Will health & safety prove to be the ultimate culprit for the deaths at Grenfell?.........

[Bulletguy]

antony1969 - 2018-06-19 12:30 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-06-19 11:12 AM

 

antony1969 - 2018-06-19 7:52 AM

 

John52 - 2018-06-19 7:00 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-06-18 1:49 PM

 

my fear is it turning into another Hillsborough fiasco with people waiting years to see justice done.

 

I think that very likely unless we get a Corbyn Government.

So I'm sure there will be a renewed smear campaign to put the skids under him >:-)

 

Whatever the outcome of the inquiry it wont be enough for some you can be certain of that ... When you have comments like "unless we get a Corbyn Government" and others screaming for Theresa May to be charged with crimes against humanity the hidden agendas and using Grenfell as a tool are obvious for all to see ... We have one or two members preaching about British law on other threads.....

No politician is above the law including May so that's irrelevant and when Saunders (CPS) say's 'there are a whole raft of offences against both individuals and possibly companies that we could be looking at depending what the evidence shows', including manslaughter by gross negligence and corporate manslaughter. These are extremely serious offences warranting lengthy custodial sentences.

 

Everyone knows the fiasco Hillsborough became, the long drawn out battle by senior rank police officers desperate to avoid justice, the understandable bitterness and anger of Liverpool fans who were untruthfully portrayed by the gutter press as 'drunken louts' etc. My hope is lessons were learned from that and it doesn't end up the same way as it took Liverpool years of fighting for justice.

 

.....its a shame they dont let British law run its course in this case but then again that wouldnt suit their true agendas and false concern for Grenfell victims.

I believe in due process but sometimes the wheels of justice run painfully slow. As regards 'false concern for the victims', what evidence do you have of that? Whilst the vast majority of comments re. Grenfell have been informative and with empathy, i agree there have been some contemptuous and derogatory comments devoid of basic human decency but thankfully they form an extremely tiny minority.

 

You believe in due process but want Theresa May up now for "crimes against humanity" ... Yep youve got a real valid and credible point ... As usual

Until you learn the meaning of 'due process' there isn't much point in debating. If you really understood the definition i'd be extremely surprised if you didn't support it.

[Bulletguy]

antony1969 - 2018-06-19 12:30 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-06-19 11:12 AM

 

antony1969 - 2018-06-19 7:52 AM

 

John52 - 2018-06-19 7:00 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-06-18 1:49 PM

 

my fear is it turning into another Hillsborough fiasco with people waiting years to see justice done.

 

I think that very likely unless we get a Corbyn Government.

So I'm sure there will be a renewed smear campaign to put the skids under him >:-)

 

Whatever the outcome of the inquiry it wont be enough for some you can be certain of that ... When you have comments like "unless we get a Corbyn Government" and others screaming for Theresa May to be charged with crimes against humanity the hidden agendas and using Grenfell as a tool are obvious for all to see ... We have one or two members preaching about British law on other threads.....

No politician is above the law including May so that's irrelevant and when Saunders (CPS) say's 'there are a whole raft of offences against both individuals and possibly companies that we could be looking at depending what the evidence shows', including manslaughter by gross negligence and corporate manslaughter. These are extremely serious offences warranting lengthy custodial sentences.

 

Everyone knows the fiasco Hillsborough became, the long drawn out battle by senior rank police officers desperate to avoid justice, the understandable bitterness and anger of Liverpool fans who were untruthfully portrayed by the gutter press as 'drunken louts' etc. My hope is lessons were learned from that and it doesn't end up the same way as it took Liverpool years of fighting for justice.

 

.....its a shame they dont let British law run its course in this case but then again that wouldnt suit their true agendas and false concern for Grenfell victims.

I believe in due process but sometimes the wheels of justice run painfully slow. As regards 'false concern for the victims', what evidence do you have of that? Whilst the vast majority of comments re. Grenfell have been informative and with empathy, i agree there have been some contemptuous and derogatory comments devoid of basic human decency but thankfully they form an extremely tiny minority.

 

You believe in due process but want Theresa May up now for "crimes against humanity" ... Yep youve got a real valid and credible point ... As usual

Dbl post.

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2018-06-19 1:31 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-06-19 9:27 AM

. The inquiry must run its course and at the end when it hasn't blamed the Tories....

So you realise that Teresa May appointing Establishment stooges to run it means its findings are a foregone conclusion?

 

When it comes to loony lefties any facts that don't support their ideiology is worthless *-) .........

 

They'd already decided who the villian was before the fire started....... they're now only concerned with manipulating the evidence >:-) .........

 

Prolly summit they've learned from their criminal pals in the establishment, with links to terrorists who got away with it *-) ............

 

 

[Bulletguy]

pelmetman - 2018-06-19 2:41 PM

 

John52 - 2018-06-19 1:31 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-06-19 9:27 AM

. The inquiry must run its course and at the end when it hasn't blamed the Tories....

So you realise that Teresa May appointing Establishment stooges to run it means its findings are a foregone conclusion?

 

When it comes to loony lefties any facts that don't support their ideiology is worthless *-) .........

 

They'd already decided who the villian was before the fire started....... they're now only concerned with manipulating the evidence >:-) .........

 

Prolly summit they've learned from their criminal pals in the establishment, with links to terrorists who got away with it *-) ............

Irrespective of which side of the political fence you stand it's common knowledge and an indisputable fact the flammable cladding type and method of fitment was the root cause. The only ones who will be trying to 'manipulate' evidence of that will be the manufacturer and RBKC along with those who authorised it's use, desperately seeking to minimise prosecution of extremely serious offences.

 

The rest of your post makes no sense at all.

[antony1969]

Bulletguy - 2018-06-19 1:39 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-06-19 12:30 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-06-19 11:12 AM

 

antony1969 - 2018-06-19 7:52 AM

 

John52 - 2018-06-19 7:00 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-06-18 1:49 PM

 

my fear is it turning into another Hillsborough fiasco with people waiting years to see justice done.

 

I think that very likely unless we get a Corbyn Government.

So I'm sure there will be a renewed smear campaign to put the skids under him >:-)

 

Whatever the outcome of the inquiry it wont be enough for some you can be certain of that ... When you have comments like "unless we get a Corbyn Government" and others screaming for Theresa May to be charged with crimes against humanity the hidden agendas and using Grenfell as a tool are obvious for all to see ... We have one or two members preaching about British law on other threads.....

No politician is above the law including May so that's irrelevant and when Saunders (CPS) say's 'there are a whole raft of offences against both individuals and possibly companies that we could be looking at depending what the evidence shows', including manslaughter by gross negligence and corporate manslaughter. These are extremely serious offences warranting lengthy custodial sentences.

 

Everyone knows the fiasco Hillsborough became, the long drawn out battle by senior rank police officers desperate to avoid justice, the understandable bitterness and anger of Liverpool fans who were untruthfully portrayed by the gutter press as 'drunken louts' etc. My hope is lessons were learned from that and it doesn't end up the same way as it took Liverpool years of fighting for justice.

 

.....its a shame they dont let British law run its course in this case but then again that wouldnt suit their true agendas and false concern for Grenfell victims.

I believe in due process but sometimes the wheels of justice run painfully slow. As regards 'false concern for the victims', what evidence do you have of that? Whilst the vast majority of comments re. Grenfell have been informative and with empathy, i agree there have been some contemptuous and derogatory comments devoid of basic human decency but thankfully they form an extremely tiny minority.

 

You believe in due process but want Theresa May up now for "crimes against humanity" ... Yep youve got a real valid and credible point ... As usual

Until you learn the meaning of 'due process' there isn't much point in debating. If you really understood the definition i'd be extremely surprised if you didn't support it.

 

I understand the meaning and reason for having an inquiry into Grenfell ... What I dont understand is how youve managed to jump the gun before the inquiry has finished and scream for Theresa May to be charged with "crimes against humanity" for it ... Its been noted by others on here that youve used Grenfell as a political tool ... I'd say that was rather shameful ... If your going to answer please dont threaten me again

[Bulletguy]

antony1969 - 2018-06-19 3:15 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-06-19 1:39 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-06-19 12:30 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-06-19 11:12 AM

 

antony1969 - 2018-06-19 7:52 AM

 

John52 - 2018-06-19 7:00 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-06-18 1:49 PM

 

my fear is it turning into another Hillsborough fiasco with people waiting years to see justice done.

 

I think that very likely unless we get a Corbyn Government.

So I'm sure there will be a renewed smear campaign to put the skids under him >:-)

 

Whatever the outcome of the inquiry it wont be enough for some you can be certain of that ... When you have comments like "unless we get a Corbyn Government" and others screaming for Theresa May to be charged with crimes against humanity the hidden agendas and using Grenfell as a tool are obvious for all to see ... We have one or two members preaching about British law on other threads.....

No politician is above the law including May so that's irrelevant and when Saunders (CPS) say's 'there are a whole raft of offences against both individuals and possibly companies that we could be looking at depending what the evidence shows', including manslaughter by gross negligence and corporate manslaughter. These are extremely serious offences warranting lengthy custodial sentences.

 

Everyone knows the fiasco Hillsborough became, the long drawn out battle by senior rank police officers desperate to avoid justice, the understandable bitterness and anger of Liverpool fans who were untruthfully portrayed by the gutter press as 'drunken louts' etc. My hope is lessons were learned from that and it doesn't end up the same way as it took Liverpool years of fighting for justice.

 

.....its a shame they dont let British law run its course in this case but then again that wouldnt suit their true agendas and false concern for Grenfell victims.

I believe in due process but sometimes the wheels of justice run painfully slow. As regards 'false concern for the victims', what evidence do you have of that? Whilst the vast majority of comments re. Grenfell have been informative and with empathy, i agree there have been some contemptuous and derogatory comments devoid of basic human decency but thankfully they form an extremely tiny minority.

 

You believe in due process but want Theresa May up now for "crimes against humanity" ... Yep youve got a real valid and credible point ... As usual

Until you learn the meaning of 'due process' there isn't much point in debating. If you really understood the definition i'd be extremely surprised if you didn't support it.

 

I understand the meaning and reason for having an inquiry into Grenfell ... What I dont understand is how youve managed to jump the gun before the inquiry has finished and scream for Theresa May to be charged with "crimes against humanity" for it ... Its been noted by others on here that youve used Grenfell as a political tool ... I'd say that was rather shameful ... If your going to answer please dont threaten me again

Except i didn't. You are confused again. Search back through both Grenfell threads and then post up your allegation when you've found it.

 

Far from "using Grenfell as a political tool", which is a truly wicked and evil accusation to level, i've just stated on a previous post in this thread that it matters not what side of the political fence you choose to stand......it's common knowledge and an indisputable fact the flammable cladding type and method of fitment was the root cause. Or are you suggesting it wasn't?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/18/fire-safety-rules-rely-solely-on-staying-put-grenfell-inquiry-ladders

[Guest pelmetman]

Bulletguy - 2018-06-19 3:28 PM

 

Far from "using Grenfell as a political tool", which is a truly wicked and evil accusation to level,

 

:D ................So peter/John52 etc etc is not your love child? (lol) ........

 

As internet incestuous relationships go ;-) ........I'd deffo say he's one of yours >:-) ..........

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

John52 - 2018-06-19 6:56 AM...........................Thanks for the reply

If it was just the cladding I would agree with you

But the cladding was just one of the failings that combined to create the Grenfell tragedy.

We shall have to wait and see, but my instinct at present is that had the cladding/insulation not been flammable, the fire would have been extinguished quickly without loss of life, and only minor disruption to other residents. After all, the brigade arrived within about 5 minutes, and quickly extinguished the fire within the flat.

 

It presently seems clear to me that it was the consequent fire in the cladding that caused its uncontrollable spread. The other factors (duff fire doors, rubbish on landings, poor fire stopping) were undoubtedly contributory to the eventual tragedy, but do not presently seem, in and of themselves, to have been the primary means of spreading the fire up and around the outside of the building.

 

I'm not saying they didn't count, or that their presence was excusable: just that it is difficult, at present, to see how they might have contributed to the fire spreading so rapidly upward to breaking into other flats one after another.

[Brian Kirby]

Bulletguy - 2018-06-18 1:49 PM

 

 

What are your thoughts on successful charges of manslaughter and corporate manslaughter being brought Brian? From the CPS article i linked a few posts up it seems they will be making charges though my fear is it turning into another Hillsborough fiasco with people waiting years to see justice done.

I don't know. There are about 300 other tower blocks with similarly defective cladding systems around the UK, so if there is a single identifiable cause it seems to me it must lie within what has become a very widespread misinterpretation of what is permissible. The government has confirmed that the materials are non-compliant, yet all those cladding systems (presumably) got approval (under the statutory approval system) all around the UK. So, I don't see how one single individual could have responsibility in all cases, meaning that whoever emerges as primarily culpable for their use at Grenfell will have a lot of ground to claim that, even if his decision was the underlying cause, 300 odd other individuals, all presumably acting in good faith, arrived at the same conclusion as he did. If the misinterpretation is really that widespread, and 300 others really made the same decision, it seems more probably to me that the real fault lies within the regulations or the fire certification procedure than with a single individual acting out of self interested ambition or greed.

 

This suggests that there may be a tragic error within the wording of the regulations that was never challenged during the various approval processes, or that the materials used were wrongly certified as to the group within which they had been tested. I'm very uneasy about the idea of "desk studies" being permitted as a way to assess the fire performance of materials in the absence of test data, but apparently they were. No doubt we shall eventually find out.

[Brian Kirby]

antony1969 - 2018-06-19 7:52 AM

 

John52 - 2018-06-19 7:00 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-06-18 1:49 PM

 

my fear is it turning into another Hillsborough fiasco with people waiting years to see justice done.

 

I think that very likely unless we get a Corbyn Government.

So I'm sure there will be a renewed smear campaign to put the skids under him >:-)

 

Whatever the outcome of the inquiry it wont be enough for some you can be certain of that ... When you have comments like "unless we get a Corbyn Government" and others screaming for Theresa May to be charged with crimes against humanity the hidden agendas and using Grenfell as a tool are obvious for all to see ... We have one or two members preaching about British law on other threads its a shame they dont let British law run its course in this case but then again that wouldnt suit their true agendas and false concern for Grenfell victims

Hear, hear! I agree.

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2018-06-19 10:23 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-06-19 7:52 AM

 

John52 - 2018-06-19 7:00 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-06-18 1:49 PM

 

my fear is it turning into another Hillsborough fiasco with people waiting years to see justice done.

 

I think that very likely unless we get a Corbyn Government.

So I'm sure there will be a renewed smear campaign to put the skids under him >:-)

 

Whatever the outcome of the inquiry it wont be enough for some you can be certain of that ... When you have comments like "unless we get a Corbyn Government" and others screaming for Theresa May to be charged with crimes against humanity the hidden agendas and using Grenfell as a tool are obvious for all to see ... We have one or two members preaching about British law on other threads its a shame they dont let British law run its course in this case but then again that wouldnt suit their true agendas and false concern for Grenfell victims

Hear, hear! I agree.

 

Ditto :D .......

 

 

[Bulletguy]

Brian Kirby - 2018-06-19 10:22 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-06-18 1:49 PM

 

 

What are your thoughts on successful charges of manslaughter and corporate manslaughter being brought Brian? From the CPS article i linked a few posts up it seems they will be making charges though my fear is it turning into another Hillsborough fiasco with people waiting years to see justice done.

I don't know. There are about 300 other tower blocks with similarly defective cladding systems around the UK, so if there is a single identifiable cause it seems to me it must lie within what has become a very widespread misinterpretation of what is permissible. The government has confirmed that the materials are non-compliant, yet all those cladding systems (presumably) got approval (under the statutory approval system) all around the UK. So, I don't see how one single individual could have responsibility in all cases, meaning that whoever emerges as primarily culpable for their use at Grenfell will have a lot of ground to claim that, even if his decision was the underlying cause, 300 odd other individuals, all presumably acting in good faith, arrived at the same conclusion as he did. If the misinterpretation is really that widespread, and 300 others really made the same decision, it seems more probably to me that the real fault lies within the regulations or the fire certification procedure than with a single individual acting out of self interested ambition or greed.

 

This suggests that there may be a tragic error within the wording of the regulations that was never challenged during the various approval processes, or that the materials used were wrongly certified as to the group within which they had been tested. I'm very uneasy about the idea of "desk studies" being permitted as a way to assess the fire performance of materials in the absence of test data, but apparently they were. No doubt we shall eventually find out.

Yes it's impossible for one individual to be held responsible but there does appear to have been some pretty crass mistakes made. You previously mentioned (possibly in the Grenfell thread) about lack of knowledge with current building regs etc or interpretation of for example. I noted from that link i posted, the public inquiry found "features to stop fire spreading through the facade were missing or installed upside down." *-)

 

Who was responsible for overseeing building inspection? Had he fallen asleep or gone to the pub? Some years ago i had a property extended which was a 'ground up' build and the building inspector made regular visits to ensure the builder was complying to the laws. He had no problem though as the builder was not a 'corner cutter' slap it up type. A very professional chap who'd been personally recommended.

[Brian Kirby]

Bulletguy - 2018-06-20 11:23 AM.............................Yes it's impossible for one individual to be held responsible but there does appear to have been some pretty crass mistakes made. You previously mentioned (possibly in the Grenfell thread) about lack of knowledge with current building regs etc or interpretation of for example. I noted from that link i posted, the public inquiry found "features to stop fire spreading through the facade were missing or installed upside down." *-)

 

Who was responsible for overseeing building inspection? Had he fallen asleep or gone to the pub? Some years ago i had a property extended which was a 'ground up' build and the building inspector made regular visits to ensure the builder was complying to the laws. He had no problem though as the builder was not a 'corner cutter' slap it up type. A very professional chap who'd been personally recommended.

Yes, I am deliberately being cautious because, I haven't had direct contact since retiring, and only indirect contect with the approvals system for a number of years before that. However, what I do have is downloaded copies of the current Building Regulations, and from those the governing regulation is quite clear: the external surface of a building over 18 metres in height must not allow fire to spread across it. In simple practical terms, that means it must be incombustible. That requirement has not changed in years, and it is still there.

 

There is an potential conflict between the requirement to limit fire spread and the need to ventilate rainscreen cladding. For fire spread, any cavity behind the cladding must be fire stopped (i.e. closed with incombustible material) at each story. However, as rainscreen cladding is not designed to be completely watertight, it must be ventilated at the rear so that any water that penetrates can dry out and not accumulate. So, I assume that the cladding must have incorporated air vents at each story - meaning that any fire behind the cladding could, unless the vents are in some way self closing in the event of fire, leap-frog the horizontal fire stops via the vents. The devil, as always, will be in the detail.

 

According to the record of events preceding the fire, RBKC did not "sign off" on the design, but their Building Control guys did visit the site on numerous occasions during construction. One has (until proved otherwise) to assume that the inspectors found that construction complied with what had been approved. That is all that can, legally, do. I would assume similar inspections will have been carried out at all the other buildings with similar cladding, so again, is it feasible that no-one saw the cladding system as non-compliant during any of those inspections in the various parts of the UK? So, one is back to the approval, and how flammable materials came to be approved.

 

Another factor is the requirement in the Building Act 1984 that (I paraphrase) where a local authority has approved the use of materials that are subsequently shown to be non-compliant, the liability for rectifying the error lies with that local authority. It just seems odd that the government has not invoked this remedy but has instead decided to bear the cost of rectification in the case of council owned buildings (while leaving private owners/tenants to fend for themselves). So, why would the government do that, when it has the route of natural justice at its disposal - that he who committed the error should be responsible for putting it right. As Alice said, curioser and curioser! :-)

[John52]

Political bias creeping in here is to ignore all the other factors except the cladding.

Help spread the blame beyond the Royal Tory Borough.

[Bulletguy]

Brian Kirby - 2018-06-20 1:22 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-06-20 11:23 AM.............................Yes it's impossible for one individual to be held responsible but there does appear to have been some pretty crass mistakes made. You previously mentioned (possibly in the Grenfell thread) about lack of knowledge with current building regs etc or interpretation of for example. I noted from that link i posted, the public inquiry found "features to stop fire spreading through the facade were missing or installed upside down." *-)

 

Who was responsible for overseeing building inspection? Had he fallen asleep or gone to the pub? Some years ago i had a property extended which was a 'ground up' build and the building inspector made regular visits to ensure the builder was complying to the laws. He had no problem though as the builder was not a 'corner cutter' slap it up type. A very professional chap who'd been personally recommended.

Yes, I am deliberately being cautious because, I haven't had direct contact since retiring, and only indirect contect with the approvals system for a number of years before that. However, what I do have is downloaded copies of the current Building Regulations, and from those the governing regulation is quite clear: the external surface of a building over 18 metres in height must not allow fire to spread across it. In simple practical terms, that means it must be incombustible. That requirement has not changed in years, and it is still there.

 

There is an potential conflict between the requirement to limit fire spread and the need to ventilate rainscreen cladding. For fire spread, any cavity behind the cladding must be fire stopped (i.e. closed with incombustible material) at each story. However, as rainscreen cladding is not designed to be completely watertight, it must be ventilated at the rear so that any water that penetrates can dry out and not accumulate. So, I assume that the cladding must have incorporated air vents at each story - meaning that any fire behind the cladding could, unless the vents are in some way self closing in the event of fire, leap-frog the horizontal fire stops via the vents. The devil, as always, will be in the detail.

 

According to the record of events preceding the fire, RBKC did not "sign off" on the design, but their Building Control guys did visit the site on numerous occasions during construction. One has (until proved otherwise) to assume that the inspectors found that construction complied with what had been approved. That is all that can, legally, do. I would assume similar inspections will have been carried out at all the other buildings with similar cladding, so again, is it feasible that no-one saw the cladding system as non-compliant during any of those inspections in the various parts of the UK? So, one is back to the approval, and how flammable materials came to be approved.

 

Another factor is the requirement in the Building Act 1984 that (I paraphrase) where a local authority has approved the use of materials that are subsequently shown to be non-compliant, the liability for rectifying the error lies with that local authority. It just seems odd that the government has not invoked this remedy but has instead decided to bear the cost of rectification in the case of council owned buildings (while leaving private owners/tenants to fend for themselves). So, why would the government do that, when it has the route of natural justice at its disposal - that he who committed the error should be responsible for putting it right. As Alice said, curioser and curioser! :-)

The emboldened is what i find odd. Doesn't take a maths genius to figure Grenfell well exceeded 18m.......so what on earth were they doing fitting a combustible material? They built a furnace just waiting to ignite. Someone must surely have known they were contravening Building regs? And regards the Building Act, this is where RBKC look set to come unstuck.

[W3526602]

Hi,

 

The elected Councillors (mainly Tory?) do not sign off Building Regulation compliance. Or choose the materials that LA flats are built with. If there are other similar blocks of flats with the same cladding, which political parties were responsible for choosing that cladding? They can't all be Tory councils, or can they?

 

So, lets look at the political affiliation, if any, of the LA employees who did the choosing. Can anybody tell me the break-down of people who work for the council? Could the LA Head of HR tell me? I doubt it. So why blame the Tories? You might be right, but I feel that you are only going to be half right, and half wrong.

 

My father frequently told me about the shipping magnate who adnitted that his ships were not sea-worthy, but said that the sailors would keep them afloat. The sailors said ... "It's not our ship!"

 

Me? If I thought Grenfell was my fault, I'd be living abroad by this time.

 

Can somebody tell me .... if a fridge or freezer started to smoke ... shouldn't the earth trip, or something have switchedoff the power off to that flat, before it burst into flames?

 

Who designed/authorised a tower block with no escape route for the (potentially) hysterical masses, and with windows beyond the reach of the fire brigades ladders? Why did the fire brigade not have ladders capable of reaching windows in their patch?

 

Maybe 50 years ago, a 12 year od boy invented a fire escape ... effectively a helter skelter around the building. Probably the last thing that was wanted at Grenville. Zip wires might have been preferable.

 

Sod's Law says if something can go wrong, then it will go wrong. Building materials should be totally non-combustible.

 

602

[Brian Kirby]

W3526602 - 2018-06-20 6:05 PM...……………………….Who designed/authorised a tower block with no escape route for the (potentially) hysterical masses, and with windows beyond the reach of the fire brigades ladders? Why did the fire brigade not have ladders capable of reaching windows in their patch?...………………...602

As far as I am aware, almost all, if not all, tower blocks follow the same design concept with a single accommodation staircase that is designed for two types of use. First is for short trips between floors, or long hauls if the lifts fail. Second is as a fire fighting access, and means of escape for residents only when so instructed by the fire brigade. The principle was established in the 1960s, and is underpinned by a number of regulations that ensure the safety of the system.

 

First, the staircase should be accessible at each floor above the ground floor only via a fire resistant ventilated lobby, itself accessible only via fire resistant self-closing doors. Second, that the staircase is constructed entirely from incombustible materials, and must itself be permanently ventilated (if I remember, at every floor) to prevent its becoming smoke logged should smoke get past the above lobbies, and must discharge users directly to open air at its base. Third, that all flats open onto the above lobby via fire resistant self-closing doors. Fourth, that the lobby and the staircase are completely separated from the flats by fire resisting construction, including fire stopping of any necessary penetrations of services through the fire resisting construction. Fifth, that where the building exceeds 18 metres in height above ground, the whole of the external walls are constructed so as to "adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls".

 

Further regulations set out the periods of fire resistance for walls and doors within flats, and for floors and walls between flats. Blocks built on this principle have been subject to numerous fires over the years, and to the best of my knowledge (not infallible) the only losses of life that have occurred in buildings where this standard of construction has been properly maintained have been within the flat where the fire originated.

 

Also to the best of my knowledge (ditto :-)) it has never been judged necessary to order the complete evacuation of buildings so constructed. At worst, the fire brigades have only ordered the evacuation of flats immediately adjoining the flat where the fire occurred.

 

If the stairs were to be designed for mass evacuations the space devoted to stairs would be liable to exceed the space devoted to accommodation on lower floors. Grenfell tower is 24 storeys, with six flats per floor on the upper 20 storeys, 120 in total. Complete evacuation would therefore require that some 300 people of all ages would need to negotiate the stairs, ideally within 15 minutes. Assuming a fire at night, when most would be present, but not at their brightest, that would pose severe difficulties as the population of the staircase progressively swelled as it progressed down, requiring progressively wider stairs - which themselves then require the addition of intermediate handrails. So, mass evacuation also carries its risks, and has hitherto been judged lass safe than the above design principles that contain the fire within a single flat, allowing time for the fire brigade to assess and fight the fire while evaluating the risk to adjoining occupants, and to control and direct any further evacuation. As above, this has worked until Grenfell.

 

The great difference with Grenfell was the combustible cladding which allowed the fire to spread up and around the tower, to enter further flats via the inadequately fire-sealed windows, and to overwhelm the smoke vents of the single stair, which had been similarly clad externally. So, to mis-quote Bill Clinton, it was the cladding - stoopid (not that I am calling anyone stoopid! :-)).

 

How that cladding came to be accepted as a suitable material to use, when its use negated all the tried and tested fire safety provisions originally built into the building, is the central issue to understanding how this disaster could have happened. The only level at which politics might have played any part is the individual biases of those involved in the selection, specifying, approving, procuring, and installation, of the cladding. There are just too many people involved in these processes, at all levels, for some grand party political conspiracy to eliminate the proles by fire to have any credibility. I may yet have to eat my words, but I am firmly on the side of cock-up rather than conspiracy with Grenfell, though I am increasingly becoming persuaded that government, possibly in an attempt to simplify the regulations, or the materials testing regimes, may have set in place a flawed regime that has been followed in good faith but with disastrous consequences.

 

The main recent regulatory changes seem to date from 2007, which would be under the premiership of Tony Blair or Gordon Brown, possibly both. Blair became premier in 1997, and Brown's premiership ended in 2010, when he was succeeded by Cameron and the coalition. The planning for the refurbishment seems to have commenced in 2012, with work completing in 2016. Grenfell tower was built in the '70s, completing in 1974, when the council was, as it still is, and was throughout the refurbishment, Conservative controlled.

 

But seriously, what would be the political incentive to spend nearly £9million deliberately refurbishing a building with flammable cladding, in the almost certain knowledge that it would, on the law of averages, one day burn down? Would that really be good politics?

[Bulletguy]

 

A list of failed safety regulations have been presented to the inquiry including sub-standard lifts, fire doors not been replaced and combustible material fitted around windows. It just keeps getting worse.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44521114

 

Two other tower blocks, one in Lewisham the other in Glasgow caught fire on the 14th June.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-44478285

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-44481389

[W3526602]

Hi Brian,

 

Thank you for your long, and understandable explanation. May I say that it was the first of your mails, as far as I can remember, that I enjoyed reading.

 

Cock up? I hope so. Would that include somebody making verbal claims to clinch a deal, in the genuine belief that they were true? Urban myth(possibly true) that a lad in a motor factors said the caburundum paste was the same as molybedenun oil additive.

 

I have met salesmen in the building trade who made claims about their product that they obviously hoped were what I wanted to hear. One boat saleman told me that my 1300cc Hilman Avenger was a little small to tow the boat he was selling. Boat and trailer weighed the best part of 30cwt. He assured me that a 1500 engine would pull it. There was a court case in recent years ... something about American motor-homes being unfit for purpose, as they were too big to be legal on British roads.

 

My wife had to deal with a case concerning HGV drivers losing their jobs, due to the ambiguity of the punctuation on a DVLC form. Much compensation.

 

So, thhe question might be ... can somebody be guilty of a crime because they made a genuine mistake?

 

The two stairwells in the tower block at DVLA (built early 1970s, 16 storeys) are constantly pressurised.. They open into the foyer. I had 70 staff in my corner of the forth floor, but that was probably more than average. The only fire alert that I was aware of, was due to somebody putting a soft drinks can into the ladie's incinerator.

 

Another urban myth. The Fire Officer declared that he was satisfied that, in a drill, the building (not DVLA) was cleared in four and a half minutes. That evening, at knocking off time, it took one and a half minutes.

 

602

[John52]

Brian Kirby - 2018-06-20 1:22 PM

Another factor is the requirement in the Building Act 1984 that (I paraphrase) where a local authority has approved the use of materials that are subsequently shown to be non-compliant, the liability for rectifying the error lies with that local authority. It just seems odd that the government has not invoked this remedy but has instead decided to bear the cost of rectification in the case of council owned buildings (while leaving private owners/tenants to fend for themselves). So, why would the government do that, when it has the route of natural justice at its disposal - that he who committed the error should be responsible for putting it right. As Alice said, curioser and curioser! :-)

 

Tory Government gives our money to wealthy Tory Council - Old Boy Network? Freemasons? Whatever.

Pretty clear we can't trust their so called enquiry.

[John52]

Brian Kirby - 2018-06-21 4:43 PM

But seriously, what would be the political incentive to spend nearly £9million deliberately refurbishing a building with flammable cladding, in the almost certain knowledge that it would, on the law of averages, one day burn down? Would that really be good politics?

Change the appearance to attract wealthy buyers to the area and inflate house prices - to the benefit of the powerful vested interests of those who own property there.

I don't think they realised it would burn down.

Just reckless, careless, and incompetent like their paying out £ 6 figure false claims on flats that never existed >:-)

[W3526602]

<<< Just reckless, careless, and incompetent >>>

 

Hi John52,

 

I think those are only a few of the adjectives that could be used.

 

The BCO that came to inspect my self-build was suspended, because he had been passing on details of home-owners who had been awarded Improvement Grants to friends in the trade. I'd guess that put him in a vunerable position if those friends started to want other favours.

 

Another BCO approved a grant for a rebuilt chimney, which had merely been rendered (and he knew it), because the house owner threatened him with violence.

 

The loonies of both Parties want to even out the gender and ethnic background of those in authority, suggesting that 50% of candidates should be women (OK ... but make sure that 50% are men) Surely their aim should be to get the best candidates, and if they are all men, or all women, then so be it.

 

It was remoured that my last police force recruited high flyers with degrees. The problem was that if they hadn't made sergeant within five years ... they resigned. Perhaps they should recruit burly lads, who can sort out pub brawls.

 

Nurses require a degree ... and then feel that degree exempts them from doing bed pans.

 

I've met cases in the Civil Service where applicants vastly out-number the vacancies. So, any applicant who used blue ink when black ink was specified, is out at the first sift. Then they make sure applicants had met all the other criteria. OK, they may be sifting out a lot of "cream", but it cuts down the number of interviews.

 

If the Head Honcho favours Yes-men, then those Yes-men will favour lesser Yes-men further down the food chain. Has anybody here read Nevil Shute's autobiography "Slide Rule" (He built the R100), and his belief in how the R101 got it's Certificate of Airworthiness? (The Sec of State required it to be ready for his trip to India). It's a book worth reading ... he admits to certain criminal activity, which was the basis for his book "Ruined City", in which the hero spent three years in jail for fraud ... and NS managed to avoid.

 

Similarly, the Hillman Imp didn't get a flat-4 (Boxe)r engine. Which politician do we blame for that?

 

One of my older Civil Service staff was a Clerical Assistant. He told me that he only had 2 GCSEs, so that was as high as he could go. But he had an HND in Mining Technology, which is above A-level. I showed him my letter from the Civil Service Commision saying that my ONC Mech Eng was sufficient to qualify me for an Executive Officer post. He took my letter to Personnel Branch, was promoted soon afterwards, and soon after that, and soon after that .... If the shiny pants in Personnel had done their job properly, rather that relying on the specified "2 A-levels", he could have been recruited as an EO.

 

There is only one person in the UK who can do nothing right ... the Prime Minister ... ANY Prime Minister.

 

602.

[Brian Kirby]

W3526602 - 2018-06-21 6:48 PM...............……….So, thhe question might be ... can somebody be guilty of a crime because they made a genuine mistake? 602

In criminal law, I think the answer is probably yes, but I'm not a lawyer. However, the sentence would presumably reflect the degree of culpability. I would hope that someone who could demonstrate that the error was made in a genuine attempt to comply with regulations that were, in retrospect, misleading, would get different treatment from someone who had been negligent in interpreting the regulations, or who had knowingly disregarded them to save money or to secure work.

 

In civil law the test for a genuine error is often to establish whether an appropriately qualified and experienced person might also have made the same error under the same circumstances. In effect, the judgement of one's peers - but that would usually apply where the consequence was financial loss, not loss of life or injury.

 

In the case of Grenfell, I would expect any prosecutions to be brought by the Health and Safety Executive or, if there is evidence of fraud, corruption, or knowing disregard of the regulations, the CPS. However, I think there is some way to go yet before anyone is clear how non compliant cladding came to be so widely used, with Grenfell being the instance that tragically highlighted the failure. There are so many steps between making a proposal, and getting it approved and realised, that I'm struggling to understand how so many could have made the same error in so many different places. That is what make me suspect that either the guidance provided in support of the Building Regulations, or the test regime for incombustibility, lies at the root of the problem. If that is the case, it seems it will be government that is primarily culpable - for producing flawed guidance or inappropriate test standards. But who then goes to court?

[John52]

Brian Kirby - 2018-06-19 10:23 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-06-19 7:52 AM

 

John52 - 2018-06-19 7:00 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-06-18 1:49 PM

 

my fear is it turning into another Hillsborough fiasco with people waiting years to see justice done.

 

I think that very likely unless we get a Corbyn Government.

So I'm sure there will be a renewed smear campaign to put the skids under him >:-)

 

Whatever the outcome of the inquiry it wont be enough for some you can be certain of that ... When you have comments like "unless we get a Corbyn Government" and others screaming for Theresa May to be charged with crimes against humanity the hidden agendas and using Grenfell as a tool are obvious for all to see ... We have one or two members preaching about British law on other threads its a shame they dont let British law run its course in this case but then again that wouldnt suit their true agendas and false concern for Grenfell victims

Hear, hear! I agree.

 

The only way the inquiry will find out the truth is if whoever is in charge is prepared to challenge the Establishment.

Corbyn has proved that he is prepared to challenge the Establishment by voting against his own party over 200 times - consigning himself to the backbenches.

What about Teresa May, and her Tory Establishment 'responsible' for Grenfell, to whom she has sent £50 million from poorer boroughs (and £billions to the DUP to buy their votes to keep her job)

Rather than talk to the victims after the fire like Corbyn did, she has attempted to impose Establishment stooges on them to head her so called 'inquiry' *-)

(I'm actually a free market Capitalist who has voted Tory, and only prefer Corbyn because this Tory Government is so bad.)

As Antony has admitted, their so called 'inquiry' is a foregone conclusion

 

 

antony1969 - 2018-06-19 7:52 AM

... The inquiry must run its course and at the end when it hasn't blamed the Tories .....

 

They are trying to ignore every factor except the cladding, so they can spread the blame around >:-(

[John52]

By sending the richest borough in the country £50 million from poorer boroughs, Teresa May has already said its not their responsibility - without waiting for the so called inquiry. >:-)