Massive West London Apartment fire

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Sadly some people need something to focus their blame on Quill

Its starts where people cannot equate something as tragic as this can happen.

Its then when conspiracies form out of this.

Sadly where we would never discount any possibility of the cause. Those who form such conspiracies live off them and thrive in order to promote their own views on the world. All tragic acts are seen as an evil force. To who has done this. Its a religiousidiocy mindset in action again.

Conspiracy theories?  I believe he's posing an hypothesis.  And apparently he has some facts to bear him out.  He should be heard.

I don't think you can sweep this catastrophe under the rug of normalcy, didge.  As I said earlier, this is third world stuff>> Fires like this don't happen in modern, post-industrial countries.  People know better...authorities know better.  As one expert said:

BBC wrote:Matt Wrack, the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, told the BBC’s Newsnight that people living in Grenfell Tower “have the right” to ask questions about whether alterations to the cladding compromised the safety of the building. “The starting point is there needs to be an absolutely thorough investigation,” he said. “The truth is this should not be happening in the UK, one of the wealthiest countries in the world.”

Can I get an Amen!?

So, we can bet that something under the table happened here.  Listen to the young man.  Listen to all who have something to say.  Something happened here, and can't just shrug our shoulders and think it won't happen again.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Anyone seen this?? Worth a watch!

Language?

Fuck!!  How many people are dead?  Some people...where do they get their priorities?  

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Anyone seen this?? Worth a watch!

Language?

Fuck!!  How many people are dead?  Some people...where do they get their priorities?  

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Peaky knows what he's talking about. And as he's a resident, he knows the state of the building and what authorities have been doing.

And he's not the only one who's been saying this.

sassy wrote:After another fateful apartment fire in London, one of Mays aides has sat on a report which says how these flats are prone to fire and how dangerous they are.  The cladding that was put on cost millions and was done basically to make them look better because of their right neighbours.

And guess what, the Minister for Fire is a landlord and voted against making rented property fit for human habitation.

May went there today and refused to meet residents.

I hope the dead haunt them and never let them get another nights sleep as long as they live.

nicko wrote:They ALWAYS apologise for bad language,  some people under stress can't help it.  Then again for some it's normal to swear all the time.     No need to make an issue of it and insult the reporter.

Fred M. wrote:If the reporter was referring to the former, she was no doubt (and quite rightly so IMO) disassociating herself from a publicly expressed opinion that might reasonably be interpreted as meaning that the blaze could have been started deliberately and with malicious intent.

Neither you nor I know how such an allegation might develop in the days ahead, but if she made a split second decision to disassociate her organisation with any possible future criminal investigation then she was on the ball and doing her job.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Language?

Fuck!!  How many people are dead?  Some people...where do they get their priorities?  

Sadly some people need something to focus their blame on Quill

Its starts where people cannot equate something as tragic as this can happen.

Its then when conspiracies form out of this.

Sadly where we would never discount any possibility of the cause. Those who form such conspiracies live off them and thrive in order to promote their own views on the world. All tragic acts are seen as an evil force. To who has done this. Its a religiousidiocy mindset in action again.

Conspiracy theories?  I believe he's posing an hypothesis.  And apparently he has some facts to bear him out.  He should be heard.

I don't think you can sweep this catastrophe under the rug of normalcy, didge.  As I said earlier, this is third world stuff>> Fires like this don't happen in modern, post-industrial countries.  People know better...authorities know better.  As one expert said:

BBC wrote:Matt Wrack, the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, told the BBC’s Newsnight that people living in Grenfell Tower “have the right” to ask questions about whether alterations to the cladding compromised the safety of the building. “The starting point is there needs to be an absolutely thorough investigation,” he said. “The truth is this should not be happening in the UK, one of the wealthiest countries in the world.”

Can I get an Amen!?

So, we can bet that something under the table happened here.  Listen to the young man.  Listen to all who have something to say.  Something happened here, and can't just shrug our shoulders and think it won't happen again.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Peaky knows what he's talking about. And as he's a resident, he knows the state of the building and what authorities have been doing.

And he's not the only one who's been saying this.

Perhaps not and I'm not being judgemental; I'm simply explaining some of the legal and in-house regulatory restraints and requirements to which reporters are required to adhere, particularly in broadcasting, and to suggest a point of law that might well interest Quill, as a lawyer, sufficiently enough to give me an authoritative response.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Sadly some people need something to focus their blame on Quill

Its starts where people cannot equate something as tragic as this can happen.

Its then when conspiracies form out of this.

Sadly where we would never discount any possibility of the cause. Those who form such conspiracies live off them and thrive in order to promote their own views on the world. All tragic acts are seen as an evil force. To who has done this. Its a religiousidiocy mindset in action again.

Conspiracy theories?  I believe he's posing an hypothesis.  And apparently he has some facts to bear him out.  He should be heard.

I don't think you can sweep this catastrophe under the rug of normalcy, didge.  As I said earlier, this is third world stuff>> Fires like this don't happen in modern, post-industrial countries.  People know better...authorities know better.  As one expert said:

BBC wrote:Matt Wrack, the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, told the BBC’s Newsnight that people living in Grenfell Tower “have the right” to ask questions about whether alterations to the cladding compromised the safety of the building. “The starting point is there needs to be an absolutely thorough investigation,” he said. “The truth is this should not be happening in the UK, one of the wealthiest countries in the world.”

Can I get an Amen!?

So, we can bet that something under the table happened here.  Listen to the young man.  Listen to all who have something to say.  Something happened here, and can't just shrug our shoulders and think it won't happen again.

Really, facts to bear?
Saying something should not happen, does not mean it cannot happen. So that is not evidence, but an opinion.
Nobody is sweeping anything under the carpet.
He was suggesting that those who upgraded the building, started the fire deliberately. In order to get all other high rise buildings knocked down in the area to then build new ones only for the rich
That is a conspiracy.
As I already said we should never have high rise residential buildings as they are a disaster waiting to happen.
Has he any evidence to these claims other than being paranoid?
Now I am not discounting anything, but I dont make bold claims without evidence, as he did, maybe you can explain why he did?
This video came from Eddie who thinks everything is a Red Flag, and that the "New World Order" another wackadoodle conspiracy is behind many terrorist attacks and things like this. Which is why I take with the least pinch of salt.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Conspiracy theories?  I believe he's posing an hypothesis.  And apparently he has some facts to bear him out.  He should be heard.

I don't think you can sweep this catastrophe under the rug of normalcy, didge.  As I said earlier, this is third world stuff>> Fires like this don't happen in modern, post-industrial countries.  People know better...authorities know better.  As one expert said:



Can I get an Amen!?

So, we can bet that something under the table happened here.  Listen to the young man.  Listen to all who have something to say.  Something happened here, and can't just shrug our shoulders and think it won't happen again.

Bang on the money.

And as you say, it's not a conspiracy just because someone speaks out against something. He has lived there and seems to know what he's talking about.

A retired fire chief Inspector pretty much said the same thing:  that building should not have gone up like it did. We know now, of course that it's the cheap cladding that  made the fire worse and creep up the outside of the building. That stuff has been used to "pretty up" buildings all over London.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Anyone seen this?? Worth a watch!

Language?

Fuck!!  How many people are dead?  Some people...where do they get their priorities?  

"Language"  !!!

What fucking "language"  ???

That filthy braindead cow of a reporter is one clueless fuckup...

Dozens, maybe hundreds, of people dead, and dozens more injured --  and all that amoral uncaring dog of a pretend "reporter" can be focused on is "apologising" for a local's "strong" language.

Let's hope that somebody somewhere at the BBC sees fit to sack her lazy stupid arse --  she is a self-serving disgrace not only to journalism, but to the entire human race..

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Peaky knows what he's talking about. And as he's a resident, he knows the state of the building and what authorities have been doing.

And he's not the only one who's been saying this.

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Really, facts to bear?
Saying something should not happen, does not mean it cannot happen. So that is not evidence, but an opinion.
Nobody is sweeping anything under the carpet.
He was suggesting that those who upgraded the building, started the fire deliberately. In order to get all other high rise buildings knocked down in the area to then build new ones only for the rich
That is a conspiracy.
As I already said we should never have high rise residential buildings as they are a disaster waiting to happen.
Has he any evidence to these claims other than being paranoid?
Now I am not discounting anything, but I dont make bold claims without evidence, as he did, maybe you can explain why he did?
This video came from Eddie who thinks everything is a Red Flag, and that the "New World Order" another wackadoodle conspiracy is behind many terrorist attacks and things like this. Which is why I take with the least pinch of salt.

That's why you make so many mistakes when you answer my posts didge.

Firstly you prejudge me and secondly I put the video up because he LIVES there and had something quite relevant to say about the refurbishment and lack of therein.

eddie wrote:Because you ASSUMED the reason why I posted the video.
Yes. You did.

I ignored his conspiracy rant actually because I don't know enough. It was the REFURBISHMENT I wished to discuss  

So you prejudged me. You won't admit it but you did.
You do it a lot and it's irritating.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred M. wrote:If the reporter was referring to the former, she was no doubt (and quite rightly so IMO) disassociating herself from a publicly expressed opinion that might reasonably be interpreted as meaning that the blaze could have been started deliberately and with malicious intent.

Neither you nor I know how such an allegation might develop in the days ahead, but if she made a split second decision to disassociate her organisation with any possible future criminal investigation then she was on the ball and doing her job.

Ahem...what you are suggesting would be seen as manipulating the news in my country.  If a story is out there, she has an ethical duty to report on it.  If it turns out to be erroneous, that should be reported too.  

But it violates all ethical rules for a reporter to "disassociate" herself from the news.  What is she out there for...to serve tea?

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Conspiracy theories?  I believe he's posing an hypothesis.  And apparently he has some facts to bear him out.  He should be heard.

I don't think you can sweep this catastrophe under the rug of normalcy, didge.  As I said earlier, this is third world stuff>> Fires like this don't happen in modern, post-industrial countries.  People know better...authorities know better.  As one expert said:



Can I get an Amen!?

So, we can bet that something under the table happened here.  Listen to the young man.  Listen to all who have something to say.  Something happened here, and can't just shrug our shoulders and think it won't happen again.

Bang on the money.

And as you say, it's not a conspiracy just because someone speaks out against something. He has lived there and seems to know what he's talking about.

A retired fire chief Inspector pretty much said the same thing:  that building should not have gone up like it did. We know now, of course that it's the cheap cladding that  made the fire worse and creep up the outside of the building. That stuff has been used to "pretty up" buildings all over London.

Eds wrote:That's my focus. Not the 'conspiracy' this guy spoke of.

Merriam-Webster wrote:con·spir·a·cy
/kənˈspirəsē/
noun
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
"a conspiracy to destroy the government"
synonyms: plot, scheme, plan, machination, ploy, trick, ruse, subterfuge; informalracket
"a conspiracy to manipulate the results"

the action of plotting or conspiring.
"they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"
synonyms: plotting, collusion, intrigue, connivance, machination, collaboration; treason
"conspiracy to commit murder"

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Perhaps not and I'm not being judgemental; I'm simply explaining some of the legal and in-house regulatory restraints and requirements to which reporters are required to adhere, particularly in broadcasting, and to suggest a point of law that might well interest Quill, as a lawyer, sufficiently enough to give me an authoritative response.

Yes, a judiciously placed 'bleep' has served a couple of ends: first, it meets the FCC rules on language derived from Baptist-oriented censors; and second, it helps avoid language issues from becoming the central focus of the story.

IMO, the Baptists are more interested in salvation than the news, and have no business commenting anyway.  Moreover, the reporter made the language the story by frittering and fussing about the word FUCK, instead of sticking to the point.

London has more important fish to fry.

Original Quill wrote:

Eds wrote:That's my focus.  Not the 'conspiracy' this guy spoke of.

A conspiracy is:

Merriam-Webster wrote:con·spir·a·cy
/kənˈspirəsē/
noun
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
"a conspiracy to destroy the government"
synonyms: plot, scheme, plan, machination, ploy, trick, ruse, subterfuge; informalracket
"a conspiracy to manipulate the results"

the action of plotting or conspiring.
"they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"
synonyms: plotting, collusion, intrigue, connivance, machination, collaboration; treason
"conspiracy to commit murder"

To allege a conspiracy you've gotta have 1) at least one other person; and 2) an unlawful or harmful purpose.  Since a conspiracy is a specific event claimed to have occurred, as with any fact you've got to have evidence,  Let's get real...the allegations of Peaky do not rise to the level of a conspiracy.

Peaky is making an allegation...a special kind of hypothesis that goes to wrongdoing.  An hypothesis does not fail for lack of facts...it is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

So let's dispense with the verbal nonsense.  The allegation of Peaky is worthy of investigation.  As Zack rightly pointed out, the man lives there and has some knowledge about the renovations and the £10-million spent.  That's the limited evidence needed to raise the question.  Now, someone should pursue his lead.

Tommy Monk wrote:

eddie wrote:

Bang on the money.

And as you say, it's not a conspiracy just because someone speaks out against something. He has lived there and seems to know what he's talking about.

A retired fire chief Inspector pretty much said the same thing:  that building should not have gone up like it did. We know now, of course that it's the cheap cladding that  made the fire worse and creep up the outside of the building. That stuff has been used to "pretty up" buildings all over London.

Not quite eddie... a lick of paint would have done that... this was insulation to reduce heat loss and reduce energy useage to meet 'green' targets... agreed by labour back in 2003 was what someone on radio was saying last night...

eddie wrote:I am actually backing his claim about the cost of that building refurbishment - he stated that the lifts (elevators to our US friends) were not even fixed?!

I've spoken to a builder/construction worker about the lack of sprinklers and has said that they won't install them in those old buildings due to having to disturb ceilings and walls etc which are full of asbestos.

I don't know where that £10 million went because even got the ex-fire chief said the doors in the hallways couldn't have been proper fire doors due to how quickly the smoke spread.

That's my focus.  Not the 'conspiracy' this guy spoke of.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

A conspiracy is:



To allege a conspiracy you've gotta have 1) at least one other person; and 2) an unlawful or harmful purpose.  Since a conspiracy is a specific event claimed to have occurred, as with any fact you've got to have evidence,  Let's get real...the allegations of Peaky do not rise to the level of a conspiracy.

Peaky is making an allegation...a special kind of hypothesis that goes to wrongdoing.  An hypothesis does not fail for lack of facts...it is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

So let's dispense with the verbal nonsense.  The allegation of Peaky is worthy of investigation.  As Zack rightly pointed out, the man lives there and has some knowledge about the renovations and the £10-million spent.  That's the limited evidence needed to raise the question.  Now, someone should pursue his lead.

Wow and you claim to understand law?
You are claiming the Police will investigate the owners as starting the fire, based off this claim. Even when we know the fire was a fridge fire started in a Somalian taxi driver's flat. The man who alerted the fire brigade. Are you claiming he is complicit to this so called conspiracy to burn the flats down, in order to make way for new ones for the rich?

Yeah right oh

His views to the problems are of no doubt important and valid, but he spoilt it by claiming they started the fire deliberately, when as seen this could not be the case, unless you are making the Somalian complicit.

If you think the Police will investigate this claim, based on no evidence but this claims, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

What does need to happen is heads rolling for this cladding and whether the owners did do this on the cheap and that they should be investigated off these failings

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Not quite eddie... a lick of paint would have done that... this was insulation to reduce heat loss and reduce energy useage to meet 'green' targets... agreed by labour back in 2003 was what someone on radio was saying last night...

What about Vic's contention that cladding creates a 'chimney' effect, allowing contained heat to transfer from floor to floor...thereby contributing to the spread of the fire?

I have been involved in a lot of litigation over apartment building fires, and that makes a whole lot of sense to me...especially when the path is vertical.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What about Vic's contention that cladding creates a 'chimney' effect, allowing contained heat to transfer from floor to floor...thereby contributing to the spread of the fire?

I have been involved in a lot of litigation over apartment building fires, and that makes a whole lot of sense to me...especially when the path is vertical.

I was talking about the intended function of the cladding, purpose being insulation...


Of course if the inner layer was flammable and was on fire... it is obvious that it would quickly spread upwards and around the whole building... drawing in air from below as it raged on upwards...

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Wow and you claim to understand law?
You are claiming the Police will investigate the owners as starting the fire, based off this claim. Even when we know the fire was a fridge fire started in a Somalian taxi driver's flat. The man who alerted the fire brigade. Are you claiming he is complicit to this so called conspiracy to burn the flats down, in order to make way for new ones for the rich?

Yeah right oh

His views to the problems are of no doubt important and valid, but he spoilt it by claiming they started the fire deliberately, when as seen this could not be the case, unless you are making the Somalian complicit.

If you think the Police will investigate this claim, based on no evidence but this claims, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

What does need to happen is heads rolling for this cladding and whether the owners did do this on the cheap and that they should be investigated off these failings

Stop being your normal asshole for a minute, and consider the situation.  The police are not going to investigate this incident; and the fire marshals are faced with a host of possibilities, among which are the hypotheses of Peaky.  

Peaky may be completely right, or he may be partially right.  Standard investigative technique is to review the evidence, find the ignition source, determine the path and spread, and working backwards, to determine human involvement, if any.  It may be a defective product.  It may be someone who was careless with a cigarette.  And that's just ignition.  Now, we investigate what contributed to the spread of this fire.  That's where this siding material (cladding) may come into the picture.

The investigation of these matters takes time and involves experience and education.  It's not all over in the blink of an eye, as your approach suggests.  Let's follow the leads, and see where the evidence takes us.

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:



"Language"  !!!

What fucking "language"  ???

That filthy braindead cow of a reporter is one clueless fuckup...

Dozens, maybe hundreds, of people dead, and dozens more injured --  and all that amoral uncaring dog of a pretend "reporter" can be focused on is "apologising" for a local's "strong" language.

Let's hope that somebody somewhere at the BBC sees fit to sack her lazy stupid arse --  she is a self-serving disgrace not only to journalism, but to the entire human race..

Exactly what I thought.  She's another little robot sticking to the rules.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'd like to know more about how the fire started in the first place. A faulty fridge? What kind of fault was it?

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Exactly what I thought.  She's another little robot sticking to the rules.

Perhaps she values her job. She only apologised for the bad language.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Perhaps she values her job. She only apologised for the bad language.

So, if she values her job, she should do it well.  She's being paid to chase the news, not fritter her time away worrying about someone who says words that are only of concern to those who have too much time on their hands.

Hmmm...on the one hand we have lives that have been lost.  On the other hand, we have four letter audible sounds.  Tough choice.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'd like to know more about how the fire started in the first place. A faulty fridge? What kind of fault was it?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I'd like to know more about how the fire started in the first place. A faulty fridge? What kind of fault was it?

Sounds a bit dubious to me...

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill... I have already posted that i was involved in a job last year on a tower block where we were installing new lighting and mains power in the communal areas... but where there was also work going on to the outside of building by another company who were fitting similar/same cladding...

And this was done using a layer of rockwall then a layer of some hard board plastic looking sheeting type stuff, and i think that it was covered in a layer of plaster (rendered), and then painted...

Rockwall is full of air... bit like candy floss... and is used as insulation all over the place... lofts, inbetween plasterboard walls and under floors etc...

The Telegraph News wrote:
What is cladding, and why can it be a fire risk?

Adam Boult
15 JUNE 2017

Following the fire that devastated Grenfell Tower in west London this week, leaving at least 17 dead and many more injured, questions have arisen over the cladding that was fitted to the exterior of the tower block in 2015.

Angus Law, BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering at the University of Edinburgh said: "Early media reports suggest that this event has similarities with other fires that have occurred recently around the world; it appears that the external cladding has significantly contributed to the spread of fire at Grenfell Tower."

What was the cladding made of?

The cladding was installed by Harley Curtain Wall Ltd, which was paid £3million for the job. Company director Ray Bailey said that they had used a common Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) panels which are a commonly used product in the refurbishment industry.

Why had the cladding been installed?

Cladding is used in part to insulate buildings, and also in part to improve their appearance.

A 2014 planning document produced ahead of the works carried out on Grenfell Tower read: “Due to its height the tower is visible from the adjacent Avondale Conservation Area to the south and the Ladbroke Conservation Area to the east.

“The changes to the existing tower will improve its appearance especially when viewed from the surrounding area.

"The reclad materials and new windows will represent a significant improvement to the environmental performance of the building and to its physical appearance.

"The design of the scheme as a whole has fully considered policy requirements, expectations and aspirations, fully taking into consideration the immediate and wider surroundings, particularly focussing on creating a wider environment that works as a coherent place."

How might cladding have contributed to the spread of fire?

Experts said that the cladding could act like a "chimney" for the flames by allowing the fire to spread upwards through the gaps between the cladding and the building walls.

Geoff Wilkinson, managing director of Wilkinson Construction Consultants, wrote in the Daily Telegraph: "These plastic or metal panels are installed to protect a building from weather or improve its appearance, but between them and the wall there is a cavity where rain can run down.

"In the event of a fire this acts like a chimney, drawing the hot air up through itself and making the flames burn brighter. In this way fire [travels] all the way up from the base of the building to the very top.

"Once spread via cladding, the fire could have caught on curtains blowing through windows left open on a hot summer’s night."

Has cladding been associated with other fires?

Matthew Needham-Laing, an architect who is head of construction at Katten Law UK, said that the first known cladding fire in the UK was in 1991 and there had been concerns in the industry about its fire safety for a number of years.

He said: "This is not a shock, the problems with cladding have been known about and talked about for a number of years and hopefully this will at least make people listen."

Mr Wilkinson said: "In Knowsley Heights in Manchester in 1991, fire spread in a way no one had predicted via the decorative cladding on the outside of the building.

"Something similar happened in Irvine in 1999, after which new regulations were put out which limited the types of cladding which could be used."

There have been fires which spread in high-rise buildings in France, the UAE and Australia that had similar cladding, according to the BBC's Newsnight programme.

How many other buildings have similar cladding?

There are thought to be in the region of 30,000 buildings in the UK fitted with cladding similar to that on Grenfell Tower

Will there be a review into use of cladding?

Mike Penning, a former fire minister, has called for an urgent review, saying "We need to expedite this as far as possible - this cladding is used extensively in the UK and abroad."

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So, if she values her job, she should do it well.  She's being paid to chase the news, not fritter her time away worrying about someone who says words that are only of concern to those who have too much time on their hands.

Hmmm...on the one hand we have lives that have been lost.  On the other hand, we have four letter audible sounds.  Tough choice.

She is doing her job actually. It's normal to keep bad language out of interviews if possible. The two things are not connected, so calm down about it.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She is doing her job actually. It's normal to keep bad language out of interviews if possible. The two things are not connected, so calm down about it.

She's the one who needs calming down about it.  I'm busy posting about relevant facts.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

She's the one who needs calming down about it.  I'm busy posting about relevant facts.

You're obsessing about it - rather than concentrating on the fire and loss of life, so you're doing what you're accusing her of.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're obsessing about it - rather than concentrating on the fire and loss of life, so you're doing what you're accusing her of.

I started this thread to speak out about a huge tragedy and loss of life.  She, and you, are squandering our time and space speaking of irrelevant nonsense.  Stick to the subject or start your own thread about swearing.  It trivializes the subject.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I'd like to know more about how the fire started in the first place. A faulty fridge? What kind of fault was it?

Sounds a bit dubious to me...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I started this thread to speak out about a huge tragedy and loss of life.  She, and you, are squandering our time and space speaking of irrelevant nonsense.  Stick to the subject or start your own thread about swearing.  It trivializes the subject.

I didn't start complaining about the reporter re the swearing. I just think people are making too much fuss about it.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't start complaining about the reporter re the swearing. I just think people are making too much fuss about it.

Then stop fussing over it.

As to the fire causation, they will be looking into a variety of contributing factors.  I've already mentioned ignition and acceleration.  They will also be looking into the path of the fire, specifically to see what spread and enlarged it.

Ultimately they will be looking at human factors, concerning both civil and criminal liability.  They will also be looking into causation due to product failures, whether design or misuse.  This is where the cladding comes in.  Finally, they will be looking at everyone's agendas, to determine if it was possibly intentionally set.

Tommy Monk wrote:Eddie... what happened to your post about the TMO housing group with all the links from grenfel residents group?