Fire

[wascal]

As was said in a letter to the Telegraph, firms can pump concrete 250ft into a buildings window but the fire service only have a capability up to 150ft.

 

These pumps can't just rush through busy streets and take days/weeks to set up

[Vince Green]

1. A warm evening with windows open and curtains inviting the blaze in.

2. An overcrowded building.

3. Possibly flammable cladding.

4. A good strong breeze.

5. The possibly vandalised dry riser system.

6. The retro fitted gas system in public areas.

 

The above elements came together on one evening to cause a terrible disaster.

 

All the calls for man carrying drones, helicopters with massive water tanks or evacuation ladders or escape chutes are from cloud cuckoo land.

 

The one thing that would have helped is a SPRINKLER SYSTEM.

 

This was an old building, there was no SPRINKLER SYSTEM and the cost of fitting one would have stopped it ever being fitted apart from at the time the tower was built.

Sprinkler systems get vandalised too and when they do they can cause hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of flood damage very quickly. They pump out a lot of water.

Possibly that's the real reason for not fitting them. Strangely, older residents say there used to be a sprinkler and it was taken out, that's only hearsay at the moment but it should all emerge in time if its correct.

 

The other thing that goes back to the days when I was a union rep and used to do safety audits in warehouses etc. I remember being told that sprinklers only saved the building not lives. That's because the temperature needed to trigger them was higher than humans can normally survive. By the time the sprinklers go off anybody who hasn't evacuated has probably died

 

Smoke detectors save lives but again the devil is in the detail. Despite it being illegal to do so, people will be smoking in the communal areas and there will be endless false alarms. Maybe that's already happened? maybe that's why the alarms were (reportedly) not working?

Edited June 21, 2017 by Vince Green

[Penelope]

And no doubt tenants would have complained about the intrusive works, the noise and the fact they would have had unsightly pipe work running across the ceiling of every room.

 

1. A warm evening with windows open and curtains inviting the blaze in.

2. An overcrowded building.

3. Possibly flammable cladding.

4. A good strong breeze.

5. The possibly vandalised dry riser system.

6. The retro fitted gas system in public areas.

 

The above elements came together on one evening to cause a terrible disaster.

 

All the calls for man carrying drones, helicopters with massive water tanks or evacuation ladders or escape chutes are from cloud cuckoo land.

 

The one thing that would have helped is a SPRINKLER SYSTEM.

 

This was an old building, there was no SPRINKLER SYSTEM and the cost of fitting one would have stopped it ever being fitted apart from at the time the tower was built.

[Vince Green]

 

double post

Edited June 21, 2017 by Vince Green

[Yellow Bear]

And no doubt tenants would have complained about the intrusive works, the noise and the fact they would have had unsightly pipe work running across the ceiling of every room.

 

and then smashed the bulb every time they fancied a change of decor or furniture.

[Penelope]

Possibly. Had a contractor break one whilst taking a metal ceiling tile out to get to some CHW pipe work. The tile slipped smashing the sprinkler rose housing and bulb and creating a flood of biblical proportions and activating the building's fire alarm.

 

and then smashed the bulb every time they fancied a change of decor or furniture.

[JimLondon]

1. A warm evening with windows open and curtains inviting the blaze in.

2. An overcrowded building.

3. Possibly flammable cladding.

4. A good strong breeze.

5. The possibly vandalised dry riser system.

6. The retro fitted gas system in public areas.

 

The above elements came together on one evening to cause a terrible disaster.

 

All the calls for man carrying drones, helicopters with massive water tanks or evacuation ladders or escape chutes are from cloud cuckoo land.

 

The one thing that would have helped is a SPRINKLER SYSTEM.

 

This was an old building, there was no SPRINKLER SYSTEM and the cost of fitting one would have stopped it ever being fitted apart from at the time the tower was built.

⬆️ This..

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Sprinkler systems get vandalised too and when they do they can cause hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of flood damage very quickly. They pump out a lot of water.

Possibly that's the real reason for not fitting them. Strangely, older residents say there used to be a sprinkler and it was taken out, that's only hearsay at the moment but it should all emerge in time if its correct.

 

The other thing that goes back to the days when I was a union rep and used to do safety audits in warehouses etc. I remember being told that sprinklers only saved the building not lives. That's because the temperature needed to trigger them was higher than humans can normally survive. By the time the sprinklers go off anybody who hasn't evacuated has probably died

 

Smoke detectors save lives but again the devil is in the detail. Despite it being illegal to do so, people will be smoking in the communal areas and there will be endless false alarms. Maybe that's already happened? maybe that's why the alarms were (reportedly) not working?

 

Vince you are correct, the ducting used has to have shut offs which are set off at passing 72 degrees C, I would hazard a guess that the sprinkler system would have to be triggered at a similar temperature.

[Mice!]

Something on the news this afternoon other buildings have been tested and some are also flammable, TM said information has been passed on to the fire service

[Scully]

Far more people have been on the protests (I read 1500+) than ever were in the Grenfell building (circa 600 apparently); As ever the 'usual suspects' were there, Militant Tendency, Socialist worker, Momentum. The banners were there for all to see.

 

I rather think that the unfortunate people involved directly probably had better things to do. There is a small, but very unpleasant group in this country that has been there for years that want to 'bring down' the government/establishment, and are prepared to trample over the less fortunate in order to achieve their ends. We should (as a broad based society) always be wary of this, but such people exploit tolerance and good will, which they perceive as weakness.

 

Unrelated to this, we have no lesser person than the shadow chancellor inciting Unions to a 'summer of action' to bring down the government.' Loose an election, so incite a minority to bring down a government; the fall of democracy?

 

Just a personal opinion.

Good post.

I watched the C4 news last night in which they held a brief seminar about the fire including tenants, social workers and politicians. amongst the latter was Diane Abbott, who was full of her usual misinformed vitriol. It was quite amusing to see her sit there shaking her head in dismissal when it was pointed out to her by the presenter that it was a Labour administration which oversaw certain aspects of Grenfel safety and refurbishment work.

The only one who called for it not to become a political football was a local Muslim.

[JohnfromUK]

Good post.

I watched the C4 news last night in which they held a brief seminar about the fire including tenants, social workers and politicians. amongst the latter was Diane Abbott, who was full of her usual misinformed vitriol. It was quite amusing to see her sit there shaking her head in dismissal when it was pointed out to her by the presenter that it was a Labour administration which oversaw certain aspects of Grenfel safety and refurbishment work.

The only one who called for it not to become a political football was a local Muslim.

I find it really very unpleasant how a tragedy such as this where people have died, or lost everything and suffered a horrific experience is treated as a cynical points scoring exercise by politicians and 'would be' politicians (meaning the various non Grenfell Tower related demonstration participant organisations).

A terrible event has taken place - as very frequently happens, hindsight suggests that it could have been avoided/very much reduced - and by a number of measures - some quite cheap. However, accidents like this are (thank goodness) rare - and in the vast majority of tower block fires the current existing procedures have worked and loss of life or severe damage is almost always avoided. This was a dreadful exception.

An enquiry has been initiated - and should it find failings either in the law itself, or in compliance with the law, then appropriate action should be taken, but changing government/local authority or anything else as a quick reaction won't undo the tragedy.

Edited June 22, 2017 by JohnfromUK

[Gordon R]

JohnfromUK - good post.

[KB1]

https://videopress.com/v/WeZCaFOM

 

The second interviewee has something to say that the BBC wouldn't air…..

[Gordon R]

The first interviewee was bizarre. Didn't understand what he was saying - no accident? ? Where do they get them from?

[AVB]

The first interviewee was bizarre. Didn't understand what he was saying - no accident? ? Where do they get them from?

"In my entire life...". Says the same man (aged around 20!)

[Vince Green]

Now it turns out the families will be permanently re- housed in luxury flats worth £1.5 million each. Even though they are admitting that some of the people weren't supposed to be living in the flats in the first place.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Vince Green

[JohnfromUK]

I find it very 'odd' that the new replacement flats were bought for £10 million (68 flats equals approx £150,000 each) - but are claimed to be worth £160 million (approx £2.3 million each).

 

Now I have no doubt that property developers can have a generous streak, but to give away £150 million is a notably generous gesture, or something isn't being reported right here? Have I misread or misunderstood? Is there some underlying deal being done?

Edited June 22, 2017 by JohnfromUK

[TIGHTCHOKE]

I find it very 'odd' that the new replacement flats were bought for £10 million (68 flats equals approx £150,000 each) - but are claimed to be worth £160 million (approx £2.3 million each).

 

Now I have no doubt that property developers can have a generous streak, but to give away £150 million is a notably generous gesture, or something isn't being reported right here? Have I misread or misunderstood? Is there some underlying deal being done?

 

Dianne Abbot did the deal!

[JohnfromUK]

Dianne Abbot did the deal!

That would certainly explain it.

[Vince Green]

There is no such thing as a £150,000 flat in London, If these flats were £1.5 million each as reported it looks as though the reporter missed a '0' off ie £100 million not £10 million.

I still think its bad that they are re-housing people who had no legal right being there in the first place, that's against natural justice in my opinion and its sending out the wrong signal

[JohnfromUK]

There is no such thing as a £150,000 flat in London, If these flats were £1.5 million each as reported it looks as though the reporter missed a '0' off ie £100 million not £10 million.

 

The Evening Standard, The Mail and the Telegraph all report the £10M figure - I agree it seems wrong, but I've only found that figure - and I've looked at most papers

Edited June 22, 2017 by JohnfromUK

[panoma1]

I find it very 'odd' that the new replacement flats were bought for £10 million (68 flats equals approx £150,000 each) - but are claimed to be worth £160 million (approx £2.3 million each).Now I have no doubt that property developers can have a generous streak, but to give away £150 million is a notably generous gesture, or something isn't being reported right here? Have I misread or misunderstood? Is there some underlying deal being done?

Quid pro quo?...........Knighthoods, seat in the lords?

[Mice!]

On radio tonight all, think they said 69 high rise in Lancashire have been checked for safety and think they said 14 maybe have flammable cladding on them!!

 

Sounds like easy terror targets to me, I hope they start ripping the stuff down and quickly.

[ShootingEgg]

On radio tonight all, think they said 69 high rise in Lancashire have been checked for safety and think they said 14 maybe have flammable cladding on them!!

 

Sounds like easy terror targets to me, I hope they start ripping the stuff down and quickly.

It shouldn't be getting broadcas. It should be a case of yes we are checking and rectifying where needed...

 

As you say, eazy arson target.

[motty]

There is no such thing as a £150,000 flat in London, If these flats were £1.5 million each as reported it looks as though the reporter missed a '0' off ie £100 million not £10 million.

I still think its bad that they are re-housing people who had no legal right being there in the first place, that's against natural justice in my opinion and its sending out the wrong signal

Indeed. Let's hope some folk don't get any 'ideas'.