London Tower Block Fire

hovis said:
your wrong. they do work in these situations. if you saying they wont work just because they will be abused then that doesn't stop the effectiveness of the sprinklers does it. also sprinklers are only to be installed in the actual flats not in protected staircases.

i have never known of a vandalised sprinkler system anywhere in Staffordshire in 11 years but have attended multiple flat fire's where sprinklers would have saved the property. if they do happen to be activated by dick heads for a laugh now and then that's ok with me. its a small price to pay
Click to expand...

You misunderstand my point. I know that sprinklers work, I just know they would not be appropriate for these blocks.
Also I accept that in your opinion false alarms are a small price to pay but in my experience installing Fire alarms and AOVs that is not a view shared by local authorities or even your colleagues in the LFB
 
Old Skier said:
I responded to the deprived area statement which I don't believe this is and the flats are a mix of owned and social housing.
Click to expand...

Oops! Very late to check for the reply!

My point - about re-reading Hovis's post is still absolutely valid!

As a clue...He stated 'our area' and wasn't refering to Grenfell Tower!
 
I haven't followed this thread so apologies if this has been covered but on the news they are talking about the number of flats that have cladding that have failed flammability tests. Surely one of the questions here is how did these pass fire tests in the first place? Are the fire tests inept or are the mfrs not repeating their processes within spec?

Big sympathy with Camden council. They are trying to do the right thing and locals are hammering them. Are they supposed to leave people in flats that they know have failed tests? That would be criminally negligent.
 
It is very difficult to understand how these materials could have been possibly considered acceptable, especially in these days of Health and Safety regulation. People really need to be taken to task over this and these people are not politicians but whoever signed off the specification.
 
I haven't covered a lot of this thread either , but news reports that displaced Grenfell survivors will be housed in nearby luxury apartments.

Apparently one of the residents was very outspoken saying that she thought it was unfair that she paid x to live in a very nice complex and didn't want council residents living there for free.

She has been heavily criticised in the press and labelled selfish😬😮
 
Tashyboy said:
One of the most sincere, honest and respected posts I have read on here for a long long time, Fragger wrote the other week about us being a " dysfunctional" family on here. I could not agree with him more. Yourself like me and others have found that writing about our " crap" days just helps a little bit. It is something that others don't understand. But Dysfunctional describes all that.
At the end of this catastrophe I hope you can find the strength and experience both good and bad to help you in future unsavoury events.
Many thanks Tashyboy
Click to expand...

Thanks tashy
 
Sorry John McDonnell - but you really can't go accusing councillors and politicians of 'murder' over Grenfell. That sort of language is just too emotive and divisive - and frankly, if you were really bothered, will cause your party more harm than good.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Sorry John McDonnell - but you really can't go accusing councillors and politicians of 'murder' over Grenfell. That sort of language is just too emotive and divisive - and frankly, if you were really bothered, will cause your party more harm than good.
Click to expand...
He blamed it on decades of failure, that includes his own party, don't you think profit has been put over safety in some cases for years and years and under all governments?
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Sorry John McDonnell - but you really can't go accusing councillors and politicians of 'murder' over Grenfell. That sort of language is just too emotive and divisive - and frankly, if you were really bothered, will cause your party more harm than good.
Click to expand...

Although I don't like the guy's politics at all, and I do feel he has been trying to make political mileage a little bit, he might not be wrong if he labelled it corporate manslaughter.

If a material has been used in ignorance of the building regs its not an excuse. Ignorance has never been a defence in the eyes of the law.

Emotion doesn't help but passion and energy for getting to the bottom of what's gone on should be welcomed.
 
I think McDonnell was inflammatory and he knew that. It was also a cheap shot. I'm sure the fire investigators will find out the full facts but if councils of all types have authorised building work that meets all fire safety tests then I am not sure what else they are supposed to do. If either the tests or mfr QA is faulty that is outside of the councils sphere of influence. That is not a money issue in terms of the councils concerned.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
I think McDonnell was inflammatory and he knew that. It was also a cheap shot. I'm sure the fire investigators will find out the full facts but if councils of all types have authorised building work that meets all fire safety tests then I am not sure what else they are supposed to do. If either the tests or mfr QA is faulty that is outside of the councils sphere of influence. That is not a money issue in terms of the councils concerned.
Click to expand...

it is a monetary issue if they used the lowest bidder for the work to save money and they used sub standard materials
 
Only if the materials failed to meet the spec required. Sub standard materials should not be within any building spec. If the spec is correct, passed by fire safety etc then whether the finished article is Rolls Royce, Mercedes or Ford level does not matter. As a basic, it should all be at the level required. The fact that at Grenfell and at other sites, current 100% failure rate, they are failing the spec is a worry for A/ the testing procedure to clear the products in the first place B/ the mfrs of the products that are not reproducing them to the necessary spec.

There are people who going to, hopefully, go to jail regarding this. I don't see, at this stage, that the people commissioning the work are amongst those.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
Only if the materials failed to meet the spec required. Sub standard materials should not be within any building spec. If the spec is correct, passed by fire safety etc then whether the finished article is Rolls Royce, Mercedes or Ford level does not matter. As a basic, it should all be at the level required. The fact that at Grenfell and at other sites, current 100% failure rate, they are failing the spec is a worry for A/ the testing procedure to clear the products in the first place B/ the mfrs of the products that are not reproducing them to the necessary spec.

There are people who going to, hopefully, go to jail regarding this. I don't see, at this stage, that the people commissioning the work are amongst those.
Click to expand...

The change in HSE regs in April 2016 could very well see lengthy jail terms and huge fines. And it will include those that commissioned the work all the way to the Head of the Council and the company directors. There's no hiding behind someone else by saying I leave knowing the regs to subordinates. Its the responsibility of the company directors to employ the right people. Unfortunately that doesn't do the victims any good.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Sorry John McDonnell - but you really can't go accusing councillors and politicians of 'murder' over Grenfell. That sort of language is just too emotive and divisive - and frankly, if you were really bothered, will cause your party more harm than good.
Click to expand...

His exact words were:-

"Those families, those individuals - 79 so far and there will be more - were murdered by political decisions that were taken over recent decades. "The decision not to build homes and to view housing as only for financial speculation rather than for meeting a basic human need made by politicians over decades murdered those families. "The decision to close fire stations and to cut 10,000 fire fighters and then to freeze their pay for over a decade contributed to those deaths inevitably, and they were political decisions."


And whilst I agree that he did not phrase it very well and probably nievely left himself open to people putting their own slant/emphasis on what he said, to me I read it as he is blaming decades of ideology, especially around the use of property as an money generating asset as opposed to somewhere for people to live. Including when Labour were in power. Not individuals who made the specific calls. And there is a lot of that that I would agree with.


 
Hacker Khan said:
His exact words were:-

"Those families, those individuals - 79 so far and there will be more - were murdered by political decisions that were taken over recent decades. "The decision not to build homes and to view housing as only for financial speculation rather than for meeting a basic human need made by politicians over decades murdered those families. "The decision to close fire stations and to cut 10,000 fire fighters and then to freeze their pay for over a decade contributed to those deaths inevitably, and they were political decisions."


And whilst I agree that he did not phrase it very well and probably nievely left himself open to people putting their own slant/emphasis on what he said, to me I read it as he is blaming decades of ideology, especially around the use of property as an money generating asset as opposed to somewhere for people to live. Including when Labour were in power. Not individuals who made the specific calls. And there is a lot of that that I would agree with.


Click to expand...

Substitute the word murdered for something a bit less emotive and he's right. Using the word murdered detracts from a very honest piece. The discussion is moving away from what it should be about and becoming more about the perception of him grandstanding.
 
Hobbit said:
Substitute the word murdered for something a bit less emotive and he's right. Using the word murdered detracts from a very honest piece. The discussion is moving away from what it should be about and becoming more about the perception of him grandstanding.
Click to expand...

Well 'killed' would be somewhat less emotive; or 'their deaths were caused by...'.

But if 'corporate manslaughter' charges are being considered, then it's the Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act that will be used! All they have to then do is to identify the 'culprit'! There's likely to be an enormous amount of ducking and diving of 'blame' amongst all the 'interested' parties!

Btw. I believe his words were 100% political grandstanding! I'm absolutely certain that the availability of more firefighters would have achieved absolutely nothing in this instance! And while cost (savings) MIGHT have been a consideration, I don't see how the first part of his statement actually relates to this particular incident - except that it involves working-class folk - and immigrants/refugees!
 
Last edited:
I think some people are getting a bit hung up on the regs issue.

I've been involved (supply & fit) on similar buildings, some private, some council, and in the main their own QS will dictate the material and even the brand and spec they want fitted, in some cases they may state 'or equivalent'.

In those cases you have to ensure the product has a 25yr BBA and you have to forward all supporting spec & data sheets to the QS for approval, these are then authorised/accepted and you crack on.

So whether some items are cheaper or more expensive becomes immaterial, the facts are they have to be just suitable for the job in hand and someone down the chain will have signed them off.

The only way the supplier/contractor can be liable in this situation is if he quoted for X and had those materials authorised and then fitted Y, but I don't think this is the case.

Also, if, and it does go on, someone in the chain (QS/Council) authorised the higher quote & spec and then verbally agreed with the contractor to supply something else cheaper and then a double invoice is produced and cash changes hands.
 
Fish said:
I think some people are getting a bit hung up on the regs issue.

I've been involved (supply & fit) on similar buildings, some private, some council, and in the main their own QS will dictate the material and even the brand and spec they want fitted, in some cases they may state 'or equivalent'.

In those cases you have to ensure the product has a 25yr BBA and you have to forward all supporting spec & data sheets to the QS for approval, these are then authorised/accepted and you crack on.

So whether some items are cheaper or more expensive becomes immaterial, the facts are they have to be just suitable for the job in hand and someone down the chain will have signed them off.

The only way the supplier/contractor can be liable in this situation is if he quoted for X and had those materials authorised and then fitted Y, but I don't think this is the case.

Also, if, and it does go on, someone in the chain (QS/Council) authorised the higher quote & spec and then verbally agreed with the contractor to supply something else cheaper and then a double invoice is produced and cash changes hands.
Click to expand...

Fish, how is it that at the moment all buildings are failing fire regs, were they not signed off as fire safe once the job was completed. Struggling to get me head around how they were all passed as OK in the first place but now they are not. What's gone wrong with the system that should be in place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top