher still!

 

Sadly, I think you'll find fraud and criminality in all parts of the UK - but what conceivable relevance that has to the fire - or to Grenfell Tower - is way beyond me. Please enlighten.

 

Brian the thread title says Grenfell Tower doesn't it ... My comment about the fraudulent claims are totally to do with Grenfell ... I know you'd prefer not to talk about it but it's reality , not made up , not a lie but what's happened ... Just tell me what's acceptable to talk about when the thread title says Grenfell Tower and I'll try to stick to it in future so as not to upset your stomach ... By the way if you have now decided all on your own that when someone posts they are replying to only the previous post it might be nice for you to inform all the other members of a change of policy

Please explain Antony, how your comments are relevant to Grenfell Tower (a building) or the fire that resulted in its destruction?

 

It seems to me they are about the behaviour of people, some of who lived, or fraudulently claimed to have lived, at Grenfell Tower. On that tenuous basis you might as well include the thoughts of the local postman as well, or anyone who could see Grenfell Tower, or anyone who had ever visited, or lived in, Grenfell Tower.

 

It's got nothing to do with what I can stomach, and everything to do with you trying to subvert yet another string into an opportunity for you to go off on one of your anti-immigrant (those "foreign type folk") rants. What people do, whether they are honest, and where they came from, has no bearing on the building or the fire which, if you would just read from the top, you would see are clearly the subject of the string.

 

If you want to start a string on the behaviour of Grenfell Tower residents and where they came from, as far as I am concerned you are completely at liberty to do so. What I'm objecting to is you polluting this string with your usual biased bile, where it has no rational place or relevance and merely serves as a distraction.

Well said Brian.

[Brian Kirby]

antony1969 - 2018-03-18 1:36 PM.................................Brian your promoting yourself to some moderator style.position me thinks ... First you say I'm obviously replying to Bulletgay because his post was the last one before mine though I don't quote him or mention anything he's said ... Now on a thread titled Grenfell Tower I post a Grenfell related issue you don't like and you start to throw insults which to be fair isn't normally your style ... If I'm so wrong for posting my Grenfell related post why are you so right to post yours about fire doors and cladding when the original post title mentions neither ... I'll tell you why because you don't like negative talk around the Grenfell issue though all I'm doing is repeating what some scumbags have done off the back of a disaster ... If that's bile then so be it ... Like other certain issues best to ignore and brush them under the carpet because they don't sit too well with your cosy world ... Tough

Moderator? No. You jest, surely? :-D

 

I believe it is usual to reply beneath the post one is responding to, or to quote the post in the interests of clarity or, in the interests of clarity, to say if one's post isn't in reply to the preceding post. If you leave others to interpret your intentions, you can't blame them if they misinterpret them.

 

To quote antony1969, you haven't answered my question. Your comments are (again) about "foreign type people", some (foreign, of course) twit who was producing cannabis oil in his flat, and some other twit (also foreign) who fraudulently tried to claim compensation. So, I'll repeat the question: how are those comments relevant to Grenfell Tower (a building) or the fire that resulted in its destruction? Blowed if I can see the relevance.

 

Why are Grenfell Tower fire doors and Grenfell Tower cladding relevant to Grenfell Tower? Tricky! You've really got me there , Antony. Hmmmm, Gosh, I really couldn't say. :-)

 

But then, you've managed to answer your own question, presumably to your own satisfaction, so who am I to argue?

 

My cosy world? Well, it's the same world as yours Antony, it's just a question of how one sees it. I'm sorry yours is uncosy, though. Must be miserable for you. It certainly seems that way! :-D

[Guest pelmetman]

Bulletguy - 2018-03-18 4:58 PM

 

To use the deaths of 71 people who died under the most horrific conditions as a game of political point scoring is pretty disgusting.

 

Really Bullet? *-) ......Are really so far up your own pompous self righteous left wing ar*e, that your not prepared to accept that tower blocks up and down the country have not been covered in the same cladding ? :-| .......

 

Jeezus you are a prize plonker.........Kinda funny given your trade you weren't so precious with your principles then?........

 

BTW .....How many do you reckon you may have killed with them Bullets?

 

Just askin >:-) ......

 

 

 

 

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-18 6:53 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-03-18 1:36 PM.................................Brian your promoting yourself to some moderator style.position me thinks ... First you say I'm obviously replying to Bulletgay because his post was the last one before mine though I don't quote him or mention anything he's said ... Now on a thread titled Grenfell Tower I post a Grenfell related issue you don't like and you start to throw insults which to be fair isn't normally your style ... If I'm so wrong for posting my Grenfell related post why are you so right to post yours about fire doors and cladding when the original post title mentions neither ... I'll tell you why because you don't like negative talk around the Grenfell issue though all I'm doing is repeating what some scumbags have done off the back of a disaster ... If that's bile then so be it ... Like other certain issues best to ignore and brush them under the carpet because they don't sit too well with your cosy world ... Tough

Moderator? No. You jest, surely? :-D

 

I believe it is usual to reply beneath the post one is responding to, or to quote the post in the interests of clarity or, in the interests of clarity, to say if one's post isn't in reply to the preceding post. If you leave others to interpret your intentions, you can't blame them if they misinterpret them.

 

To quote antony1969, you haven't answered my question. Your comments are (again) about "foreign type people", some (foreign, of course) twit who was producing cannabis oil in his flat, and some other twit (also foreign) who fraudulently tried to claim compensation. So, I'll repeat the question: how are those comments relevant to Grenfell Tower (a building) or the fire that resulted in its destruction? Blowed if I can see the relevance.

 

Why are Grenfell Tower fire doors and Grenfell Tower cladding relevant to Grenfell Tower? Tricky! You've really got me there , Antony. Hmmmm, Gosh, I really couldn't say. :-)

 

But then, you've managed to answer your own question, presumably to your own satisfaction, so who am I to argue?

 

My cosy world? Well, it's the same world as yours Antony, it's just a question of how one sees it. I'm sorry yours is uncosy, though. Must be miserable for you. It certainly seems that way! :-D

 

But Brian what you believe to be correct procedure regarding posting doesn't make it correct does it or because you've said it I presume it does ???

To me your not making any sense with what points regarding Grenfell are more relevant on a thread that's titled Grenfell Tower

Your world isn't the same as mine Brian thankfully but maybe yours is happier because you seem to live in a Disney style fantasy world

Reality is you don't like the truths that I've posted about Grenfell ... If you can show they aren't truthful then maybe you have a point , if not it's tough titties my friend

[Brian Kirby]

Bulletguy - 2018-03-17 8:53 PM..............................I'm also at a loss to figure why when Grenfell underwent it's refit of the cladding, a sprinkler system was never fitted which seems pretty insane to me. How much extra that may have cost in comparison to the cladding i expect would have been little more than peanuts.

Over the years I've had a number of conversations with fire officers over sprinklers. Basically, the outcome was that they were wary of them. Once a sprinkler head goes off, it can only be stopped if the whole system is isolated. That means that an awful lot of water gushes out, and the only way it can escape is down. This frequently means extensive damage to lower properties: far more than would have resulted had the fire brigade been called to fight whatever fire triggered the event. The heads have to be replaced periodically, and must also be inspected, which presents practical difficulties in residential accommodation. The heads are quite delicate, so are quite easily broken. They can also be triggered by a cigarette lighter in the hands of an inquisitive kid! So, although they would probably have worked well in this case, they have their own problems that led the fire officers to whom I spoke to regard them as a last resort.

 

They always favoured passive fire control, to be achieved by dividing buildings into fire resisting compartments, so that a fire in one compartment stayed there until the brigade could arrive, assess the risk, deal with the fire, and control the numbers it was desirable to evacuate. This would have been the basis on which Grenfell Tower was designed, and mirrors contemporary practise at the time and, as far as I know, is also current practise.

 

There have been a number of fires in blocks of flats over the years and, until a relatively few recent cases where alterations had altered the fire profile of the building, the compartmentation approach had proved itself. But, stick flammable cladding all over the external walls, and all bets are off! My own opinion is that non-flammable cladding would have been a far safer, less maintenance intensive, foolproof, (and cheaper) option than sprinklers plus flammable cladding.

[Brian Kirby]

antony1969 - 2018-03-18 7:06 PM.............................Reality is you don't like the truths that I've posted about Grenfell ... If you can show they aren't truthful then maybe you have a point , if not it's tough titties my friend

You're getting more like Dave, Antony. I haven't said they were untruthful, have I? You can't score points by claiming people say things they haven't said, especially when the truth can be read a few lines above. Oh dear! :-D

 

What I have said is that your posts on Grenfell are irrelevant to the topic - which you plainly don't/can't understand - because they concern the honesty and ethnicity of residents and claimed residents, which are not Grenfell specific issues. They are social issues that are common to any population pretty much anywhere in the world.

 

I'll happily admit they get right up my nose, but that is because they are an unwelcome intrusion into a conversation about something else. It's a bit like someone interrupting a conversation, ignoring what anyone else was saying, and droning on about some pet interest of theirs instead. Rude, I think, is the word.

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-18 7:33 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-03-18 7:06 PM.............................Reality is you don't like the truths that I've posted about Grenfell ... If you can show they aren't truthful then maybe you have a point , if not it's tough titties my friend

You're getting more like Dave, Antony. I haven't said they were untruthful, have I? You can't score points by claiming people say things they haven't said, especially when the truth can be read a few lines above. Oh dear! :-D

 

What I have said is that your posts on Grenfell are irrelevant to the topic - which you plainly don't/can't understand - because they concern the honesty and ethnicity of residents and claimed residents, which are not Grenfell specific issues. They are social issues that are common to any population pretty much anywhere in the world.

 

I'll happily admit they get right up my nose, but that is because they are an unwelcome intrusion into a conversation about something else. It's a bit like someone interrupting a conversation, ignoring what anyone else was saying, and droning on about some pet interest of theirs instead. Rude, I think, is the word.

 

So are you blaming the Tories to? ;-) ........

 

Just askin :D .......

 

 

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-18 7:33 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-03-18 7:06 PM.............................Reality is you don't like the truths that I've posted about Grenfell ... If you can show they aren't truthful then maybe you have a point , if not it's tough titties my friend

You're getting more like Dave, Antony. I haven't said they were untruthful, have I? You can't score points by claiming people say things they haven't said, especially when the truth can be read a few lines above. Oh dear! :-D

 

What I have said is that your posts on Grenfell are irrelevant to the topic - which you plainly don't/can't understand - because they concern the honesty and ethnicity of residents and claimed residents, which are not Grenfell specific issues. They are social issues that are common to any population pretty much anywhere in the world.

 

I'll happily admit they get right up my nose, but that is because they are an unwelcome intrusion into a conversation about something else. It's a bit like someone interrupting a conversation, ignoring what anyone else was saying, and droning on about some pet interest of theirs instead. Rude, I think, is the word.

 

I asked if you could show they weren't the truth Brian I didn't say you believed they weren't the truth did I so no cheap point scoring from me ... I'm sorry you don't believe my post is relevant to this Grenfell post or Grenfell matters in general ... The press may disagree with you because what I see at the start of the reports of fraudulent Grenfell claims is the word GRENFELL but you'll know best of course ... I'll stand by what I've said previously I believe it's simply because you don't like to read bad Grenfell news and more importantly it's me that posted it ... Deedums

[Bulletguy]

pelmetman - 2018-03-18 7:01 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-03-18 4:58 PM

 

To use the deaths of 71 people who died under the most horrific conditions as a game of political point scoring is pretty disgusting.

 

Really Bullet? *-) ......Are really so far up your own pompous self righteous left wing ar*e, that your not prepared to accept that tower blocks up and down the country have not been covered in the same cladding ? :-| .......

So why not add some posts to the thread listing them instead of waffling totally irrelevant and pointless bunkum?

[Bulletguy]

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-18 7:20 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-03-17 8:53 PM..............................I'm also at a loss to figure why when Grenfell underwent it's refit of the cladding, a sprinkler system was never fitted which seems pretty insane to me. How much extra that may have cost in comparison to the cladding i expect would have been little more than peanuts.

Over the years I've had a number of conversations with fire officers over sprinklers. Basically, the outcome was that they were wary of them. Once a sprinkler head goes off, it can only be stopped if the whole system is isolated. That means that an awful lot of water gushes out, and the only way it can escape is down. This frequently means extensive damage to lower properties: far more than would have resulted had the fire brigade been called to fight whatever fire triggered the event. The heads have to be replaced periodically, and must also be inspected, which presents practical difficulties in residential accommodation. The heads are quite delicate, so are quite easily broken. They can also be triggered by a cigarette lighter in the hands of an inquisitive kid! So, although they would probably have worked well in this case, they have their own problems that led the fire officers to whom I spoke to regard them as a last resort.

 

They always favoured passive fire control, to be achieved by dividing buildings into fire resisting compartments, so that a fire in one compartment stayed there until the brigade could arrive, assess the risk, deal with the fire, and control the numbers it was desirable to evacuate. This would have been the basis on which Grenfell Tower was designed, and mirrors contemporary practise at the time and, as far as I know, is also current practise.

 

There have been a number of fires in blocks of flats over the years and, until a relatively few recent cases where alterations had altered the fire profile of the building, the compartmentation approach had proved itself. But, stick flammable cladding all over the external walls, and all bets are off! My own opinion is that non-flammable cladding would have been a far safer, less maintenance intensive, foolproof, (and cheaper) option than sprinklers plus flammable cladding.

Yes non-flammable cladding would certainly have made more sense. My son did a shift out at Grenfell as many brigades were involved and falling debris of molten aluminium was just one of many hazards crews faced. Apparently that was part of the cost cutting to save money, downgrading it from zinc to aluminum. Filling it with polyethylene.....they might just as well have been making an incendiary bomb.

Equipment was another issue for LFB as explained in this link;

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-london-fire-brigade-aerial-ladders-block-flats-upper-floors-reach-a8142431.html

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2018-03-18 7:39 PM......................So are you blaming the Tories to? ;-) ........

 

Just askin :D .......

Blaming the Tories for what, Dave? For Antony's irrelevant interventions, or for the flammable cladding on Grenfell?

 

If for Antony, no, because I don't think they control his thought processes to that extent! :-)

 

If for the flammable cladding, I'll await the outcome of the public enquiry, but I suspect it will turn out at be a very long and winding road, in which I'd expect (and hope!) party politics plays little to no part.

 

Someone made an appalling mistake. The relevant questions are who, how, and why. At present I'm pretty clear about what the mistake was, but I'm totally confounded as to how it could possibly arisen.

 

I'm presently inclined to think it may have to do with relaxations to the approvals procedures (lighter touch regulation, etc), but I have no idea which relaxations, if any, may have had what impact on the way the flammable insulation and cladding got approval - assuming it did, and assuming that relaxations are implicated.

 

Despite your mindset, everything cannot be viewed through a party political prism. :-D