Grenfell Tower enquiry

What a stupid pathetic childish response - calling people out is described as controlling threads- I guess you don’t have a more adequate response or else you would be able to challenge my points.

Do stop trying to control threads please M E

Oh absolutely ab. Funny that in the KA thread some of us were roundly criticised for ‘gossiping’ but in a serious thread like this it’s acceptable to ‘speculate’ about facts that are in the public domain or to repeat lies and scurrilous harmful gossip about a traumatised man. Now I wonder what’s going on here? And your post is thoroughly disrespectful to the GT victims - making fun of the serious points I’ve made about facts and accuracy by bringing in an example of theweather forecast - ffs ab ffs. The problem with many posters on GN is that they really don’t understand what a fact is, don’t know how to check it and actually care even less. They then state an opinion , which they love declaring they have a right to. An opinion based on a false premise is rubbish whatever the rights are to state it. IMO if GG were truly sorry she could ask GN to delete her post about that poor man.

Nothing wrong with a bit of speculating . Imagine a coffee morning, everyone clutching iPads and googling to check on every topic. ?

‘It’s going to rain tomorrow ‘. Everyone starts googling for the forecast ?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/23/hotpoint-fridge-freezer-sparked-grenfell-tower-fire/

This gives the details which were in the public domain very shortly afterwards - very easily googled as are many things that some posters would rather speculate about instead.

Something on news recently about backs of fridges being flammable, perhaps not the news, could have been Watchdog.

All the details about the fridge are known - it was a Hotpoint, the make and model are known, there is no adverse history attached to that particular model.

It was a pity the have’s and have not’s card was played yesterday , I thought now the residents had given their views the enquiry could have continued with just the facts.

Seems ‘the nail’ was the fridge.

From the DT one year ago:
There is currently no regulation that requires manufacturers to use non-flammable materials to protect fridges from ignition.
www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/equipment/fridge-fire-hazard/

Our neighbours had one of the tumble dryers; luckily theirs had not caught fire and they accepted a new replacement at a minimal cost to them.

We never used to hear of these appliances catching fire years ago, unless there is more publicity nowadays.

I hope the manufacturers of the fridge/freezer are called and investigated too.

Jalima re the fridge, I have been thinking exactly the same thing.

The BBC Watchdog programme was, I think, the latest to highlight this issue and, in particular, Whirlpool kitchen appliances catching fire. I believe Whirlpool, because of all the adverse publicity, finally agreed to recall certain appliances and carry out adjustments on them, supposedly to make them safe. An expert examined the adjustments made and said that whilst they reduced the risk of fire they did not eliminate it.

There have also been issues with appliances from different manufacturers. I recalled the tragic fire caused by a faulty fridge freezer. ITV reported on a man's death some years ago:

"A coroner will urge the Government to overhaul consumer safety standards after a father who was able to save his two children died from a fire caused by a faulty fridge-freezer.

"Coroner Andrew Walker today accepted wide-ranging recommendations put forward by Hertfordshire Trading Standards and London Fire Brigade about the way in which safety problems are recorded and how irresponsible manufacturers should be punished."

There have also been, as you have pointed out, some terrifying accounts of cars completely losing power whilst been driven on motorways, and cars catching fire and turning into an inferno within minutes.

So far as Grenfell is concerned, the fridge appears to have been the origin of the catastrophic fire and I wonder why it is that none of these companies ever seem to get punished for wilfully ignoring problems that they are well aware of but which they wish to keep under wraps.

Everyone has weighed in against maryeliza and her comments (which I think were justified in the circumstances) and yet she is the one being described as a bully.

Bridgeit

Grannygravy is stating facts.

Was she hell!

Jalima1108, the salient point would be that the fridge fire should have been contained within the flat.
Yes, I realise that of course

However, the fridge should never have caught fire in the first place, nor should any of these kitchen appliances which seem to have done so with regularity over the last few years.

Jalima1108, the salient point would be that the fridge fire should have been contained within the flat.

Cladding was fitted to the outside of the building that was combustible. Therefore the windows of the flat should have been highly fire resistant (non-conbustable) they were not.

However, at the time they were fitted there was not the need for them to be highly fire resistant as the cladding had not been installed.

Just one of the complex issues the inquiry will have to resolve before any conclusions can be drawn.

maddyone
I have no intention of stopping posting
If I ever did, it certainly wouldn't be because of a bully

Regarding the refrigerator - do we know what make it was? There have been so many instances lately of fridges, tumble dryers (6,000 fires in 6 years resulting in loss of life albeit not on such a catastrophic scale) and cars catching fire that I think we do need to know.

Quite right Annie. As I said earlier, if only the financial resources of the Health & Safety Executive had not been reduced over a great many years, then their inspections may well have picked up in the dangers.

It brings to mind ‘For want of a nail ‘

Again let us all hope I am wrong in the above

Jalima1108, I believe the inquiry will bring out the causes of the disaster. However, it may well be the weaknesses in the current building regulations that may prevent serious charges being brought against those at the very top of the companies and other organizations responsible.

As per my previous post, I apologise for not double checking the facts.
An apology is sufficient GrannyGravy.
And you have apologised for not double checking the facts, you do not need to apologise to any individual posters.

I don’t there will be a whitewash either Jalima , I doubt there will be charges too. So many companies involved

there will be a whitewash
I don't think that there will this time.

However, some of the witnesses who are not co-operating may have to be ordered by the Chairman to do so
Under the Inquiries Act 2005 the Chairman has a wide range of powers, including the power to compel the production of documents and to summon witnesses to give evidence on oath.
However, some may be reluctant to disclose in full to the Inquiry because they are under police investigation and perhaps they think this could affect the outcome of any future court case.

maddyone, the feeling in Industrial Safety circles is that in all probability it very unlikely that anyone will face charges over the tragedy.

However, in our office we are hoping we are all wrong in the above.

Please don't stop posting Nellie and Petra and Grannygravy, I myself responded to a particular poster quite strongly, because I have found myself at the butt end of that poster before. As another poster said, we have probably all found ourselves in that position previously, rather sadly. I think Gransnet should be a forum for people to express their views, and for discussion, but not a forum for character assassination if your opinion or thoughts on a matter differ from those of others.
I'm not hearing much news on Grenfell at present as I'm abroad, but the pieces I heard before we left were indeed very sad. I hope the enquiry finds who was responsible, and it will probably turn out to be a variety of people/organisations. Do any of you think a charge of Corporate Manslaughter might be brought?