Mogg

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.

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

Not just with that particular one I should add

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

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

growstuff yes, quite right re the compartmentalisation.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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

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

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

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

It's pretty grim on here.

Thank you Iam64.

Granddad43 Your response to my last post worries me. In 4 paragraphs I covered quickly and without any detail a broad background on contributory causes to the Grenfell diaster. Yet you think that I could be passing this off as a solution to the whole disaster. Really, that is rather disingenuous, since nothing I said has not been published in the media time and time again since the tragedy.

You need to read more widely.

In regard to pre-judging the outcome of the second stage of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, then it has already been confirmed by that body that it was the cladding on the outside of the tower that became the prime cause of the loss of life in the tragedy due to its combustibility.

However, what that inquiry has now adjudicate on is I feel:-

Did the specification certification for the materials used in the refurbishment accurately evaluate the combustibility of the products.

Did those engaged in the specification and installation of the products used in the refurbishment consider the effects of combining several products on installation would have on the overall combustibility of the fixtures on the tower?

Were adequate and sufficient risk assessments carried out on the above, and if so were the persons who carried out those assessments properly qualified to engage in such work.

Along with many other factors, In the above, there are any number of scenarios that will eventually lead the inquiry, hopefully" to the main root cause of the tragedy and ultimately those responsible.

In my experience inquiries such as Grenfell always turn up the unexpected from the initial thinking on causes immediately following any incident. Many forum members may well remember a Roller Coaster accident in the North Midlands several years ago and in which our company were involved in the investigation.

Several young persons incurred life-changing injuries in the accident and it was widely reported in the media in the immediate aftermath of the incident that the mainly young persons engaged to operate the ride were guilty of gross negligence.

However, through the investigation, it emerged that the safe operating procedures for the ride prescribed in the risk assessments could not be carried out due to the numbers of people the staff were expected to put through the ride by the owners of the Theme Park in peak periods.

Therefore, it emerged by way of the investigation that the root cause of the accident was the working pressure placed on the staff by management and in no way was any negligence of the staff judged as being responsible.

The company responsible were fined a record amount by courts and the most senior executive officer in the company made a public apology prior to then resigning.

That is why I feel that no one at this point in the Grenfell Tower investigation should in any way attempt to prejudge what will be its outcome and final conclusions.

Apparently the poor man has suffered dreadful abuse and threats

But we can’t do anything about a potentially lethal white good can we? As long as we’ve bought it from a reputable source and it’s properly installed and we’ve followed up on any safety warning. There’s no suggestion at all that there were any of these issues in this case. I don’t run my washing machine or dishwasher when I’m out but obviously my fridge and freezer stay on. So this case isn’t a warning about white goods at all - it’s probably going to turn out to be a warning about cladding.

This should be a salutary warning to all of us, too, that we could have potentially lethal white goods in our own homes.
No-one on here mentioned the refrigerator as being the source of the fire, although we all know that it spread so disastrously because of the cladding.

MOnica is in no way prejudging the enquiry into Grenfell. She's simply stating what those working in the industry know. That must include you Grandad. No need to introduce yet another nasty feel to this.

I don't think that's what MOnica is claiming at all. However, she's right that the EU has very little to do with it. It is totally wrong to blame the EU for anything with regards to Grenfell.

So M0nica, all those engaged in the Grenfell tragedy inquiry can now stand down seeing that you have provided all the answers that huge team are inquiring into.

Thousands of documents and evidence yet to be placed before the open stages of the inquiry can now be shredded saving the nation great expense.

Your above post will also, without doubt, bring total closure to the relatives of all the victims and all others caught up in the disaster.

Many thanks

Quizqueen As I understand there are no EU regulations on flammability On page 11 of this thread I quoted (secondhand) from the fire regulations section of the Building regs and these say that there is no EU standard for the flammability and because of that the building regs contain no requirements on that subject. It does beg the question of why the UK didn't formulate its own, which it is free to do.

The causes of the Grenfell fire lie completely in the UK and have nothing to do with the EU. The problem lies in building regulations that are both too detailed and not detailed enough in their provisions and the fact that in this country the construction industry has always been notorious for its cavalier attitude to quality and rules, whether safety of their staff or the quality of their work.

Look at the problems Persimmon, the UK's biggest and most profitable house builder has had with the quality of the homes it has built in the last 4 or 5 years. Look at their recent decision to sell properties on leases, with penal ground rent clauses, that they can then sell on to companies who specialise in buying and applying the full conditions. The Leasehold system has worked well in this country for hundreds of years - until some venal 21 century construction company got into the act.

The causes for the Grenfell disaster lie with the building regulations and the venal construction companies who will take any opportunity to ignore rules, take risks with materials and cut corners on building methods to scrape a few more pound sto pay to their owners,especially their boards of directors.

I knew about the original Enlightenment illuminati because Goethe was attracted to them. There were numerous secretive groups like them in 18th century Europe because people weren't allowed to be honest and open about their political views. The original illuminati were liberal, educated and generally against the ruling aristocracy.

Nazi sympathisers in the early twentieth century accused them of undermining the state, although there is no evidence of that. They were the target of conspiracy theorists in the same way that George Soros, the Bilderberg Group, the New World Order and NLP practitioners, etc are today. The Nazis claimed that groups of illuminati still existed and that they were associated with Jews. They smeared them in the same way that the "elite" are smeared today and claimed there was some kind of global conspiracy.

I learnt about them during my degree. Rees-Mogg is supposed to be clever and educated, so it's almost certain he knew of their significance.