ShootingEgg Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 I just wish people would stop trying to make political gain out of this tragedy, Exactly my thoughts, it really is winding me up how some are behaving Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 I just wish people would stop trying to make political gain out of this tragedy, Agree entirely. Problem is though that for the vast majority of politicians (or even political commentators), from the local parish councillor right the way to the top, 'verba non facto' rules. Consequently, spitting out as many of the former is the only route to success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 I just wish people would stop trying to make political gain out of this tragedy, agree as well.............some of the media reporters DEFINATLY have their OWN agenda's / opinions......that is way out of order....so easy is it to put in a throw away remark...and it can crussify someones reputation...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-wheel-drive Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 Re Mrs May not going to see the people living in the flats only fire fighters and police I think that she should have made the effort to at least see some of them but at least she did go and see for herself I am no big fan but I do give here credit for that and it bugs me that people are trying to slag her off after all it was nothing to do with here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaymo Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 If reports are true then Mrs May showed true emotion with 'full waterworks', whereas cat weasel seemed to go for some theatrical support. Turning this into a Political item is in my humble, totally unnecessary Look for the cause and a solution- if someone is genuinely negligent then of course peruse it, but if they used an approved method of cladding then I can see this witch hunt for them. It's very easy to say they scrimped on materials but and the end of the day- it's was approved, they installed and as a business they maximised their profit. Are we now saying that companies must reduce their profits by only using the most expensive products? I shall remember that next time there is a posting asking for 'the cheapest' option on their extension or something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 I suspect that her visit was a calculated risk by not meeting those affected and getting trashed by them. The 'saviour' of the people, Corbyn did see them and is being feted for doing so by the media with an eye on him being in power at some time in the not too distant. Re Mrs May not going to see the people living in the flats only fire fighters and police I think that she should have made the effort to at least see some of them but at least she did go and see for herself I am no big fan but I do give here credit for that and it bugs me that people are trying to slag her off after all it was nothing to do with here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShootingEgg Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 I suspect that her visit was a calculated risk by not meeting those affected and getting trashed by them. The 'saviour' of the people, Corbyn did see them and is being feted for doing so by the media with an eye on him being in power at some time in the not too distant. She went to the scene and saw emergency services, not go to the victims the next day to try and parade infront of the cameras for political gain like that waste of a man corbyn. People have just lost their lives, loved ones and homes, and some only see a way of boosting there ego and status. It is sickening Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 (edited) Having been 'fire safety' trained as a fire marshall on my former employers premises, I am aware that there are many facets to this, but obviously cannot tell if any of these would have altered the tragic events at the Grenfell Tower. It is correct that in many instances the 'stay put' policy is the right one - and avoids many risks where a large building has to be evacuated. In smaller buildings the 'get people out to safety' applies, but this may not be feasible in large buildings where you cannot use a lift in a possible fire situation. I can therefore understand why this advice was given - and in most cases - it would have been the right advice. That there wasn't an effective fire alarm system seems a major oversight; This is compulsory in anything but the smallest industrial/office premises. My employer tested theirs weekly. It is usual to provide local extinguishers/blankets where there are high risk activities (e.g. kitchen areas) so that small fires (e.g. cjip pans) can be tackled at source. I was surprised to learn on training courses that refrigeration equipment is one of the most common fire starters; Apparently the refrigeration gas (which used to be non inflammable CFCs, or ammonia) is now usually highly inflammable pentane or propane. (An example of legislation like the cladding being applied retrospectively) I find the provision of only one set of stairs inexplicable - in the 1980s I worked in a then modern 8 storey building that probably held 500 people, and there were (in addition to the main stairs) two separate (at each end of the building) concrete fire stairwells that were totally concrete enclosed and contained no flammable material. Sprinklers are a difficult choice in some ways. They can cause massive (water) damage in the event of a fault or even a small fire that is easily extinguished - and this also devastates peoples lives (albeit in a different and lesser way). Overall, without wishing to seem insensitive, there are many thousands of flats similar to this that have been in place for 40 years - and overall the accident level has been limited (just think how many fires and near misses there must have been) ....... and the precautions (stay put), procedures and measures have generally worked. This has been a tragic exception - and modern innovation (highly inflammable fridges and highly inflammable external cladding) may have heightened risks (no sprinklers and no multiple fire stairs) that were already present. Edited June 16, 2017 by JohnfromUK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 I agree entirely. IMO the media are spinning that he cares and she doesn't. Large elements of the general public will think the same unfortunately. She went to the scene and saw emergency services, not go to the victims the next day to try and parade infront of the cameras for political gain like that waste of a man corbyn. People have just lost their lives, loved ones and homes, and some only see a way of boosting there ego and status. It is sickening Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 Likewise, I deal with fare safety on a daily basis as the building manager and senior emergency coordinator of a 17 story office block only a couple or so miles from Grenfell Tower. Having been 'fire safety' trained as a fire marshall on my former employers premises, I am aware that there are many facets to this, but obviously cannot tell if any of these would have altered the tragic events at the Grenfell Tower. It is correct that in many instances the 'stay put' policy is the right one - and avoids many risks where a large building has to be evacuated. In smaller buildings the 'get people out to safety' applies, but this may not be feasible in large buildings where you cannot use a lift in a possible fire situation. I can therefore understand why this advice was given - and in most cases - it would have been the right advice. That there wasn't an effective fire alarm system seems a major oversight; This is compulsory in anything but the smallest industrial/office premises. My employer tested theirs weekly. It is usual to provide local extinguishers/blankets where there are high risk activities (e.g. kitchen areas) so that small fires (e.g. cjip pans) can be tackled at source. I was surprised to learn on training courses that refrigeration equipment is one of the most common fire starters; Apparently the refrigeration gas (which used to be non inflammable CFCs, or ammonia) is now usually highly inflammable pentane or propane. (An example of legislation like the cladding being applied retrospectively) I find the provision of only one set of stairs inexplicable - in the 1980s I worked in a then modern 8 storey building that probably held 500 people, and there were (in addition to the main stairs) two separate (at each end of the building) concrete fire stairwells that were totally concrete enclosed and contained no flammable material. Sprinklers are a difficult choice in some ways. They can cause massive (water) damage in the event of a fault or even a small fire that is easily extinguished - and this also devastates peoples lives (albeit in a different and lesser way). Overall, without wishing to seem insensitive, there are many thousands of flats similar to this that have been in place for 40 years - and overall the accident level has been limited (just think how many fires and near misses there must have been) ....... and the precautions (stay put), procedures and measures have generally worked. This has been a tragic exception - and modern innovation (highly inflammable fridges and highly inflammable external cladding) may have heightened risks (no sprinklers and no multiple fire stairs) that were already present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldypigeonpopper Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 hello, after all said and done the council will blame the goverment for capping the funding, the goverment will blame the council for whatever they can find if a report is undertaken, and it is very unlikely that the truth of circumstances will ever be stated, and no person will be brought to justice. and sadly it will happen again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 hello, after all said and done the council will blame the goverment for capping the funding, the goverment will blame the council for whatever they can find if a report is undertaken, and it is very unlikely that the truth of circumstances will ever be stated, and no person will be brought to justice. and sadly it will happen again. I think you are wrong; A private firm run that block on behalf of the council, I would expect to see a charge of Corporate Manslaughter at some stage in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 I think you are wrong; A private firm run that block on behalf of the council, I would expect to see a charge of Corporate Manslaughter at some stage in the future. You might just be jumping the gun here. If (and yes, they're biggies) the cladding was 'approved' and its installation procedures were adhered to and as has been said, if the residents had been offered a sprinkler system (I'm guilty of assuming here - possibly which would have meant an increase in rent of £x per whatever) and they did indeed reject this offer, then that might be difficult to prove. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digger Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 Currently working on the eighth floor of a block of flats. Outside one are plastic hanging baskets, gnomes and ornaments. Outside the next a pile of electrical equipment. The fire door ( which leads to the bin chute ) is wedged open. I wonder which MP gave them permission ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iano Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 I think you are wrong; A private firm run that block on behalf of the council, I would expect to see a charge of Corporate Manslaughter at some stage in the future. You'd need to show extreme negligence on their behalf, or deliberate actions (like siphoning off the cash for anti fire insulation) to get a Corp. manslaughter charge. Obviously we will have to wait for the outcome of the investigation but given how complex the chain of causality usually is in events like this, such an outcome wouldn't be expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scolopax Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 Maybe just maybe, no one was to blame?!? **** happens sometimes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esca Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 There seems to be an unhealthy habit in our society to find someone to blame. Reports say that the nextdoor neighbour saw the fridge on fire because the front door to the flat was open. Do I know if this is true or not.. NO. Was the cladding substandard, or up to spec.. I don't know. Where the Alarms malfunctioning /inaudible I don't know In truth nobody knows anything yet. As a nation we should stop looking for quick fix and find someone to blame, and let the authorities do there job without media and public pressure, so they can come to the right conclusion. What I know, is that I am sickened by the way the media has reported this tragedy, and have appeared to appoint themselves as Judge Jury and Executioner. IMO the PM did the right thing. A leader of a party should have the good cence to meet people who are greiving in private and not in front of the media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 I think you are wrong; A private firm run that block on behalf of the council, I would expect to see a charge of Corporate Manslaughter at some stage in the future. Has anyone been actually done for "corperate manslaughter"...and done time for it ......seems to me it is like Trespass.....it is the law but damned difficult to prove.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walker570 Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 Annoys me that this kind of thing has to happen for them to act.. People have to loose their lives before issues are addressed. Unfortunately that is the mind set of Councils across the country. On our roads it is the same. Someone has to get killed before anything is done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 Apparantly its all over social media calling for 'troops' for a rumble at Kensington Town Hall tonight. Watch the news Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mice! Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 There seems to be an unhealthy habit in our society to find someone to blame. Reports say that the nextdoor neighbour saw the fridge on fire because the front door to the flat was open. Do I know if this is true or not.. NO. Was the cladding substandard, or up to spec.. I don't know. Where the Alarms malfunctioning /inaudible I don't know In truth nobody knows anything yet. As a nation we should stop looking for quick fix and find someone to blame, and let the authorities do there job without media and public pressure, so they can come to the right conclusion. What I know, is that I am sickened by the way the media has reported this tragedy, and have appeared to appoint themselves as Judge Jury and Executioner. IMO the PM did the right thing. A leader of a party should have the good cence to meet people who are greiving in private and not in front of the media. Very well said, if the PM had turned up she would only have been heckled, I thought meeting the fire fighters away from the cameras was the right thing to do. Corbyn turned up for some pics and said they would get to the bottom of it? It will be a witch hunt no doubt, let's hope it was an accident and didn't happen because of corners being cut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 You might just be jumping the gun here. If (and yes, they're biggies) the cladding was 'approved' and its installation procedures were adhered to and as has been said, if the residents had been offered a sprinkler system (I'm guilty of assuming here - possibly which would have meant an increase in rent of £x per whatever) and they did indeed reject this offer, then that might be difficult to prove. I agree with everything you say except the rent. Its highly unlikely that many if any of the tenants would be paying rent. That's the reality of life in inner city high rise blocks of flats. I don't wish to be disrespectful to anybody but those flats are not the sort of places many people would live in through choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mice! Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 Two kids on this morning, this morning , there flat was owned not sure if there parents made it out or not, so a real mix not all social housing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digger Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 Protesters at Westminster are demanding, amongst other things, a definitive death toll. Here's a torch stupid crack on. Let us know how that goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted June 16, 2017 Report Share Posted June 16, 2017 I agree with everything you say except the rent. Its highly unlikely that many if any of the tenants would be paying rent. That's the reality of life in inner city high rise blocks of flats. I don't wish to be disrespectful to anybody but those flats are not the sort of places many people would live in through choice. Yep, point taken. But if the tenants themselves aren't paying it then someone - the council - is on their behalf and surely they would be morally (if nothing else) obliged to cough up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.