Mogg

Blimey, on and on it rattles. People bickering about loss of life, and wearing poppies.

It's pretty grim on here.

If the building had been properly "compartmentalised" a fridge fire should have been contained. It should never have caused the devastation it did.

Thank you growstuff as well. Didn't mean to leave your name out of my last post.

grow stuff, you're right of course. The stay put advice is based on the belief that the buildings are properly compartmentalised. It's the cladding that caused this disaster - sorry I'm not prejudging a full enquiry, just stating what everyone I know who works in the fire service or building industry is saying.
There are numerous similar high raise blocks around Manchester. Salford city council is the one closest to me, the one I drive through on the way to town. They were removing cladding in the immediate aftermath of Grenfell, as Im sure were most other councils

I am not sure that is correct growstuff. Compartmentalising relates to separating with fire barriers different parts of a building but this fire spread through the external cladding, not internally from one compartment to another.

When architects detail fire barriers, it should include barriers in the external skin, not just between compartments, and this was the weakness in Grenfell Tower. Whether it was a weakness in design, specification or construction is, I think, still to be established.

Varian, you are perfectly correct in your above analysis of the "outright cause" of the disaster. What the Grenfell Inquiry must determine in the second stage of its hearings will be why the cladding installed on the outside of the building failed in the way that it did.

That is known as "Root Cause investigation" and in that is always found persons culpable for any incident and how a recurrence of any similar accident is prevented.

I don't know if I'm right either varian, but it's an issue which was highlighted in the report and is to be investigated. Apparently, another issue was the windows. The windows had been replaced, using the original frames, but the latches used meant that fire re-entered the building from the cladding. Apparently, they're going to be investigated too.

Another issue was the fire doors in the corridors, which weren't kept closed.

suziewoozie it was not his fault, but the manufacturer's.
It's not the first time fires have been caused by white goods but without such devastating consequences.

growstuff yes, quite right re the compartmentalisation.

But Call it’s utterly irrelevant what started the fire at this stage of the enquiry. I don’t think there’s been any recall on theses fridge freezer

It was established, I think, that there was a fault with it.

Not just with that particular one I should add

There was a fault with some wiring not being tight enough but there was no safety recall iirc

compartmentalization of buildings is standard practice in architecture design. However, in the case of Grenfell Tower however adequate that compartmentalization may or may not have been, it could not have made any difference on the night of the tragedy.

The fire, smoke and toxic vapour, spread up the outside of the building entering via the windows, flat by flat, floor by floor, walkway by walkway and stairwell by stairwell.

That the compartmentalization of the building was never designed to protect against such a circumstance and therefore the combustible characteristics of the cladding and fixtures surrounding that cladding have been deemed the primary cause of the deaths.

What the inquiry now has to unearth is how and why such volatile materials came to be installed on the outside of the building, and in that will be found the underlying root cause of the disaster.