Grenfell Tower Inquiry Report

growstuff, I do appreciate what you have stated in this thread, and my above post was in no way intended to include you in the "trial by media" that some are "dishing out" in regard to the Grenfell tragedy at present.

Hope you did not think that was what I was doing.

Like many people, I've seen the video of Johnson telling the London Assembly member, who raised concerns about fire service funding, to "get stuffed".

Please is there a link to this?

Grandad I'm not going to get involved in "trial by internet". I'm not disputing what you say and I've read similar observations.

In regard to forum members that have stated that the Grenfell tragedy could and should have been foreseen then that is very true. However, prior to the changes to industrial and workplace safety legislation which commenced in 2012, many products used in Building and other industries had to be safety assessed by the Health & Safety executive or an independent assessment organisation appointed by them.

Those assessments would include such statistics as combustion resistance and combustion temperatures when ignited and much else that would bear reference to any products predicted use. Those assessments could then form the basis of a broader risk assessment that would be carried out on the materials to be used in any development or process.

However, the changes that were brought forward in 2012 and since passed the responsibility for product safety away from the H&S Executive and placed that in the hands of the producers and users of products, therefore, creating widespread "self-assessment certification" in many industries.

What those product safety self-assessments actually stated in terms of Grenfell Tower will be disclosed in the second phase of the inquiry. That stated, one thing is already very clear, that being, the risk assessments that were produced on the basis of the products used in the Grenfell Tower upgrade refurbishment were not worth the paper they were written on.

In terms of Dany Cottons actions on the night of the disaster, had she possessed a dynamic risk assessment which contained any worthwhile information then the safety properties of the cladding and fixings that surrounding that cladding would have been available to her. As it was on that night Dany Cotton did not have such information available to her and therefore on arrival at the fire scene Cotton found herself witnessing something which under current legislation and practice could not happen.

That I feel undoubtedly bore great relevance to the decisions she made in regard to the tragedy on that appalling night.

suzie I looked up some details of the fire service pension. Cotton would still be on an older scheme which was based on final salary.

PS. I have two public service pensions. One started when I was 60 because of my start date and the other won't start paying out until I'm 65 because it's a separate scheme with a later start date. You're right about not having a "pension pot" and Cotton's already having the maximum number of years of service. The stuff about her pension is straight out of the tabloid smear machine.

It’s not about enjoying, it’s about challenging the scapegoating of and misinformation about a public servants’s pension entitlement. I’ll carry on doing it whenever any poster posts nonsense about that - tbf though to the thread, you do seem to be in a minority of one in implying there’s an issue with her pension.

pinkquartz I know and I do have my own feelings about it, but I'm not going to rush into judge before the results of an official enquiry are known.

Yes, you are so eager to post sarcastically.

Carry on , enjoy .

I used the phrase ‘cut and paste’ sarcastically because you used the words ‘pension pot’ which was used by the DM and is completely wrong. Where did you get that error from annie? Public sector employees do not have an individual pension pot - they have a pension entitlement based on legislation which is tied to earnings ( used to be final salary and now career average).

Check the thread , I did not cut and paste anything , if you must control what is posted then do get the facts correct .

You said much more than that annie see your very first post on this thread for example which was frankly ridiculous and then your cut and paste Daily Mail post about DCs ‘pension pot’. You don’t even seem to understand that her pension entitlement would hardly be affected ( if at all) by her immediate resignation as she has already over the maximum years of contributions in her THIRTY TWO years of service.

I only brought Aberfan into it because like Grenfell there were warnings of the dangers and if these warnings had been listened to there would have been no disasters . I know how angry and distressed the survivors of Grenfell feel.

But my doing so was declared cheap and tawdry ,

Best you all get on with your politics .

How could it have been foreseen?

The fact is that the council bought cladding that was too cheap and UNSAFE.
The council could or should have known about it because they bought it.
No-one told the Fire Service the cladding was so crap.
Then the electric in that building were not working correctly.
I wrote this last night.
That some residents had complained about repair not getting done and that their electric were faulty...
That is most likely the cause of the fire.
Then the cladding meant it spread too fast.

The council are at fault. The council are fault at least in two ways.
They bought the wrong cladding for a tower block and they did not make sure electrical systems in the flats were safe.

I hope the finger gets pointed in their direction.

Spot on growstuff.The general tenor of this thread is very sensible and posters fully aware of how much more there is to be investigated. As you say it’s the scapegoating which is unacceptable and especially of one woman who has 32 years of service with LFS.

No one is doing that annie but you were inferring that DC shouldn’t have her pension and you also brought Aberfan into it. This first report has clearly brought out the issues of the cladding in addition to that of the Fire Service

Like many people, I've seen the video of Johnson telling the London Assembly member, who raised concerns about fire service funding, to "get stuffed".

I have no idea whether the fire service would have bought the equipment which would have enabled rescues from high rise buildings or paid for training which could have prevented so many people dying or paid for inspections, but Johnson gave the impression of flippancy and not caring.

I also don't understand enough about building regs and cladding to know whether dangers could have been foreseen or prevented.

For the above reasons, I haven't "blamed" the Conservative council and government, until the outcome of the next report is published.

What I'm objecting to is the scapegoating and demonization of Dany Cotton and the spin by a populist rag.

Let us hope that the second part of the enquiry will delve into the cladding issues; the decisions behind it being installed and the policies that led to its installation.

The design of the building, if I understand it aright, was based on "compartmentalisation" in the event of a serious fire, so the initial advice to the residents to stay put was in theory correct.

However, when the fire overrode these safeguards by shooting up the outside of the building, then alternative advice should have been speedily available to the residents. If I understand it this is what the report criticises the fire brigade for: not changing their advice quickly enough. This may be fair comment.

All blame is laid upon a Tory council , and Tory government

Enquiry over

Isn't that what growstuff was saying?

But we don’t know all the facts growstuff this is only the first part of the enquiry.

susiewoozy I agree with you. The reason I put it that way was because I wanted to make it clear that this IS political, and I thought that if I criticised the council I would be accused of just wanting to criticise the Conservatives. I thought I could make the point more clearly by remaining fairly neutral.

ilove I think you are being overly generous to K and C who always have one of the lowest council taxes in the country and keep it that way in their own best interests ie to be more electable. You only have to look at some of the things they found money to support to see how they acted party politically as in what won votes.

Having seen the Daily Mail's spin on the first Grenfell report, I'm disgusted.

Firstly, the paper blames Dany Cotton, then it accuses Labour of being "tone deaf" for making it political.

Why don't we just have lynch mobs?

Of course the survivors and relatives are upset, angry and emotional, but to encourage a blame and retribution culture without considering all the facts is despicable.

annie yes that’s right.

yes, and yet - make us all very wary of Johnson's promises to cut 'red tape' - even more drastically.