High Rise Fire

[JohnD]

I don't know. Do you? Are you attempting to suggest that it was so high it caused them to wrap the tower in flammable cladding? Or so low it caused them to wrap the tower in flammable cladding?

Or perhaps it is just an irrelevant diversion to distract attention from the fact that numerous people were killed because a concrete tower block was wrapped in flammable cladding, and you have a fondness for irrelevant distractions.

 

[Brigadier]

"'We need to realise, collectively, that we cannot eliminate risk and that some accidents are inevitable,' PM says"

"Prime Minister David Cameron today said that his new year's resolution was to "kill off the health and safety culture for good".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-i-will-kill-off-safety-culture-6285238.html

He said he wanted a bonfire of regulations.

We got it.

This.

 

[Brigadier]

What do you take as DC's real meaning, in your linked article?

Total abandonment of all regs. H & S?

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Just to intervene a little in this ongoing spat between you two. Incidentally, I cannot understand how two adults can get into such a spat. Certainly something which I would never do.
Anyway, to continue: do we yet know how many more high rise buildings are clad in similar materials?
Do we yet know if anything is being done about them?

And just to set the record straight: the Lakanal House fire did occur ion 2009 when there was a Labour government, but the Inquiry did not report until 2013 during a Conservative government, and all the written warnings have been to a Conservative government, 2014 - 2016.

 

[motorbiking]

If you go to the website they both claim to exceed fire safety requirements but the more flame retardant version seems to be heavier and less flexible. I have no idea, but there may have been other factors other than cost.

I do wonder if these material fire resistant claims are like kit that claims to be waterproof only for you to get soaked because it wasn't stitched together properly.

 

[Brigadier]

Anyway, to continue: do we yet know how many more high rise buildings are clad in similar materials?

Speaking to a colleague yesterday, Southwark has around 4 blocks clad in similar.

 

[Brigadier]

I do wonder if these material fire resistant claims are like kit that claims to be waterproof only for you to get soaked because it wasn't stitched together properly.

I have wondered whether it was less the flammability of the panels, and more the possible "chimney effect" of them having been installed slightly away from the block facade itself (with no intumescent materials to stop the upward flow of air / flames), that allowed the rapid spread of fire to upper floors.

 

[motorbiking]

Apparently its both Class A fire rated, which probably exceeds the requirements. Without this as a backdrop, how many of us would have specified a more expensive, heavier less flexible product, when this product exceeded the requirements.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Apparently its both Class A fire rated, which probably exceeds the requirements. Without this as a backdrop, how many of us would have specified a more expensive, heavier less flexible product, when this product exceeded the requirements.

I think that is precisely the point:

Since a fire at Lakanal House in Camberwell, south London, eight years ago, the magazine has run a string of stories warning of the fire risk at tower blocks across the country and the lack of regulations to protect residents.
After a fire in Shepherd’s Bush, west London, last year, it discovered that London fire brigade had issued a warning to landlords about the fire hazard posed by external panels, or cladding, on tower blocks.
Since the fire at Grenfell Tower, Inside Housing has revealed details about the history of that block, including that it had not been checked for fire safety for 18 months and that a refurbishment of the property involved temporarily removing fire protection between the floors of the building.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...-magazine-that-warned-of-high-rise-fire-risks
It is not like this was the first, only, or unforeseen tragedy!

 

[JohnD]

If only we had some kind of written rules, or regulations, for these dangers, that were enforceable by law.

We could call them "The Housing Rules" or something like that.

Maybe we could have a Housing Minister, and he could be kept aware of new dangers as they are discovered or investigated, so that the rules could be updated.

I'm sure anything with a major risk to life could be dealt with inside, ooooh, let's say seven years.

 

[Ihavenojob]

Are you after a fish supper Johnd?

 

[Doggit]

Is it Friday?

It's got to be somewhere in the universe.

But more importantly, Health and safety regulations, are not the same as Fire safety regulations, and virtually everyone on this site should know the difference.

And this extract from the Guardian article, showed what I've suspected over the last few days; whilst K&C council may well have been negligent in the cladding used, a fire doesn't always kill people, it's often how the fire is then handled that'll determine the outcome.

“They [Southwark] failed and pleaded guilty, and they’ll be sentenced next week. But the fire brigade too have responsibility, because the people who escaped with their lives were those who ignored the fire brigade’s instructions and ran out of their flats and down the stairs, and those who died were those who accepted the fire brigade’s instructions and stayed in their flats. And of course, that would have been the right advice had the fire safety measures not failed.

“What the fire brigade failed to do is to change their instructions and to recognise things were not happening as they were meant to happen.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...fety-failings-tower-block-lakanal-house-blaze

At the end of it, it'll very likely be shown that the victims in the upper floors will have died from poisenous fumes, and not the fire itself, so there will a lot more questions to be answered than those posed so far.

 

[JohnD]

virtually everyone on this site should know the difference.

But Chancellor Hammond said the cladding was banned in the UK. Where does he think the ban is? Didn't say.

But he did say "UK" so it can't be just the English regulations.

Unless it's just flannel.

 

[Doggit]

He's the Chancellor; do you really take what he say seriously, and what he said was fairly immaterial at the minute until the investigation gets done.

For an appropriately serious comment, just listen to Lilly Allen - or Polly Toynbee for that matter.

 

[JohnD]

He's the Chancellor; do you really take what he say seriously

I personally don't.

But you would expect a senior minister of the Crown, who hopes to be PM next week, not to make rash and unsubstantiated statements without his aides having shown him reliable evidence. So what is he playing at?

I still think it's Tuesday.