London Fire -2

They arent going to have a meeting until September!!!!

They all need sacking

Video from the meeting.

skwawkbox.org/2017/06/29/video-council-aborts-mtg-as-press-present-way-to-improve-public-trust-grenfell/

Sorry it's on skwawkbox, but that's the only place I can find it.

Must admit I am concerned about the narrow frame of reference for the public enquiry. I understand the need to get a report in as short period of time as possible, but some part of the overall investigation process must address any underlining causes.

I want a review of social housing policies and it should be a cross party review.

I think his inquiry hasn't to cross the police one, Wilma. They are looking into causes.

Yes, I understand that, but the police are looking at whether or not criminal charges should be brought. We still need to look at historically how the social housing stock came to be in this state nationwide, including why there's such a shortage and what is going to be done about it. Even since the much less attractive changes in the Right to Buy scheme were introduced, only one new property has replaced three sold. The priority needs to be raised.

Judge has said that his scope in looking at Grenfell will be too limited to be of any use -so what is the point of it?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40453054

They changed the cladding from zinc to aluminium to save £300,000, knowing it was less fire resistant, but there is no suggestion in the documents that there was a deliberate decision to cut fire safety.

What?
It wasn't written down. Was it discussed?

On change.org there is a petition to make it a legal requirement to retrofit sprinklers on all tower blocks.
It has over 222,000 signatures in two weeks.

Sprinklers are probably a good idea, but in the Grenfell tragedy, would they have helped, given that the fire spread upwards on the outside of the building.

Of course they would have helped. Many people died in the stairwells from asphyxiation from the poisoned gases given off, and because they wouldn't have been able to see to get down the stairs.
With sprinklers the stairway would have been clear.

Some families saved themselves by switching on the taps and flooding their floors with water.

Why is it that every council is now thinking about retro fitting of sprinkler systems?

www.independent.co.uk/property/house-and-home/pets/news/fire-safety-measures-grenfell-tower-sprinklers-retrofitting-fire-service-cuts-independent-panel-a7812646.html

How ridiculous.
He sounds very independent.

I don't think that any of us here know enough dj to say if the toxic fumes and smoke would have been cleared away by sprinklers for those poor people trapped on stairs, but they would certainly help in most cases of fire in buildings.This was a most unusual case of the fire spreading upwards by the cladding.
The other thing is, that I heard residents saying that they didn't hear any fire alarms ( but they were fiited?) if so, alarms in tower blocks need to be really loud for the future.

24housing.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=ddd12a1ee3330a83986ae5fc5&id=8439d8f0a8&e=23ddde61eb

When I sold the guest house in 2009, there were new fire alarm regulations being brought in about the number of decibels and where the fire alarms should be.
They were to be hardwired inside the bedrooms, so they would be louder, as the firedoors dampened the volume.
I bet it was the same with tower blocks.
Should have been done with the refurbishment.

inews.co.uk/essentials/news/uk/four-ministers-warned-fire-safety-according-leaked-letters-parliamentary-group/

skwawkbox.org/2017/06/30/expert-structural-engineer-grenfell-is-about-corruption-not-building-regs/

I thought that Every architectural firm had a person in charge of CDM regulations, or used to as far as I know.
That person had to go through all the jobs in the office and check that the drawings and specification comply with CDM regulations.

'Any reasonably competent designer would know that flammable cladding must not be used as part of a compartmentalisation strategy. It has been known since at least 1984 that flammable cladding was being installed. It turns out on hundreds of UK Buildings.

Since April 2007 the designers have had a legal obligation to remove risks at design stage. There is therefore a legal responsibility on the Architect to specify cladding that removes the risk of breaching the compartments.

If the Architect produces a design that does not specify a specific adequate panel or does not produce a performance specification to that effect then they have not managed that known risk.

If someone changes the design or simply puts on flammable cladding then in law they have been deemed to have made a design decision and they would be considered a ‘designer’ within the CDM Regs.

The CDM Regulations are legal documents that put responsibility onto the designer which cannot be removed. The fact that it was well known in the industry that the use of flammable panels was commonplace in compartmentalisation designs proves that the problem does not lay in any weaknesses in the Building Regulations.

It appears that designers may have abused the Building Regs weaknesses in the belief that the Regs protect them from responsibility and ultimately manslaughter charges.

Since April 2007, when the CDM regulations were introduced, that has been a false belief.

‘Designer’ is not necessarily just the Architect. Depending on many factors it could be any party involved.'

I hope this man's experience is called on for the enquiries, however many there are.

Paget-Brown has stood down.
About time.

Good - perhaps they will have a council meeting sooner than September now?

What took him so long?

Looking at this link, I think that if criminal proceedings are brought it is obvious that such a case would be very complex and lengthy. The definition of words like "designer" - and who exactly could reasonably be considered to fall within that category - could be argued about for weeks, with various experts expressing different views.

I wonder what the procedure would be to pursue a criminal case. Presumably, evidence gathered from the inquiry just set up (if it gets off the ground) will be passed to the CPS for its consideration. Would the CPS have to appoint someone to help them understand the technicalities? It seems to me that it is very important that all the different types of regulations and guidelines for builders, heating, plumbing and electrical engineers and the input of the fire service would also be essential. There are so many issues that contributed to this disaster, including the fact that, although there are fire rescue ladders that reach to, I think it was said, 20 floors, the fire service's ladders only reachb to the 12th floor.

As I understand it, the current inquiry is of very limited scope and, as the judge intimated, it seems likely that many people will find this unsatisfactory.

I thought the police were already gathering their own evidence as part of their criminal investigations? I thought they had already seized some papers from the offices of some of the companies involved?

I agree, rigby, that's a police matter.
My husband was responsible for CDM in his company, so I know a bit about it. It only came in in 1994, I think. The 2007 changes were to bring it all together, and decide who was ultimately responsible for any health and safety issues, but he wasn't working by then.
One of the first things I thought was it was a CDM issue, but as I hadn't seen it anywhere else, I assumed I must be wrong.

Kensington councillor on radio 4.

I have never heard anything like it in my life!!!!! She is blaming the survivors, the press, the "complexity etc. It is absolutely outrageous.

One survivor has just had heard bank card/ statement back and her rent has been taken from Grenfell. The councillor said "oh come on that is a tiny thing"

There is a suggestion that there may be civil unrest -is anyone surprised!?

I suspect that the Tories are busy trying to bury the intention of "making a bonfire of regulations"

Ironic in the circumstances.