Tower Block Fire

meanredspider

bobmcstuff wrote:

Technology has moved on but the regulations have not (for various reasons...)

Yes - the world has a lot of regulations that don't much match real life (VW take a bow - but I could name plenty more).

bobmcstuff

meanredspider wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Technology has moved on but the regulations have not (for various reasons...)

Yes - the world has a lot of regulations that don't much match real life (VW take a bow - but I could name plenty more).

There's not a lot of other safety regulations which have gone well over a decade between getting any updates.

One reason is that certain politicians were against updating the regs on the basis it would hurt business. Same for updates to BTL regs (which changed in Scotland).

tangled_metal

Cutting corners? Who would do that with fire protection? :roll:

You would be surprised what contractors get away with.

One job we got was a power station refurb because the middle eastern materials supplier and lead contractor used a cheaper and unsuitable product hidden behind a layer of the right material. Any customer inspection wouldn't know about the cut corners. Besides they only had to survive a set operation time under the warranty scheme. Resulted in a very quick failure including metalwork needing repair too. Expensive to sort out and they had to pay for others to put right. IIRC after that a further 11 stations were inspected, at the supplier's expense, and they all needed remediation.

Then one passive fire protection product one of my old companies sold had an issue in a high security prison. Our product got the blame but fortunately before we could make the site visit they worked out the installer hadn't followed manufacturer's instructions and established installation procedures.

Cue the cutting out of structural concrete, removal of metal pipe and reinstatement of the floor's integrity both structural and fire integrity. Expensive and all done in a high security prison with prisoners taking an interest in what you're doing. Add to that you took nearly 2 hours to get in and out. Forget your lunch or a tool? One hour out and one hour in. We were very.much relieved to get out of the site visit.

mr_goo

Tangled Metal wrote:

Cutting corners? Who would do that with fire protection? :roll:

You would be surprised what contractors get away with.

One job we got was a power station refurb because the middle eastern materials supplier and lead contractor used a cheaper and unsuitable product hidden behind a layer of the right material. Any customer inspection wouldn't know about the cut corners. Besides they only had to survive a set operation time under the warranty scheme. Resulted in a very quick failure including metalwork needing repair too. Expensive to sort out and they had to pay for others to put right. IIRC after that a further 11 stations were inspected, at the supplier's expense, and they all needed remediation.

Then one passive fire protection product one of my old companies sold had an issue in a high security prison. Our product got the blame but fortunately before we could make the site visit they worked out the installer hadn't followed manufacturer's instructions and established installation procedures.

Cue the cutting out of structural concrete, removal of metal pipe and reinstatement of the floor's integrity both structural and fire integrity. Expensive and all done in a high security prison with prisoners taking an interest in what you're doing. Add to that you took nearly 2 hours to get in and out. Forget your lunch or a tool? One hour out and one hour in. We were very.much relieved to get out of the site visit.

I know of a hospital in Devon where the civils contractor laid all the foul drainage on polystyrene blocks to get the levels worked out. They didn't bother removing the blocks before backfilling. All of this was photographed and put in a construction journal for the client. The photos have since disappeared.

mamba80

Newsnight, a solicitor who represented the Lakanal fire victims says a public enquiry is the wrong vehicle and it should be a inquest with jury, where the residents can Q witnesses and a jury verdict reached, she then went on to say May is having a public inquiry because it means the Gov keep control.... shocking even if only half true.

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

Newsnight, a solicitor who represented the Lakanal fire victims says a public enquiry is the wrong vehicle and it should be a inquest with jury, where the residents can Q witnesses and a jury verdict reached, she then went on to say May is having a public inquiry because it means the Gov keep control.... shocking even if only half true.

I saw that, too.The idea that TM 'knows something' is bordering on conspiracy theory.

Pross

Surely there'll be a Coroner's Inquest before a Public Inquiry? When they set the heads of terms for a Public Inquiry it needs to include a review of why recommendations from the previous Inquest hadn't been addressed.

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Newsnight, a solicitor who represented the Lakanal fire victims says a public enquiry is the wrong vehicle and it should be a inquest with jury, where the residents can Q witnesses and a jury verdict reached, she then went on to say May is having a public inquiry because it means the Gov keep control.... shocking even if only half true.

I saw that, too.The idea that TM 'knows something' is bordering on conspiracy theory.

Given the history of public enquires and cover ups, Hillborough springs to mind, in this country, perhaps she has a point?

the families (maybe we all do?) need answers quickly and not in 5 or 6 years time.

yep i d have thought you d have the inquest first but she seemed to think you cant have an jury inquest and a PI.

rjsterry

Zooming out a bit, the rush by commentators to claim the disaster as 'proof' of whatever pet theory they want to push is pretty nauseating.

BelgianBeerGeek

Watching some interviews with local people on TV last night there seems to be a lot of anger about this tragedy. If the Government don't handle this correctly there could be some backlash.

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

Zooming out a bit, the rush by commentators to claim the disaster as 'proof' of whatever pet theory they want to push is pretty nauseating.

well, i guess people are searching for answers, this fire and the number of deaths is not something you associate with a 1st world country, there have been similar fires in france and Aus but without the loss of life.
Apparently even the Americans banned this sort of construct years ago.

when folk moan on about H&S, they need to realise that they are in the main there for our own safety and without them, disaster awaits, i m thinking of the fires in Brazil in the 1980s, they ve now some of the toughest and up to date regs in the world (and enforced)
in my job, i have to follow plenty of rules and risk assessments but they are never enforced, dangers not acted on and the pressure to get the job done is what matters, i ve long thought these rules are there to protect directors from prosecution and if it keeps me safe, then thats a bonus!

Pross

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Newsnight, a solicitor who represented the Lakanal fire victims says a public enquiry is the wrong vehicle and it should be a inquest with jury, where the residents can Q witnesses and a jury verdict reached, she then went on to say May is having a public inquiry because it means the Gov keep control.... shocking even if only half true.

I saw that, too.The idea that TM 'knows something' is bordering on conspiracy theory.

Given the history of public enquires and cover ups, Hillborough springs to mind, in this country, perhaps she has a point?

the families (maybe we all do?) need answers quickly and not in 5 or 6 years time.

yep i d have thought you d have the inquest first but she seemed to think you cant have an jury inquest and a PI.

In that case surely there'd be no PI as the Inquest is a legal requirement as far as I know. The Coroner can call on a jury and I assume they would in something like this and I believe all the deceased's families can have legal representation that can question witnesses. Whilst the coroner can't apportion blame they can, and often do, make it quite obvious in their report and recommendations and the whole process is heard in public.

There's always a demand for a Public Inquiry after events like this but they usually take years to complete, cost a fortune and make recommendations that seem to often be ignored.

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Newsnight, a solicitor who represented the Lakanal fire victims says a public enquiry is the wrong vehicle and it should be a inquest with jury, where the residents can Q witnesses and a jury verdict reached, she then went on to say May is having a public inquiry because it means the Gov keep control.... shocking even if only half true.

I saw that, too.The idea that TM 'knows something' is bordering on conspiracy theory.

Given the history of public enquires and cover ups, Hillborough springs to mind, in this country, perhaps she has a point?

the families (maybe we all do?) need answers quickly and not in 5 or 6 years time.

yep i d have thought you d have the inquest first but she seemed to think you cant have an jury inquest and a PI.

I don't know if it would take 5-6 years, but given that it is likely to take months to even recover all human remains, neither a PI nor an inquest is going to be quick. That's not to say other reviews - for example how well the existing regulations are being applied - shouldn't run in parallel. One particular aspect that I find surprising is that the Building Regulations approval of the refurbishment work appears to have been handled through a Building Notice, rather than Full Plans Approval.

Pross

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Zooming out a bit, the rush by commentators to claim the disaster as 'proof' of whatever pet theory they want to push is pretty nauseating.

well, i guess people are searching for answers, this fire and the number of deaths is not something you associate with a 1st world country, there have been similar fires in france and Aus but without the loss of life.
Apparently even the Americans banned this sort of construct years ago.

when folk moan on about H&S, they need to realise that they are in the main there for our own safety and without them, disaster awaits, i m thinking of the fires in Brazil in the 1980s, they ve now some of the toughest and up to date regs in the world (and enforced)
in my job, i have to follow plenty of rules and risk assessments but they are never enforced, dangers not acted on and the pressure to get the job done is what matters, i ve long thought these rules are there to protect directors from prosecution and if it keeps me safe, then thats a bonus!

Understandable that people want answers but it's far better to let the forensic fire investigation people do their job and get informed answers rather than guesswork from people watching TV images. I certainly understand the need for urgency for those affected or living n similar buildings but most of these 'expert' opinions are just the media trying to keep the story going by satisfying the modern day demand for information.

bendertherobot

Pross wrote:

Surely there'll be a Coroner's Inquest before a Public Inquiry? When they set the heads of terms for a Public Inquiry it needs to include a review of why recommendations from the previous Inquest hadn't been addressed.

The relevant Act provides that, in certain circumstances, the inquest will be suspended. They're dealt with in the schedule. One of them is where there is an inquiry. There's another where there's a prosecution too. So expect this one to be opened, then suspended, rather than adjourned.

DeVlaeminck

rjsterry wrote:

Zooming out a bit, the rush by commentators to claim the disaster as 'proof' of whatever pet theory they want to push is pretty nauseating.

Not really, people want answers not to be told wait several years til the official report comes out.

mamba80

DeVlaeminck wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Zooming out a bit, the rush by commentators to claim the disaster as 'proof' of whatever pet theory they want to push is pretty nauseating.

Not really, people want answers not to be told wait several years til the official report comes out.

We dont need to be hanging around for an age, there have been other fires in the UK, france, Auss and Dubai, plus the yanks have banned this type of cladding, there is of course the previous 2009 fire/inquest that can now eventually be drawn upon.

the really issue is that many politicians (and others in power) of all colours are landlords, the Gov voted down the labour fit for habitation proposal, on the basis that it would put up rents ie cost!

TM moaned about Farron being held up for his christian beliefs, well, maybe land lord MP's should nt be voting on proposals to tighten regulation on private rented homes?

kingstongraham

DeVlaeminck wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Zooming out a bit, the rush by commentators to claim the disaster as 'proof' of whatever pet theory they want to push is pretty nauseating.

Not really, people want answers not to be told wait several years til the official report comes out.

Who is saying several years? From Philip Collins in The Times today, Aberfan and Bradford inquiries took 8 and 10 months to produce reports.

He suggests an interim report by September, with final report in January.

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Zooming out a bit, the rush by commentators to claim the disaster as 'proof' of whatever pet theory they want to push is pretty nauseating.

Not really, people want answers not to be told wait several years til the official report comes out.

We dont need to be hanging around for an age, there have been other fires in the UK, france, Auss and Dubai, plus the yanks have banned this type of cladding, there is of course the previous 2009 fire/inquest that can now eventually be drawn upon.

the really issue is that many politicians (and others in power) of all colours are landlords, the Gov voted down the labour fit for habitation proposal, on the basis that it would put up rents ie cost!

TM moaned about Farron being held up for his christian beliefs, well, maybe land lord MP's should nt be voting on proposals to tighten regulation on private rented homes?

To clarify I meant pet theories not directly related to the fire. Depending on who you read, the fire was a result of buildings being too tall, austerity, 'the 1%', the Tories. All of it uninformed guff.

DeVlaeminck

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Zooming out a bit, the rush by commentators to claim the disaster as 'proof' of whatever pet theory they want to push is pretty nauseating.

Not really, people want answers not to be told wait several years til the official report comes out.

We dont need to be hanging around for an age, there have been other fires in the UK, france, Auss and Dubai, plus the yanks have banned this type of cladding, there is of course the previous 2009 fire/inquest that can now eventually be drawn upon.

the really issue is that many politicians (and others in power) of all colours are landlords, the Gov voted down the labour fit for habitation proposal, on the basis that it would put up rents ie cost!

TM moaned about Farron being held up for his christian beliefs, well, maybe land lord MP's should nt be voting on proposals to tighten regulation on private rented homes?

To clarify I meant pet theories not directly related to the fire. Depending on who you read, the fire was a result of buildings being too tall, austerity, 'the 1%', the Tories. All of it uninformed guff.

OK yes I suppose there may be some chaff that people can discard but I don't have a problem with speculation about the role of the cladding, renovations possible breaking down fire protection etc.

mamba80

KingstonGraham wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Zooming out a bit, the rush by commentators to claim the disaster as 'proof' of whatever pet theory they want to push is pretty nauseating.

Not really, people want answers not to be told wait several years til the official report comes out.

Who is saying several years? From Philip Collins in The Times today, Aberfan and Bradford inquiries took 8 and 10 months to produce reports.

He suggests an interim report by September, with final report in January.

Some are relatively quick, others take years and cost millions.

As i said, this isnt a first, they only have to go back to the 2009 inquest for starters, if i lived in a tower block, i would nt want to carry on living there, even for a few months, if its safety is in doubt, would you?

stay put policy, one stair case, no alarms, no sprinklers, its hardly rocket science.

bendertherobot

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... are_btn_tw

Scum

bendertherobot

It seems easy to lash out at politicians etc during this. But with, it seems, little regard for truth.

This morning I've seen references to Sadiq being Minister for Local Government at the time of Lakanal, when he was transport Minister.

A lot of accusations against Emma Coad who was simply one board member and left in 2012.

Accusations against Lord Rees Mogg's wife receiving £7.5 million in cash for the estate that she hasn't owned since the 80's.

Is it too difficult to start with correct statements?

rick_chasey

It's tapped into something pretty primal hasn't it?

TheBigBean

bendertherobot wrote:

It seems easy to lash out at politicians etc during this. But with, it seems, little regard for truth.

This morning I've seen references to Sadiq being Minister for Local Government at the time of Lakanal, when he was transport Minister.

A lot of accusations against Emma Coad who was simply one board member and left in 2012.

Accusations against Lord Rees Mogg's wife receiving £7.5 million in cash for the estate that she hasn't owned since the 80's.

Is it too difficult to start with correct statements?

It depends whether the statements came from a supposedly reputable source or twitter.

dinyull

From what I see on Twitter (font of all truth, obvs) this could all boil over at any point into what happened at Tottenham in 2011.

Heavy anti-govt and press feeling, fire service cuts, safety equipment not used/working and rumours circulating that the cladding was only added so the luxury apartments opposite didn't have an eye-sore.

Once grief subsides and anger takes over, who knows where it goes.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

It seems easy to lash out at politicians etc during this. But with, it seems, little regard for truth.

This morning I've seen references to Sadiq being Minister for Local Government at the time of Lakanal, when he was transport Minister.

A lot of accusations against Emma Coad who was simply one board member and left in 2012.

Accusations against Lord Rees Mogg's wife receiving £7.5 million in cash for the estate that she hasn't owned since the 80's.

Is it too difficult to start with correct statements?

It depends whether the statements came from a supposedly reputable source or twitter.

https://www.ft.com/content/d5efd3a0-b32 ... 1?mhq5j=e1

dinyull

Dinyull wrote:

From what I see on Twitter (font of all truth, obvs) this could all boil over at any point into what happened at Tottenham in 2011.

Heavy anti-govt and press feeling, fire service cuts, safety equipment not used/working and rumours circulating that the cladding was only added so the luxury apartments opposite didn't have an eye-sore.

Once grief subsides and anger takes over, who knows where it goes.

And a justice rally arranged for tonight...

bendertherobot

Surrey Commuter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

It seems easy to lash out at politicians etc during this. But with, it seems, little regard for truth.

This morning I've seen references to Sadiq being Minister for Local Government at the time of Lakanal, when he was transport Minister.

A lot of accusations against Emma Coad who was simply one board member and left in 2012.

Accusations against Lord Rees Mogg's wife receiving £7.5 million in cash for the estate that she hasn't owned since the 80's.

Is it too difficult to start with correct statements?

It depends whether the statements came from a supposedly reputable source or twitter.

https://www.ft.com/content/d5efd3a0-b32 ... 1?mhq5j=e1

But she doesn't, it seems, own it?

surrey_commuter

bendertherobot wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

It seems easy to lash out at politicians etc during this. But with, it seems, little regard for truth.

This morning I've seen references to Sadiq being Minister for Local Government at the time of Lakanal, when he was transport Minister.

A lot of accusations against Emma Coad who was simply one board member and left in 2012.

Accusations against Lord Rees Mogg's wife receiving £7.5 million in cash for the estate that she hasn't owned since the 80's.

Is it too difficult to start with correct statements?

It depends whether the statements came from a supposedly reputable source or twitter.

https://www.ft.com/content/d5efd3a0-b32 ... 1?mhq5j=e1

But she doesn't, it seems, own it?

true - but it is a reputable source. As a trustee it obviously a cause she feels strongly about. I hate Jacob Rees Mogg so am happy to see a mob stirred up against him.