SWRTWannabe

With regards to the fire spreading, once the external cladding is alight, presumably the heat is enough to shatter the windows above it, and then of course it's pretty certain flammable objects by the window - namely curtains - will take light and introduce the fire into the next flat.

Horrible tragedy, thoughts are with those affected; the least we can do is learn from it and do what we can to prevent it happening again.

What's also shocking is the fact that the Corbynistas have got themselves into such a frenzy that they will believe anything - such as that this would never have happened if Labour had been in power. Those affected need assistance and answers, not some bloody loonies with their self serving theories.

gazney101

iTrader: (5)

I've fitted those exact cladding boards before and wouldn't say they're cheap, they're heavy, very hard and have a good Finnish.
I went through circular saw blades like I was getting them for free.

The particular system was 4x2 tannalised timbers fixed vertically to the face of 100mm kingspan insulation, Screwed through and into the metsec steel frame behind, a breathable membrane over the top and then cladding over that.

Its a good system but I imagine if 100mm polystyrene was used instead of kingspan then it could cause major problems in the event of a fire.
The fact is though, if the fire started in one flat it should have remained in that flat for at least 30 mins if the fire risk assessment was in order.

Sad Weevil

iTrader: (1)

A ghastly tragedy, beyond comprehension for those involved, and for the community of north Kensington as a whole.

You want to politicise this? OK, try this:

2012 - Grenfell Action Group publishes a fire risk assessment of their tower block. It finds that fire extinguishers throughout the building are more than 12 months out of test date. Some have "condemned" written on them. Their concerns are relayed to Kensington & Chelsea Borough Council.
March 2013 - Communities Secretary Eric Pickles is sent a Rule 43 letter detailing the coroner's findings from the inquest into the fatal 2009 fire at Lakanal House tower block. Rule 43 letters are only sent when the coroner believes there is a risk other deaths will occur unless action is taken. Recommended action includes retrofitting sprinklers and calls for national guidance on the advice to 'stay put' in case of fire. They are dismissed.
July 2013 - Kensington & Chelsea Borough Council threatens legal action over the blog detailing Grenfell Tower residents' safety concerns.
September 2013 - Mayor of London Boris Johnson proposes big cuts to the London Fire Brigade. During a debate in the London Assembly he tells a member of the Grenfell Action Group opposing the proposal to "get stuffed".
March 2016 - Conservative MPs vote down proposed new rules requiring landlords ensure their properties are fit for human habitation
Nov 2016 - Grenfell residents: “It is a truly terrifying thought but the Grenfell Action Group firmly believe that only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord, the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation.” They had wanted to take KCTMO to court, but couldn't afford the cost because of cuts to legal aid.
March 2017 - Labour councillor Judith Blakeman, who sits on the KCTMO board, raises residents’ fears about the installation by the National Grid of gas pipes in the main stairwells, as well as many other safety concerns. “I was treated like I was a nuisance,” she says. “I raised 19 complaints on behalf of individual residents. Every single time we were told that the board had satisfied itself that the fire safety was fine.”
June 2017 ...

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

To quote our "beloved" Harriet Harman: "Councils want to fit sprinklers in their tower blocks, but it comes down to money......The government has been cutting the money to councils. If you cut money to councils, you can't put in sprinklers".

So cutbacks since 2010 has been responsible for the lack of sprinklers, despite the previous Labour government she was directly part of having 13years to do something about it? On a building that's been standing since 1974, and many many others older and newer?

She really needs a slap for uttering something so hypocritical and idiotic. What was that fancy department setup in 1997 that was supposed to address social housing? DETR? IIRC that department was overseen by John Prescott, so maybe she should give him a call and have a chat to him about why they didn't do anything!

Afterall, DETR themselves did publish a report relating to fires in HMOs:
Anyone have a e-version available at hand?

Fact of the matter is dilapidated council housing has been a ongoing issues for decades along with their maintenance. This extends far further than the confines of the KCTMO. Especially with the advent of timber frame social housing blocks as big as hotels.

Sad Weevil

iTrader: (1)

Strange how all the failures of a government that's been in power for the last 7 years are all the fault of the previous government. If dilapidated council housing has been an ongoing issues for decades, why hasn't the current government done anything about it? If one was to ask the residents of north Kensington (those that actually live there, not the absentee landlords and oligarchs), one might get some interesting responses.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Missed my point...the building like many council houses has been there since the 70's; Most needed extensive work by the end of the '80's. Some have, some haven't, all done in sporadic dribs and drabs across the country over the past few decades, some renovated to good(ish) quality, and some (or most IMO) just having the very bare basics. Some of which introducing safety issues into the building through either bad workmanship or poor/incorrect materials; Be it last week or twenty years ago. My point is most council high rises have been maintained "on the cheap" persistently regardless of who was in charge.

But suddenly its now a "new" thing the latest government and council is being blamed for? No, it doesn't wash. Every government and council that has been in charge since that building's inception is responsible. Just like many other council buildings that are subject to the sustained mismanagement, where even if renovation funds were plentiful they'd be wasted or diverted elsewhere. Council houses, especially tower blocks didn't suddenly get a tarnished reputation, they had it long ago. As I said before there is deeper reasoning to the failures here than just the recent renovations and whoever is recently in charge, and its mirrored across the entire country.

To further my point: The relaxing of regs in the late 1990's that allowed for masses of timber frames social housing to be built is the next ticking time bomb. This has been pushed through purely as a cost and time saving exercise.

Fire and Safety affiliated groups have been persistently warning about issues with timber framed buildings being used as social housing and have been warning us since the early 2000's when they started being built and issues started to be noticed that they are not up to scratch. Only to fall on deaf ears; As its inconvenient to hear. Through the increased need for more housing not less. A previous government's relaxing of regulation to allow cheap buildings to be built will become the burden of whoever is in charge when the things burn down and will be the fault of everyone in charge during which they remain occupied.

tony de wonderful

The news said this cladding is banned in the US. It doesn't take an expert to see it acted as a fire path and accelerant in this tragic fire. Might as well have wrapped the building in an oil soaked tarpaulin.

Also another own goal for May. Nothing said until the evening, then half arsed visit to site today not even meeting anyone but emergency services. Poor leadership. Meanwhile Corbyn and Kahn visiting people, taking flak (Khan) and hugging survivors. Corbyn promising to fight their corner and later advocating for them in the hastily convened committee meeting in Parliament.

An0n0m0us

I find it sick the politicians using this to point score. Corbyn's a fvcking joke, what's he got a magic wand with everything he has promised to fix if he got in power. Going to call him nanny plumb or the fairy godmother

tony de wonderful

That's how it looks plain as day on the videos though. The cladding is burning very intensely and the flame front moves up and around the building causing flashover internally as that front moves. In not one video did you see fire internally with intact cladding. The cladding is either on fire or burn off already.

gazney101

iTrader: (5)

Typical main stream media lies mate, i was looking at a us website that makes it this afternoon.

No doubt that the cladding took hold, but it should have had at least one hour between the fire starting and the flames getting outside.
and should not have been so easy for it to get back in again at the floor above.

If that building had a proper fire risk assessment done and appropriate remedial works done it would not have been more than one flat, providing emergency services got there within the hour.

tony de wonderful

What's a lie exactly though?

You are putting a flammable material on the outside of the building then supposedly adding more engineering (such as external fire breaks, which may or not have been in place in this case) to prevent spread in case of facade fire. It seems much more sensible not to use flammable material in the first place. Removing a hazard is better than adding an engineering solution(s) to reduce its risk.

dpb

As I understand it was added , to fit in with the neighborhood appearance wise.

I'm sure the residents would been happier with just a little bit more ( fireproof ) insulation !

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Some sources are claiming the lack of proper fire doors.

If this is the case: the only point of escape (the stairs and lifts) becomes useless. As smoke will engulf the stairwell and lift shaft as it acts like a chimney.

tony de wonderful

If the facade is the fire path then fire doors won't save the property.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

The doors protect the only means of escape.

Ineffective doors = no escape.

Funkii Munkii

+1

Although I am disappointed with May's half arsed efforts yesterday, seems she is out of touch.

The fact is sadly many many people have perished and all we are hearing is judgmental politicians trying to lay blame.

Anyway enough of the political BS.


What we need now is to rehouse the survivors and distribute all the clothes toys food nappies,medicines etc that the public have overwhelmingly supplied.

It started at a local community centre and has now exceeded all expectations. The govt need to provide warehousing a robust inventory of all survivors and their requirements and get some qualified people in to break this all down and distribute as effectively as possible, the local pastor is not going to be able to do this alone even with the great gestures of help we have seen from companies and members of the public this now needs to be managed by experts in the field.

SWRTWannabe

Nope, quite the opposite. It's a tragedy and the focus should be support for those affected, followed by understanding what happened and appropriate action to ensure it doesn't happen again. Why the fire spread so quickly is currently conjecture.

David Lock

How long will it be before this tragedy is "old news" and media move onto something else? A week or two? We'll get snippets of news as enquiries come up with some answers and perhaps the contractor is taken to court for flouting regulations in 3 or 4 years time. Don't be surprised if their offices catch fire one night Maybe some council officials will be given early retirement, on full pensions of course.

Meanwhile 100 or more families will still be living in run down hotels or shipped up north where state housing, if there is any, will be cheaper. Poor buggers.

----------

Good on the Queen for her visit today

David

An0n0m0us

Too right Funkii

Although again sadly Corbyn is even shouting his mouth off about that saying use local privately owned properties that aren't lived in. They are still private property owned by people the stupid fcukwit's mentality shines through again. He seems the law doesn't apply to his solutions, you can't just take someone's property just because you don't agree with them leaving it empty

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

The sensible demand would be to comandeer local hotels as housing; including the restaurants. Especially if any members of the press are stopping in them.

tony de wonderful

So someone buys up all the nation's houses and leaves them empty. Everyone sleeps in cardboard boxes and this is ok because of 'holy' property rights?

An0n0m0us

But someone hasn't done that

How about then all the MP's with their multiple properties house residents as they can't be in more than one place at a time.

tony de wonderful

But you are saying it would be ok?

One person leaving a property empty is their right, but thousands, even millions is a social problem.

dpb

err Every jampot dictator from Irkutsk to Timbukto has done exactly that

Why do you think London property prices have no correlation with anything

tony de wonderful

Slam failures of Socialism all you want but they did a better job of housing people for sure, even given their limited cash and the bad fashions (brutalist blocks) of the 20th century.

Kwik

iTrader: (10)

It would certainly be a good idea to make sure all future purchases of property in London were made by British nationals or residents of Britain for x amount of years.

This tragedy brings home the disgusting nature of the media (the daily mail had 'special edition' on its front page, what? To commemorate hundreds burning to death?) and the politicians using it as a weapon against its rivals.

They should all be ashamed. It looks as though the building and renovation work has been sold to the lowest bidder and even if that party wasn't in power at the time neither party had any building regs in their manifesto as far as I remember.

An0n0m0us

If that obsurd situation occured just to play along with your argument then there would be nothing that could be done without a change to the law so the legal process would have to be followed to challenge such a situation.

I don't care what your opinion is you can't just take someone's property because it is empty Corbyn is an idiot He is saying what people want to hear to win popularity during a disaster when he has no way of actually carrying through his words. Typical Corbyn typical Labour.

neil-h

**** me, something we can actually agree on

Although I would say that rather than insisting all future purchases in London are by UK residents (or those after X amount of years), minimum occupancy periods should be enforced. So the property has to be occupied by somebody (doesn't matter who) for a certain percentage of the year.

Kwik

iTrader: (10)

Then you've got to employ someone to visit these addresses and then if they leave a wardrobe of clothes there how'd you prove they don't live there? People will always find a way round it.
I'd introduce a price cap to reduce rent rates over the next 10 years as well. Cap it now at current value, work out the average rate of rent elsewhere and add 20% then over 10 years reduce it to that.

David Lock

Assuming no one will build any more tower blocks and buying property or paying rent in Kensington area is not feasible. I wonder if council could identify some spare land and get some of these for social housing? Quick to build and cost effective. Safe if planned properly. MOD and Railways often have brownfield sites doing nothing but I guess getting land might be a problem and a few rules may need to be broken. Just a thought but it would give hope to families that have none at present. David

http://www.brightbuild.co.uk/low-cost.html