Grenfell enquiry

Oh FGS mary and gilly, we all know how you feel about the RF - lets just say we've got the message!! We're all entitled to our opinion so surely we can agree to differ and concentrate on the OP.

I wonder wha the “other” list was . A 21 roomed apartment please grandmama ? An all expenses paid trip to some exotic island please daddy dearest? How about a new Bentley please, dear brother, (battery powered of course) ?

Why do people insist that the wedding “brought money into the country” Humptydumpty ? It brought nothing to the NE of England I can assure you. Not one penny......and I prefer to choose the charity I give money to.

H & M had two wedding gift lists, the public were asked to give money to charity which is understandable , imagine all those tea towels or similar

If a president is head of state as opposed to head of government, the whole process is much lower key as they have no actual political power. It’s a totally different ball game. I only brought the cost of the security of the wedding into this because the OP said the money spent on hearing the testimonials should be spent instead on cladding or whatever. If someone says that then it’s perfectly acceptable to bring in another example of other spending that could go on the cladding. As for the money brought into the country - well that’ll get spread around won’t it? The Murdoch family for example really need their share of the TV rights money bless them. Don’t you just love trickle down theories of wealth creation?

In regard to the instruction given to residents to "stay put" in their homes was in all probability based on whatever knowledge ( or lack of knowledge) the fire service had in regards to the building.

All large buildings should be covered by what is known as a Dynamic Risk Assessment. These documents should be drawn up by the owners or management authorities of these buildings and cover access points, fire hydrants and riser access, materials that would give off toxic vapours under heat stress and at approximately what temperatures, along with any other information that would be useful to the fire service and others in an emergency.

These dynamic risk assessments should then lodged with the emergency services to be readily available when required. However, in recent years the anti "elf & Safety" Tabloid press culture and successive cutting of "red tape" governments has meant that the lodging of Dynamic Risk assessments with the appropriate authorities has (with the exception of industrial plants and large distribution centers) almost completely stopped.

The legislation is still in place, but the Health & Safety Executive or the local authorities do not have the manpower to inspect or chase up those not fulfilling those requirements.

It is probable to my mind that the fire service on the night of the disaster did not have a risk assessment to hand and therefore the Senior Fire Officer would have been in the position of having to draw up a Dynamic Assessment based on what he could observe on arrival and throughout the emergency.

Certainly not an easy thing to do with people's lives resting on your every decision.

Getting back to the enquiry. Yes, it is relevant that each and every party who had a bereavement, lost their home, suffered injury should give testimony if they so wish. Only by doing this can the judge and the general public too, see that this tragedy was not about statistics, it was about real people with lives, just like all of us.

It's also worth remembering that H & M requested that instead of wedding gifts, donations would be made to the charities they support.

I don't suppose we'll know how much in total was given but I should think it was a sizable sum and gratefully received.

I feel discussion of the wedding is irrelevant here but it win't stop me putting in my twopennorth! The wedding will have brought a huge amount of money into the country from tourism and television rights, to name but 2; and remember a cost of £32 million is actually only about 50p each. Perhaps a fund-raising website should be started while these moving testimonies are in front of us, and everyone could contribute 50p to that (or more).

"Elfyn Edwards, a fire safety expert and former firefighter, told the BBC the stay put policy was designed to stop residents in flats unaffected by fire from unnecessarily evacuating the building and blocking the stairways.
Usually the way tower blocks are designed means a fire breaking out in one flat should not spread throughout the rest of a building.
Should you stay put?
LFB said: "Our guidance to 'Stay Put', unless your flat is being affected by fire or smoke, is based on the fire protection provided in the building and the walls and doors of each flat.
"This has been the case for many decades and, although fires in flats unfortunately occur throughout the country every day, the fire usually only affects the flat on fire.
"However, some smoke may enter corridors when the residents leave the flat on fire, or firefighters enter the flat to extinguish the fire.
"By staying put it will reduce the risk of you entering a smoky corridor unnecessarily and potentially being overcome by smoke. It will also allow our firefighters to tackle the fire safely and quickly without being delayed by many residents evacuating down the stairways."
The Local Government Association, which represents councils, said the stay put policy was not intended to deter people from leaving the building if they felt threatened.
In the case of Grenfell Tower, the speed at which the fire engulfed the block was unprecedented, Mr Edwards said.
Michael Paramasivan, who lived on the seventh floor of Grenfell Tower with his girlfriend and young daughter, said he ignored official advice to stay in your home.
"If we had stayed in that flat, we would've perished. My gut instinct told me just to get the girls out. I wrapped the little one up because of the smoke and I just got them out."
London mayor Sadiq Khan told BBC Radio 4 there would now be questions asked of the wisdom of following the stay put advice."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40380163

Can you imagine this sort of advice being issued in a factory or an office block. The first thing on hearing a fire alarm is always leave your stuff and evacuate.

The better safe than sorry advice should always apply in my view.

Amen to that annie!

Well said Anniebach.

"

I would rather we had the queen than a President , the very thought of another election every five years with wealthy people running for president, no thanks , all the dirty washing aired in public , headlines - he/she slept with x . Kiss and tell stories .

One of the many questions to be asked about the Grenfell disaster is, when did the fire service realise that the outside cladding was on fire and should not have been? At 10.30ish the TV showed the lower floors on oneside blazing. People were told to stay put then when clearly the cladding was alight.

As the fire progressed, another question must be, why was the operational instruction stay put given by the fire service at the onset of the fire, when clearly the outside cladding was blazing? Another is, at what point should the operational instruction have been changed to flee?

As has been said earlier by many posters, there are two main issues here the Building regs, materials and fitting etc and the more important in my mind for those who lost loved ones in the Grenfell fire: could lives have been saved had that operational instruction to flee been given at some stage in the development of the fire?

This article posted by another poster reports that the instruction now the fire service and authorities know the cladding is not fireproof and has not, in some cases been fitted correctly is, according to The Guardian to flee should a fire break out.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/19/grenfell-tower-fire-tests-cladding-unsafe-fire-brigade-advice-to-flee

We understand that perfectly mary, and perhaps we prefer not to be 'that grown up' so no need to be patronising! You could easily have appalling people for both, the public can be very fickle as the referendum proved!

The least that can be done for Grenfell residents is to listen to their stories of loss. Yes it is harrowing, but how can any enquiry establish exactly what happened if the voices of the survivors are not heard? As for the cost, these people have suffered because of cost cutting already, surely they are entitled to have a fully funded enquiry which allows them to speak out.

The Grenfell tower disaster inquiry will undoubtedly bring forward the true impact on all that were involved in that terrible night along with the negligence that created the circumstances which allowed the tragedy to come about. However, many involved with industrial safety have their strong doubts that anyone will ever be brought to justice in regard to this disaster.

Should anyone study the Health & Safety at Work Act brought into being in 1974 they will see that risk assessment was placed at the very foundation of that legislation. In the years following the introduction of the act until today workplace accidents have been reduced by 84%, with that figure having been achieved on the back of a continuously growing working population in the UK.

However, since the mid 1990s the emphasis on industrial safety has shifted with the budget and the size of the Health & Safety commission and Health and Safety Executive being reduced and therefore both bodies ability to oversee and inspect has also been reduced correspondingly.

Along with the foregoing large corporate companies began in that period to complain in regard to the amount of "red tape" they were subject to which was picked up by both main political parties in subsequent elections. To the credit of the Health & Safety Executive despite a dramatically reduced budget on site workplace safety has continued to improve. However, the legislation and inspection of such things as changes to procedures and materials have not kept pace with development and in that uncontrolled hazards have emerged.

It is true to state that new individual materials used throughout many industries are still subject to rigorous testing and risk assessment, but risk assessment in regard to the interaction between materials under stress conditions is now often no longer carried out or required under legislation.

The Tabloid press introduced the adage "elf & safety" in a derogatory campaign against red tape in the run up to the 2014 General Election. Under that pressure David Cameron declared it was his ambition to see all Health & Safety legislation removed or dramatically reduced during a speech he made in that campaign. Thankfully, that has not come about, but neither has current legislation has been updated.

In the above, we are now able to see the foundations of the Grenfell tragedy and witness what the true meaning of politicians stating they will "cut red tape" really means.

As stated many working in industrial safety believe that it is highly likely that no one will be brought to justice in regard to Grenfell Tower. In that we also hope we are wrong.

The purpose of the enquiry is to investigate and establish the causes of the fire and apportion blame.

That is true - but, besides establishing the cause we need to find out what else went wrong - whether or not exits were blocked, why people were unable to escape , why fire drills are not routinely carried out in buildings such as these etc and to improve safety regulations for the future.

Sigh - why can posters not understand that the Queen is head of state and the PM head of government. POTUS combines both and is a rubbish idea imo. Plenty of countries have the two roles separate and it works well and best of all do not therefore worship at the feet of royalty. It willl never happen here because we are not grown up enough

I don't think people worship at their feet!! Yes they are popular and there is nothing wrong with that, and for all you republicans do be careful what you wish for, elected presidents can equal Donald Trump or worse, remember A. Hitler, equally adored if not more so, we have the news film to prove it.

Well said. gillybob Funny isn’t it that outpourings of grief are unacceptable when 72 people died but outpourings of sycophantic rubbish are just fine.

“Personal vindictiveness “ ? “Childish “ ? Really ? What on earth are you talking about Eazybee? Just because I disagree with those who worship at their feet ? I have as much right to my opinion as you have and stick by my dislike of the absolute hypocrisy of the ever increasing RF .

Bit confusing

This is interesting

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/19/grenfell-tower-fire-tests-cladding-unsafe-fire-brigade-advice-to-flee

It was questioned last night, at,I think 1.30am, people were walking out of the building , was this before the instructions to stay-put