Nick Real Deal
Vital Football Legend
Terrible and tragic news. I find it hard to believe these blocks don't have sprinklers. It just seems obvious it's installed when built, crazy.
Sprinkler Systems
- Thread starter Nick Real Deal
- Start date
Spursex
Alert Team
They do in the common area's and fire alarms; how or why they didn't seem to work - or not work effectively - will be a criminal investigation, some contractor/someone may well be at fault as the building was so recently refurbished.
Absolutely tragedy, my heart goes out to the victims families.
Taricco the yid
Vital Champions League
It will be interesting to see how it was started. Careless human error or faulty equipment.
Nick Real Deal
Vital Football Legend
An expert on safety basically said installing sprinklers would be too expensive. Building dates to 1974 and was cheap social housing.
There are other blocks the same design in the area. Alarms and fire extinguishers in every flat would at least help. I wonder if they all had fire extinguishers ?
There are other blocks the same design in the area. Alarms and fire extinguishers in every flat would at least help. I wonder if they all had fire extinguishers ?
Welshtel
Vital Football Hero
I ran Fire Prevention Courses in the 80s. The Sao Paolo tower block fire should have been enough to scare any local planning department into providing every tower block with sprinkler systems and all the fire equipment they need to keep people safe.
When you see people jumping from high floors to avoid being burnt to death like in 9/11 it motivates you to get it right. This planning was way wrong, apparently there was no fire alarm? What? And it took 15 minutes for the fire to reach the top floor???? What???
Some heads need to roll. Where's the local council planners? Why was there not more spent on safety? Residents could see the problems, why couldn't the planners?
And after the residents association reported their feelings, nothing was done.
DISGUSTING AND CRIMINAL.
When you see people jumping from high floors to avoid being burnt to death like in 9/11 it motivates you to get it right. This planning was way wrong, apparently there was no fire alarm? What? And it took 15 minutes for the fire to reach the top floor???? What???
Some heads need to roll. Where's the local council planners? Why was there not more spent on safety? Residents could see the problems, why couldn't the planners?
And after the residents association reported their feelings, nothing was done.
DISGUSTING AND CRIMINAL.
Spursex
Alert Team
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/14/regulations-followed-grenfell-tower-inferno-should-have-impossible/
If regulations were followed, the Grenfell Tower inferno should have been impossible
Geoff Wilkinson
14 June 2017 • 9:56pm
This handout image received by local resident Natalie Oxford early on June 14, 2017 shows flames and smoke coming from a 27-storey block of flats after a fire broke out in west London
Nobody can claim we did not know the risks Credit: Natalie Oxford/AFP/Getty
I am a building inspector and fire engineer with 30 years’ experience. I’ve overseen numerous projects across London, including new builds and refurbishments, making sure buildings comply with the proper regulations, and post-occupation fire risk assessments. Given my experience, I was shocked by the blaze which engulfed Grenfell Tower in the early hours of Wednesday morning.
At this point in time it’s very hard to tell precisely what went wrong. We don’t know where the fire started and we don’t know how it spread. What we can say for sure is how the building should have performed – and that it definitely did not perform that way. If regulations were followed, what happened at Grenfell Tower should never have been possible, and there are very big question which need to be answered. There are already suggestions that proper planning procedures were not followed.
Normally, British fire regulations assume that fires will start in one location only – and normally, this is completely reasonable. In a big tower block like Grenfell, each individual flat is a fire-tight box from which flames should not be able to escape, and a fire which starts in one tends to stay in it. That is why residents are usually advised to stay within their own rooms and wait for rescue. The fire service should arrive within ten minutes, ascend the building, and tackle the fire where it burns, while other residents sit quite happily in place.
This is also why we shouldn't be disturbed by reports from Grenfell that there was no common alarm system installed. Most residential blocks don’t have common alarms, because they could trigger a mass panic in which everyone tries to evacuate via the same stairwell which the fire service are using to reach the fire. Unlike in a hotel, there are no fire trained fire wardens to safely direct such an evacuation. In the event that a fire grows too large, firefighters might sometimes decide to evacuate the floor immediately above. Otherwise, it’s better everyone stays where they are. That policy has worked several hundred times over the past few years without a problem.
Forty fire engines with 200 officers were called shortly before 1am as flames engulfed the block from the second floor upwards
Forty fire engines with 200 officers were called shortly before 1am as flames engulfed the block from the second floor upwards Credit: Nigel Howard/Evening Standard / Eyevine
What happened at Grenfell was something else entirely. Firefighters were on site six minutes after being called, which is within expectations. But it is extremely unusual for the fire to spread this far and with this speed and ferocity. Within half an hour or so it had travelled way beyond the first flat, making it very difficult for the fire services to control it. Even more worryingly, survivors have reported that stairwells and lobbies were choked with smoke, which should never happen: there are supposed to be means of clearing smoke from such areas. In those circumstances, “stay and hide” becomes obsolete.
And yet to me the fire spread still had a horrifying familiarity. This has happened before, and – if we are not careful – it may happen again.
In Knowsley Heights in Manchester in 1991, fire spread in a way no one had predicted via the decorative cladding on the outside of the building. These plastic or metal panels are installed to protect a building from weather or improve its appearance, but between them and the wall there is a cavity where rain can run down. In the event of a fire this acts like a chimney, drawing the hot air up through itself and making the flames burn brighter. In this way fire travelled all the way up from the base of the building to the very top.
Something similar happened in Irvine in 1999, after which new regulations were put out which limited the types of cladding which could be used. In particular, they mandated barriers at various points in the cavity, blocking off the “chimney” on all sides. And in 2014 Grenfell’s landlords decided to install exactly this kind of cladding in order to “improve its appearance” when viewed from the luxury flats nearby. The Guardian has reported that some panels used in modern cladding are only fire-proofed on the surface, behind which is up to 30cm of highly flammable polyurethane. If true, that is a major non-conformance with regulations. But even if not, were the proper firebreaks put in place behind the panels?
Once spread via cladding, the fire could have caught on curtains blowing through windows left open on a hot summer’s night. Again this is believed to have been a factor in the Lakanal House fire in 2009. That disaster occurred on a very similar night to this one.
Even if this proves to be correct, however, the building should still have been safe. For the fire to spread internally after that point it would still have to get through the fire door in the individual room, through another fire door at the front of the flat, and through yet more doors in the corridor outside. Clearly there has been a failure of multiple systems: for one to fail is perhaps understandable, but for so many to have failed all at once, in the modern era, is entirely unheard of.
The investigation will of course look into this. But another explanation may lie in reports, as yet unsubstantiated, that works were recently carried out to the gas main that runs vertically up the building. If the contractors carrying out those works did not replace the necessary fire protection after finishing, that would be an easy way for fire to spread. Anything that creates a path for fire can and will be used in that fashion. Even a drill-hole of four inches in diameter can be enough. And if there are combustible materials in ducts – plastic pipes, plastic wires – flames can creep rapidly through a building without the fire service even knowing.
The Lakanal House fire led to specific recommendations. All landlords were given clear, copious information on fire precautions and told to undertake regular risk assessments. People like me then go around the tower blocks checking for ducts that need to be blocked or cladding that needs to be fixed. The problem is that we never really know whether the works we recommend are actually carried out, or, if they were, how long they took. There is no easy way to check whether landlords have carried out their duty.
Heart-breaking moment witness breaks down describing Grenfell Tower fire
00:37
Worse, there is an ongoing issue around contractors who don’t understand what they need to do to ensure fire safety. Anyone who the landlord allows to alter or amend a building, in any way, shape or form, must be made aware of which walls are fire walls and which materials need to be replaced after they’re done. That, too, doesn’t always happen.
We shouldn’t overstate the danger. There are literally thousands of blocks like this across the UK and there are probably several hundred fires which start in them every year. These fires usually don’t spread and are dealt with in exactly the expected fashion; more people probably die in fires in two- or three-storey houses than in tower blocks.
Nevertheless, the standard of safety across London is highly variable. Some landlords are right on top of it, and act on issues that are reported within a matter of hours. Others don’t give fire safety the priority that it requires.
What’s frustrating is that we are all familiar with going into a toilet block and seeing a register on the wall to show that someone has gone round to check it is clean. There’s no such process for fire safety. Perhaps we need to make landlords post evidence of regular risk assessments in communal areas so residents can see exactly what has been checked and what hasn’t. Or perhaps we need to give fire brigades the resources to conduct building inspections themselves, as they did back in the 1970s. Nowadays, buildings are effectively self-certified.
Whether regulations and recommendations were followed in this case will come out in the wash. But indications on the council's website indicate the building was approved on a "building notice". This type of fast track planning application saves the need to submit detailed proposals and plans to the building inspector and relies on the experience of the inspector to recognise and approve the works by eye. This type of application is wholly inappropriate for large complex buildings and should only be used on small, simple domestic buildings.
Nobody can turn around after Knowsley, Irvine and Lackanal and say they didn’t know there were risks. The guidance was there, the instructions were clear, and we knew the problem. The question is now whether we will do anything about it.
Geoff Wilkinson is the managing director of Wilkinson Construction Consultants
If regulations were followed, the Grenfell Tower inferno should have been impossible
Geoff Wilkinson
14 June 2017 • 9:56pm
This handout image received by local resident Natalie Oxford early on June 14, 2017 shows flames and smoke coming from a 27-storey block of flats after a fire broke out in west London
Nobody can claim we did not know the risks Credit: Natalie Oxford/AFP/Getty
I am a building inspector and fire engineer with 30 years’ experience. I’ve overseen numerous projects across London, including new builds and refurbishments, making sure buildings comply with the proper regulations, and post-occupation fire risk assessments. Given my experience, I was shocked by the blaze which engulfed Grenfell Tower in the early hours of Wednesday morning.
At this point in time it’s very hard to tell precisely what went wrong. We don’t know where the fire started and we don’t know how it spread. What we can say for sure is how the building should have performed – and that it definitely did not perform that way. If regulations were followed, what happened at Grenfell Tower should never have been possible, and there are very big question which need to be answered. There are already suggestions that proper planning procedures were not followed.
Normally, British fire regulations assume that fires will start in one location only – and normally, this is completely reasonable. In a big tower block like Grenfell, each individual flat is a fire-tight box from which flames should not be able to escape, and a fire which starts in one tends to stay in it. That is why residents are usually advised to stay within their own rooms and wait for rescue. The fire service should arrive within ten minutes, ascend the building, and tackle the fire where it burns, while other residents sit quite happily in place.
This is also why we shouldn't be disturbed by reports from Grenfell that there was no common alarm system installed. Most residential blocks don’t have common alarms, because they could trigger a mass panic in which everyone tries to evacuate via the same stairwell which the fire service are using to reach the fire. Unlike in a hotel, there are no fire trained fire wardens to safely direct such an evacuation. In the event that a fire grows too large, firefighters might sometimes decide to evacuate the floor immediately above. Otherwise, it’s better everyone stays where they are. That policy has worked several hundred times over the past few years without a problem.
Forty fire engines with 200 officers were called shortly before 1am as flames engulfed the block from the second floor upwards
Forty fire engines with 200 officers were called shortly before 1am as flames engulfed the block from the second floor upwards Credit: Nigel Howard/Evening Standard / Eyevine
What happened at Grenfell was something else entirely. Firefighters were on site six minutes after being called, which is within expectations. But it is extremely unusual for the fire to spread this far and with this speed and ferocity. Within half an hour or so it had travelled way beyond the first flat, making it very difficult for the fire services to control it. Even more worryingly, survivors have reported that stairwells and lobbies were choked with smoke, which should never happen: there are supposed to be means of clearing smoke from such areas. In those circumstances, “stay and hide” becomes obsolete.
And yet to me the fire spread still had a horrifying familiarity. This has happened before, and – if we are not careful – it may happen again.
In Knowsley Heights in Manchester in 1991, fire spread in a way no one had predicted via the decorative cladding on the outside of the building. These plastic or metal panels are installed to protect a building from weather or improve its appearance, but between them and the wall there is a cavity where rain can run down. In the event of a fire this acts like a chimney, drawing the hot air up through itself and making the flames burn brighter. In this way fire travelled all the way up from the base of the building to the very top.
Something similar happened in Irvine in 1999, after which new regulations were put out which limited the types of cladding which could be used. In particular, they mandated barriers at various points in the cavity, blocking off the “chimney” on all sides. And in 2014 Grenfell’s landlords decided to install exactly this kind of cladding in order to “improve its appearance” when viewed from the luxury flats nearby. The Guardian has reported that some panels used in modern cladding are only fire-proofed on the surface, behind which is up to 30cm of highly flammable polyurethane. If true, that is a major non-conformance with regulations. But even if not, were the proper firebreaks put in place behind the panels?
Once spread via cladding, the fire could have caught on curtains blowing through windows left open on a hot summer’s night. Again this is believed to have been a factor in the Lakanal House fire in 2009. That disaster occurred on a very similar night to this one.
Even if this proves to be correct, however, the building should still have been safe. For the fire to spread internally after that point it would still have to get through the fire door in the individual room, through another fire door at the front of the flat, and through yet more doors in the corridor outside. Clearly there has been a failure of multiple systems: for one to fail is perhaps understandable, but for so many to have failed all at once, in the modern era, is entirely unheard of.
The investigation will of course look into this. But another explanation may lie in reports, as yet unsubstantiated, that works were recently carried out to the gas main that runs vertically up the building. If the contractors carrying out those works did not replace the necessary fire protection after finishing, that would be an easy way for fire to spread. Anything that creates a path for fire can and will be used in that fashion. Even a drill-hole of four inches in diameter can be enough. And if there are combustible materials in ducts – plastic pipes, plastic wires – flames can creep rapidly through a building without the fire service even knowing.
The Lakanal House fire led to specific recommendations. All landlords were given clear, copious information on fire precautions and told to undertake regular risk assessments. People like me then go around the tower blocks checking for ducts that need to be blocked or cladding that needs to be fixed. The problem is that we never really know whether the works we recommend are actually carried out, or, if they were, how long they took. There is no easy way to check whether landlords have carried out their duty.
Heart-breaking moment witness breaks down describing Grenfell Tower fire
00:37
Worse, there is an ongoing issue around contractors who don’t understand what they need to do to ensure fire safety. Anyone who the landlord allows to alter or amend a building, in any way, shape or form, must be made aware of which walls are fire walls and which materials need to be replaced after they’re done. That, too, doesn’t always happen.
We shouldn’t overstate the danger. There are literally thousands of blocks like this across the UK and there are probably several hundred fires which start in them every year. These fires usually don’t spread and are dealt with in exactly the expected fashion; more people probably die in fires in two- or three-storey houses than in tower blocks.
Nevertheless, the standard of safety across London is highly variable. Some landlords are right on top of it, and act on issues that are reported within a matter of hours. Others don’t give fire safety the priority that it requires.
What’s frustrating is that we are all familiar with going into a toilet block and seeing a register on the wall to show that someone has gone round to check it is clean. There’s no such process for fire safety. Perhaps we need to make landlords post evidence of regular risk assessments in communal areas so residents can see exactly what has been checked and what hasn’t. Or perhaps we need to give fire brigades the resources to conduct building inspections themselves, as they did back in the 1970s. Nowadays, buildings are effectively self-certified.
Whether regulations and recommendations were followed in this case will come out in the wash. But indications on the council's website indicate the building was approved on a "building notice". This type of fast track planning application saves the need to submit detailed proposals and plans to the building inspector and relies on the experience of the inspector to recognise and approve the works by eye. This type of application is wholly inappropriate for large complex buildings and should only be used on small, simple domestic buildings.
Nobody can turn around after Knowsley, Irvine and Lackanal and say they didn’t know there were risks. The guidance was there, the instructions were clear, and we knew the problem. The question is now whether we will do anything about it.
Geoff Wilkinson is the managing director of Wilkinson Construction Consultants
Spursex
Alert Team
The hunt for the culprit(s) seems to be well underway; is it a witch hunt, or a genuine attempt to understand the causes?
Grenfell Tower was clad last year as part of an £8.6million refurbishment builders Rydon, whose boss also appears to live in east Sussex, and insisted yesterday that its work ‘met all required building controls’.
The cladding was made from metal panels and slabs of a polystyrene-like material, separated by a small cavity, fixed to the concrete surface of the outside of the tower.
Did the building's new cladding make the fire much worse?
The cladding used on Grenfell Tower may have exacerbated the fire, it has been claimed.
Rainscreen cladding, which was added during the block's refurbishment, can act as a 'chimney' for fires because of its ventilated cavities.
Many have speculated as to whether this could have made the fire worse, and led to it spreading quickly and trapping residents.
Jack Monroe, a former fire fighter, tweeted about the incident and said: 'Whoever signed off on that cladding needs to be hauled before a court and held fully accountable for every single fatality and injury.
Chartered surveyor and fire expert Arnold Tarling, from Hindwoods, said that the process can create a 25mm-30mm cavity between the cladding and the insulation.
'It produces a wind tunnel and also traps any burning material between the rain cladding and the building.
'So had it been insulated per se, the insulation could fall off and fall away from the building, but this is all contained inside.'
He said not all insulation used in the process is the more expensive non-flammable type
'So basically you have got a cavity with a fire spreading behind it.'
Rydon carried out an £8.6 million project, completed in May 2016, to modernise the outside of the building, which saw new cladding and windows installed.
In a statement, the Sussex-based firm said it was shocked by the 'devastating' blaze, adding: 'Rydon completed a refurbishment of the building in the summer of 2016 for KCTMO (Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation) on behalf of the council, which met all required building control, fire regulation, and health and safety standards'.
Together with new windows, the cladding was meant to boost the building’s energy efficiency, protect against the weather and smarten up the look of the 1970s facade.
But it appears to provide a fatal conduit for the flames to leap from one flat to another, with witnesses saying the outside of the block ignited ‘like a firelighter’.
There are fears that hundreds of high-rise blocks across the UK are fitted with similar materials – even though MPs warned of the potential fire risk nearly 20 years ago.
A report in 1999 by the Environment, Transport and the Regions select committee said: ‘We do not believe that it should take a serious fire in which many are killed before all reasonable steps are taken towards minimising the risks.’
The MPs highlighted concerns that the small air cavity between the layers of cladding can act as a chimney, helping the fire spread rapidly upwards. Their report demanded that ‘all external cladding systems should be required either to be entirely non-combustible, or to be proved through full-scale testing not to pose an unacceptable level of risk in terms of fire spread’.
But the method was popular as councils sought to meet insulation standards laid out under the Blair Government’s £22billion Decent Homes Programme, which ran from 2000 to 2010. It continued to be used even after the 2009 fire at the 14-storey Lakanal House in Camberwell, South East London, which killed six people.
Sam Webb, a fire safety expert who helped gather evidence after that tragedy, said last night there was a conflict between safety and the materials used to make buildings more energy efficient.
‘They are not fire-resistant and in some cases they’re flammable,’ he said. Fires involving cladding have also occurred in Australia, Russia and the Arabian Peninsula – adding to the serious safety concerns.
They include two in Dubai, one on New Year’s Eve 2015 at the 63-storey The Address Downtown and a second last July at the 75-storey Sulafa Tower.
Grenfell Tower was clad last year as part of an £8.6million refurbishment by East Sussex-based builders Rydon, which said yesterday that its work ‘met all required building controls’.
Yet the company admits on its website that the insulation material used, Celotex RS5000, ‘will burn if exposed to a fire of sufficient heat and intensity… [and] toxic gases will be released with combustion’.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4605674/Firm-paid-2-6m-cladding-Grenfell-collapsed.html#ixzz4k463PAFD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Grenfell Tower was clad last year as part of an £8.6million refurbishment builders Rydon, whose boss also appears to live in east Sussex, and insisted yesterday that its work ‘met all required building controls’.
The cladding was made from metal panels and slabs of a polystyrene-like material, separated by a small cavity, fixed to the concrete surface of the outside of the tower.
Did the building's new cladding make the fire much worse?
The cladding used on Grenfell Tower may have exacerbated the fire, it has been claimed.
Rainscreen cladding, which was added during the block's refurbishment, can act as a 'chimney' for fires because of its ventilated cavities.
Many have speculated as to whether this could have made the fire worse, and led to it spreading quickly and trapping residents.
Jack Monroe, a former fire fighter, tweeted about the incident and said: 'Whoever signed off on that cladding needs to be hauled before a court and held fully accountable for every single fatality and injury.
Chartered surveyor and fire expert Arnold Tarling, from Hindwoods, said that the process can create a 25mm-30mm cavity between the cladding and the insulation.
'It produces a wind tunnel and also traps any burning material between the rain cladding and the building.
'So had it been insulated per se, the insulation could fall off and fall away from the building, but this is all contained inside.'
He said not all insulation used in the process is the more expensive non-flammable type
'So basically you have got a cavity with a fire spreading behind it.'
Rydon carried out an £8.6 million project, completed in May 2016, to modernise the outside of the building, which saw new cladding and windows installed.
In a statement, the Sussex-based firm said it was shocked by the 'devastating' blaze, adding: 'Rydon completed a refurbishment of the building in the summer of 2016 for KCTMO (Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation) on behalf of the council, which met all required building control, fire regulation, and health and safety standards'.
Together with new windows, the cladding was meant to boost the building’s energy efficiency, protect against the weather and smarten up the look of the 1970s facade.
But it appears to provide a fatal conduit for the flames to leap from one flat to another, with witnesses saying the outside of the block ignited ‘like a firelighter’.
There are fears that hundreds of high-rise blocks across the UK are fitted with similar materials – even though MPs warned of the potential fire risk nearly 20 years ago.
A report in 1999 by the Environment, Transport and the Regions select committee said: ‘We do not believe that it should take a serious fire in which many are killed before all reasonable steps are taken towards minimising the risks.’
The MPs highlighted concerns that the small air cavity between the layers of cladding can act as a chimney, helping the fire spread rapidly upwards. Their report demanded that ‘all external cladding systems should be required either to be entirely non-combustible, or to be proved through full-scale testing not to pose an unacceptable level of risk in terms of fire spread’.
But the method was popular as councils sought to meet insulation standards laid out under the Blair Government’s £22billion Decent Homes Programme, which ran from 2000 to 2010. It continued to be used even after the 2009 fire at the 14-storey Lakanal House in Camberwell, South East London, which killed six people.
Sam Webb, a fire safety expert who helped gather evidence after that tragedy, said last night there was a conflict between safety and the materials used to make buildings more energy efficient.
‘They are not fire-resistant and in some cases they’re flammable,’ he said. Fires involving cladding have also occurred in Australia, Russia and the Arabian Peninsula – adding to the serious safety concerns.
They include two in Dubai, one on New Year’s Eve 2015 at the 63-storey The Address Downtown and a second last July at the 75-storey Sulafa Tower.
Grenfell Tower was clad last year as part of an £8.6million refurbishment by East Sussex-based builders Rydon, which said yesterday that its work ‘met all required building controls’.
Yet the company admits on its website that the insulation material used, Celotex RS5000, ‘will burn if exposed to a fire of sufficient heat and intensity… [and] toxic gases will be released with combustion’.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4605674/Firm-paid-2-6m-cladding-Grenfell-collapsed.html#ixzz4k463PAFD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Nick Real Deal
Vital Football Legend
An elderly man said on LBC last night that the same block had a fire in 1978 but it had sprinklers which dealt with it. If true it could mean the sprinklers were taken out. I am only going by what he said.
Welshtel
Vital Football Hero
If the Health and Safety Executive have oversight of this area of public life, as they do, then why are regulations flunked? Whether, as inspectors (as mentioned above) are concerned in finding existing in the system and reporting them or with contractors that are supposed to fix the problems that are found, ALL parts of the procedures MUST be started and finished and SEEN to be written off as COMPLETED. ANY report MUST be acted on. I've worked with local councils and installed multi million pound teaching blocks in schools and NOTHING is allowed to be occupied until all the regs are completed and every safety item is written off.
The council will not sign it off until the contractors say it is fully compliant and completed. As much as I dislike the insurance companies, they are an extra check as they won't insure the building until they have a completion notice from all departments.
The H and S Exec need to up their game in my opinion to ensure that the most recent findings are put into practice when designing a new building.
I'm just appalled and shocked by the thought of all those non technical people who lived in the Grenfell building who have suffered, lost their lives so awfully and been made homeless etc., who have done so after trusting the planners and builders to provide them with a safe place to live.
The council will not sign it off until the contractors say it is fully compliant and completed. As much as I dislike the insurance companies, they are an extra check as they won't insure the building until they have a completion notice from all departments.
The H and S Exec need to up their game in my opinion to ensure that the most recent findings are put into practice when designing a new building.
I'm just appalled and shocked by the thought of all those non technical people who lived in the Grenfell building who have suffered, lost their lives so awfully and been made homeless etc., who have done so after trusting the planners and builders to provide them with a safe place to live.
Real Deal
Vital Football Legend
Sprinklers to expensive so peoples lives don't matter then? Cladding goes up like wild fire so shouldn't even be on buildings.
An horrendous event and could have easily been prevented. Some people are truly sick and would literally risk peoples lives for the sake of a few quid.
Some people were jumping out from the top floor on fire for crying out loud.
An horrendous event and could have easily been prevented. Some people are truly sick and would literally risk peoples lives for the sake of a few quid.
Some people were jumping out from the top floor on fire for crying out loud.
Nick Real Deal
Vital Football Legend
Sheffield council installed sprinklers in all their blocks at a cost of about 1100 quid per flat. Not expensive really is it ?
freundorfoe
Vital 1st Team Regular
if even half of what I've read about the forewarning the people in power had about an event like this are true I hope people end up in jail for a long time. It's an absolute disgrace.
The fridge thing is supposedly legit as the person whose fridge it was warned neighbours to evacuate - he and his closest neighbours were amongst the survivors apparently.
I have friends who know/knew people in the block - the anger from the local community towards the authorities is palpable.
On top of that the understaffed firefighters went above and beyond - I read they went 4 times over the amount of time they're legally supposed to be inside a building without a break. Boris telling Andrew Dinsmore to "get stuffed" when he was grilling him about cutting the number of firemen likely leading to more deaths from fire is coming back to haunt him in a major way.
The fridge thing is supposedly legit as the person whose fridge it was warned neighbours to evacuate - he and his closest neighbours were amongst the survivors apparently.
I have friends who know/knew people in the block - the anger from the local community towards the authorities is palpable.
On top of that the understaffed firefighters went above and beyond - I read they went 4 times over the amount of time they're legally supposed to be inside a building without a break. Boris telling Andrew Dinsmore to "get stuffed" when he was grilling him about cutting the number of firemen likely leading to more deaths from fire is coming back to haunt him in a major way.
Nick Real Deal
Vital Football Legend
Over 8 million on the refurb. Cost of sprinklers 200 k deemed not important apparently.
freundorfoe
Vital 1st Team Regular
that's shocking if true. Was there any internal refurb or just external? I know where I live external and internal are considered different matters, not to make excuses but it's possible the £8M refurb would have had nothing to do with any internal work that needed doing.
Lots of the residents who survived are saying there were no fire alarms going off, I would have thought that was a legal requirement - even in an old block?!
Lots of the residents who survived are saying there were no fire alarms going off, I would have thought that was a legal requirement - even in an old block?!
Spursex
Alert Team
Scumbags...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/16/corbyn-supporters-spread-fake-news-grenfell-house-death-toll/
Corbyn supporters spread 'fake news' about Grenfell Tower death toll
grenfell house firefighter
Firefighters sift through the remains of Grenfell House Credit: Eddie Mulholland for The Telegraph
Gordon Rayner, Political Editor Christopher Hope, Chief Political Correspondent
16 June 2017 • 8:12pm
In the immediate aftermath of almost every major tragedy, conspiracy theories take root to fill the void left by the absence of hard facts.
The Grenfell Tower disaster was no exception, as claims of a cover-up about the real death toll went viral on social media on Friday.
Tension among residents was ramped up by suggestions that the Government had gagged the media in an attempt to manage public anger about the inferno.
The claims - all of them completely false - were spread by far-left supporters of Jeremy Corbyn including pop stars and socialist blogs.
They could now be examined by MPs as part of an ongoing parliamentary inquiry into “fake news”.
Moment Grenfell fire protesters storm Kensington and Chelsea town hall
00:54
A Corbyn-backing blog called Skwawkbox claimed that the Government had banned the media from reporting the true death toll in the tragedy for reasons of “national security”.
It claimed that “multiple sources” had confirmed that “the Government has placed a D-notice on the real number of deaths in the blaze”.
A D-notice, properly called a Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice, is an official request to editors not to publish items that could endanger lives or national security, but no such notice was issued.
Nevertheless, the false story was promoted on Twitter by Skwawkbox and then picked up by two other Corbyn-supporting sites, Evolve Politics and Novara Media.
Within hours the claim had been shared on social media hundreds of times and was being treated as evidence of a government cover-up.
Skwawkbox claimed it had received reports “about intimidation of locals to prevent disclosure or speculation about the true known death toll”.
It went on: “Is the Tory government inflating its own party interests into a national security issue in order to control the flow of information that will damage the Tory government and party, allowing it to ‘drip-feed’ a slow increase in the number of confirmed deaths in order to manage public outrage?”
In truth, neither the Government nor the London Fire Brigade yet knows the final number of those who have died because of the danger and difficulty of accessing the top floors of the building, where most of the bodies are likely to be located. Around 70 people are currently missing, likely to include the 30 now known to have died.
Lily Allen breaks down as she describes Grenfell Tower fire
01:09
The first accusations of a cover-up were made by the singer Lily Allen, a cheerleader for Jeremy Corbyn, who told Thursday evening’s Channel 4 News that the death toll was being “downplayed by the mainstream media”.
She said: “I feel like the Government are trying to micromanage people’s grieving here...I’m hearing that the figure is much closer to 150, and that many of those people are children.”
A scheduled appearance by the singer on the BBC’s Newsnight was later cancelled.
On Friday morning the Labour-supporting Grime artist Saskilla told the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire programme that he had been told personally by a firefighter at Grenfell Tower that 200 bodies had already been identified. He was among those who retweeted the false D-notice claim.
Earlier this year the Commons Culture, Media and Sport committee launched a parliamentary inquiry into so-called “fake news”.
MPs are concerned about the effect that false stories, spread on social media, could have on democracy.
The committee believes that social media companies have a responsibility to combat the spread of fake news online, in the same way that they are expected to remove explicit or extremist material.
The inquiry was launched following concerns that fake news could have influenced last year’s US presidential election.
Damian Collins MP, chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport committee before the election, said: "Any attempt to spread misinformation and to incite public reaction because of this information - it is really important we look at where that is coming from and who is doing it.
“It would be for the committee when it is reconstituted to carry on with the inquiry. Unfortunately fake news is used to exploit situations by unscrupulous people."
Labour launched its own separate investigation into fake news led by the former shadow culture secretary Michael Dugher, before he stood down as an MP at the general election.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/16/corbyn-supporters-spread-fake-news-grenfell-house-death-toll/
Corbyn supporters spread 'fake news' about Grenfell Tower death toll
grenfell house firefighter
Firefighters sift through the remains of Grenfell House Credit: Eddie Mulholland for The Telegraph
Gordon Rayner, Political Editor Christopher Hope, Chief Political Correspondent
16 June 2017 • 8:12pm
In the immediate aftermath of almost every major tragedy, conspiracy theories take root to fill the void left by the absence of hard facts.
The Grenfell Tower disaster was no exception, as claims of a cover-up about the real death toll went viral on social media on Friday.
Tension among residents was ramped up by suggestions that the Government had gagged the media in an attempt to manage public anger about the inferno.
The claims - all of them completely false - were spread by far-left supporters of Jeremy Corbyn including pop stars and socialist blogs.
They could now be examined by MPs as part of an ongoing parliamentary inquiry into “fake news”.
Moment Grenfell fire protesters storm Kensington and Chelsea town hall
00:54
A Corbyn-backing blog called Skwawkbox claimed that the Government had banned the media from reporting the true death toll in the tragedy for reasons of “national security”.
It claimed that “multiple sources” had confirmed that “the Government has placed a D-notice on the real number of deaths in the blaze”.
A D-notice, properly called a Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice, is an official request to editors not to publish items that could endanger lives or national security, but no such notice was issued.
Nevertheless, the false story was promoted on Twitter by Skwawkbox and then picked up by two other Corbyn-supporting sites, Evolve Politics and Novara Media.
Within hours the claim had been shared on social media hundreds of times and was being treated as evidence of a government cover-up.
Skwawkbox claimed it had received reports “about intimidation of locals to prevent disclosure or speculation about the true known death toll”.
It went on: “Is the Tory government inflating its own party interests into a national security issue in order to control the flow of information that will damage the Tory government and party, allowing it to ‘drip-feed’ a slow increase in the number of confirmed deaths in order to manage public outrage?”
In truth, neither the Government nor the London Fire Brigade yet knows the final number of those who have died because of the danger and difficulty of accessing the top floors of the building, where most of the bodies are likely to be located. Around 70 people are currently missing, likely to include the 30 now known to have died.
Lily Allen breaks down as she describes Grenfell Tower fire
01:09
The first accusations of a cover-up were made by the singer Lily Allen, a cheerleader for Jeremy Corbyn, who told Thursday evening’s Channel 4 News that the death toll was being “downplayed by the mainstream media”.
She said: “I feel like the Government are trying to micromanage people’s grieving here...I’m hearing that the figure is much closer to 150, and that many of those people are children.”
A scheduled appearance by the singer on the BBC’s Newsnight was later cancelled.
On Friday morning the Labour-supporting Grime artist Saskilla told the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire programme that he had been told personally by a firefighter at Grenfell Tower that 200 bodies had already been identified. He was among those who retweeted the false D-notice claim.
Earlier this year the Commons Culture, Media and Sport committee launched a parliamentary inquiry into so-called “fake news”.
MPs are concerned about the effect that false stories, spread on social media, could have on democracy.
The committee believes that social media companies have a responsibility to combat the spread of fake news online, in the same way that they are expected to remove explicit or extremist material.
The inquiry was launched following concerns that fake news could have influenced last year’s US presidential election.
Damian Collins MP, chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport committee before the election, said: "Any attempt to spread misinformation and to incite public reaction because of this information - it is really important we look at where that is coming from and who is doing it.
“It would be for the committee when it is reconstituted to carry on with the inquiry. Unfortunately fake news is used to exploit situations by unscrupulous people."
Labour launched its own separate investigation into fake news led by the former shadow culture secretary Michael Dugher, before he stood down as an MP at the general election.
Nick Real Deal
Vital Football Legend
There is blame to be apportioned no doubt. But I don't agree with political point scoring with this.
