Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Grenfell Tower Enquiry

1246712

Comments

  • cfgs said:
    DRAddick said:
    Err no, not fair play to her. She's done the old "apologies for any upset caused" crap instead of actually apologising and admitting she was wrong. 
    In fairness I think "I'm reassured race played no part in their response", is an admission that she was wrong.

    I think "apologies for any upset caused" is an apology.
    True but her remarks were beyond offensive, that professional people who risk their lives to save others would deliberately let people die is horrible. Her apology will engender far less coverage than her initial thoughts. 


    I agree 100%.
  • Before you all jump on the Doreen Lawrence bandwagon perhaps have a look at the context in which she first made the remarks you all think were so offensive. (Apologies to those who are already aware and do not need any additional context to form a strong opinion).
    You can watch first hand here, if you haven't seen already-
    https://www.channel4.com/news/doreen-lawrence-says-grenfell-tragedy-was-linked-to-racism
  • Before you all jump on the Doreen Lawrence bandwagon perhaps have a look at the context in which she first made the remarks you all think were so offensive. (Apologies to those who are already aware and do not need any additional context to form a strong opinion).
    You can watch first hand here, if you haven't seen already-
    https://www.channel4.com/news/doreen-lawrence-says-grenfell-tragedy-was-linked-to-racism
    Fully aware of the context thank you. If you feel that's enough for her to use her public profile to jump on the racism bandwagon without having any actual knowledge or experience of such events, and that then later offering a pathetic non apology is enough, then fine that's your choice. Mass criticism doesn't always need to be a bandwagon. Often it's justified.
  • How can the LFB be blamed over the council who repeatedly ignored warnings from residents over the very thing that then happened? Who is running this 'inquiry'?
  • Chunes said:
    How can the LFB be blamed over the council who repeatedly ignored warnings from residents over the very thing that then happened? Who is running this 'inquiry'?
    @hoof_it_up_to_benty I think, who clearly has something against LFB!
  • Sponsored links:


  • Chunes said:
    Chunes said:
    How can the LFB be blamed over the council who repeatedly ignored warnings from residents over the very thing that then happened? Who is running this 'inquiry'?
    @hoof_it_up_to_benty I think, who clearly has something against LFB!
    Insane.

    One of the residents had even set up a website that went into extreme detail about just how dangerous the cladding was, just how deadly the lack of fire safety in the building was, and how the council and building management were completely ignoring them! 

    Oh no let's blame LFB. Piss off.
    An easy way to keep those who should really carry the blame out of prison, it's sad to see so many falling for it.

    The real culprits are going to get away with it.
  • I work in one of the most sophisticated facilities in the world due to the nature of the work that's carried on within it, we have a simple rule. When the fire system activates you get out as there is a threat to life... However we have systems that will isolate the fire to the area its within or certernly contain it for a period. 

    But our own firefighters go in when everybody else is running the over way. I appreciate there has to be an inquiry so this never happens again and lessons learned,  we should hold our fire service with the esteem they deserve. They see things that will haunt them forever. 
  • edited October 2019
    I think the issue with the Fire Brigade is their failure to learn from previous fires of this nature. And there were things to be learned. 

    The Lakanal House fire should have alerted them to the issue they faced with Grenfall. You can't blame the brave firemen in any way, but there must be people in the organisation who review fires and take learning from them. The issue is, the advice given cost lives. And we do need to think of the horror of this. People ultimately in their homes waiting to die a horrible death. Ringing their loved ones and saying their goodbyes.  

    But Lakanal lessons should have learned from more than the fire brigade. There was a report warning of this sitting on minister's desks. Throwing all the blame at the Fire Brigade would be missing the point IMO though. The coroner made a formal recommendation to Ministers to act to get sprinklers retrofitted into tower blocks and to overhaul building regulations. But by the time of the Grenfell Tower fire, only 1 per cent of council blocks had sprinklers fitted and a promised review of building regulations hadn’t even started despite the recommendations being made years earlier.


  • 163 high rise tower blocks still have ACM cladding of the type that covered Grenfell.

    Less than 30 high rise blocks have had sprinkler or mist systems retro fitted and it will take over 40 years to retrofit every high rise block with the current infrastructure.

    Building Regulations still haven't been updated and there is still no legal requirement to retrofit sprinklers.



  • We have been seeing reports of this since the disaster. The reaction has been disgraceful.
  • Huskaris said:
    Maybe she shouldn't mouth off about something she knows nothing about.

    The black community will remember her first outburst, not her rowing back from her disgusting comments.
    Not mouthing off about what you know nothing about would close the internet.
    To be fair she reconsidered and changed her mind when she knew more. Which hopefully is what all strive for.
  • Lets be honest, the failings of the fire brigade put the lives of fireman at greater risk. You have to look at the airline industry. When there is an accident or even nearly an accident, every lesson is learned from it. We have to look at why that approach doesn't happen elsewhere when it comes to people's safety. We have to remember that he residents of Grenfall were warning about the issues and being ignored. They deserve those that are to blame to be outed. It has already taken far to long to get where we are. But we should not merge those to blame for one aspect of the failings within the LFB. The brave men and women firer fighters will always deserve our support for their professionalism and courage. We must also acknowledge the the courage of the firermen on the night and how their lives have been affected.  
  • Sponsored links:


  • iainment said:
    Huskaris said:
    Maybe she shouldn't mouth off about something she knows nothing about.

    The black community will remember her first outburst, not her rowing back from her disgusting comments.
    Not mouthing off about what you know nothing about would close the internet.
    To be fair she reconsidered and changed her mind when she knew more. Which hopefully is what all strive for.
    This was a Channel 4 interview of a prominent anti racist campaigner not a few stupid words typed by a drunk keyboard warrior, mouthing off. 
  • edited October 2019
    I think the issue with the Fire Brigade is their failure to learn from previous fires of this nature. And there were things to be learned. 

    The Lakanal House fire should have alerted them to the issue they faced with Grenfall. You can't blame the brave firemen in any way, but there must be people in the organisation who review fires and take learning from them. The issue is, the advice given cost lives. And we do need to think of the horror of this. People ultimately in their homes waiting to die a horrible death. Ringing their loved ones and saying their goodbyes.  

    But Lakanal lessons should have learned from more than the fire brigade. There was a report warning of this sitting on minister's desks. Throwing all the blame at the Fire Brigade would be missing the point IMO though. The coroner made a formal recommendation to Ministers to act to get sprinklers retrofitted into tower blocks and to overhaul building regulations. But by the time of the Grenfell Tower fire, only 1 per cent of council blocks had sprinklers fitted and a promised review of building regulations hadn’t even started despite the recommendations being made years earlier.



    My late father, as a fire prevention officer, repeatedly spoke to politicians and planners in the sixties, seventies and early eighties about how essential it was to fit sprinklers in high rise buildings as part of the construction process. They cost money though so the politicians and planners deemed the risk of not having them as acceptable.

    That is the bottom line. The LFB are easy scapegoats because people died while they were there. The fact that much of the equipment at their disposal was about as effective in the unforeseen circumstances as my 4 year old grandson's beach bucket would be in mitigating the effects of a tsunami can be conveniently ignored.

    Don't blame the London Fire Brigade for the incompetent cretins who have done nothing but polish chairs for 50 plus years in their ivory towers. 

    They are the ones who should be pursued. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Sir Martin Moore- Dick  Bick wasn't 'encouraged' to reach the conclusion he did.

    Bloody quoting went wrong! Sorry.


  • I was a bit reluctant to post this as I'm aware it will probably result in accusations I'm trying to score points out of the dreadful events of that night. But it's a (sad) fact that it's indicative of the political approach of some, who appear to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing, including public safety in this case. As with the cost cutting in the design and materials used in the cladding. And it's important that people can see this approach for themselves. 

    Would those resources that were no longer available have made a material difference on the night? I don't know and I don't think I've seen it reported either in all honesty. Maybe those with much better and first hand knowledge have a view. But I do know I've never heard anyone in a similar situation complain they had too many resources available. 


  • I was a bit reluctant to post this as I'm aware it will probably result in accusations I'm trying to score points out of the dreadful events of that night. But it's a (sad) fact that it's indicative of the political approach of some, who appear to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing, including public safety in this case. As with the cost cutting in the design and materials used in the cladding. And it's important that people can see this approach for themselves. 

    Would those resources that were no longer available have made a material difference on the night? I don't know and I don't think I've seen it reported either in all honesty. Maybe those with much better and first hand knowledge have a view. But I do know I've never heard anyone in a similar situation complain they had too many resources available. 


    Both Red and Blue politicians have blood on their hands.

    Grenfell Tower was built in 1974. 'Nuff said.
  • After the refit works were completed, KCHT would have had to carry out a Fire Risk Assessment to comply with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. This would have been carried out by a qualified risk assessor and validated by a senior assessor.

    Most likely, because all aspects of the retrofit works to the building had been signed off by a Building Control official, KCHT would have only carried out a Type 1 Risk Assessment to the common parts. This is a visual and non destructive risk assessment and is more concerned with the operation and testing of fire alarm and emergency lighting, the operation of all self closure fire doors, suitable compartmentation and no obstructions throughout a sterile primary means of escape route. It is only concerned with the common parts and flat doors.

    If a Type 2 or Type 4 Risk Assessment had been carried out on the block, which would include investigation of the cladding and fire breaks through destructive means, then the shortcomings of the retrofit would have been obvious.

    With regard to the reduction in numbers of the LFB, this is the same throughout the Country and is as a result of a significant reduction in not only the number of fires but also the number of fire related injuries and deaths. Fewer fires mean fewer firemen is the not unjustified conclusion.



  • LenGlover said:i
    I was a bit reluctant to post this as I'm aware it will probably result in accusations I'm trying to score points out of the dreadful events of that night. But it's a (sad) fact that it's indicative of the political approach of some, who appear to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing, including public safety in this case. As with the cost cutting in the design and materials used in the cladding. And it's important that people can see this approach for themselves. 

    Would those resources that were no longer available have made a material difference on the night? I don't know and I don't think I've seen it reported either in all honesty. Maybe those with much better and first hand knowledge have a view. But I do know I've never heard anyone in a similar situation complain they had too many resources available. 


    Both Red and Blue politicians have blood on their hands.

    Grenfell Tower was built in 1974. 'Nuff said.
    Not really. The major safety issues particularly the cladding were all the result of later refurbishment, so the original design probably played little part. The two major flaws I would highlight are the dangerous nature of the cladding materisl, and the council not only ignoring residents safety worries, but trying to silence them ffs. I'd like to see heavy prison sentances for those responsible on both fronts, but judging by the initial finger wagging at the LFB, I don't see that happening.

    As for the firefighters, I accept any lessons we can learn would be valuable. But the 'stay put' advice seems to have failed due to the dangerous building flaws. Unless someone can come up with evidence that the fire services were warned how badly the building was prepared for a fire, I don't see how they could do other than what they did. I doubt the council were warning emergency services they had begun to authorise unsafe cladding in the area that might be problematic.

    I din't really want to politicise this, though the Telegraph has already begun to, no doubt with half an eye on Boris's cuts of the fire brigade apparatus when he was mayor, and the upcoming GE.  But there is a general rule here, that you cannot cut corners on safety. It will be good to see tjose who have done so pay with hsrd time, but as I said before, this enquiry haa started very badly regarding that.
    Sprinklers, or rather the lack of them in the case of Grenfell Tower, could have been fitted at the time of construction back in 1974. They were not despite the much maligned London Fire Brigade, in the person of my late father at that time, and others, strongly advising and encouraging their implementation in high rise buildings since the sixties. I agree and accept the validity of your points I have highlighted but they are only part of the story.

    I reiterate that politicians, both blue and red, have blood on their hands. This issue, and the problems arising, goes back more than 50 years
  • Certainly agree sprinklers should be obligatory.
  • I think wait for phase 2 of the Grenfell inquiry to see where the blame really lies. The recent report was simply dealing with the fire. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!