Topic: Grenfell Tower Fire

[Daniel Cabbaggio]

So so sad, absolutely horrific

RIP to all

[Alan_X]

Make no mistake about it. These are calculated and deliberate attempts to deflect attention from the fact that establishment council and government figures (at cabinet level) have a direct role in this disaster, by ignoring repeated warnings and voting down legislation that could have prevented it. Cost was put ahead of safety, and it was a calculated and carefully considered decision. Stare it in the face with the contempt it deserves, and do not let them get away with ANY of it. Use social media to drown out the misinformation of the hate rags - this is the one weapon that we have now that we didn't have 28 years ago, and they're not ready for us this time.

Sorry mate but are you talking about the vote against section 8 of the 1985 act? What exactly would that have done?

[۩ Imperator ۩]

The amendment was about ensuring that all housing is made fit for human habitation, and it was voted down by a flock of MPs who also happen to be landlords. One of them was the Housing Minister. He is now Theresa May's new chief of staff.

Are you arguing that a building as flammable as a knock off mattress was fit for human habitation?

[Alan_X]

The amendment was about ensuring that all housing is made fit for human habitation, and it was voted down by a flock of MPs who also happen to be landlords. One of them was the Housing Minister. He is now Theresa May's new chief of staff.

Are you arguing that a building as flammable as a knock off mattress was fit for human habitation?

Do you know what the current Section 8 of the 1985 Act says?

[Alan_X]

8 Implied terms as to fitness for human habitation.

(1)In a contract to which this section applies for the letting of a house for human habitation there is implied, notwithstanding any stipulation to the contrary—

(a)a condition that the house is fit for human habitation at the commencement of the tenancy, and

(b)an undertaking that the house will be kept by the landlord fit for human habitation during the tenancy.

F1(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(3)This section applies to a contract if—

(a)the rent does not exceed the figure applicable in accordance with the subsection (4), and

(b)the letting is not on such terms as to the tenant’s responsibility as are mentioned in subsection (5).

(4)The rent limit for the application of this section is shown by the following Table, by reference to the date of making of the contract and the situation of the premises:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/70/section/8

Did you bother checking or just regurgitate what you read on the internet?

[۩ Imperator ۩]

Section 8 reads: Every local housing authority shall consider housing conditions in their district and the needs of the district with respect to the provision of further housing accommodation.
(2)For that purpose the authority shall review any information which has been brought to their notice, including in particular information brought to their notice as a result of [F1the consideration of the housing conditions in their district under [F2section 3 of the Housing Act 2004]].
[F3(3)

[۩ Imperator ۩]

Ironically, I honk you've quoted the defeated legislation

[Priest078]

I get the impression that you hope her estimate is reached.

Stop it will you .

[۩ Imperator ۩]

Ironically, I honk you've quoted the defeated legislation

My apologies, I mistakenly thought you were referring to the Housing Act 1985.

[۩ Imperator ۩]

This is what I refer to. I have always considered the Independent to be a reliable source.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-vote-down-law-requiring-landlords-make-their-homes-fit-for-human-habitation-a6809691.html%3Famp

[Alan_X]

It's the Landlord's and Tenants Act 1985. And even if I was wrong, fitness for habitation would have nothing to do with fire safety which is covered by the Building Regulations. 

[۩ Imperator ۩]

So in summary, the answer to this question...

Sorry mate but are you talking about the vote against section 8 of the 1985 act? What exactly would that have done?

... is no.

I was talking about the defeat of the Labour amendment to the Housing and Planning act of 2016 as referenced in the article above (when it was still going through parliament. It is now law.)

[Alan_X]

This is what I refer to. I have always considered the Independent to be a reliable source.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-vote-down-law-requiring-landlords-make-their-homes-fit-for-human-habitation-a6809691.html%3Famp

Yes, a bunch of utter c*nts, but what dos that have to do with fire safety?

[۩ Imperator ۩]

Yes, a bunch of utter c*nts, but what dos that have to do with fire safety?

Ask it the other way round. What does fire safety have to do with fitness for human habitation?

[SP]

This is what I refer to. I have always considered the Independent to be a reliable source.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-vote-down-law-requiring-landlords-make-their-homes-fit-for-human-habitation-a6809691.html%3Famp

Hansard is better.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-01-12/debates/16011271000002/HousingAndPlanningBill#division-4814

Although it is too late in the evening to actually decipher it.

[SP]

There was a requirement for electrical safety checks by the landlord every 5 years buried in there.

[west_london_red]

Just went past the tower tonight, you can see through parts of it

[Alan_X]

It's completely irrelevant because the requirement to satisfy Part B1 of the Building Regulations deals with fire safety.

Means of warning and escape

B1.

The building shall be designed and constructed so that there are appropriate  provisions for  the  early  warning of fire, and appropriate means of escape in case of fire from the building to a place of safety outside the building capable of being safely and effectively used at all material times.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/485420/BR_PDF_AD_B1_2013.pdf

That's the requirement. Why do you need to use an Act that only applies to rented accommodation when there is legislation purpose-made for fire safety in all buildings.

Some clever dick on Twitter has tried to make an issue out of something that's irrelevant to the fire. I've seen three or four people trying to make this a thing and I'm sure it's being lapped up. Lily Allen used the same line on Channel 4 news, implying that Tory MPs who are landlords voted down legislation that could have prevented the fire. If she was referring to the Bill to amend the 1985 Landlord and Tenants' Act it's a straightforward lie.

Is that where we are? It's ok to lie and spread rumours about people. Blaming them for the deaths of others with absolutely nothing to base it on except we think they're the kind of people who'd probably do that kind of thing anyway?

(By the way, you'll read a lot of people quoting the Approved Documents to Part B as if it's actually the legislation).

[Alan_X]

There was a requirement for electrical safety checks by the landlord every 5 years buried in there.

But nothing about fire safety. 

[SP]

But nothing about fire safety. 

No, I was stretching to see if there was a hint of a fig leaf of truth to justify the claim. The electrics being unsafe as a fire risk was as close as I got.

[wellred82]

Was listening to LBC earlier and they said the cladding material is banned in the US as it's deemed dangerous.

[lorenzo]

Section 8 reads: Every local housing authority shall consider housing conditions in their district and the needs of the district with respect to the provision of further housing accommodation.
(2)For that purpose the authority shall review any information which has been brought to their notice, including in particular information brought to their notice as a result of [F1the consideration of the housing conditions in their district under [F2section 3 of the Housing Act 2004]].
[F3(3)

If this is the law? Is this not key, as didn't the people did the blog pretty much do that and be ignored? They complained about fire hazards and also the lack of safety measures in case of a fire.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Experts warned government against cladding material used on Grenfell

At least one other London tower block has been refurbished using the same Reynobond aluminium cladding system used on Grenfell Tower. A planning application to renovate Clements Court in Hounslow, which has 13 storeys, was made in 2008. Planning application documents filed with the council detail plans to provide the building with a rainproof cladding, using the Reynobond brand of panels.

One architect, who has used similar systems, said cladding panels are also available with mineral wool insulation, which are less flammable but more expensive.

“I only use the mineral wool ones because your gut tells you it is not right to wrap a building in plastic,” he told the Guardian.

As far back as 2000, Gordon Cooke – a leading fire safety consultant – warned in a report commissioned by the mineral wool industry “the use of plastic foam cored sandwich panels ... is difficult to justify when considering life safety”.

He said the panels “can contribute to the severity and speed of fire development” and said this has led to “massive fire loses” in the past.

[SP]

The Met have launched a criminal inquiry.

[Oddball]

Absolutely heartbreaking...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/14/fatalities-grenfell-tower-fire-confirmed-relatives-desperately/

The part that says "The leader of Kensington and Chelsea Borough Nick Paget-Brown said "several hundred" people would have been in the block when the fire broke out." scares me with the thought that the death toll could end up so high.

[TepidT2O]

It does indeed.

Those poor people.

[Crosby Nick]

It's seems (unsurprisingly) that a lot of the missing were up on the higher floors. Can't stop thinking about this, can't begin to imagine the panic they must have felt. I know it's a cliche but can't believe this could have happened in this day and age. Listening to some of the families and survivors is just awful. RIP

[the 92A]

Obviously a lot of totally understandable anger around, especially in the community that has been effected by this tragedy. From early reports about the residents commitee concerns before the incident there are going to serious questions that need to be asked. There will be no need to go down blind alleys or get things wrong, that will not help getting to the truth about what happened which these people deserve.


Lilly Allen is probably expressing the concerns of many of the community, that have probably heard anecdotal stories from those that have been in the building about the number of casualties. But they have reached a false reason to why the official death toll is still low. If the buildings integrity hasn't been established you are not going to put people in there if there is no savable life. In a serious fire it is not straightforward identifying casualties. They will need to be systematic searching and recording and recovery which will take a longtime 


Red mark argued yesterday that this is political with a little p rather than party political and the wider issues are and will need discussion but we gain nothing by amplifying half truths and drawing conspiracy theories from them. It is in all of our interests that we insist on finding out the truth of why this has happened. The truth will probably raise far more uncomfortable questions about what has happened than facebook rumours.

[Red Beret]

Why are these "cheaper", more flammable panels even available for consideration ffs? Even they must have some built-in fire resistance? Will we see a concerted attempt by those in charge to lie their bollocks off assure the public that these panels are essentially safe, but in this case have been the victim of a freak accident, fuelled by unexpected weather conditions?

[Alan_X]

Why are these "cheaper", more flammable panels even available for consideration ffs? Even they must have some built-in fire resistance? Will we see a concerted attempt by those in charge to lie their bollocks off assure the public that these panels are essentially safe, but in this case have been the victim of a freak accident, fuelled by unexpected weather conditions?

They are safe in the right circumstances and for certain installations. Whether they were right in this case will be one of the questions to be asked. The evidence so far suggests that they weren't right but that is second-guessing the investigation.

There are many building products that come in fire-rated and non fire-rated versions. The important thing is to specify the correct product with the correct fire rating. It's also critical that the workmanship is up to scratch.

[Oddball]

It's seems (unsurprisingly) that a lot of the missing were up on the higher floors. Can't stop thinking about this, can't begin to imagine the panic they must have felt. I know it's a cliche but can't believe this could have happened in this day and age. Listening to some of the families and survivors is just awful. RIP

Same mate to the extent that I couldnt sleep last night and was reading articles on it. Just have this horrible feeling in my gut when I think about it. Just shocking and as you say, in todays day and age.

[puroresu_kid]

A Tory shifting the blame to the victims. Where have we seen this before.


Sorry image didn't post.

https://m.imgur.com/3aB4CB5

[JohnnoWhite]

I'm not going to quote this or that existing building regs law being ignored. I want to know why when the Fire risk assessments and the issuing of safety certificates for such buildings were taken away from the experts in the fire services and the responsibility placed on the building owners (assume a form of red tape cutting behind it?) which body now has the policing/compliance oversight for checking that these owners had indeed performed these statutory risk assessments or aren't there any confirmatory checks that it has been done at all??

If there is a check who did the building owners engage to get their required certification and how actually accredited and professional were these Risk Assessment/certificate issuers ?

I have a good mate who is such a H&S consultant and he has stopped entire building sites wherever there have been breaches of the law. Dave is also a member and supporter of the Labour Party and in no-one's back pocket when it comes to delivering compliance.

[Peabee]

I've tried to stay out of making private thoughts public since my first initial reactions.   Both those trying to score political points and those trying to defend the regs, materials, etc, could be eating their words further down the line.   

The facts are that the fire spread ridiculously fast - and it appears up the exterior cladding - and therefore the fire safety of the building appears to have been extremely inadequate.  That much is self-evident from the timings for the fire and visual evidence. 

[Red Beret]

They are safe in the right circumstances and for certain installations. Whether they were right in this case will be one of the questions to be asked. The evidence so far suggests that they weren't right but that is second-guessing the investigation.

There are many building products that come in fire-rated and non fire-rated versions. The important thing is to specify the correct product with the correct fire rating. It's also critical that the workmanship is up to scratch.

Thanks for clearing that up.  Based on that information I suppose it becomes a question of whether the block should have had the fire rated cladding, but that somebody somewhere downgraded it to save money.

[PhilV]

A hospital has apparently made a complaint that two Sun journalists posed as victims in order to gain access to patients. Source: Peter Jukes

Wow. Just... Wow.


You really have to be the lowest of the low, pond scum, souless bastards to work for that rag and do this level of stuff.

Can you arrest someone for this/rescind a journalism license (is there such a thing?)

Absolutely Disgusting!! This is not acceptable. 

[Red Beret]

This was on a friend's timeline.  I cannot vouch for its accuracy or validity.  I'm sharing merely as information.

This was posted in response to an editorial in yesterday's Telegraph. Interesting remark about Merseyside under Item 5.

Paul Atherton 15 Jun 2017 5:40PM
I spent 40yrs in the construction industry as an apprentice, tradesman, estimator, sales rep. and finally sales manager and here is my opinion on what is wrong :

1 Design and Build. Architects very rarely specify products any more ; they are simply designers and planning facilitators for a contractor who only has one interest - profit. The days of a professionally qualified architect selecting products based on technical merit, or even aesthetics, are long gone. A non-qualified buyer will select whichever product is cheapest - not the best, not the nicest, not the one that gives the highest quality, but the one which costs the least.

2 Contracts with public bodies such as councils and housing associations are awarded on the basis of the cheapest bid gets the job. No allowance is made for quality or durability or technical superiority - only price. Bidding is done on-line and the cheapest quote wins the contract. This is called competitive tendering and together with design and build I will state that these two things are responsible for the terrible decline in building standards in the UK.

3 Start-up money. Some major contracts allow for a contractor to be awarded initial payments before they start the job. A cash-strapped contractor will bid below cost to win the job and get the initial payments.

4 Specification changing. Once the contractor has won the job, he will look for ways to save money. The most common way is to change products which have actually been specified by an architect or client. No allowance is made for quality, the contractor will suggest anything on which they can make extra money. Usually, the savings are split 50-50 between the cleint and the contractor. Cash-strapped councils will obviously be happy with such savings, even if an inferior or less-attractive product is chosen. I have personal experience of a specification being changed because an alternative product was available at ONE PENNY per m2 cheaper. This product was chosen, even though it was technically inferior.

5 Brown envelope tenders. I know, because I have seen it, experienced it, and been asked for it. I'm talking about cash bribes to get your product accepted. Don't let anyone tell you it doesn't happen - it it rife in many areas of the industry and has always has been. Poulson going to jail didn't stop bribery in the construction industry. The end result is that inferior or unsuitable products get used where they shouldn't because someone wanted a holiday or a new car. I've been told " there's no way we'll use your stuff son till that bag over there gets filled ". Merseyside - needless to say - was the worst area for brown-envelope tenders, with Manchester in second place.

6 The end of skilled trades. With "lego" type building products which require relatively unskilled workers to erect them, together with the rush to save money by ending apprenticeships, there are fewer and fewer skilled men about. There was a great rush to get rid of any products needing " wet " trades ( ie, brickies, plasterers ) because these are highly skilled men and command good wages. Contractors don't want to pay these high wages and so use different products and semi-skilled men. On an increasing number of sites, I experienced a declining standard of workmanship as labourers, who had worked with bricklayers and plasterers, were doing a skilled man's job. Look at some brickwork on many sites and it is of a really poor standard compared to the work done 20 or more years ago.

7 Bad site management. When I started visiting sites in the early 70s, the site agent or site manager was ALWAYS a skilled man who had " come up from the tools " and was highly experienced and qualified to a professional level , usually as a Clerk of Works. Nothing got past these old-time tradesman - only the highest standards would pass their inspection. By the time I retired from the industry, contractors and developers had dispensed with such men and were using young graduates, fresh from college, to manage two or three sites at once. These lads had never even knocked a nail into a piece of wood, but the qualification they had from uni somehow made them superior to a man who could an entire house on his own.

I could go on, but in essence, it is the reduction in standards, the reduced quality, in order to increase profits and reduce costs which has caused the appalling drop in standards on construction sites today. And, quite probably, caused all those terrible deaths.

My dad was a brickie and whilst I've never been on a building site in my life I know badly laid bricks when I see them.  And I see them a lot lately.

[Nobby Reserve]

Regarding the MSM, is anyone else more than a bit angry to see a certain section of the media, who've poisonously campaigned for years along a "we must cut red tape", "it's health & safety gone mad", "businesses are being strangled by regulation" narrative, now asking "how was this allowed to happen?"

[redmark]

The queen is at the Westway centre now - talking to volunteers. BBC News is asking "if the queen can be there, why not the prime minister?". The queen is a savvy observer of politics, too - and well aware that her visit will raise that question.

[Redman78]

So the queen can visit the family's affected by the fire, but not the prime minister..