The Great Tower Block Fire Tragedy of London

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

All great points and it's been in discussion for the last 20 years.

The recommendations that came as a result of the Lakanal fire in 2009 have been in discussion for 20 years?

Or are you just talking about a more general 'discussion' about fire safety?

2 hours ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

Khan has known about his for many years

Khan has known about what for 'many years'?

Edited June 20, 2017 by snowychap

[HanoiVillan]

I'm not trying to put words into @PaulC's mouth - and he can feel free to tell me if I'm wrong - but I think there's two possible statements here:

a] Piers Morgan doesn't care about anything except making himself look good because he has a big house and a lot of money, and 

b] Piers Morgan, who has a lot of money and a big house, doesn't care about anything except making himself look good. 

I thought Paul was saying the second of these - and I agree. IOW, it's perfectly possible for other rich people to care, but Piers Morgan, who is rich, doesn't. 

His interview was self-aggrandising rubbish designed to get him on the right side of public opinion for a change. He shouldn't get praise for that in the same way that converting an open goal shouldn't win a 'Goal of the Month' competition. If anything, he managed to make Gove look better by being such a Tuesday about it. 

Edited June 20, 2017 by HanoiVillan

[meregreen]

3 hours ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

All great points and it's been in discussion for the last 20 years. Labour and Conservatives should hang their heads in shame.

The Tenancy Management Organisation also has two councillors on it, one Labour, one Conservative.  Khan has known about his for many years and as Mayor should take some responsibility considering his powers in the city and the way planning is delivered in London.

That's a big one actually, local government has not taken enough criticism when they can very easily require sprinklers as part of a planning condition....all over London....if it was a priority! 

It doesn't excuse central government from ignoring this problem, especially in shared accommodation, though as I mentioned previously cost is a problem as we're seeing in Wales and perhaps some of those costs will be people lives. Some sprinkler systems don't work properly (or at all) and there has been no investment to make sure water pressure is adequate. In part that's because regulation was rushed through without making sure the infrastructure was in place. That's not inherently bad but it's pretty negligent. 

Local Government has been virtually bankrupted by the Tories. What little funding they have is simply inadequate to do everything that needs doing at local level. The simple truth is, austerity as practiced by this Government costs lives.

[BOF]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

Give the people something reassurance that this kind of thing will never happen again. He failed miserably. I certainly was not reassured 

Answer the question though.  What could he have said to satisfy you in that situation?  He said they'd get everything.  He couldn't quantify the amount of fire engines they'd buy.  So what could he have said above explicitly saying "they'll get everything they need" which would have reassured you?

[TrentVilla]

 

I'm still unclear exactly what equipment Morgan is referencing that they could have had that could have saved the people trapped on the upper floors.

 

[snowychap]

28 minutes ago, BOF said:

So what could he have said above explicitly saying "they'll get everything they need" which would have reassured you?

"I believe that I, Michael Gove, am an absolute wazzock and am on here solely to give platitudinous responses and make promises that, even though I am a government minister, in no way bind the government to actually do anything concrete."

That may have reassured me that he wasn't such a weaselly little prick.

Edited June 20, 2017 by snowychap
Split infinitive intentional.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

The recommendations that came as a result of the Lakanal fire in 2009 have been in discussion for 20 years?

Or are you just talking about a more general 'discussion' about fire safety?

More general.
Fire safety officers and tenants have always discussed problems with workmanship and value of sprinklers but it's only when something happens that we focus blame on the easiest targets; who are still culpable of course.

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Khan has known about what for 'many years'?

The issues with fire safety. It's not a new topic.
He's been an MP in London for many years, surely to god saw the report in 2009 and by 2016 was the Mayor for a city with the most flats and substandard accommodation in the UK. By working with tenants he campaigned on new housing estates and regeneration so I am assuming he knew.  

If he didn't know then I'm bang wrong (seems v unlikely, particularity with his work history), but I won't be wrong in saying that if he didn't know, he's shown negligence in his role.

I wouldn't go as far as to blame him, though I'd argue he should take as much criticism as people feel Barwell and May deserve.

43 minutes ago, meregreen said:

Local Government has been virtually bankrupted by the Tories. What little funding they have is simply inadequate to do everything that needs doing at local level. The simple truth is, austerity as practiced by this Government costs lives.

Well we can argue the causes of bankruptcy all day because it's not only central governments fault, not by a long shot. However, local authorities can find the money for revenue officers but not a planner or planning policy procedure to enforce sprinklers as part of a planning condition? That's local authority prioritisation/ignorance and nothing to do with their bank account.

Edited June 20, 2017 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[meregreen]

After a devastating fire that has cost so many lives everything that can be done , will be done , in order to safeguard people from such a disaster again. So why not do it before such a predictable almost inevitable disaster happens. Simple answer, money. self serving pricks.

[chrisp65]

45 minutes ago, meregreen said:

Local Government has been virtually bankrupted by the Tories. What little funding they have is simply inadequate to do everything that needs doing at local level. The simple truth is, austerity as practiced by this Government costs lives.

Agreed.

Other than the exception of Kensington which has handed back money it didn't want and has a couple of hundred million in the bank. They are the ones that were 'unlucky' with the fire and deaths happening on their patch.

They had the resources to prevent this, they had the warnings too.

They just thought they'd be clever and have a bank balance to prove a political point rather than invest in life saving kit. 

You might just about be able to give some credit to a council that was perpetually broke and was choosing between child care, libraries and sprinklers. That wasn't the case here. It was a rich area trying to make sure it wasn't too comfy or safe and thus inviting more poor people in.  

 

[BOF]

4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Agreed.

Other than the exception of Kensington which has handed back money it didn't want and has a couple of hundred million in the bank. They are the ones that were 'unlucky' with the fire and deaths happening on their patch.

They had the resources to prevent this, they had the warnings too.

They just thought they'd be clever and have a bank balance to prove a political point rather than invest in life saving kit. 

You might just about be able to give some credit to a council that was perpetually broke and was choosing between child care, libraries and sprinklers. That wasn't the case here. It was a rich area trying to make sure it wasn't too comfy or safe and thus inviting more poor people in. 

The fact that what little money was spent ended up being spent on making an unsafe eyesore look prettier for those who have to look at it, rather than making it any safer, is what I find staggeringly unforgivable, morally reprehensible and, yes, borderline riot-worthy given the consequences.

[PaulC]

My issues with Morgan is that has he helped to give any help or any of his vast wealth to help any of the victims. Its alright him ranting at Gove but unless he gives or does something himself then he can **** off. Any Murray is giving his winnings from this current tournament.At least its something. 

[snowychap]

45 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

More general.
Fire safety officers and tenants have always discussed problems with workmanship and value of sprinklers but it's only when something happens that we focus blame on the easiest targets; who are still culpable of course.

So not the actual recommendations that came about as a result of the incident in 2009 just general chit chat between fire safety officers and tenants.

'Focus on the easiest targets' - what like the government, government departments and ministers with responsibility in the area?

45 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

The issues with fire safety. It's not a new topic.
He's been an MP in London for many years, surely to god saw the report in 2009 and by 2016 was the Mayor for a city with the most flats and substandard accommodation in the UK. By working with tenants he campaigned on new housing estates and regeneration so I am assuming he knew.

If he didn't know then I'm bang wrong (seems v unlikely, particularity with his work history), but I won't be wrong in saying that if he didn't know, he's shown negligence in his role.

I wouldn't go as far as to blame him, though I'd argue he should take as much criticism as people feel Barwell and May deserve.

So again just an unspecific 'the issues'. Of course fire safety is not a 'new topic'. The response to fire safety issues in the wake of the Lakanal fire in 2009 is a relatively new topic.

What report in 2009? The inquest reported in March 2013, didn't it?

I don't know precisely what powers the Mayor of London has with respect to ordering councils to retrofit specific fire-safety measures. If he has any of these powers then I'd have thought that the previous Mayor of London would have also had them and that, having been in office for a full term, he'd have had more opportunity to make that happen than someone in office for just over a year.

 

Edited June 20, 2017 by snowychap

[peterms]

1 hour ago, TrentVilla said:

 

I'm still unclear exactly what equipment Morgan is referencing that they could have had that could have saved the people trapped on the upper floors.

 

There was a comment in one of the stories that the dry risers weren't working, and maybe the reference is to that.  Don't know if the story is true or if they would have been effective.

[tonyh29]

38 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

They just thought they'd be clever and have a bank balance to prove a political point rather than invest in life saving kit. 

 

By kit do you mean sprinklers ? the Panorama show yesterday said that each flat was designed to contain a fire , so the fridge fire would have damaged 1 flat and no more ... Indeed didn't I hear from the same program that the first crew on scene had  put the fire out in that flat and thought that was job done ?

the cladding , rendered the safety design of the flats unsafe , that's where the focus to my mind , needs to be  .. whoever approved it , maybe even installed it if they knew it wasn't fit for purpose  , should be up on manslaughter charges , if their defence is the government \ local council made me do it then presumably then those people then become the next focus of attention  ..

 

[TrentVilla]

2 minutes ago, peterms said:

There was a comment in one of the stories that the dry risers weren't working, and maybe the reference is to that.  Don't know if the story is true or if they would have been effective.

Thanks, wasn't aware of that.

Its bad if they weren't given the other factors but I would really consider this Firefigthter kit as that's something in situ  rather than that they have.

The insinuation from Morgan is that the FB weren't adequately equpied to save those in the upper floors.

I'm just at a loss as to what that equipment could be, and I say that having been in the service previously.

That was 10 years ago but I'm still fairly sure that there isn't anything. No electromix platform is getting up there, their oxygen tanks wouldn't have got them up there and back safely and you couldn't put a chopper on the roof. 

[TrentVilla]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

By kit do you mean sprinklers ? the Panorama show yesterday said that each flat was designed to contain a fire , so the fridge fire would have damaged 1 flat and no more ... Indeed didn't I hear from the same program that the first crew on scene had  put the fire out in that flat and thought that was job done ?

the cladding , rendered the safety design of the flats unsafe , that's where the focus to my mind , needs to be  .. whoever approved it , maybe even installed it if they knew it wasn't fit for purpose  , should be up on manslaughter charges , if their defence is the government \ local council made me do it then presumably then those people then become the next focus of attention  ..

 

Quite right.

The sprinkler thing has been seized upon but in reality it's far from being the key factor in all this.

 

[HanoiVillan]

43 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Quite right.

The sprinkler thing has been seized upon but in reality it's far from being the key factor in all this.

 

I obviously know basically nothing about this, and you've done this properly before, but isn't the argument more that sprinklers would have slowed down the fire after it spread rather than that they would have eliminated at source (which,as @tonyh29 points out, happened anyway)? Please feel free to tell me if I'm talking out of my arse. 

[chrisp65]

46 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

By kit do you mean sprinklers ? the Panorama show yesterday said that each flat was designed to contain a fire , so the fridge fire would have damaged 1 flat and no more ... Indeed didn't I hear from the same program that the first crew on scene had  put the fire out in that flat and thought that was job done ?

the cladding , rendered the safety design of the flats unsafe , that's where the focus to my mind , needs to be  .. whoever approved it , maybe even installed it if they knew it wasn't fit for purpose  , should be up on manslaughter charges , if their defence is the government \ local council made me do it then presumably then those people then become the next focus of attention  ..

 

By kit I was keeping it deliberately wide and vague as in reality there are so many things we don't know. I've mentioned previously that sprinklers aren't automatically the answer to all problems. We've always got to be careful of answers and causes supplied by the media after just a few days. There's a reason the official report takes longer, and it's not just public service holidays and working hours.

'Kit' could be anything, from better doors, door closers, smoke extract from the escape routes, limited sprinklers just in the escape route, a second means of escape bolted on to the outside. A live in fire warden. A cctv linked intercom to every flat. Sealed windows that don't allow fire or smoke in or out unless it's a deliberate choice. Evac chairs and refuge points on landings. It could be non-flammable cladding ffs. 

It could be fixing 40 plus years of poor building detailing by going around and filling all those hundreds holes left in the walls and floors every time wiring or plumbing was amended. It could be some form of surge protection / trip on the power.

Without turning this in to being about me, I've carried out fire risk assessments on buildings in multiple occupancy. It's shocking the state that some contractors will leave things in. Telephone cables routed over the head of fire doors by pulling out some of the fire bat - so much quicker than drilling and filling your own 8mm hole. New lights put in fire rated ceilings, but no smoke hood over the light, so you've just made a big hole in a barrier. So kit was my short word to cover for all the waffle above!

 

 

[TrentVilla]

42 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I obviously know basically nothing about this, and you've done this properly before, but isn't the argument more that sprinklers would have slowed down the fire after it spread rather than that they would have eliminated at source (which,as @tonyh29 points out, happened anyway)? Please feel free to tell me if I'm talking out of my arse. 

No you aren't. 

Im not saying a sprinkler system wouldn't have saved lives in this instance or that they shouldn't be in place. Far more informed people than I would say they should and for me if they can make a difference they should be in place.

The point is for me (while awaiting the full reports) that the spread of this fire predominately seems to have been external to the building. The building burning outside in.

My view is that sprinklers would have made marginal difference once the fire took hold, it remains to be seen if they could have stopped it doing so.

Most fires even in a high rise can be handled by the fire brigade and there are all sorts of associated problems with sprinkler systems in high rise buildings. 

This will be a multifaceted investigation but as I said on page one as soon as I woke to the news, this is primarily going to be about that cladding.

[PaulC]

The Tower block was safe before it was renovated wasn't it. They were designed so the fire is contained within the flat where the fire takes place. Each time they alter a tower block they compromise the safety of it.