London Fire and Aftermath RIP

orangerhyme

In some videos you can see bluish and purplish flames coming out the windows. Might this indicate gas burning?

orangerhyme

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRW2TB4F-hs

This has an interview with the aforementioned councillor Judith Blakeman.

She said the TMO said they were going to meet the National Grid about boxing in the pipes on 29th March but shes heard nothing since.

From what Ive read and heard, I think most of the blame will fall on the TMO.

Samaris

orangerhyme wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRW2TB4F-hs

This has an interview with the aforementioned councillor Judith Blakeman.

She said the TMO said they were going to meet the National Grid about boxing in the pipes on 29th March but shes heard nothing since.

From what Ive read and heard, I think most of the blame will fall on the TMO.

Sounds like it, although there should be more checks in place to ensure that dodgy companies can't get away with skimping on safety.

If the gas lines and the cladding issues both turn out to be major contributing factors, someone is fairly certainly going to jail for this.

tara73

Samaris wrote: »

I was afraid that the gas lines bit was true, mostly because it seems such an insane thing to do that I'm not sure anyone would think of it unless there were actually pipes visible in the main stairwell. I was hoping it wasn't though.

Who in gods name thought that was a good idea?

I don't think anybody was supposed to think much, it was just a f***ing council tower with useless tenants and any thinking, like putting the gas line outside of the staircase in a fire resistend plasterboard riser would have cost money. and any pound spent on this council towers is not worth spending in the eyes of the council...obviously.

Widdershins

Samaris wrote: »

I assume that refers to me .

No. I haven't seen whatever it was you wrote as I didn't read every page of the thread recently-unless you were aggressive in it which I assume you weren't, I don't know why you'd think it was a reference to you.

Since we have so many varied experts from everything from cladding and fire regulations to the intricacies of UK politcs it seemed like a good place to post it. I wasn't sure of it myself but I've noticed no hesitation in this thread before people post various things they've heard and read that amounts to speculation, so I didn't realise it would be so ill received or that it'd be assumed I was personally claiming it to be the gospel truth. It looks to me like repeating a claim about the Tories is acceptable, about Labour is less so. In the wider world we even have pop stars speaking as if they have off the record information about the victims.

I don't really engage with people who take an aggressive response with a view to ''tearing apart'' a post, so I couldn't bring myself to stick with it and try to explain that. This is why I don't know what you or anyone posted since I last looked. Actually you're not a poster Id have mentally put down as the type to be aggressive or to bait people (which seems to be happening with the actual poster I'm ignoring).

cnocbui

123shooter wrote: »

Sprinklers are a fantastic idea in any building I think......as long as someone can isolate the leccy in the first second they go off.

Fresh water is a very poor conductor, the danger posed by fire far outweighs the danger of electrocution. Besides, it is very likely that any wetting of live elecrical equipment would cause an immediate short to ground, triggering an RCD and cutting the power.

Samaris

With no malice intended, Widdershins, I suggest you go read it - and the other post that "tore it apart" if that means they researched each point. It's important to know the facts, not to spread malevolent nonsense - your intention was not malevolent, but the stuff you c/ped was.

tara73 wrote: »

I don't think anybody was supposed to think much, it was just a f***ing council tower with useless tenants and any thinking, like putting the gas line outside of the staircase in a fire resistend plasterboard riser would have cost money. and any pound spent on this council towers is not worth spending in the eyes of the council...obviously.

Oh, I meant since then - it was reported on the night of the fire by someone, I don't know if a resident or not. But the whole concept seemed nuts, so I was afraid it was true just because it would be an oddly specific thing to fabricate and it was more likely that residents had seen them. Fcuking awful idea though. I wonder when the fire-resistant cladding for the pipes was -due- to be put in! Too damn late anyway.

123shooter

cnocbui wrote: »

Fresh water is a very poor conductor, the danger posed by fire far outweighs the danger of electrocution. Besides, it is very likely that any wetting of live elecrical equipment would cause an immediate short to ground, triggering an RCD and cutting the power.

But I would have thought there was 3 phase in the flats for the lifts which is deadly. Or would this make no difference?

Widdershins

Samaris wrote: »

With no malice intended, Widdershins, I suggest you go read it - and the other post that "tore it apart" if that means they researched each point. It's important to know the facts, not to spread malevolent nonsense - your intention was not malevolent, but the stuff you c/ped was.






Oh, I meant since then - it was reported on the night of the fire by someone, I don't know if a resident or not. But the whole concept seemed nuts, so I was afraid it was true just because it would be an oddly specific thing to fabricate and it was more likely that residents had seen them. Fcuking awful idea though. I wonder when the fire-resistant cladding for the pipes was -due- to be put in! Too damn late anyway.

No, the intent to tear a post apart from the beginning is not not the same thing. I didn't say anyone tore my post apart. I'm not interested in engaging with someone with an aggressive approach like that, thanks. Hopefully it's clear to you now that I wasn't replying to you wen you assumed that I was.

I'm trying to track down the sources for the post that's caused so much drama and see how any of it could have been misconstrued. Maybe the thread could return to discussing the actual topic now that a few of you've had a chance to lecture on the checking of veracity etc.

Meanwhile, has Corbyn denounced this planned attempt to overthrow the government? Has he condemned the day of rage?

cnocbui

123shooter wrote: »

But I would have thought there was 3 phase in the flats for the lifts which is deadly. Or would this make no difference?

I don't know. If there had been sprinklers in the apartment where the fridge caught fire, it is most likely the lifts and their power supply wouldn't ever have been an issue as the fire would never have spread in the first place to triggere other sprinklers.

mikeybrennan

cnocbui wrote: »

Fresh water is a very poor conductor, the danger posed by fire far outweighs the danger of electrocution. Besides, it is very likely that any wetting of live elecrical equipment would cause an immediate short to ground, triggering an RCD and cutting the power.

I'd bet they don't have them
The rules on RCDs are less stringent in the uk

A Dub in Glasgo

Widdershins wrote: »

No. I haven't seen whatever it was you wrote as I didn't read every page of the thread recently-unless you were aggressive in it which I assume you weren't, I don't know why you'd think it was a reference to you.

Since we have so many varied experts from everything from cladding and fire regulations to the intricacies of UK politcs it seemed like a good place to post it. I wasn't sure of it myself but I've noticed no hesitation in this thread before people post various things they've heard and read that amounts to speculation, so I didn't realise it would be so ill received or that it'd be assumed I was personally claiming it to be the gospel truth. It looks to me like repeating a claim about the Tories is acceptable, about Labour is less so. In the wider world we even have pop stars speaking as if they have off the record information about the victims.

I don't really engage with people who take an aggressive response with a view to ''tearing apart'' a post, so I couldn't bring myself to stick with it and try to explain that. This is why I don't know what you or anyone posted since I last looked. Actually you're not a poster Id have mentally put down as the type to be aggressive or to bait people (which seems to be happening with the actual poster I'm ignoring).

Deal with the feedback and stop hiding behind the 'I was not expecting someone to actually check this stuff I posted' approach

Widdershins

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Deal with the feedback and stop hiding behind the 'I was not expecting someone to actually check this stuff I posted' approach

Excuse me? I'm not sure what you're continually sniping for. I wasn't responding to you. I chose not to respond to you and you're still attention seeking.

I apologised for any innaccuracies / untrue statements shared by me.

I'm a bit tired of your attempt to haul me over the coals now so I'll have to put you on an Ignore setting. Maybe then you'll find the time to go after genuine agitators like the ones currently planning a day of rage.

Samaris

I get there's probably a lot of reasons that the Government doesn't have to do anything for the people of Grenfell Tower, if it does turn out to be criminal negligence of a private company, but how are these people going to put their lives back together on £5,500? I hope this investigation moves quickly if that is the case so they can recoup something of what they've lost from the company responsible. There's allegations of criminal behavior on the part of someone in the cladding business (going by Hammond's words), and if that's the case, the company owes them more than can be repaid. It owes them anyway because even if it wasn't strictly legally necessary, some of these shortcuts were unforgivable.

mikeybrennan

Samaris wrote: »

I get there's probably a lot of reasons that the Government doesn't have to do anything for the people of Grenfell Tower, if it does turn out to be criminal negligence of a private company, but how are these people going to put their lives back together on £5,500? I hope this investigation moves quickly if that is the case so they can recoup something of what they've lost from the company responsible. There's allegations of criminal behavior on the part of someone in the cladding business (going by Hammond's words), and if that's the case, the company owes them more than can be repaid. It owes them anyway because even if it wasn't strictly legally necessary, some of these shortcuts were unforgivable.

He did use a bit of legalspeak if i recall

'it's my understanding' i think he said

There's always a chain of failures in these cases-not just the cladding company

steddyeddy

tara73 wrote: »

I don't think anybody was supposed to think much, it was just a f***ing council tower with useless tenants and any thinking, like putting the gas line outside of the staircase in a fire resistend plasterboard riser would have cost money. and any pound spent on this council towers is not worth spending in the eyes of the council...obviously.

It was classism, pure and simple. The last acceptable form of discrimination. One protester summed it up shouting "we live in the same area as the rich but our children go to different schools and our safety is worth less". It's as bad as racism or sexism but it's not fashionable to deal with.

tara73

Samaris wrote: »

There's allegations of criminal behavior on the part of someone in the cladding business (going by Hammond's words), and if that's the case, the company owes them more than can be repaid.

are there any sources to this 'Hammonds words'?

Spanish Eyes

Late to the discussion.

Surely the Council have to bear some responsibility if they outsourced management of the block. Do/did they not have checks on the company and how they spend council tax money?

Apologies I may have missed some updates.

ArmaniJeanss

tara73 wrote: »

are there any sources to this 'Hammonds words'?

First 40 seconds of the video at the top.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/18/cladding-on-grenfell-tower-banned-in-uk-says-philip-hammond

devnull

Here's all the planning permission details and drawings etc:
https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/planning/searches/details.aspx?adv=0&simple=grenfell+tower&simpleBatch=20&simSubmit=Search&id=CON/15/01274&cn=188293+IBI+Group+Chadsworth+House+Wilmslow+Road+&type=decision&tab=tabs-planning-2#tabs-planning-1

Go to the documents tab to see all of the paperwork.

Samaris

mikeybrennan wrote: »

He did use a bit of legalspeak if i recall

'it's my understanding' i think he said

There's always a chain of failures in these cases-not just the cladding company

Oh yeah, and I'm trying not to place too much emphasis on specific entities doing something wrong because I don't know. There does seem to have been way too many problems that were bad by themselves but catastrophic when they all failed when needed.

tara73 wrote: »

are there any sources to this 'Hammonds words'?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/18/cladding-on-grenfell-tower-banned-in-uk-says-philip-hammond

Someone did add that it might be that it's banned above a certain height. That was just breaking when I posted it (ish) so it wasn't fully explained at the time.

mikeybrennan

Samaris wrote: »

Oh yeah, and I'm trying not to place too much emphasis on specific entities doing something wrong because I don't know. There does seem to have been way too many problems that were bad by themselves but catastrophic when they all failed when needed.



https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/18/cladding-on-grenfell-tower-banned-in-uk-says-philip-hammond

Someone did add that it might be that it's banned above a certain height. That was just breaking when I posted it (ish) so it wasn't fully explained at the time.

Yes

the manufacturers specified a maximum height(10 or 18m?)

i'm thinking that's how hammond is making his illegal claim,not following manufacturers instructions

Water John

If this was under any European legal code country, there would be a good few already in gaol. They would then go investigating whether they'd be staying there.

tara73

devnull wrote: »

Here's all the planning permission details and drawings etc:
https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/planning/searches/details.aspx?adv=0&simple=grenfell+tower&simpleBatch=20&simSubmit=Search&id=CON/15/01274&cn=188293+IBI+Group+Chadsworth+House+Wilmslow+Road+&type=decision&tab=tabs-planning-2#tabs-planning-1

Go to the documents tab to see all of the paperwork.

thanks for that, very interesting and surprised that this is still available on the councils website...??

tara73

devnull wrote: »

Here's all the planning permission details and drawings etc:
https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/planning/searches/details.aspx?adv=0&simple=grenfell+tower&simpleBatch=20&simSubmit=Search&id=CON/15/01274&cn=188293+IBI+Group+Chadsworth+House+Wilmslow+Road+&type=decision&tab=tabs-planning-2#tabs-planning-1

Go to the documents tab to see all of the paperwork.

I ask myself who is this IBI Group? Another 'subcontractor' of Kensington/Chelsea Borough?

And I also wonder, the KTCMO obviously wasn't involved at all in the planning process?

A Dub in Glasgo

tara73 wrote: »

I ask myself who is this IBI Group? Another 'subcontractor' of Kensington/Chelsea Borough?

And I also wonder, the KTCMO obviously wasn't involved at all in the planning process?

They are a consultancy company

Widdershins

Samaris wrote: »

I get there's probably a lot of reasons that the Government doesn't have to do anything for the people of Grenfell Tower, if it does turn out to be criminal negligence of a private company, but how are these people going to put their lives back together on £5,500? I hope this investigation moves quickly if that is the case so they can recoup something of what they've lost from the company responsible. There's allegations of criminal behavior on the part of someone in the cladding business (going by Hammond's words), and if that's the case, the company owes them more than can be repaid. It owes them anyway because even if it wasn't strictly legally necessary, some of these shortcuts were unforgivable.

Residents rightly want to know when new housing will be provided. I have fixed a deadline of three weeks for everybody affected to be found a home nearby. I have today requested daily progress reports.

She has said they will be rehoused within three weeks so that's at least a start: Residents rightly want to know when new housing will be provided. I have fixed a deadline of three weeks for everybody affected to be found a home nearby. I have today requested daily progress reports.''

http://www.government-world.com/press-release-grenfell-tower-statement-from-the-prime-minister-17-june-2017/

tara73

Widdershins wrote: »

http://www.government-world.com/press-release-grenfell-tower-statement-from-the-prime-minister-17-june-2017/

who's supposed to believe this whaffling. they have no credibility after what happened, what a horrible job they've done refurbishing this tower and how they ignored the points about fire safety the residents raised in the last years.

Widdershins

tara73 wrote: »

who's supposed to believe this whaffling. they have no credibility after what happened, what a horrible job they've done refurbishing this tower and how they ignored the points about fire safety the residents raised in the last years.

It looks perfectly clear and concise to me. I think she's covered everything and already taken numerous steps to help in the most effective possible way. Most people are waiting until there's been an investigation before they make any judgements. If for some reason she doesn't follow through I suppose then would be the time to say it. What else can be said...premature blame doesn't help anyone.

mikeybrennan

I read that the main contractor for the refurb is a conservative party donor.

150k