Grenfell

[John52]

Bulletguy - 2019-11-07 8:14 PM

 

Worth remembering the residents had continually logged complaints with RKCBC about the cladding refurbishment and corner cutting, but were never listened to.

 

Precisely.

[John52]

Birdbrain - 2019-11-07 2:49 PM

 

John52 - 2019-11-07 1:44 PM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-11-07 9:13 AM

 

John52 - 2019-11-07 9:02 AM

 

John52 - 2019-11-05 6:41 AM

 

Geeco - 2019-11-02 9:32 PM

the owners will be interested in the results of your inquiry.

Really?

 

Theresa May gave her verdict when she sent £250 million from poorer boroughs to Britain's richest borough so it didn't have to pay for its own mistakes. >:-)

So I'm expecting another hideously expensive whitewash.

 

This is what I said

 

Then went on to say "the obvious flaw in your argument is that it is not me producing the 'whitewash' " ... Looks very matter of fact to me princess , no "excepting" anything anymore now more a "producing" the whitewash ... Try again

 

'Producing' - not 'Produced' - so how can I be expected to show evidence and proof before its done *-)

Try again

 

You need to look up then meaning of "producing" ... Yielding the thing specified , which in this case is your whitewash claim ... I'll ask again and "try again" can you show any proof of what you claim for the 4th time of asking ??? The answer of course is no as youve freely admitted in your last post ... A little advice ... Dont take part in grown up conversation if you know your going to struggle ... You keep to what you know which is , errr , mmmm , crapping in bins

 

Why can't you understand the simple concept of not being able to prove something before its happened?

Oh and why do you keep changing 'dog waste bins' to just 'bins'? Don't you care which bin you put dog waste in? Or do you just never think of picking it up?

[Birdbrain]

John52 - 2019-11-08 6:13 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-11-07 2:49 PM

 

John52 - 2019-11-07 1:44 PM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-11-07 9:13 AM

 

John52 - 2019-11-07 9:02 AM

 

John52 - 2019-11-05 6:41 AM

 

Geeco - 2019-11-02 9:32 PM

the owners will be interested in the results of your inquiry.

Really?

 

Theresa May gave her verdict when she sent £250 million from poorer boroughs to Britain's richest borough so it didn't have to pay for its own mistakes. >:-)

So I'm expecting another hideously expensive whitewash.

 

This is what I said

 

Then went on to say "the obvious flaw in your argument is that it is not me producing the 'whitewash' " ... Looks very matter of fact to me princess , no "excepting" anything anymore now more a "producing" the whitewash ... Try again

 

'Producing' - not 'Produced' - so how can I be expected to show evidence and proof before its done *-)

Try again

 

You need to look up then meaning of "producing" ... Yielding the thing specified , which in this case is your whitewash claim ... I'll ask again and "try again" can you show any proof of what you claim for the 4th time of asking ??? The answer of course is no as youve freely admitted in your last post ... A little advice ... Dont take part in grown up conversation if you know your going to struggle ... You keep to what you know which is , errr , mmmm , crapping in bins

 

Why can't you understand the simple concept of not being able to prove something before its happened?

Oh and why do you keep changing 'dog waste bins' to just 'bins'? Don't you care which bin you put dog waste in? Or do you just never think of picking it up?

 

Princess your making yourself look more foolish than normal ... I don't have a dog anymore so need for me to pick it up ... You don't find dog bins everywhere so your waste must go in public bins unless as I say you stack it and chuck it later ???

[John52]

Birdbrain - 2019-11-08 6:24 AM... I don't have a dog anymore so need for me to pick it up ...

So you don't consider picking anyone else's dog waste up

Can't say I'm surprised at that.

But you did have a dog and don't differentiate which bin you put the waste in.

 

Birdbrain - 2019-11-08 6:24 AM..

you stack it and chuck it later ???

Double wrapped in sealed bags in a sealed container - is that less hygenic than the way you carry yours? Or do you not carry it and just chuck it with the same carelessness of your not caring which bin it goes in?

[Birdbrain]

John52 - 2019-11-08 6:51 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-11-08 6:24 AM... I don't have a dog anymore so need for me to pick it up ...

So you don't consider picking anyone else's dog waste up

Can't say I'm surprised at that.

But you did have a dog and don't differentiate which bin you put the waste in.

 

Birdbrain - 2019-11-08 6:24 AM..

you stack it and chuck it later ???

Double wrapped in sealed bags in a sealed container - is that less hygenic than the way you carry yours? Or do you not carry it and just chuck it with the same carelessness of your not caring which bin it goes in?

 

"consider picking anyone elses dog waste up" ... Errr no princess ... Your other stuff is like a 4 year olds tantrum and just more silliness ... Double wrapped though you say , so from start to finish whats the procedure ???

[John52]

The request for people to stay in their flats was so people flooding down the stairs would not impede the fire brigade coming up with their hoses. Those who obeyed the request were thinking of others. According to Rees-Mogg this is not Common Sense.

 

"Rees-Mogg gives voice to a sense of innate superiority that comes with the privilege of his class. If he lived in Grenfell Tower he would have survived because, unlike those who died, he has common sense. Having insisted the tragedy had nothing to do with class discrimination, his contempt drips from every word. Drawing Ferrari in to his orbit – “If either of us were in a fire” – you are left wondering what kind of people he thinks were actually in the fire."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/08/jacob-rees-mogg-billionaires-labour-values

[John52]

Birdbrain - 2019-11-08 7:02 AM

 

John52 - 2019-11-08 6:51 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-11-08 6:24 AM... I don't have a dog anymore so need for me to pick it up ...

So you don't consider picking anyone else's dog waste up

Can't say I'm surprised at that.

But you did have a dog and don't differentiate which bin you put the waste in.

 

Birdbrain - 2019-11-08 6:24 AM..

you stack it and chuck it later ???

Double wrapped in sealed bags in a sealed container - is that less hygenic than the way you carry yours? Or do you not carry it and just chuck it with the same carelessness of your not caring which bin it goes in?

 

"consider picking anyone elses dog waste up" ... Errr no princess ... Your other stuff is like a 4 year olds tantrum and just more silliness ... Double wrapped though you say , so from start to finish whats the procedure ???

 

Why ask a 'princess'?

You should have asked me and I would have told you.

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2019-11-08 8:51 AM

 

The request for people to stay in their flats was so people flooding down the stairs would not impede the fire brigade coming up with their hoses. Those who obeyed the request were thinking of others. According to Rees-Mogg this is not Common Sense.

 

 

Why would the fire brigade drag hoses up the stairwells? :-S ..........

 

Every block of flats over a certain height that I've lived or worked in have had fire hydrants on each floor :-| .........

 

So you are just spreading LIES again *-) ...........

 

 

[John52]

pelmetman - 2019-11-08 10:11 AM

 

 

Every block of flats over a certain height that I've lived or worked in have had fire hydrants on each floor :-| .........

 

 

 

 

Grenfell Tower had fire hoses too - until the Royal Tory Borough had them removed despite the protests of the residents.

[Brian Kirby]

Bulletguy - 2019-11-07 8:14 PM

 

"Cock up" is a tad of an understatement Brian. What's your opinion on Dr Lanes comments in that link Pat posted yesterday? Worth remembering the residents had continually logged complaints with RKCBC about the cladding refurbishment and corner cutting, but were never listened to.

I still think you're looking for political motives, where I'm not seeing any. :-)

 

I'm unaware that residents had complained that the cladding system was unsafe, and would be grateful for any links to that information.

 

I'm aware that they had a number of complaints about other safety issues but, in the context of the fire that actually developed, am of the opinion that they were relatively minor (though not unimportant) issues.

 

The fire went up the outside of the building, and then spread to other flats via windows. In the absence of the flammable cladding the fire should have been easily contained, as had a number of other, similar, fires - I think even in Grenfell itself. In fact, I seem to remember the first firemen on site reporting that they entered the flat, dealt with the fire, and were on there way out when alerted by others, outside, that the fire was still visible.

 

IMO this was a massive failure of regulation and, although there were clearly management failings, the only reason the fire got so quickly and comprehensively out of control was that regulatory failure.

 

The building as originally constructed was compliant with the regulations in force at that time. It also complied with the new National Building Regulations when introduced in 1984, as the quotation I posted shows. The exterior, as built, was completely incombustible, and remained so until the flammable cladding was added.

 

The question that has to be answered is how materials that were so clearly demonstrated by the fire to be non-compliant, came to be installed with the apparent approval/acquiescence of those who should have insisted on compliant materials being used.

 

The process of approval is formalised, is fully recorded from application to approval, and lies outside the control of politicians. We don't even know yet who issued the approval, or at who's request. I don't see a political conspiracy at work - though I'm very open to the possibility that people were misled by claims that materials used had fire performance that, in the event, they did not have, or even substituted cheaper materials (for whatever reason) after approval had been granted. But, we shall have to wait to see what actually happened as the evidence is assembled and presented.

 

FWIW, I think the whole enquiry is backside foremost, as I'm strongly of the opinion that the enquiry into want happened on the day should have been informed by the findings of the enquiry into how flammable cladding came to be used. I'm also a bit uneasy that the enquiry revelations may get in the way of any subsequent criminal prosecutions, as juries may be claimed to have formed prior opinions based on the published enquiry findings, and so be biased.

[jumpstart]

John52 - 2019-11-07 8:24 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-11-07 7:13 AM

 

John52 - 2019-11-07 6:45 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-11-06 9:31 PM

 

John52 - 2019-11-06 7:12 PM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-11-06 4:29 PM

 

According to you a town in Devon is racist for naming itself after its white houses

 

Can you quote where I said that *-)

 

"I didn't think it was difficult to see the connotations between white town and racism" .... Next

 

So I did not say the town was racist as you claim. Next

PS: In case thats not clear enough I'll try and explain it another way.

Saying 'White Town' might make it APPEAR to be racist to some people, is not the same as saying the town is racist.

Why can't you stop changing people's words before you quote them?

 

Yes obviously you did as I have shown , you don't seem to like the proof I have shown though which is your problem not mine sweetheart ... Ive shown you what you asked for so any chance of any evidence of that Grenfell whitewash you keep going on about ??? Think Ive only asked 3 times now

This is supposed to be a discussion forum where we learn from other people's experiences. There is nothing to be gained from 'winning' an argument here so why do you keep changing what people say in an attempt to 'win'?

What I said was I was expecting a whitewash from the Grenfell 'inquiry'.

Of course I can't show evidence of that until we hear some results.u

Which I expect to be a long time from now as so far the 'inquiry' has only cost 100 times what they have saved on the cladding, and I expect the lawyers etc will want to drag it out to make more money out of it. As will those 'responsible' who will want it to hold out until they are retired on generous pensions, and some of the anger has died down as grenfell is overshadowed by more revent scandals and catastrophies.

 

Thought we decided one couldn’t use the term “whitewash”.

[Brian Kirby]

John52 - 2019-11-08 8:51 AM

The request for people to stay in their flats was so people flooding down the stairs would not impede the fire brigade coming up with their hoses. Those who obeyed the request were thinking of others. ……………...

And to prevent a large number of sleepy, disoriented, probably panicky, people (with children and the disabled among them) disgorging onto a staircase that was not designed to accommodate such numbers. Under those circumstances, the risk of a fatal crush resulting from a trip or a fall by one person cannot be disregarded.

 

The unfortunate truth is that the fire brigade were dealing with circumstances that neither their training, nor their expectations of the fire performance of that building, had equipped them to deal with, and that had not been foreseen in the design of the building. That is why I am presently inclined to think that Moore-Bick has got ahead of himself, and is presently to some extent unfairly scapegoating the fire brigade.

[Bulletguy]

pelmetman - 2019-11-07 8:41 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2019-11-07 8:33 PM

 

pelmetman - 2019-11-07 8:21 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2019-11-07 8:14 PM

 

 

"Cock up" is a tad of an understatement Brian. What's your opinion on Dr Lanes comments in that link Pat posted yesterday? Worth remembering the residents had continually logged complaints with RKCBC about the cladding refurbishment and corner cutting, but were never listened to.

 

Still trying to weaponize Grenfell Bullet? *-) ..........

 

Damn you lefties are thick 8-)

Oh FFS Pelmethead put the damn bottle away and sober up, then you might be able to make more sensible and adult posts. *-)

 

Dr Lane is a fire engineer appointed by the inquiry but you wouldn't know that because you don't read. *-)

 

72 died at Grenfell :-| ............39 died last week in the back of a lorry ........I find your faux outrage quite gut turning *-

I asked Brian his opinion on Dr Lanes comments and also point out a widely reported fact. Where is the "outrage" in that?

 

You were drinking last night and seemed to be drunk...as usual. Alcohol affects logic and reason.

[Bulletguy]

Brian Kirby - 2019-11-08 1:39 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2019-11-07 8:14 PM

 

"Cock up" is a tad of an understatement Brian. What's your opinion on Dr Lanes comments in that link Pat posted yesterday? Worth remembering the residents had continually logged complaints with RKCBC about the cladding refurbishment and corner cutting, but were never listened to.

I still think you're looking for political motives, where I'm not seeing any. :-)

 

I'm unaware that residents had complained that the cladding system was unsafe, and would be grateful for any links to that information.

 

I'm aware that they had a number of complaints about other safety issues but, in the context of the fire that actually developed, am of the opinion that they were relatively minor (though not unimportant) issues.

 

The fire went up the outside of the building, and then spread to other flats via windows. In the absence of the flammable cladding the fire should have been easily contained, as had a number of other, similar, fires - I think even in Grenfell itself. In fact, I seem to remember the first firemen on site reporting that they entered the flat, dealt with the fire, and were on there way out when alerted by others, outside, that the fire was still visible.

 

IMO this was a massive failure of regulation and, although there were clearly management failings, the only reason the fire got so quickly and comprehensively out of control was that regulatory failure.

 

The building as originally constructed was compliant with the regulations in force at that time. It also complied with the new National Building Regulations when introduced in 1984, as the quotation I posted shows. The exterior, as built, was completely incombustible, and remained so until the flammable cladding was added.

 

The question that has to be answered is how materials that were so clearly demonstrated by the fire to be non-compliant, came to be installed with the apparent approval/acquiescence of those who should have insisted on compliant materials being used.

 

The process of approval is formalised, is fully recorded from application to approval, and lies outside the control of politicians. We don't even know yet who issued the approval, or at who's request. I don't see a political conspiracy at work - though I'm very open to the possibility that people were misled by claims that materials used had fire performance that, in the event, they did not have, or even substituted cheaper materials (for whatever reason) after approval had been granted. But, we shall have to wait to see what actually happened as the evidence is assembled and presented.

 

FWIW, I think the whole enquiry is backside foremost, as I'm strongly of the opinion that the enquiry into want happened on the day should have been informed by the findings of the enquiry into how flammable cladding came to be used. I'm also a bit uneasy that the enquiry revelations may get in the way of any subsequent criminal prosecutions, as juries may be claimed to have formed prior opinions based on the published enquiry findings, and so be biased.

I'm looking for accountability from the top down rather than the reverse which you yourself seem to be in agreement on given your final para.

 

Who initially chose the cladding (not just for Grenfell) and why that particular cladding? Who authorised the fitting of it.....local government or national?

 

The info i looked at is all in the Grenfell Action Group website which is huge with many links.

 

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2017/06/14/grenfell-tower-fire/

[Fast Pat]

Below is a post from former chief fire officer from Derbyshire fire and rescue ( very good and highly respected chief)

 

Grenfell...

 

Who’d be a fire chief?

Who’d be a firefighter?

 

I’ve not read the Grenfell Inquiry yet. Something to look forward to next week.

 

As a firefighter, you spend decades being told to follow procedures and training. They work, fires get put out, you get to go home safely.

 

You are told you did a good job, you are audited and the auditors tell you that you are competent and professional. It is reaffirming and reassuring.

 

Step outside those procedures and you fail your assessment, you are not competent. You don’t want to be there.

 

All these procedures are written to tackle fire in buildings built to a regulated standard.

 

The building is supposed to behave in a predictable way. Arm Chair enthusiasts would imagine that fire is not predictable. Well, you are wrong, it is a matter of scientific fact that fire develops and behaves predictably depending on the fuel, air and environment.

 

That is why firefighters can have standard operating procedures (SOPs) that for the most part work and do the job. If fire was unpredictable you could not have an SOP.

 

For decades building regs worked and we never suffered a Grenfell even in the 80 and 90s when there were 40% more fires than we have today.

 

Likelihood and severity, you’ve heard these banded around. In the nineties the likelihood was massive but it seems nowadays the severity has mushroomed as whole buildings are burning down on a regular basis.

 

If you ever drove through Salford in the 90s a single burnt-out flat was a common sight as you looked up at the high rise buildings. Like a broken tooth.

 

A fire put out using tried and tested procedure in a building designed to contain the fire to the flat of origin. Most people in the other flats wouldn’t even know that a fire had occurred until the morning after.

 

No common fire alarm, no mobile phones yet a successful outcome and no mass evacuation.

 

Why?

 

Because the buildings were not wrapped in flammable material allowing unchecked spread up the facade and ingress through windows.

 

Because the internal separation was solid and fire-resistant, because mostly the fire doors unless vandalised worked.

 

At this time the fire brigade was the responsible authority for fire legislation. We issued fire certificates and our word was law.

 

Admittedly we didn’t issue certs on domestic property but such was our regulatory power in other premises the local authority building control accepted that we knew what we were about and went with our recommendation

 

All that changed through deregulation at the end of the 90s. (The reform act of 2005 in fact). I was in fire protection at the time and I remember the old hands predicting a disaster.

 

It was like giving the kids the keys to the sweet shop. Building owners were now (2006) responsible for the fire safety standards in the same way a manager is responsible for health and safety at work. Some do it well, some do it badly, some do what they can afford and hope it’s enough.

 

Well, it’s not good enough and it is coming home to roost.

 

As a chief, you expect your firefighters to follow the policy and be competent, you have the dubious pleasure of being ultimately responsible for making sure that this is the case. It is a massive responsibility, you do your best. You audit the boys and girls to death. They are sick of being assessed. But they are safe, competent and they go home at the end of the shift.

 

Grenfell.

 

Imagine turning up at a building where everything has gone wrong the whole fire protection system had failed and the fire is spreading through what should be concrete fire-resistant rooms and up the outside beyond your capability to reach it.

 

You now need to tell 200 firefighters to forget everything they ever learned and do things completely outside of every procedure they have trained on. Things that could get them killed. It’s a miracle none were.

 

Every fibre in your body is screaming to do something new and evacuate whilst every professional brain cell is saying “are you mad” if you evacuate the people in the flats with no breathing apparatus they are doomed and it will be seen to have been your call.

 

Evacuating a burning building means taking people from what you understand to be a place of relative safety (or at least it should be if built right) and asking them to enter smoke-filled corridors and stairs knowing some won’t make it. We are talking about people of all ages and abilities here. Your mum, your grandad, your kids.

 

What would you do?

How brave are you now sitting in your armchair with the daily mail sword drawn about to slay the guilty?

 

Making life and death decisions outside of policy because a building had been let slide as a result of a succession of systematic governmental failure, safe in the knowledge that if you lose one firefighter or members of the public are found in stairwells dead you will be squarely in the frame of “going outside of procedure”.

 

Not so easy is it.

 

It is no surprise that candidates for chief fire officers jobs total one or two per position when advertised these days.

 

I stand with Dany Cotton and I stand with London Fire Brigade.

 

I look forward to part two of the report that looks at root cause including building regs and I sincerely hope the author does his job properly.

 

I hope everyone understands that firefighters turn up when everyone else’s risk assessment had gone wrong and are tasked with sorting out the mess.

 

We are not chefs, a missed instruction does not result in a ruined dish. We have to take what ingredients we have been given and bake a cake on the hoof whilst the kitchen is on fire and then have some armchair baker who may have watched his mum make a jam tart once tell us how well we have done.

 

Don’t get me started on sprinklers. I’ve been vocal, been on the telly, been sat in front of ministers with hard evidence to prove the case and been fobbed off.

 

Politics is at the root of Grenfell, I doubt any politician will be vilified in the way firefighters and chiefs have this week

 

Who’d be a chief?

Who’d be a firefighter now?

[Birdbrain]

A certain member from day one made Grenfell a political side-show ... One of his lap dogs screams now of an inquiry whitewash without a dot of evidence ... Not nice ... Not nice at all ... Regards

[John52]

jumpstart - 2019-11-08 1:51 P

 

Thought we decided one couldn’t use the term “whitewash”.

 

Who is 'we' *-)

[John52]

Birdbrain - 2019-11-08 5:06 PM

 

A certain member from day one made Grenfell a political side-show ... One of his lap dogs screams now of an inquiry whitewash without a dot of evidence ... Not nice ... Not nice at all ... Regards

 

I ask again what evidence of the 'inquiry' can be produced before its published?

Oh & try reading the quote from Derbyshire Chief Fire & Rescue Officer

Thats 100 miles away from Grenfell, and he's retired, so who could be more independent?

 

'Politics is at the root of Grenfell,'

[Birdbrain]

John52 - 2019-11-08 5:19 PM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-11-08 5:06 PM

 

A certain member from day one made Grenfell a political side-show ... One of his lap dogs screams now of an inquiry whitewash without a dot of evidence ... Not nice ... Not nice at all ... Regards

 

I ask again what evidence of the 'inquiry' can be produced before its published?

Oh & try reading the quote from Derbyshire Chief Fire & Rescue Officer

Thats 100 miles away from Grenfell, and he's retired, so who could be more independent?

 

'Politics is at the root of Grenfell,'

 

Why talk of a whitewash before its published then princess ??? What your other guff is about Christ knows

[Brian Kirby]

Fast Pat - 2019-11-08 4:57 PM

 

Below is a post from former chief fire officer from Derbyshire fire and rescue ( very good and highly respected chief)

 

Grenfell...

 

Who’d be a fire chief?

Who’d be a firefighter?

 

I’ve not read the Grenfell Inquiry yet. Something to look forward to next week...................................Who’d be a chief?

Who’d be a firefighter now?

I like this man, he speaks sense from knowledge, and he speaks well! :-D

 

I agree with him that the removal of Fire Officers from the building regulations approval process was a big mistake, ditto the removal of their statutory periodic building inspections (unobstructed escapes, extinguishers in place and up to date, hoses and risers present, unobstructed and in working condition, etc.), that in many high rise residential buildings were also conducted. These guys know at first hand what the dangers are, and what stupid things are done by the innocent in the name of convenience. Those now carrying out such inspections are unlikely to have the required experience - unless they are also ex-Fire Officers.

 

He doesn't refer to the ways in which the fire performance of building materials have been re-classified, in some cases using terminology that, while technically accurate, can result in confusion over what it actually means. But maybe he was already a "former fire chief" by the time those changes were introduced.

 

So yes, "politics" (note, small "p") is at the root of the Grenfell fire but, ultimately, I suspect, it won't be any one party whose political instincts have led to this mess. The timescale spans the periods in office of both main parties and the coalition, so where relaxations have been introduced, piecemeal, over time, I doubt any party will emerge with their tin star shining bright - and that is what I've been tying to say.

 

On the face of it, looking at the actual regulation as I quoted it above, I find it very hard to understand the route by which flammable materials have apparently been approved for use on the outsides of approximately 400 tall buildings, spread across the UK, both private and public, under political administrations of all persuasions, in complete contravention of the legal requirement. So, what have I missed? That is what I'm hoping the final phase of the enquiry will tell me - in detail.

[Bulletguy]

Fast Pat - 2019-11-08 4:57 PM

 

Below is a post from former chief fire officer from Derbyshire fire and rescue ( very good and highly respected chief)

 

Grenfell...

 

Who’d be a fire chief?

Who’d be a firefighter?

 

I’ve not read the Grenfell Inquiry yet. Something to look forward to next week.

 

As a firefighter, you spend decades being told to follow procedures and training. They work, fires get put out, you get to go home safely.

 

You are told you did a good job, you are audited and the auditors tell you that you are competent and professional. It is reaffirming and reassuring.

 

Step outside those procedures and you fail your assessment, you are not competent. You don’t want to be there.

 

All these procedures are written to tackle fire in buildings built to a regulated standard.

 

The building is supposed to behave in a predictable way. Arm Chair enthusiasts would imagine that fire is not predictable. Well, you are wrong, it is a matter of scientific fact that fire develops and behaves predictably depending on the fuel, air and environment.

 

That is why firefighters can have standard operating procedures (SOPs) that for the most part work and do the job. If fire was unpredictable you could not have an SOP.

 

For decades building regs worked and we never suffered a Grenfell even in the 80 and 90s when there were 40% more fires than we have today.

 

Likelihood and severity, you’ve heard these banded around. In the nineties the likelihood was massive but it seems nowadays the severity has mushroomed as whole buildings are burning down on a regular basis.

 

If you ever drove through Salford in the 90s a single burnt-out flat was a common sight as you looked up at the high rise buildings. Like a broken tooth.

 

A fire put out using tried and tested procedure in a building designed to contain the fire to the flat of origin. Most people in the other flats wouldn’t even know that a fire had occurred until the morning after.

 

No common fire alarm, no mobile phones yet a successful outcome and no mass evacuation.

 

Why?

 

Because the buildings were not wrapped in flammable material allowing unchecked spread up the facade and ingress through windows.

 

Because the internal separation was solid and fire-resistant, because mostly the fire doors unless vandalised worked.

 

At this time the fire brigade was the responsible authority for fire legislation. We issued fire certificates and our word was law.

 

Admittedly we didn’t issue certs on domestic property but such was our regulatory power in other premises the local authority building control accepted that we knew what we were about and went with our recommendation

 

All that changed through deregulation at the end of the 90s. (The reform act of 2005 in fact). I was in fire protection at the time and I remember the old hands predicting a disaster.

 

It was like giving the kids the keys to the sweet shop. Building owners were now (2006) responsible for the fire safety standards in the same way a manager is responsible for health and safety at work. Some do it well, some do it badly, some do what they can afford and hope it’s enough.

 

Well, it’s not good enough and it is coming home to roost.

 

As a chief, you expect your firefighters to follow the policy and be competent, you have the dubious pleasure of being ultimately responsible for making sure that this is the case. It is a massive responsibility, you do your best. You audit the boys and girls to death. They are sick of being assessed. But they are safe, competent and they go home at the end of the shift.

 

Grenfell.

 

Imagine turning up at a building where everything has gone wrong the whole fire protection system had failed and the fire is spreading through what should be concrete fire-resistant rooms and up the outside beyond your capability to reach it.

 

You now need to tell 200 firefighters to forget everything they ever learned and do things completely outside of every procedure they have trained on. Things that could get them killed. It’s a miracle none were.

 

Every fibre in your body is screaming to do something new and evacuate whilst every professional brain cell is saying “are you mad” if you evacuate the people in the flats with no breathing apparatus they are doomed and it will be seen to have been your call.

 

Evacuating a burning building means taking people from what you understand to be a place of relative safety (or at least it should be if built right) and asking them to enter smoke-filled corridors and stairs knowing some won’t make it. We are talking about people of all ages and abilities here. Your mum, your grandad, your kids.

 

What would you do?

How brave are you now sitting in your armchair with the daily mail sword drawn about to slay the guilty?

 

Making life and death decisions outside of policy because a building had been let slide as a result of a succession of systematic governmental failure, safe in the knowledge that if you lose one firefighter or members of the public are found in stairwells dead you will be squarely in the frame of “going outside of procedure”.

 

Not so easy is it.

 

It is no surprise that candidates for chief fire officers jobs total one or two per position when advertised these days.

 

I stand with Dany Cotton and I stand with London Fire Brigade.

 

I look forward to part two of the report that looks at root cause including building regs and I sincerely hope the author does his job properly.

 

I hope everyone understands that firefighters turn up when everyone else’s risk assessment had gone wrong and are tasked with sorting out the mess.

 

We are not chefs, a missed instruction does not result in a ruined dish. We have to take what ingredients we have been given and bake a cake on the hoof whilst the kitchen is on fire and then have some armchair baker who may have watched his mum make a jam tart once tell us how well we have done.

 

Don’t get me started on sprinklers. I’ve been vocal, been on the telly, been sat in front of ministers with hard evidence to prove the case and been fobbed off.

 

Politics is at the root of Grenfell, I doubt any politician will be vilified in the way firefighters and chiefs have this week

 

Who’d be a chief?

Who’d be a firefighter now?

Thanks for posting that Pat....it's a brilliant read and he makes a lot of interesting points. I liked the bit about "buildings were not wrapped in flammable material allowing unchecked spread up the facade and ingress through windows." He also partly answers my questions by explaining where their word used to be law, it changed at the end of the 90's with deregulation thereby making building owners responsible for fire safety standards which seems a bit bonkers.

[Brian Kirby]

Bulletguy - 2019-11-08 3:53 PM.....................….I'm looking for accountability from the top down rather than the reverse which you yourself seem to be in agreement on given your final para.

 

Who initially chose the cladding (not just for Grenfell) and why that particular cladding? Who authorised the fitting of it.....local government or national?

 

The info i looked at is all in the Grenfell Action Group website which is huge with many links.

 

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2017/06/14/grenfell-tower-fire/

 

So am I Paul, but it seems we differ over where the top really is! :-)

 

The Building Regulations are issued by government, along with the requirements for applying for, and granting approval for, building works in the UK.

 

Approvals can be given by local authority building control departments, by "competent persons" (private contractors who self-certify that their work complies with regulations - for example replacement windows installers) or, since 2000, by "approved inspectors" (usually private firms of surveyors who have registered, and been accepted as competent to grant approvals).

 

All these schemes and methods have been authorised by government, who set the rules under which they must be operated. So, for me, whereas it will be interesting to see who, actually, approved that non-compliant cladding, the real interest will be who authorised those persons to grant such approvals, or authorised the standards that allowed them to be used, and whoever that was is where I think "the top" resides.

 

At present, unless there has been a fraudulent and deliberate attempt to subvert the requirements of the regulations (not impossible), that seems to me to implicate government, and in particular a government minister in what is now DCLG. That is where the responsibility for the whole building regulations system lies and so, ultimately, where responsibility for its failures, as at Grenfell, must also lie.

 

Thanks for the link, but I couldn't find anything that pre-dated the fire.

[Bulletguy]

Brian Kirby - 2019-11-08 6:30 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2019-11-08 3:53 PM.....................….I'm looking for accountability from the top down rather than the reverse which you yourself seem to be in agreement on given your final para.

 

Who initially chose the cladding (not just for Grenfell) and why that particular cladding? Who authorised the fitting of it.....local government or national?

 

The info i looked at is all in the Grenfell Action Group website which is huge with many links.

 

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2017/06/14/grenfell-tower-fire/

 

So am I Paul, but it seems we differ over where the top really is! :-)

 

The Building Regulations are issued by government, along with the requirements for applying for, and granting approval for, building works in the UK.

 

Approvals can be given by local authority building control departments, by "competent persons" (private contractors who self-certify that their work complies with regulations - for example replacement windows installers) or, since 2000, by "approved inspectors" (usually private firms of surveyors who have registered, and been accepted as competent to grant approvals).

 

All these schemes and methods have been authorised by government, who set the rules under which they must be operated. So, for me, whereas it will be interesting to see who, actually, approved that non-compliant cladding, the real interest will be who authorised those persons to grant such approvals, or authorised the standards that allowed them to be used, and whoever that was is where I think "the top" resides.

 

At present, unless there has been a fraudulent and deliberate attempt to subvert the requirements of the regulations (not impossible), that seems to me to implicate government, and in particular a government minister in what is now DCLG. That is where the responsibility for the whole building regulations system lies and so, ultimately, where responsibility for its failures, as at Grenfell, must also lie.

 

Thanks for the link, but I couldn't find anything that pre-dated the fire.

Where "the top" is has been partly answered by comments from the article Pat posted where the fire officer who wrote it explained how their word used to be law on all buildings but since deregulation the building owner is responsible for fire safety.

 

So, who made that decision to deregulate? We can use that as a start point if you like as "the top". It can only have come from central government as far as i'm aware, then implemented by the building owner....local government.

 

Next point on is who initially chose the cladding (not just for Grenfell) and why that particular cladding? Who authorised the fitting of it.....local government or national?

 

So we are gradually working our way down but in the right direction imo. I empathise with his sentiments over the LFB because as soon as i heard the initial reports i felt the criticism was totally unjustified to the point of them being scapegoated....which happens all too often in many other industries/professions when something goes badly wrong.

 

Re. the Grenfell Action Group, all the main links on the site pre-date the fire. They're clearly dated when first posted such as this one on March 14th 2017.....three months before the fire.

 

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2017/03/14/kctmo-feeling-the-heat/

 

[Violet1956]

The Grenfell enquiry panel consists of a Judge, an architect and an academic said to have an international reputation in housing and participatory design and planning. Seems to me the panel could have benefit from an additional member with expertise in firefighting before it could issue a judgement that would have the confidence of the LFB. It also is unfortunate that the results of the enquiry begin with the publication of their findings in relation to the competence of people who had to risk their own lives responding to a situation they played no part in creating.

[John52]

Birdbrain - 2019-11-08 5:25 PM

 

 

Why talk of a whitewash before its published then princess ???

Why ask her?

I would have told you if you asked me :-S