Thread: Warnings & scaremongering Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020215
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
Drawing together a couple of recent, tragic, news events from London, there seems to be a thread that links them. At least one of the men who committed mass murder on London Bridge had, it seems, been brought to the attention of the authorities as a potential risk.

Today's fire an Grenfell Tower, was warned about in this frighteningly prescient piece written by a local action group.

In both cases, it looks like signs were missed which, had they been heeded, could have averted the devastating outcomes we've seen. It makes me think: what warnings are we currently ignoring?

But to heed every warning and take every precaution leads to gullibility, where we may be open to every piece of scaremongering propagated by those with vested interests. Though not every warning is scaremongering, it is easy to dismiss genuine warnings as being scaremongering. One need only look at the Brexit and Scottish Independence referendums to see how it can work either way.

If our concerns are genuine and well-founded, and those we are seeking to warn are dismissive of arguments and evidence, how is it best to go about persuading them that concerns and risks are genuine, rather than scaremongering?
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I think there are two different things here - although related.

1. If the residents of a tower block warn about serious health and safety problems, they should be taken note of and acted on. This government has done a lot to make landlords less - rather than more - responsible for the safety of rental premises.

At the same time, while we can surmise, we don't yet know the details of the causes of this fire and why it spread so tragically. There APPEARS to have been a failure in design and process here (it was only refurbished last year), and neglect for profit. If so, this is a warning that should have been heeded, and wasn't.

2. The terrorist alerts. The problem here is that I believe the police get a lot of "alerts" about "potential terrorists" (some of which are ludicrously racist). They have 200 on their watchlist, and they cannot keep track of them all, because resources have been cut. Rather, they could keep track on them all, at the cost of not investigating other crimes, not doing their other duties.

What we see here is that we are in a more dangerous world now than we were in the past. That is a result of many things, including governmental policy across the world. And yet, for 40 years, we have lived with the possibility of Nuclear war. We have lived with the "possibility" of dying for a stupid reason for a long time.

As someone said, "constant vigilance if the price of freedom" We are putting less money into constant vigilance, so we are losing some of our freedom.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Heads will roll - but will fire safety be improved?

Government has cut council funding to the bone, so they are ultimately responsible.

From the Grenfell action group blog "In the light of this official report, which is strongly suggestive of years of ongoing neglect and criminal negligence of the fire safety systems at Grenfell Tower, we would suggest that the managing authorities need to tak a long hard look at themselves, and how they manage this estate. We would also strongly suggest that they seriously reconsider their earlier facile dismissal of the concerns we raised regarding their lax attitude to the emergency access arrangements."

They couldn't have been clearer.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
"Constant vigilence" is a nonsense term. One can't be vigilant about everything all of the time, that's ridiculous.

I am no kind of fire or engineering expect, so am not going to speculate as to what happened here. But I do note that firefighters with long experience seem to be saying that something very strange as gone on here as it is totally different to anything they've seen before.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Guess who was in charge of fire regs at the time?

Another 'ooops' for Theresa May.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Echoes of Trump's dislike of regulation -

quote:
Ronnie King, formerly the chief fire officer and now honorary secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue, said the regulations “badly need updating” and “three successive ministers have not done it”.

He told the Press Association: “It’s sad that we always have to go to stable-door legislation. Lakanal House wasn’t enough deaths to trigger off a major public inquiry. It just went to an inquest, there was no formal report on it.”

On the delay to the review of building regulations, King said: “My own thinking is there was the red tape challenge and they don’t really want to put regulation on to businesses, adding a burden. It’s one of those that if you bring in a new regulation, you have got to give three up to get it.”


[ 14. June 2017, 15:40: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Whatever the cause of the fire, the Grenfell Tower warning and terrorist warnings are entirely separate subjects. Other that that the same interests are likely to behind reduction of protection.

On terrorist warnings. Death and destruction are a means, not an end. Disruption is the key. Even with proper funding, it would be impossible to investigate every reported threat to the same degree.
The questions to be asked is are current practices the best they could be. There will be more incidences. This is inevitable, between mistakes and the lack of Precogs, people will slip through.
For the current situation, reducing the numbers as much as possible si the goal.
Long term, it is getting rid of the bastards who fuck up the policies which feed recruitment.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I am no kind of fire or engineering expect, so am not going to speculate as to what happened here. But I do note that firefighters with long experience seem to be saying that something very strange as gone on here as it is totally different to anything they've seen before.
Precedents (thread includes link to discussion of this fire, here).
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Precedents (thread includes link to discussion of this fire, here).
Those threads are properly scary for reasons I don't even want to spell out.
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
(thanks mr cheesy)
 
Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :
 
I think that the cause of the fire is already clear.

Super rich developers maximizing their profits with the aid of their cronies running the country for their own benefits who sign off dangerous building practices with a nod and a wink. All this on the backs of the poor and vulnerable sectors who point out deficiencies and are ignored because the only solutions are not profitable. (Thank you mr cheesy for the link to those edifying pictures)
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
That was Euty's links not mine. But do beware reading them if you are easily terrified.
 
Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :
 
Yes, and yes.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I seem to recall an air disaster where the fire was attributed to the flammability of aluminium, discussed at the time because many people did not think of a metal as inflammable. (Except, if they had had a mad chemistry teacher, magnesium.)

And I have realised I have a few cladding panels on my property, as spacers between windows and beside doors, and they are indeed aluminium with foam in between. They don't communicate with each other, though. Only with the space between the inner plasterboard wall and the outer asbestos tiled wall - steel framed construction.)
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
I think that the cause of the fire is already clear.

Super rich developers maximizing their profits with the aid of their cronies running the country for their own benefits who sign off dangerous building practices with a nod and a wink. All this on the backs of the poor and vulnerable sectors who point out deficiencies and are ignored because the only solutions are not profitable. (Thank you mr cheesy for the link to those edifying pictures)
Plus MPs who promise 'reviews' - which means they will do nothing.

If the election were tomorrow there would have been a Labour government in place today.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
The residents had no concern about the cladding as far as I can see. No one did. Despite the precedents which were all non-fatal except Shanghai in which cladding wasn't an issue? As in all technological disasters, we learn after the points of failure. That's why flying is now so safe: systems must not just be redundant but asymmetrically so.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The residents had no concern about the cladding as far as I can see. No one did.
Hard to see why they would, unless they were civil engineers. I expect they were just glad that work was been done on their block.

It seems that some engineers who follow these things have had concerns about the quality of this kind of cladding due to other fires over recent years on similar blocks. It remains to be seen if this means that this disaster could have been avoided.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The residents had no concern about the cladding as far as I can see. No one did. Despite the precedents which were all non-fatal except Shanghai in which cladding wasn't an issue? As in all technological disasters, we learn after the points of failure. That's why flying is now so safe: systems must not just be redundant but asymmetrically so.
They had plenty of concerns about a possible fire.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Again, with no concern about cladding.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The residents had no concern about the cladding as far as I can see. No one did.
Hard to see why they would, unless they were civil engineers. I expect they were just glad that work was been done on their block.

It seems that some engineers who follow these things have had concerns about the quality of this kind of cladding due to other fires over recent years on similar blocks. It remains to be seen if this means that this disaster could have been avoided.
It's not the way we monkeys operate. People die, we learn.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Again, with no concern about cladding.
Martin, please stop. Residents are not experts at cladding, but had general and real concerns about what was being told to them about plans for fires.

Whether they did or didn't worry about the cladding is besides the point.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
...and it has not yet been formally established that the cladding was responsible for the rapid spread of the fire, though it seems likely.

The residents had expressed many concerns about dangerous wiring and inadequate fire safety, all of which were ignored - or at least, not acted on by those with the power to fix the problems. The fact that none of the residents knew enough about the properties of building materials to question the safety of the cladding is beside the point, and criticising them for not being engineering experts is in poor taste when many have paid with their lives for someone else's profit margin.

Aircraft safety works in the same way: the experts say 'doing this is dangerous', the airline owners complain 'we can't change the way we do things, it would cost too much'... until there's a crash, or a series of crashes, and the government introduces new regulations and forces them to do it. See this book for more details.

Still think cutting red tape is a good idea?

[ 15. June 2017, 12:52: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Question I haven't seen addressed about this incident so far: don't such blocks have built-in sprinkler systems in the UK? If so did this one deploy?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
They are not required by law (see here) so they are not often installed in social housing. To keep costs down. Hence my comments about 'cutting red tape'.

[ 15. June 2017, 12:59: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Question I haven't seen addressed about this incident so far: don't such blocks have built-in sprinkler systems in the UK? If so did this one deploy?
This one didn't. It was built before sprinkler systems were mandatory in new tower blocks.

After a previous fire at Lakanal House in Camberwell in 2009, there was a recommendation that sprinkler systems be installed in all existing tower blocks, but it was deemed too much red tape to enforce it. It thus remained optional, at the discretion of the landlords.

There are currently around 4,000 tower blocks in the UK without sprinklers.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I think too that the dangers of using new materials and methods are not always appreciated.

For instance, when the railways went over from the old "diddley-dum" jointed track to welded track in the 60s and 70s, a move which promoted safety due to the reduction in the number of rail joints which could fracture, they found:

- they hadn't learned enough about the effects of heat expansion;
- they had to learn how best to join up the new sort of track with the old;
- they found that wagons tended to set up a harmonic rolling motion which the old railjoints had prevented.

All these led to accidents and - to use the hackneyed phrase - lessons were learned.

I find a certain parallel between the present disaster and the Armagh train crash of 1889. Before this time everyone had been saying that trains ought to have automatic brakes, but Parliament had dragged its feet on passing legislation. It took the death of dozens of children on an excursion train to make such brakes mandatory. Last night David Amess MP was telling of his frustration at the refusal of Parliament to press ahead with mandating sprinkler syatems even though his Committee had been recommending it for years.

Interestingly, ALL new housing (not just tower blocks) in Wales has had to be sprinkler equipped since January last year - though it's not retrospective. Why are Welsh building regs. different to English ones?.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Me again! I lived in Ipswich till recently. The tallest building in town is "The Mill", mostly residential but with the Dance House underneath. It has never been fully occupied. In 2014 some of the external cladding blew off in a storm: see this, and has still not been replaced.

I notice, rereading the article, that the builders were then concerned about "loose membrane or polystyrene" falling to the ground. No-one has ever mentioned a fire risk - but presumably it's there and the residents will now be worried.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Who's criticizing the residents? Even with sprinklers the cladding would have gone up just the same.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Who's criticizing the residents? Even with sprinklers the cladding would have gone up just the same.
I'm sorry Martin - are you actually a qualified structural engineer or are you just adding some uninformed opinion to this?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It's the cladding. Obviously.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's the cladding. Obviously.
Oh ok. Stand down expert engineers, fire investigators! Don't bother with a public inquiry!

No need, Martin has spoken.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Reality staring the world in the face all over the BBC from 01:00 yesterday says so and in all of the precedents involving CLADDING. Enquire away. It's the cladding.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The news here stated: no sprinklers, not enough stairwells, no smoke alarms. Are there no regulations for minimum safety equipment, building design and retrofitting? No inspections? Smoke detectors not being installed is criminal negligence causing death in event of fire deaths here. If the building hadn't been condemned until proper standards are met.

Cladding isn't a sprinkler system and cauliflower isn't bacon.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Why are Welsh building regs. different to English ones?
...because the Welsh Assembly has less sympathy for property developers complaining about Red Tape?

Yes, if the cladding is responsible for the rapid spread of the fire the building would have gone up just the same. But many fire safety experts have already pointed out that a sprinkler system would have enabled more of the residents to get out.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
[x-post to Martin]

So there is no possibility that the issues residents brought up in the past had an impact on this fire. Because you said so.

Excuse me whilst I reserve judgment until someone who actually has some expertise beyond watching a 24-hour news channel has done a proper investigation.

[ 15. June 2017, 13:35: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
There is no evidence, no.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There is no evidence, no.
What are you talking about? I mean - seriously.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
There's a huge smoking ruin in the middle of London today - doesn't that count as evidence? To say nothing of all the bodies, some of which have not yet been recovered from the building.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It's the cladding.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
The cheap PLASTIC cladding.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
[Roll Eyes] And that's the only important point, because once a building catches fire there's nothing more to be done but stand back and watch it burn? No need to rescue anything from inside, or buy time for the residents to escape?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Not when you've coated the 24 storey building in polyethylene, with a marginal alarm system (not mentioned prior?), not really, no.

[ 15. June 2017, 13:55: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
For Martin

Everyone else: let's not get sidetracked into playing the thread by Martin's rules.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
And what are they mate?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
It seems to me that big business hates regulation. Why? No doubt it eats into their shareholders huge profits.

What is fire and safety regulation for? To protect people. All those who call this 'political correctness' simply care more for profits than they do for their fellow human beings.

Trump's America is all for removing regulation for exactly the same reasons.

[Disappointed]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
This says it better than I did.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I haven't yet read Monbiot's article.

But I did read the Grenfell Action Group's blog yesterday. No, they don't mention cladding (why should they have done? They had no reason to believe it was dangerous. And they wouldn't have known if it was the same stuff used in Paris/Dubai or not).

However they did criticise management (many times), poor parking enforcement which restricted fire brigade access, non-working extinguishers and lots of other things. Sadly they were pleased when the safety instructions - which ultimately proved lethal - were finally put up.

Also: we're all blaming the cladding, probably rightly. What we may be forgetting is that even aluminium has a fairly low burning temperature, although much higher than the plastic.

This disaster (like many) is surely a combination of poor regulation, bad management, inadequate maintenance and cutting corners. If any one of those had been better, the result would not have been as catastrophic.

[ 15. June 2017, 15:53: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
The other point to note is that the fires in Dubai (in several buildings, including the unfortunately named Torch Skyscraper) did not result in any loss of life. Because, and I quote, "the design and construction of the buildings allowed firefighters to battle the blaze and residents to evacuate via smoke-free, fire-free safety zones." [from the BBC, here ]

Now, granted Grenfell Tower was built last century and building design has improved since then; but if it was not possible to make it safe according to 21st century standards it should have been condemned. Not "refurbished". And given that the fire alarms don't seem to have worked, it could certainly have been made safer than it was.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Even BBC radio is doing it now: 100s might have died in a terrible fire. Now let's talk about rockstar gestures.

A bomb explodes and a terrible terrorist outrage turns the news into wall-to-wall seriousness. But somehow a terrible incident in a block of flats mostly inhabited by non-white people is suddenly not really that important.

Sickening.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Mr Cheesy - just in response to you "constant vigilance" comment, I think I would understand it as being that we are all under watch all of the time, and that is how we get our concept of freedom.

At the same time, it can be applied to the Grenfell tower fire - that we were not vigilant enough about the rules and regulation (and so about the lawmakers). I think it just means that we cannot relax and just let things happen if we want freedom - freedom to live if nothing else.

I think, in the end, the cladding will be shown to have been responsible for the spread of the fire. What started it may be a different matter. If there had been sprinklers, that may have stopped the fire very early.

And reading that thread that Eutychus linked to, the idea of cladding a building in something that can be lit by a firework is incredibly frightening.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
I'm an engineer. I'm alarmed to see in Eutychus's links that a number of blocks around the world have gone up like this already. In those links there's also discussion that 'Class O' - the highest class of fire retardant in UK regs - can. in some circumstances, be equivalent to properties of 'normal combustibility' in (eg) DIN standards.

It alarms me that we've known for 30+ years that polystyrene tiles on our home ceilings were a really bad 70s innovation that we should get rid of - but that there are circumstances where we use it (and other plastics which burn) today for thermal insulation on the outside of *tall* buildings.

Sprinklers appear to have saved lives abroad by slowing what happens when the inferno outside your window melts the UPVC, your window falls out, and the fire starts to come in and consume your flat.

But that cladding turns the tower into more than a chimney, it turns it into a f*cking *burner* - the updraught in the condensation gap between the fascia and the insulation accelerates the combustion of the fuel (the whole thing) like the forced-air oil-burner I made for a crucible furnace. Short of blowing it with pure oxygen, it would be hard to get it to burn any faster. And you're living inside it.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Monbiot is spot on. And aluminium burns worse than hellfire in the right conditions, in the presence of rust for example. Your description, mark, is all too convincing.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
In the presence of oxygen (especially forced draught) and a source of heat, the only things which don't burn are Things Which Don't Burn. Like concrete, or bricks, or sand. Wet phone directories will burn with enough heat and air.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Also: we're all blaming the cladding, probably rightly. What we may be forgetting is that even aluminium has a fairly low burning temperature, although much higher than the plastic.
Those of a certain age will remember the Falklands War, and how warships made with lightweight aluminium superstructure fared against air-to-sea missiles.

The answer being "poorly".
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
As a blast furnace operator, when all else failed, I used a thermic lance; burning steel. To evaporate concrete.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Building Regs are a devolved matter, that's why they are different in Wales.

I suspect that the models used for standard fires will be found wanting. The advice to stay in your flat is probably right for most fires - each compartment should (I think, I'm not an expert and will gladly bow to greater knowledge) be good for 90 minutes in residential property.

M.

[ 16. June 2017, 05:33: Message edited by: M. ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The standard fire advice is a bit more complicated. When planning fire safety for living accommodation:
I can't find the links now, and I need to stop playing, but it's part of the PSE personal safety unit I teach / and have put together for teaching.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Ummm - PSE meaning please? Nothing quickly shows up beyond such things as Philippine Stock Exchange.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
<tangent>Personal Social Education, often called PSHE or PSHCEE - personal, social, health, careers, employment education. That qualification is specifically the AQA 5800 PSE Award or Certificate (AQA is an exam board, and whether students achieve an award or a certificate depends on the number of units completed)</tangent>
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
{From a cross-Pond perspective. YMMV.}

--Sprinklers: They can be retro-fitted into a building. I've lived in this building for a long time, and I think it's at least 100 years old. Sprinklers weren't put in until the 1990s, after the 1989 earthquake. There was a lot of work to improve building safety all over town. The walls were reinforced, too.

--Staircase: Building a very tall apartment house with only one staircase? I haven't heard, but I'm guessing there were no fire escapes attached to the outside of the building?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:


--Sprinklers: They can be retro-fitted into a building. I've lived in this building for a long time, and I think it's at least 100 years old. Sprinklers weren't put in until the 1990s, after the 1989 earthquake. There was a lot of work to improve building safety all over town. The walls were reinforced, too.
I think the issue here is that there was a question about water pressure and also about the effectiveness of sprinklers. There was a belief that any fire would be localised and so if people stayed inside their flats they wouldn't be affected and that building-wide sprinklers wouldn't make a lot of difference.

This could be wrong, but this is what I've understood from the various reports. I don't know how or why this might be different advice to that given in other countries.

quote:
--Staircase: Building a very tall apartment house with only one staircase? I haven't heard, but I'm guessing there were no fire escapes attached to the outside of the building?
As I understand the diagrams I've seen, there was only one staircase to one side of the building.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Monbiot is spot on. And aluminium burns worse than hellfire in the right conditions, in the presence of rust for example. Your description, mark, is all too convincing.
Even the Twin Towers didn't go up like that Tower Block despite having tons of aviation fuel igniting. This was just a kitchen fire from a faulty appliance FFS.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Monbiot is spot on. And aluminium burns worse than hellfire in the right conditions, in the presence of rust for example. Your description, mark, is all too convincing.
Even the Twin Towers didn't go up like that Tower Block despite having tons of aviation fuel igniting. This was just a kitchen fire from a faulty appliance FFS.
Sprinklers would have put out the fridge fire before it could spread.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
As I understand it there are two philosophies in fire protection, active and passive protection.

Active systems can also fail or be wrongly triggered, so they have their disadvantages.

The UK's philosophy is passive protection, i.e. the building is designed to withstand and contain a fire. In theory an apartment fire should be contained inside the apartment.

The primary cause of the rapid spread of this fire appears to be the use of core insulation in the outer cladding which, as has been stated upthread, inexplicably seems to have received a better fire rating in the UK than in many other EU countries, despite being of a markedly different composition to alternative products by the same manufacturer.

It could not have been used in, say, Croatia, on a building this tall.

It looks as though inadequate or faulty alarm systems and blocked escape routes made things worse.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
<tangent>Personal Social Education, often called PSHE or PSHCEE - personal, social, health, careers, employment education. That qualification is specifically the AQA 5800 PSE Award or Certificate (AQA is an exam board, and whether students achieve an award or a certificate depends on the number of units completed)</tangent>
Thanks.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Exploding fridges can be pretty spectacular and electrical fires move FAST (like a quarter of the speed of light) in to the wall, behind reach of the sprinkler: this fire went from internal to external in a flash. Apparently, anecdotally, no one has died in a fire where (one-at-a-time heat activated) sprinklers were activated (however I've seen one figure of 65% reduction), but I wouldn't be surprised that that would break down in a situation like this where inflammable polyethylene lined cladding, polystyrene insulation and UPVC with nylon window frames are involved. All of that has GOT to stop. One can imagine a situation where rooms are soused by sprinklers but the burning cladding still takes the windows out and fills rooms with hot toxic smoke. Eventually the water will run out and as mark said, wet telephone directories burn.

How about ensuring external layers are irrigated too?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I'd be content with a sprinkler system buying the occupants enough time (and enough clear air) to evacuate the building.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Eutychus, that's interesting, because presumably both active and passive systems are allowed by the Eurocodes if both systems are used? I admit my understanding of the Eurocodes is a bit hazy.

M.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
mr cheesy--

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
--Staircase: Building a very tall apartment house with only one staircase? I haven't heard, but I'm guessing there were no fire escapes attached to the outside of the building?
As I understand the diagrams I've seen, there was only one staircase to one side of the building.
Hmmm...the news reports I've heard (generally on NPR, and possibly PBS, and possibly ABC's "World News Now") have repeatedly spoken of one staircase *for the entire building*. IIRC, this included British reporters, and various people questioned in Britain.

FWIW.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'd be content with a sprinkler system buying the occupants enough time (and enough clear air) to evacuate the building.
Indeed. The cladding may well have been the accelerant that turned a one-flat fire into a towering inferno, but with a decent sprinkler system in place and operational the residents should still have had plenty of time to get down the stairwell and out before the fire melted its way through the windows into their flats.

My evidence for this claim is the other fires of this nature where that is exactly what happened. Identical cladding, identical buildings, identical damage, no deaths. The cladding may be the reason why the building went up like kindling, but it's not the reason so many people died.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
mr cheesy--

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
--Staircase: Building a very tall apartment house with only one staircase? I haven't heard, but I'm guessing there were no fire escapes attached to the outside of the building?
As I understand the diagrams I've seen, there was only one staircase to one side of the building.
Hmmm...the news reports I've heard (generally on NPR, and possibly PBS, and possibly ABC's "World News Now") have repeatedly spoken of one staircase *for the entire building*. IIRC, this included British reporters, and various people questioned in Britain.

FWIW.
That's what Mr C said...
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Hmmm...the news reports I've heard (generally on NPR, and possibly PBS, and possibly ABC's "World News Now") have repeatedly spoken of one staircase *for the entire building*. IIRC, this included British reporters, and various people questioned in Britain.

FWIW.
Yes. There is a single staircase off-set to one side. Which is unfortunate given the way that the fire spread. I don't know if it would have been safer if the staircase had been centrally positioned, but it feels like it might have been.

Which is to say that I don't think there were other fire escapes than the main staircase.

[ 16. June 2017, 10:59: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
rolyn--

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Even the Twin Towers didn't go up like that Tower Block despite having tons of aviation fuel igniting. This was just a kitchen fire from a faulty appliance FFS.
Actually, when I first saw film of the London apartment building on fire, I immediately thought of the Twin Towers--from the look. Some early news reports said the London building might collapse--which the Twin Towers actually did, IIRC.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
betjemaniac and mr cheesy--

Sorry, it sounded to me like mr cheesy might have meant one staircase on each side of the building.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yes. There is a single staircase off-set to one side.
Not much to one side, though.

Grenfell Tower floor plan (taken from the BBC)
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yes. There is a single staircase off-set to one side.
Not much to one side, though.

Grenfell Tower floor plan (taken from the BBC)
That's interesting and wasn't the impression I got from looking at diagrams and hearing an interview with someone who was asked specifically about this and said the staircase was to one side.

According to the diagram above, the stairs were more-or-less central.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I think there is something more to be said about the state of civil society and the press in the wake of this tragedy. Without repeating what I've already said, there is still a very weird attitude around. The council still seems to be doing the absolute minimum possible to give assistance to victims and the press seems to be conspiring to downplay the seriousness of this incident.

Lily Allen - of all people - said yesterday that she believed there were more than 150 victims based on conversations with families. And yet the official death toll is still around 30.*

This morning the BBC did an unofficial estimate of victims being in the 70s. I still frankly can't understand why it is so hard for someone to get the names from families and publish them - surely this would assist with finding lost people in hospitals or elsewhere.

Yes, I suppose there is a risk that someone is named as missing who isn't. But that seems inconsequential compared to the potential benefits of finding someone alive who had been misplaced.

The other possibility, I suppose, is that there were a large number of people in the block who were - for whatever reason - off the radar. Which is a horrible thought.

* and apparently a significant number of those were bodies found outside the building.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I can't agree with you that the Press are keeping quiet on this. However I certainly do agree that the Council and the Management Company have been keeping very low, possibly because they don't want to say anything that could be construed as an admission of liability.

As far as the victims are concerned, I think it's normal practice only to formally announce the number of known dead. Certainly at least one newspaper this morning had banner headlines suggesting a toll of 100+, which is sadly likely. The BBC are now saying that 76 are "missing" at least.

Sadly I do think that a lot of folk will be off the radar, partly because of Eid which means that Muslim families may have relatives staying with them (or may have gone away themselves). Equally I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover sofa-surfing and illegal sub-letting going on. This isn't to condemn, simply to point out the actuality. It may well be too that there are visitors to Britain whose death will only be noticed when they fail to make contact or return home. This isn't like an air crash where there are passenger lists.

One more thought: if this had happened a week or two ago, it would have cost May the election.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
It'll cost her the next one. But I don't think she'll be around to face it.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It'll cost her the next one. But I don't think she'll be around to face it.
We'll see, I'm hopeful - again.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Perhaps it's because I'm now living in South Wales, but I am now starting to make connections with the Aberfan disaster. Why? Because there was a known problem which was treated far too lightly, because local residents had made complaints to officialdom about safety which had fallen on deaf ears, most of all because innocent (and largely poor) lives were horrifyingly lost in a place which spoke of safety. I think that Grenfell Tower could leave the same sort of mark on our national psyche (and, hopefully, on Government and Health & Safety).

[ 16. June 2017, 13:17: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Perhaps it's because I'm now living in South Wales, but I am now starting to make connections with the Aberfan disaster. Why? Because there was a known problem which was treated far too lightly, because local residents had made complaints to officialdom about safety which had fallen on deaf ears, most of all because innocent (and largely poor) lives were horrifyingly lost in a place which spoke of safety. I think that Grenfell Tower could leave the same sort of mark on our national psyche (and, hopefully, on Government and Health & Safety).
Aberfan was rubbed in though by the appalling actions of the NCB in the aftermath (in particular its appropriation of and use of a large amount of the disaster relief money for a clean-up it was liable for rather than getting it to the survivors...). Penlee nearly went the same way but the outcry in the press meant that the families got the money.

I think you're right that this ought to be a watershed moment, whether it will be or not is another matter. It does seem to me though that it's how the weeks and months after such an event are handled as much as the event itself which affects how it feels to the national consciousness.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
One staircase says it all. Are there no enforceable building codes in the UK? This building would not be used unless a second staircase was installed. And smoke detectors. Both wired in and battery. And retrofitting is required. All new construction and renos also requires sprinklers for a building of this size. No such rules there?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I've heard a rumour that a D notice has been applied to the known number of deaths at Grenfell Towers.

I've enquired politely with the Home Office to see if this is true, but I'm not holding my breath for an answer.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Apparently not.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It'll cost her the next one. But I don't think she'll be around to face it.
Just seen Andrea Leadsom making a game attempt to stick up for the PM on the site with some of the locals giving her a hard time about it.

My second thought was 'good for her'. My first, unworthy, thought was 'on manoeuvres are we?' Ms Leadsom reminds me of the Austrian Emperor Ferdinand II. Ferdinand had learning difficulties and one of his few memorable comments was "I am the Emperor and I will have dumplings. During the 1848 revolution he was removed to make way for Franz Josef. After the Austro-Prussian he uttered another memorable remark. "Even I could have done better than that." Ms Leadsom would not be human if the same sentiment had not occurred to her at some point over the last week.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
As far as the victims are concerned, I think it's normal practice only to formally announce the number of known dead.
Correct. The official figure is the number of confirmed deaths, which is why virtually every piece of reporting has contained the line "the figure is expected to rise".
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Apparently not.
Good.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Lots of people on social media calling this May's Hurricane Katrina. I think that's very apt. She surely cannot survive this. Also, this all is highly indicative of why Kensington turned red.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Are there no enforceable building codes in the UK?
Yes there are, but that doesn't mean they're the same as in other countries. And new codes generally don't apply to buildings built before the codes became law.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
After the Austro-Prussian he uttered another memorable remark. "Even I could have done better than that." Ms Leadsom would not be human if the same sentiment had not occurred to her at some point over the last week.
John Crace ( (here) made a similar comment yesterday.
quote:
“What about resources?” said Labour MP Clive Efford. “We need cash now,” others joined in.

At which point Sharma broke ranks and voted with his heart rather than his head. Too bad if he got a bollocking for making uncosted promises that hadn’t been signed off. Someone in the Tory party had to show some leadership, and it might as well be him.

 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Correct. The official figure is the number of confirmed deaths, which is why virtually every piece of reporting has contained the line "the figure is expected to rise".
Right, and obviously every body needs official confirmation.

But this has nothing to do with a lack of information about those who are missing.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Are there no enforceable building codes in the UK?
Firstly, the present government has been largely hostile to passing or implementing health and safety regulations.
Secondly, austerity means that local council resources to ensure compliance have been overstretched. See this article by one of the people responsible in the Guardian.
Thirdly, legal aid has been cut so residents can't sue on their own behalf.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
She surely cannot survive this.
People are calling this "May's Katrina", while failing to realise that Bush survived Katrina and saw out a double term as President.

How it affects May's political future will depend on how closely she is tied to the various decisions that led to it. Simply being PM when a tragedy occurs shouldn't be enough to lose your job, but being directly responsible for any lax building codes and/or cost cutting that led to such a loss of life might.

What's more likely is that Labour will be able to use this disaster to tear the Tories a new one over their cuts to emergency services and the NHS. If they're cunning enough they can also turn the public discussion towards the question of why it's so hard to rehouse the survivors when so many expensive properties are sitting empty within a few miles. Compared to those issues, quibbles about building regulations that very few people were even aware of seem fairly small beer.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
One staircase says it all. Are there no enforceable building codes in the UK? This building would not be used unless a second staircase was installed. And smoke detectors. Both wired in and battery. And retrofitting is required. All new construction and renos also requires sprinklers for a building of this size. No such rules there?
I once lived in a (seven-story) building with a single staircase in the UK. In order to meet building regulations, the single staircase core had automatically closing doors, an overpressure of air in the staircase core, and nothing flammable in that core. This made the staircase a safe, smoke-free exit in the case of a fire. Without this, regulations would have required a second exit (staircase down the outside of the building would have been the usual way of doing that).

That was a new build about 20 years ago.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Are there no enforceable building codes in the UK?
Yes there are, but that doesn't mean they're the same as in other countries. And new codes generally don't apply to buildings built before the codes became law.
And this cladding met all regulations old and new. Unless shoddy workmanship or sharp practice was to blame, I don't think one can point the finger at either the contractors or the company overseeing the refurbishment. Thinking of the experiences in Paris, Melbourne and Dubai, one might want to point it at the Council who accepted the use of flammable material, but again they would say, "But it conformed to the regs." which they would have every right to assume were fit for purpose.

What I think is much more culpable is the decision not to fit sprinklers. One would have thought that a major refurbishment should have been regarded in law as equivalent to a new-build, where sprinklers would have been mandatory. Apparently the cost would only have been £200k added onto a total of more than £8m.

There is also Government itself which has been told repeatedly by its own MPs that the Regulations needed updating. What I feel is so sad is how the residents must have rejoiced when they heard of the "improvements" that were going to be made to the building. But it was in fact much safer in its old tatty guise.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But this has nothing to do with a lack of information about those who are missing.
True - but (as you yourself suggested) there may be people who we don't even know are missing.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
True - but (as you yourself suggested) there may be people who we don't even know are missing.
Do you not think the media downplayed the extent of this disaster - by talking about a handful of known deaths rather than an unknown, but large, number of the missing? Even saying that there were 70+ missing and listing the names of people that families were looking for before now would have shown how serious this was.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
There's been wall-to-wall coverage of this event on the TV. Newspapers have run front pages with big pictures of the tower block in flames. I'm not sure how this could be described as 'down-played'.
 
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
They did that a number of years ago when there was a train crash and the wreck burnt out (near Paddington?) - talking of hundreds dead, and bodies burnt beyond recovery. Eventually, there turned out to be a relatively small number of deaths, with the abandoned cars at railway stations up and down the line (that were being used to make estimates of the numbers of missing people) mostly belonging to people unable to quickly get back to them because the railway line was closed. Hence, I suspect, the caution. That, and the one person being reported missing 46 times.

AG
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
There's been wall-to-wall coverage of this event on the TV. Newspapers have run front pages with big pictures of the tower block in flames. I'm not sure how this could be described as 'down-played'.
The poor people there believe that nobody gives a shit about them and that the media is misrepresenting the true scale of the issue. To the extent of heckling the Queen.

So that.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
One man heckled the Queen, who has friends missing. Feelings are, understandably, running high, but I'd say that the fact that the Queen and Duke of Cambridge have turned up suggests very much that this isn't an event which is being 'down played'.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
One man heckled the Queen, who has friends missing. Feelings are, understandably, running high, but I'd say that the fact that the Queen and Duke of Cambridge have turned up suggests very much that this isn't an event which is being 'down played'.
The Guardian reports:

quote:
Emotions are running high at the protest at Kensington and Chelsea town hall. They were demanding that the chief executive or council leader come out to address them but instead were given a written response by the council’s head of communications.

There were many chants of “Not 17”, a reference to the fact that they believe many more than 17 perished (the official toll has actually been raised to 30).
Whether you think it has been downplayed because the Queen turned up is by-the-by. The fact is that the victims over there feel terribly let down by the authorities and the media.

[ 16. June 2017, 16:24: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by DonLogan2 (# 15608) on :
 
Not sure if it has been covered yet as I missed out page two as I didn`t want to read loads of ranting, and not knowing the full details of this tragedy, my thoughts...

As far as I remember from my science at school and being a firefighter since the late 70`s, everything will burn given the right conditions.

With a wind square onto a large building face fire will tend to jump a floor, the wind seems to have been at an angle to the corner of the building so fire spread seems to be a little more linear and I presume the compartment the fire broke out was at that corner.

Not sure about the building/fire regs regarding fire detection, but the main problem that buildings like this face and apply all their fire seperation is to stop horizontal and vertical fire spread inside the building. That is why the building fire instructions said to stay put.

We can`t legislate for every kind of fire outbreak and occasionally a fire like this wakes us up and is something to learn from, just like Kings Cross, Woolworths Colchester & Manchester and Cheapside.

Feelings can run high at these times and sometimes, probably this time too, someone is to blame, but not for all of it, shit also happens.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
They did that a number of years ago when there was a train crash and the wreck burnt out (near Paddington?)
It was at Ladbroke Grove - horrifically, just a mile from the present disaster.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DonLogan2:
Not sure if it has been covered yet as I missed out page two as I didn`t want to read loads of ranting, and not knowing the full details of this tragedy, my thoughts...

As far as I remember from my science at school and being a firefighter since the late 70`s, everything will burn given the right conditions.
Yes, it's been mentioned here briefly - but not in the Media, as far as I can see. Thanks!
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Whether you think it has been downplayed because the Queen turned up is by-the-by. The fact is that the victims over there feel terribly let down by the authorities and the media.
There is absolutely no way this has been downplayed in the media. Just look at today's papers (link to current day: 16 June at the moment).

The explanation of why no casualty figures have been given are as given above. This is social housing and very likely contains some people who have no intention of drawing the authorities' attention to them, even if it's only out of a distrust of the authorities in general.

The reasons tensions are escalating around this incident are because, like Aberfan, it is easy to make it a symbolic focus of a lot of current resentment, the authorities' credibility is at record lows, and I don't think they are doing a very good crisis management job.

I'm not surprised to hear there have been violent confrontations at the local town hall today, and unless someone (the mayor of London?) steps forward fast with some strong and inspiring leadership, I expect things to get worse before they get better.

For dispassionate discussion of the technical aspects of this disaster, I can only recommend the excellent forum I shared in my links earlier.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There is absolutely no way this has been downplayed in the media. Just look at today's papers (link to current day: 16 June at the moment).
The event and intrusion into the lives of the victims is clearly all over the media. But the seriousness of the event and the likely death toll, arguably, isn't.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
From what I have read, the residents' anger isn't so much that it's been downplayed now, but that before the tragedy no-one was interested in reporting on the crap state of social housing in general and the council and management company's lack of interest in fire safety in particular. If someone had run a story on COUNCIL DISMISSES RESIDENTS' SAFETY CONCERNS PUTTING HUNDREDS OF LIVES AT RISK, then maybe the scandal would have forced them to do something.

(Of course maybe it wouldn't or maybe the concerns reported are separate from what actually caused the fire. But that is my understanding of what the residents are complaining about.)

The other aspect to it is that Manchester seems to have had an excellent emergency response plan, and that plan would have included media relations. Kensington and Chelsea's incident plan seems to have been sorely lacking in many respects, so it isn't surprising that their ability to manage the media is also crap.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There is absolutely no way this has been downplayed in the media. Just look at today's papers (link to current day: 16 June at the moment).
The event and intrusion into the lives of the victims is clearly all over the media. But the seriousness of the event and the likely death toll, arguably, isn't.
I don't think that you can report the one without the other. I don't think that this is going to go away.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There is absolutely no way this has been downplayed in the media. Just look at today's papers (link to current day: 16 June at the moment).
The event and intrusion into the lives of the victims is clearly all over the media. But the seriousness of the event and the likely death toll, arguably, isn't.
What planet are you on?

Did you read the link? The Express banner headline is "OVER 100 NOW FEARED DEAD". That's kind of hard to miss. The Times leads with US BANNED TOWER CLADDING. The Star has AT LEAST 100 FEARED DEAD IN FIRE HELL. The Mirror has CRIMINAL in huge letters followed by a tirade concluding "We need answers. We need change". The i says "public anger grows at how such a disaster could be allowed to happen". Need I go on?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
mr cheesy is (possibly somewhat ineptly) suggesting that news sources already know that the death toll is likely to reach 200-300+, but are deliberately and slowly edging up the figures so as to get us used to the idea that some, then a few more, then many, people died.

Foreign news coverage, which doesn't come under any UK-government restrictions, are reporting any greater numbers than have been officially announced.

You could argue, though, that the official sources are being leant on.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
You need to stop reading those lefty blogs in my view.

It seems far likelier to me that they just don't know. What possible benefit could there be in keeping the numbers artificially low? The media are already taking about 100 dead. That has to be the biggest UK civilian casualty figure for a fire in about forever. This sounds terrible to say, but I think it really isn't going to look that much worse for the authorities at this point if the death toll is 200 or 300 (which I'll go out on a limb and say I believe is unlikely, and hoping not to be proved wrong) compared to 100. I think most of us have trouble envisaging more than that number of dead bodies in one place anyway.

[ 16. June 2017, 19:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Whether you think it has been downplayed because the Queen turned up is by-the-by. The fact is that the victims over there feel terribly let down by the authorities and the media.
There is absolutely no way this has been downplayed in the media. Just look at today's papers (link to current day: 16 June at the moment).

The explanation of why no casualty figures have been given are as given above. This is social housing and very likely contains some people who have no intention of drawing the authorities' attention to them, even if it's only out of a distrust of the authorities in general.

The reasons tensions are escalating around this incident are because, like Aberfan, it is easy to make it a symbolic focus of a lot of current resentment, the authorities' credibility is at record lows, and I don't think they are doing a very good crisis management job.

I'm not surprised to hear there have been violent confrontations at the local town hall today, and unless someone (the mayor of London?) steps forward fast with some strong and inspiring leadership, I expect things to get worse before they get better.

For dispassionate discussion of the technical aspects of this disaster, I can only recommend the excellent forum I shared in my links earlier.
The channel 4 reporters filming at that protest made the point that was some pushing and shoving but the protest was otherwise peaceful.

Nor does your link support what is a fairly serious allegation.

Maybe we could avoid stigmatising the expressions of anger of seriously distressed people who have been ignored for years.

[ 16. June 2017, 19:11: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What possible benefit could there be in keeping the numbers artificially low?
They may be worried about the possibility of riots.

That said, I suspect it is more the lack of competent communication than conspiracy.

They would command more confidence if they said, there were x many tenants, we have accounted for y many, we know z many are definitely missing and we know v many are dead. Come to that, they'd command more confidence if they showed some sign of knowing how many people were actually living in the building.

Right now I am seeing estimates of 400-600 people living there. I have not seeing anyone saying "and we've traced 346 of those folk".

[ 16. June 2017, 19:16: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I agree with everything in your last post except your first sentence and absent a D-notice, I really can't see the British press deliberately under-reporting casualty figures out of a concern for keeping the peace.

Honestly, it is not reporting a figure of 100 as opposed to 200 or 300 that is going to make a difference to whether or not there is civil unrest. Above around 100 deaths, I think the actual numbers are not really much more evocative until you get to, say, 500.

It's the rest of the context and all the other things you mention.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
The fact that large numbers of donations are not being collected by victims is quite telling.

Maybe there are not all that many victims.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
What I don't understand, is why people are still sleeping on the floor of leisure centres ¹, as if the council are somehow unaware of the existence of hotels in London.

---
¹ Guardian
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The fact that large numbers of donations are not being collected by victims is quite telling.

Maybe there are not all that many victims.
Or they're dead. There were 124 flats.

The large numbers of displaced people, are folk evacuated from the surrounding area - their problem is accommodation rather than lack of possessions.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Or they're dead. There were 124 flats.

The large numbers of displaced people, are folk evacuated from the surrounding area - their problem is accommodation rather than lack of possessions.
The council have said that about 70 households are in temporary accommodation IIRC. I don't think anyone has said how many are people from the tower.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Presumably the need for temporary accommodation for those evacuated from surrounding homes is only likely to be for a very short time? The tower seems to be safe from collapse, though doubtless it'll eventually be demolished.

124 flats all destroyed, though, and with numerous families among their tenants, still equates to a major rehousing task.

Doesn't David Cameron live just up the road? Maybe he could take in a family or several...

IJ
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The fact that large numbers of donations are not being collected by victims is quite telling.

Maybe there are not all that many victims.
Disasters like this attract all sorts of donations that are entirely unrelated to the actual logistics requirements.

It's good that there's such a response as it says something about community spirit, but you very definitely cannot draw any firm conclusions about numbers on the basis of that evidence.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Mmm yes I know about the problems with donations during disasters. The problem is that these are actually relevant donations which people need if they've lost everything and which are not being collected but instead are piling up.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
The matter is being attended to sensibly by at least one local church:

http://www.stclementjames.org.uk/2017/06/15/grenfell-tower-disaster/

Doubtless there are other places of worship doing the same.

IJ
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The fact that large numbers of donations are not being collected by victims is quite telling.

Maybe there are not all that many victims.
I'd be surprised if the victims collected any donations. At least not if we're defining victims as dead or critically injured. It would all be a bit American Gods.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The matter is being attended to sensibly by at least one local church:

http://www.stclementjames.org.uk/2017/06/15/grenfell-tower-disaster/

Doubtless there are other places of worship doing the same.

IJ
Similarly, my alma mater, which has facilities just up the road, is helping accommodate classes from the neighbouring school which is affected.

I don't think the media are a good place to get a feel for precisely how the nuts and bolts of support operations are being organised. They'd rather post pictures of floral tributes and fire damage.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You need to stop reading those lefty blogs in my view.
One person in my FB feed linked to Squawkbox that carried the initial claim. I queried it, and after an hour or so, heard from another internet source that confirmed there was no D notice.

I've barely started reading lefty blogs. I don't have any bookmarked, and I don't start my morning by nipping out for the Morning Star, either.

So I'm not sure - given the way the mainstream media is handling things, reporting on the "storming of the council offices" when the protesters simply walked in, given the way the local council are apparently too inept to coordinate a relief effort or even put some people up in a hotel, given that yet again we have friends and relatives trawling hospitals looking for news of their loved ones - where you suggest people go for accurate information.

Even the stopped clocks of the Mail and the Sun are going to be right twice a day. No reason for 'lefty' newsblogs to be any less accurate.
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
"Victims" is a very loose word. Not exactly definable.

The tidal waves of this disaster immediately spread. Most people in the vicinity were woken by the noise, lots of people both heard and saw stuff that they would rather not have experienced and it seems like everyone knows someone or works with someone affected.

It's not just the people who died and their families and friends, it is the whole area. Sleep deprived, concerned, trying to control the adrenaline that goes through our bodies at such times.....
Add to that the persistent warnings that were given, the endless communications and the downright shocking manner in which those who were raising these questions were treated.......

And yes, people get upset. And other people might take advantage of the situation.

But to the question raised in the OP..."What warnings are we currently ignoring?"

My own opinion is that as a country we are underestimating the disgraceful attitude of those with privilege in this country.

Profits have been put before people to such an extent that we accept blatant injustice as somehow ......necessary.

For how long?
.
.
.
.

[ 16. June 2017, 21:06: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I don't know how relevant is is, but there is a series of progression images on the BBC showing how the fire spread. In the early hours it looks like one side of the building was alight in a weird diagonal direction.

The outside clearly was alight, although it isn't clear from the images whether the fire spread from the outside in or the inside out.

Hence the need for a proper investigation before jumping to conclusions.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So I'm not sure (...) where you suggest people go for accurate information.
I'm not claiming it's wholly accurate, but I find Wikipedia to be a good first port of call. Looking there, for instance, should be enough to cast serious doubt on the rumour that a D-notice was issued with regard to this disaster; it's simply not the right category of event, for one thing.

Apart from that, in situations like this I trawl through Fark until I find a link to a professional website where the topic at hand is discussed (mostly) dispasionnately by people taking a (mostly) professional approach (when they're not complaining about media distorsion of the facts of the case). These sites often have more useful links. That's how I found the site I linked to in my first post on this thread, and very informative it is too.

It has the manufacturer's data sheets on the insulation used (or at least declared as being used) with references to the relevant standards. Actual, objective facts [Smile]

On stuff like casualty numbers, you simply have to wait. I agree with Doublethink's appraisal of the dismal performance of the housing authority in terms of so much as stating how many residents the building was supposed to have.

In a world in which electorates can be swayed by a President declaring a story "fake" and the BBC words its headlines on the basis of clickbait rather than clarity, I often wish that fact-checking was right up there with maths and PE as a mandatory school subject.
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
Oh i'm not jumping to any conclusions...although people shouting in London's streets may very well be.

[ 16. June 2017, 21:37: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
One man heckled the Queen, who has friends missing. Feelings are, understandably, running high, but I'd say that the fact that the Queen and Duke of Cambridge have turned up suggests very much that this isn't an event which is being 'down played'.
Pretty much everyone who's not Jeremy Corbyn has been heckled when they've visited, I don't get why that's surprising. Given that this has included Sadiq Khan, I don't think Mrs Windsor (or you) should take it personally. I agree that it hasn't been played down - even the BBC are showing the weight of people's anger, and rightly so.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

It has the manufacturer's data sheets on the insulation used (or at least declared as being used) with references to the relevant standards. Actual, objective facts [Smile]
Just a pedantic note: Manufacturer's information is not always objective. Not making any claims in this particular case, just as a general note.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

It has the manufacturer's data sheets on the insulation used (or at least declared as being used) with references to the relevant standards. Actual, objective facts [Smile]
Just a pedantic note: Manufacturer's information is not always objective. Not making any claims in this particular case, just as a general note.
That's why I said "declared as being used".

The contractors may turn out to have skimped by using poorer quality materials or to have improperly installed it, but the actual data sheet for the product declared as being used, and its corresponding fire rating, is damning enough.

It's legal but wouldn't be under standards in neighbouring countries.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Oh i'm not jumping to any conclusions...although people shouting in London's streets may very well be.
Understandably - they witnessed a terrible man-made disaster which they know would not have happened in the multi million pound apartments next door.

I think those empty apartments should be requisitioned to house the people who have been made homeless. The cost would hardly scratch the surface of the absent owners' finances.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
in situations like this I trawl through Fark until I find a link to a professional website where the topic at hand is discussed (mostly) dispasionnately by people taking a (mostly) professional approach (when they're not complaining about media distorsion of the facts of the case).
The BBC is currently running a story on the collision between a Japanese container ship and a US destroyer taking graphics and analysis lifted directly from a Fark thread (the analysis in question has since been corrected on Fark, but not on the BBC at the time of writing).
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think those empty apartments should be requisitioned to house the people who have been made homeless. The cost would hardly scratch the surface of the absent owners' finances.
Isn't there a small problem in that such apartments don't actually exist?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Link as per mr cheesy's comment showing the diagonal shear, a combination of wind, chimney effect and an actual integral 'chimney'?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I think I heard something about the possibility of requisitioning those apartments. Their residents/owners aren't currently living there. I don't know what the legalities would be, but it's a creative solution if there aren't other places available.

Though it might be painful for the fire survivors to go from public housing to a place they'll never be able to have again, IMHO.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
It would, I agree, be informative to know the wind direction. Meanwhile, this article is helpful.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think those empty apartments should be requisitioned to house the people who have been made homeless. The cost would hardly scratch the surface of the absent owners' finances.
Isn't there a small problem in that such apartments don't actually exist?
Do you have any evidence that your statement is true?

https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/empty-homes/resource/f05c27ac-243c-49d8-b9bc-03bb57f4f769
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
There is more than one 'chimney'. A vortex can be independent of any surrounding wind direction. They can contra-rotate.

[ 17. June 2017, 09:05: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think those empty apartments should be requisitioned to house the people who have been made homeless. The cost would hardly scratch the surface of the absent owners' finances.
Isn't there a small problem in that such apartments don't actually exist?
As I may have mentioned before, there are about 200,000 empty homes in England alone. They aren't all in post-industrial slums either. Over a million council homes were sold at massive discounts to their tenants, leaving the councils unable to replace the shortfall.

In short, many of those apartments would exist
were it not for the great sell-off of the 1980's.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Proudhon comes to mind.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Not mine ... please elucidate!
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Property is theft. Often wrongly attributed to old Karlchen.

[ 17. June 2017, 09:45: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
You've done it again! Who on earth is Karlchen?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
German for Charlie. Diminutive of Karl. Marx.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think those empty apartments should be requisitioned to house the people who have been made homeless. The cost would hardly scratch the surface of the absent owners' finances.
Isn't there a small problem in that such apartments don't actually exist?
Do you have any evidence that your statement is true?

https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/empty-homes/resource/f05c27ac-243c-49d8-b9bc-03bb57f4f769
This is a report about a report, as it were, but I can't yet find a link to the report itself.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
This is a report about a report, as it were, but I can't yet find a link to the report itself.
Which even if true is only talking about a relatively small segment of the housing stock, and gives no indication as to how either the housing itself or the empty units are concentrated across London.

The spreadsheet I linked to is very much at the conservative end of the estimates, and would indicate that at the very least there are several thousand empty housing units in Kensington and Chelsea at this point.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Even the stopped clocks of the Mail and the Sun are going to be right twice a day. No reason for 'lefty' newsblogs to be any less accurate.
In the wake of Grenfell there is enough material in today's Daily Mail on anti tax-dodging entrepreneur/corporate giant greed, together with May's car crash Newsnight interview, to content the even most ardent of Lefties.

[ 17. June 2017, 12:52: Message edited by: rolyn ]
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
During WW2 and after councils had the power to requisition houses and often did- taking empty houses/holiday homes for the homeless and those in need. I remember being surprised looking at Dunoon council records for the late 1940s to see how extensive their powers were and how willing they were to use them. I don't know to what extent they still have powers like that for an emergency but it's not at all unprecedented.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
It would be interesting to see if, and how, these wartime powers of requisition still stand, or could be invoked.

As a PR exercise alone, the Government By Headless Chickens could do worse. Let the Saudis sue us, or just cancel our arms deals with them.

Meanwhile, full marks to HM the Queen (and I'm not a particular fan of the royals) for saying her piece.

Along with Mr. Corbyn, her PM-in-Waiting, of course. [Two face]

IJ
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Parliament could just pass a piece of emergency legislation with a time limit, if existing legislation is insufficient.

One cause of anger seems to be the lack of a central organising point, and central information point.

I don't understand why the council's not done this, it seems like a deficit in their crisis planning. Which is odd, you'd have thought there would be some kind of default plan as a result of the terrorist threat.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
It would be interesting to see if, and how, these wartime powers of requisition still stand, or could be invoked.
According to the BBC, it would require emergency legislation.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
The police say that they believe there are 58 missing-presumed-dead, of which 30 are confirmed dead and 16 unidentified.

Given what else he said, I wonder if the unspoken sense of the fire service is that other bodies have been completely burned up in the fire. Maybe we'll never know how many people were there.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
It would be interesting to see if, and how, these wartime powers of requisition still stand, or could be invoked.
According to the BBC, it would require emergency legislation.
A comment I read today -

quote:
This is just too good an idea to miss. Start with places whose owners are hidden trusts in Panama and Delaware, places financed by dubiously sourced funds, places purchased by people or other entities who have no right of abode and work in the UK / EU.

 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What I don't understand, is why people are still sleeping on the floor of leisure centres ¹, as if the council are somehow unaware of the existence of hotels in London.

---
¹ Guardian
Kensington & Chelsea are mean and would like to rid themselves of people on benefits. A few years ago they moved old people out of nursing homes to Streathem
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
One man heckled the Queen, who has friends missing. Feelings are, understandably, running high, but I'd say that the fact that the Queen and Duke of Cambridge have turned up suggests very much that this isn't an event which is being 'down played'.
I guess she has some spare rooms.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
She has helpless privilege and does the very best she can with it. And where are these spare rooms?
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
She has helpless privilege and does the very best she can with it. And where are these spare rooms?
Buck Palace has one or two.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
There are credible yet unoffical sources which suggest there are more than 160 named and missing victims. Local people appear to think it is more than 200 missing.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
This is how people with money and power use the law to shut people up.

How much longer are we going to allow money to be king? 😢
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
She has helpless privilege and does the very best she can with it. And where are these spare rooms?
Buck Palace has one or two.
No it hasn't. Any more than your place has. Or mine. Not unless we ALL were ALL Christian about it.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
She has helpless privilege and does the very best she can with it. And where are these spare rooms?
Buck Palace has one or two.
No it hasn't. Any more than your place has. Or mine. Not unless we ALL were ALL Christian about it.
HRM is the head of the Church of England.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
No it hasn't. Any more than your place has. Or mine. Not unless we ALL were ALL Christian about it.
That's an eye-wateringly false comparison, as any analysis beyond "my house is a building containing rooms with domestic purposes; Buckingham Palace is a building containing rooms with domestic purposes; therefore my house and Buckingham Palace are functionally identical" will prove. The royal household, however you define it, has a massive surplus of rooms, and could decamp at a moment's notice to Windsor, leaving the entirety of Buckingham Palace to be used to house those made homeless by the fire for as long as it is needed. This is the point of the whole thing: privilege creates options which poverty denies. The fallacy of the neocapitalist nonsense that has been poured all over this is that ownership conveys divine right, and must remain inviolate. Neither occupation nor ownership is inviolate, and where there is a clear need not countermanded by the clear need of the current occupiers, need can overcome ownership. Whoever royal palaces actually belong to. I'll leave that one to lawyers and materialist Marxists to argue out. Fewer platitudes would help, though.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk (emphasis supplied):
Neither occupation nor ownership is inviolate, and where there is a clear need not countermanded by the clear need of the current occupiers, need can overcome ownership.
Is there actually a need? I'm open to correction but I've not read anywhere that the Grenfell victims can't be re-housed using existing public resources.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
And now the richest council in the country needs government aid. Kensington is Burundi.

If anyone doubted that the world has become self-satirising, here, surely, is proof.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk (emphasis supplied):
Neither occupation nor ownership is inviolate, and where there is a clear need not countermanded by the clear need of the current occupiers, need can overcome ownership.
Is there actually a need? I'm open to correction but I've not read anywhere that the Grenfell victims can't be re-housed using existing public resources.
They could be if the authorities got their arse in gear.

It is estimated it will take one to two years for permenant housing. On the basis of my experience of supporting clients to get council housing, I think two years is optimistic and will involve screwing over a different set of vulnerable people.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Emergency council housing usually involves being stuck in a crowded hostel or B&B - with little in the way of cooking facilities and the environment in poor repair.

K&C have also caught flack for trying to place people who had just barely escaped with their lives from a tower block fire, in other tower blocks.

[ 18. June 2017, 12:06: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
No it hasn't. Any more than your place has. Or mine. Not unless we ALL were ALL Christian about it.
That's an eye-wateringly false comparison, as any analysis beyond "my house is a building containing rooms with domestic purposes; Buckingham Palace is a building containing rooms with domestic purposes; therefore my house and Buckingham Palace are functionally identical" will prove. The royal household, however you define it, has a massive surplus of rooms, and could decamp at a moment's notice to Windsor, leaving the entirety of Buckingham Palace to be used to house those made homeless by the fire for as long as it is needed. This is the point of the whole thing: privilege creates options which poverty denies. The fallacy of the neocapitalist nonsense that has been poured all over this is that ownership conveys divine right, and must remain inviolate. Neither occupation nor ownership is inviolate, and where there is a clear need not countermanded by the clear need of the current occupiers, need can overcome ownership. Whoever royal palaces actually belong to. I'll leave that one to lawyers and materialist Marxists to argue out. Fewer platitudes would help, though.
Somebody else do something.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Somebody else do something.
If they are better equipped than I am, yes. There is nothing to be gained by a campaign to tote every bale on earth.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
And Her Majesty is better equipped than you how?
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And Her Majesty is better equipped than you how?
Massive wealth. And having a house on the doorstep of Grenfell Tower.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Kensington council should just requisition hotel rooms in its bailiwick backed up by the government. May should be ordering them to. Meanwhile forensically dissect Grenfell, retrieve the 100+ bodies, compensate the survivors and individual estates to the tune of a million a piece - which will motivate arson in this foul world admittedly - demolish the ruin and build a thousand year quality, green, self-sufficient arcology for all the borough's poor and working class and more on the site and tear down all the other blocks when done.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And Her Majesty is better equipped than you how?
Massive wealth. And having a house on the doorstep of Grenfell Tower.
Neither Balmoral nor Sandringham are any where near.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Meanwhile forensically dissect Grenfell, retrieve the 100+ bodies, compensate the survivors and individual estates to the tune of a million a piece - which will motivate arson in this foul world admittedly - demolish the ruin and build a thousand year quality, green, self-sufficient arcology for all the borough's poor and working class and more on the site and tear down all the other blocks when done.
And track down those who ordered the fixing of fire-risk material to exterior walls. Presumably in the the belief it wouldn't catch alight on the outside of a building. Or more likely is the case they didn't give a shit as we'd already seen what happened in Saudi Arabia.

[ 18. June 2017, 15:30: Message edited by: rolyn ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
HRM is the head of the Church of England.
No, JC is head, she's 'supreme governor'.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
HRM is the head of the Church of England.
No, JC is head, she's 'supreme governor'.
Jeremy?
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
HRM is the head of the Church of England.
No, JC is head, she's 'supreme governor'.
Jeremy?
[Killing me]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Easy mistake to make, he was offering a large number of free gifts in his Election Campaign.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Exploding fridges can be pretty spectacular and electrical fires move FAST (like a quarter of the speed of light) in to the wall, behind reach of the sprinkler: this fire went from internal to external in a flash. Apparently, anecdotally, no one has died in a fire where (one-at-a-time heat activated) sprinklers were activated (however I've seen one figure of 65% reduction), but I wouldn't be surprised that that would break down in a situation like this where inflammable polyethylene lined cladding, polystyrene insulation and UPVC with nylon window frames are involved. All of that has GOT to stop. One can imagine a situation where rooms are soused by sprinklers but the burning cladding still takes the windows out and fills rooms with hot toxic smoke. Eventually the water will run out and as mark said, wet telephone directories burn.

How about ensuring external layers are irrigated too?
I should have included this at the time, it has resurfaced, the electricity supply was faulty for four years and probably detonated the freezer in the small hours. All part of the catastrophe waiting to happen. That couldn't have happened in the private Goldfinger designed Trellick Tower in the same council district.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I just wanted to acknowledge that all of the issues that the tenants complained about were symptomatic of the (tautological) anti-democratic capitalism that killed them.

The more I think about it the more horrified I am at that not being at the forefront of my thinking and comments from the beginning.

So I apologize unreservedly to all I offended with that lack.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0