Grenfell Tower Enquiry
Comments
-
London Fire Brigade Mr Ronald Miller, London Fire Brigade’s senior fire prevention officer, said any fire involving plastics is difficult to control. He said that even fire resistant grades of acrylic can burn rapidly and give off toxic fumes such as hydrogen cyanide that are lethal even in small quantities. “Once you use it in large quantities, where it is involved in fire it will support combustion,” he said. Like the Fire Protection Association, Mr Miller strongly suspected that inadequate means of escape contributed towards the Summerland disaster. “This is why the escape aspect and the fire regulations in such a building as the Summerland [complex] must be very good,” he said. Mr Miller said the London Fire Brigade was “very concerned” about the increasing use of plastics for both the external walls and interior fittings of buildings. He said: “It [plastics] always causes problems. Unlike concrete or wood, most plastics give off toxic fumes. There is always very dense smoke and plastic melts, and, still alight, drips all over the place spreading more rapidly than ever. From a firefighting view it is a menace…If I had been shown a description of the centre before it was built I would have warned the planners they were creating a potential fire hazard.” The London Building Act (which applies in Inner London) restricts the use of Oroglas to small amounts in single-storied buildings only, with the material being used for unbreakable school windows in conditions of “utmost safety”. “Under the London Building Acts no public buildings with 283 inflammable plastic walls would be allowed,” said Mr Miller. In 1973, there were plans to build a large Thames river cruiser with an acrylic roof. However, plans for a plastic ‘Father Thames’ had to be scrapped on safety grounds.
The above is page 22/101 from the 1973 Summerland Fire Enquiry I linked further up the thread https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-les/gees/staff/fire-disaster-c5.pdf
I have decided to copy and paste the whole thing because there seem to me to be many parallels to Grenfell, cladding with plastic in it being crucial,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43558186 which the London Fire Brigade, in the person of Mr Ronald Miller, identified all those years ago at the Summerland Enquiry yet those lessons were not learned or if they were learned they were subsequently forgotten.
For the benefit of Mr Rees-Mogg could it be that part or all of the reason for continuing with the 'stay put' policy on the night may have been the first part I have bolded?
Again for the benefit of Mr Rees-Mogg what changed in London since the second bolded bit? Dilution of Building Acts and Regulations is the domain of politicians, blue and red, and planners not the London Fire Brigade and victims.
At best Rees-Mogg is insensitive and crass at worst cynically trying to deflect blame from those who should be held accountable.7 -
Bournemouth Addick said:
Why does he feel the need to make any comparison to what he would do and go further to make an assumption about what the interviewer would do differently to those that died because they did what they were asked to do. He may not have overtly said it but the only logical conclusion is that he (and the interviewer) would act differently because they're capable of exercising higher levels of 'common sense' than those that stayed.Addickted said:
No he's not.jamesking93 said:
Here's a video of him saying this.Big_Bad_World said:Can anyone put up an actual quote from Moggy, from the interview, where he says that the 'victims lacked common sense'? Any source will do....the Guardian or the Metro reports should be suffice to grab this disgusting language from.
If not then it's a typical rag trying to get views.
He's saying that if he was in the building to him it would seem the common sense thing to leave a burning high rise building - regardless of what the LFB advice was. Can't say I disagree with that.
People are spinning this to make it sound like he suggested the people that died lacked common sense. He didn't.
Probably because as humans we tend to put ourselves into retrospective scenarios and comment on how we'd react as opposed to saying how others should have acted. It's nothing new unless, it seems, you're an unpopular politician. It's then fair game to apply different rule sets and remove any normality from the conversation.As for it being the 'only logical' conclusion, I agree. Only if you are hell bent on trying to make something stick. There can, and could, be multiple logical conclusions to what was said. Moggy came out and apologised for the misconstruing of what he'd said. However, others seem to know more about his intentions, which is worrying.
3 -
Why is Snowinberlin still allowed to mindlessly WUM in any thread related to politics, not even a Charlton fan ffs.2
-
If JRM was a labour politician some here would be falling over themselves with slaps on the back saying what a great thing to say...To me its simple if a fire alarm goes off its an immediate threat to life and you get out....3
-
The Building Regulations have substantially changed, altered and improved since the Summerland fire - one of several fires I studied in great detail a few years back.LenGlover said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43558186 which the London Fire Brigade, in the person of Mr Ronald Miller, identified all those years ago at the Summerland Enquiry yet those lessons were not learned or if they were learned they were subsequently forgotten.
Again for the benefit of Mr Rees-Mogg what changed in London since the second bolded bit? Dilution of Building Acts and Regulations is the domain of politicians, blue and red, and planners not the London Fire Brigade and victims.
At best Rees-Mogg is insensitive and crass at worst cynically trying to deflect blame from those who should be held accountable.
The building regulations were introduced as part of the 1984 Building Act and have been periodically updated, rewritten or consolidated, with the current version being the Building Regulations 2010.
The most relevant part in relation to the Grenfell fire are Part B (One of the 16 parts of the current regs) which considers fire safety;B1 - Means of early warning of fire and adequate means of escape from the building (including emergency lighting and fire exit signage).
B2 - Control of Internally fire spread (linings) - The wall lining i.e. plaster, plasterboard or wooden boards on the walls and ceiling will resist the spread of flames and give off only reasonable levels of heat, if on fire.
B3 - Control of Internal fire spread (structure) will be maintained during a fire, and fire spread will be prevented - Fire and smoke will be prevented from spreading to concealed spaces in a building's structure by Fire Stopping and Fire Cavity Barriers.
B4 External fire spread – The external walls and roof will resist spread of fire to walls and roofs of other buildings - However, Not all buildings are required to have non-combustible exterior finishes.
B5 The building will be accessible for firefighters and their equipment, without delay. Tall and Large buildings to have Fire Lifts and Fire Mains (Dry or Wet riser pipes).
These requirements must also be carried out in relation to the requirements of British Standards (BS9999 : 2017 for non-residential buildings and BS9991 : 2015 for dwellings and other residential buildings) - some of which contradict the Building Regulation requirements.
The building regulations desperately need revising and updating and a full review and tie up with the British Standards and their requirements are essential - but we appear to be no further forward on this in the almost thirty months since the fire and despite the recommendations of the Lakanal Enquiry and the Hackett review. A deplorable position from our politicians who are too busy trying to sort out what is nothing more than a glorified trading agreement with our European neighbours.
Meanwhile more lives are put at risk and the commercialisation of Building Control away from the highly qualified and experienced local authority Building Control Officers to the money making operations that currently sign off buildings construction, adaptation and alterations continue to do so, quite obviously and repeatedly inadequately.
Thank fuck I decided to leave the fire safety industry after 15 years of experience, endless training and qualifications and working closely with the LFB in trying to improve the fire safety of the lives of the most vulnerable in society, whilst the shysters at the top carry on in their ivory (sprinkler protected) towers, making their millions and ignoring the best advice given to them, until the next disaster comes along.
4 -
Good knowledge sirAddickted said:
The Building Regulations have substantially changed, altered and improved since the Summerland fire - one of several fires I studied in great detail a few years back.LenGlover said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43558186 which the London Fire Brigade, in the person of Mr Ronald Miller, identified all those years ago at the Summerland Enquiry yet those lessons were not learned or if they were learned they were subsequently forgotten.
Again for the benefit of Mr Rees-Mogg what changed in London since the second bolded bit? Dilution of Building Acts and Regulations is the domain of politicians, blue and red, and planners not the London Fire Brigade and victims.
At best Rees-Mogg is insensitive and crass at worst cynically trying to deflect blame from those who should be held accountable.
The building regulations were introduced as part of the 1984 Building Act and have been periodically updated, rewritten or consolidated, with the current version being the Building Regulations 2010.
The most relevant part in relation to the Grenfell fire are Part B (One of the 16 parts of the current regs) which considers fire safety;B1 - Means of early warning of fire and adequate means of escape from the building (including emergency lighting and fire exit signage).
B2 - Control of Internally fire spread (linings) - The wall lining i.e. plaster, plasterboard or wooden boards on the walls and ceiling will resist the spread of flames and give off only reasonable levels of heat, if on fire.
B3 - Control of Internal fire spread (structure) will be maintained during a fire, and fire spread will be prevented - Fire and smoke will be prevented from spreading to concealed spaces in a building's structure by Fire Stopping and Fire Cavity Barriers.
B4 External fire spread – The external walls and roof will resist spread of fire to walls and roofs of other buildings - However, Not all buildings are required to have non-combustible exterior finishes.
B5 The building will be accessible for firefighters and their equipment, without delay. Tall and Large buildings to have Fire Lifts and Fire Mains (Dry or Wet riser pipes).
These requirements must also be carried out in relation to the requirements of British Standards (BS9999 : 2017 for non-residential buildings and BS9991 : 2015 for dwellings and other residential buildings) - some of which contradict the Building Regulation requirements.
The building regulations desperately need revising and updating and a full review and tie up with the British Standards and their requirements are essential - but we appear to be no further forward on this in the almost thirty months since the fire and despite the recommendations of the Lakanal Enquiry and the Hackett review. A deplorable position from our politicians who are too busy trying to sort out what is nothing more than a glorified trading agreement with our European neighbours.
Meanwhile more lives are put at risk and the commercialisation of Building Control away from the highly qualified and experienced local authority Building Control Officers to the money making operations that currently sign off buildings construction, adaptation and alterations continue to do so, quite obviously and repeatedly inadequately.
Thank fuck I decided to leave the fire safety industry after 15 years of experience, endless training and qualifications and working closely with the LFB in trying to improve the fire safety of the lives of the most vulnerable in society, whilst the shysters at the top carry on in their ivory (sprinkler protected) towers, making their millions and ignoring the best advice given to them, until the next disaster comes along.
0 -
This is delusional whataboutery for a non-existent scenario. Fantastic attack of Labour when that hasn't even been remotely part of the conversation here.Chippycafc said:If JRM was a labour politician some here would be falling over themselves with slaps on the back saying what a great thing to say...To me its simple if a fire alarm goes off its an immediate threat to life and you get out....
Someone has a bit of a chippycafc on their shoulder, it seems.7 -
What he said yesterday, "...And I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building. It just seems the common sense thing to do..."
And what he said today, "... "What I meant to say is that I would have also listened to the fire brigade's advice to stay and wait at the time..."
These are contradictory. That's it. And it's zero to do with his party and everything to do with his basic failure as a human being in not spotting that his arrogance was shining through bright and clear for anyone that chose to see it.2 -
I've added a few bits for context as just saying that it has everything to do with his failing as a human being doesn't actually mean that's that case. It'd be one of many subjective opinions formed.Bournemouth Addick said:What he said yesterday, "...And I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building. It just seems the common sense thing to do..."
And what he said today, "... "What I meant to say is that I would have also listened to the fire brigade's advice to stay and wait at the time..."
These are contradictory. That's it. And it's zero to do with his party and everything to do with me believing he basically fails as a human being in not spotting that his arrogance was shinning through bright and clear for anyone that chose to conclude the same way as I did.0 -
0 - Sponsored links:
-
JRM may not have outright stated that the victims lacked common sense but it was absolutely implied from what he did say.10
-
If there is a difference of opinion on here, over what he implied, then I'd argue that it's far from being absolutely implied.Rizzo said:JRM may not have outright stated that the victims lacked common sense but it was absolutely implied from what he did say.
It'd be nice to just be able to determine what's definitive or not based purely on an individual's perception of someone. It's a dangerous game to play, though.
2 -
about time to move this to the politics area1
-
Big_Bad_World said:
If there is a difference of opinion on here, over what he implied, then I'd argue that it's far from being absolutely implied.Rizzo said:JRM may not have outright stated that the victims lacked common sense but it was absolutely implied from what he did say.
It'd be nice to just be able to determine what's definitive or not based purely on an individual's perception of someone. It's a dangerous game to play, though.“I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building.
“It just seems the common sense thing to do...
If that isn't implying that not leaving the burning building is not common sense then what is it saying?
0 -
I wonder how much experience JRM has of descending multiple flights of stairs in a tower-block, in the dark, in the company of a scores of other panicking residents, with toxic smoke entering through faulty fire doors?
Come to that, I wonder how many times he has actually been inside a similar "affordable housing" tower-block? Not many in his constituency, I would guess!
Perhaps he - and other politicians of whatever party - would do well to keep out of the media their views on things of which they know little and have no experience? At best they can end up looking fools, and may so easily also end up causing genuine distress to those who have already suffered so much.15 -
Anyone who cannot see what he absolutely implied doesn't understand the English language.
He is a complete cnut of a human being.15 -
JRM would be better off keeping his mouth shut, before someone decides to set his home alight, in order to see what he does.Rizzo said:1 -
PaddyP17 said:
This is delusional whataboutery for a non-existent scenario. Fantastic attack of Labour when that hasn't even been remotely part of the conversation here.Chippycafc said:If JRM was a labour politician some here would be falling over themselves with slaps on the back saying what a great thing to say...To me its simple if a fire alarm goes off its an immediate threat to life and you get out....
Someone has a bit of a chippycafc on their shoulder, it seems.
True though.. No chip here you following me about and the little digs elsewhere prove that...0 -
That's because your posts are genuinely so off base that I feel the need to comment.Chippycafc said:PaddyP17 said:
This is delusional whataboutery for a non-existent scenario. Fantastic attack of Labour when that hasn't even been remotely part of the conversation here.Chippycafc said:If JRM was a labour politician some here would be falling over themselves with slaps on the back saying what a great thing to say...To me its simple if a fire alarm goes off its an immediate threat to life and you get out....
Someone has a bit of a chippycafc on their shoulder, it seems.
True though.. No chip here you following me about and the little digs elsewhere prove that...
You have twice defended an article that has been literally proven, with facts and everything, to be untrue. And you brought Labour into things here completely unprovoked, when it's something no one is talking about, in order - I assume - to soapbox your political views and antagonise other posters.
It's not stalking. It's calling you out where appropriate - unfortunately, that just happens to be on everything you post.5 - Sponsored links:
-
Who says they are untrue....0
-
Andrew Bridgen has just waded into this with all the class you would expect.2
-
My wife thinks he looks like a skinny Hitler, which always puts a smile on my face. Labour must thank their lucky stars that he's a Conservative front bencher.2
-
On the face of it I couldn't agree more Blackpool, but I'll have to hold fire for now until our Spanner visitor has reinterpreted and reworded your views for you. Just for context of course.blackpool72 said:Anyone who cannot see what he absolutely implied doesn't understand the English language.
He is a complete cnut of a human being.2 -
Pmmmmf! And ever so slightly camp.SantaClaus said:My wife thinks he looks like a skinny Hitler, which always puts a smile on my face. Labour must count their lucky stars that he's a Conservative front bencher.
0 -
Ripped and hung like a horsecarly burn said:
Pmmmmf! And ever so slightly camp.SantaClaus said:My wife thinks he looks like a skinny Hitler, which always puts a smile on my face. Labour must count their lucky stars that he's a Conservative front bencher.
1 -
Another one that can poke their apology. I don’t know how people can support any of these cnuts from all parties. Out of touch, opportunist wankers, every single one of them.6
-
Blackpool, I'm afraid I must disagree with you here. He lacks both the warmth and the depth for that to be true. I think arsehole is probably more accurate, given what he's full of.blackpool72 said:Anyone who cannot see what he absolutely implied doesn't understand the English language.
He is a complete cnut of a human being.
1 -
There's a reason i have never voted Tory.
Him and people like him are why.4 -
More like Mein Kampfcarly burn said:
Pmmmmf! And ever so slightly camp.SantaClaus said:My wife thinks he looks like a skinny Hitler, which always puts a smile on my face. Labour must count their lucky stars that he's a Conservative front bencher.
3
