Massive West London Apartment fire

First topic message reminder :

London fire: fears of people trapped as major blaze engulfs tower block


(CNN)A huge fire has engulfed a 24-story apartment block in West London.

Around 200 firefighters and 20 fire trucks have been deployed to tackle the blaze as rescue workers try to evacuate the building in Lancaster West Estate in North Kensington, London Fire Brigade said.


The fire broke out before daybreak local time Wednesday. In a statement posted to Twitter, London police say two people are currently being treated for smoke inhalation and they're waiting updates on further injuries.

Photos and video shared on social media show the tower block engulfed in flames.
"The whole building is on fire (and) spreading fast," witness Goran Karimi told CNN.
He said he saw people jumping from the building.

Grenfell Tower

The 24-story Grenfell Tower was built in the 1970s and recently subject to a $10.9 million redevelopment, according to property firm Rydon.

Close to Notting Hill, the tower block is around a five minute walk from the Latimer Road Underground station and near the Westfield shopping center in the west London suburbs.
According to property website RightMove, the average rent in the building is around $2,500 a month.

News is just now breaking.  This is all there is, save for live TV.

eddie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:The EU made the rules...


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/817651/london-fire-grenfell-tower-block-cladding-latest-updates-european-union-regulations

Almost 100 people died horrifically and the best you can do is try to deflect the blame from those who are actually at fault? You're such a geranium.

Ps and a sack of shit.

Isn't that what a lot of people on here are doing? You're doing it yourself in the thread you started. We don't know who's to blame yet, if anyone.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:The EU made the rules...


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/817651/london-fire-grenfell-tower-block-cladding-latest-updates-european-union-regulations

Almost 100 people died horrifically and the best you can do is try to deflect the blame from those who are actually at fault? You're such a geranium.

Ps and a sack of shit.

Isn't that what a lot of people on here are doing? You're doing it yourself in the thread you started. We don't know who's to blame yet, if anyone.

This is just Tommy's usual dig about the EU and Brexit and a post in response to the video of a non-white man losing his brother.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Isn't that what a lot of people on here are doing? You're doing it yourself in the thread you started. We don't know who's to blame yet, if anyone.

This is just Tommy's usual dig about the EU and Brexit and a post in response to the video of a non-white man losing his brother.

I think he's commenting on EU rules about energy consumption actually.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:


Almost 100 people died horrifically and the best you can do is try to deflect the blame from those who are actually at fault? You're such a geranium.

Ps and a sack of shit.

Isn't that what a lot of people on here are doing? You're doing it yourself in the thread you started. We don't know who's to blame yet, if anyone.

Exactly, the fault is with the faulty fridge
Why are people looking to blame posters and take this out on them?

Tommy has now faced this twice. What the fuck is wrong with people.

I Hate Tommys views but does he deserve this hate?

Eddie you are out of order

Nobody has taken any notice of the story of the fridge. It should be easy enough for them to check out as they know which flat it was in. That doesn't explain why the fire spread so quickly of course, but it is a bit worrying if fridges can go up in flames at the drop of a hat.

Raggamuffin wrote:Nobody has taken any notice of the story of the fridge. It should be easy enough for them to check out as they know which flat it was in. That doesn't explain why the fire spread so quickly of course, but it is a bit worrying if fridges can go up in flames at the drop of a hat.

Well if you understand how fires spread, yes it does Rags

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Nobody has taken any notice of the story of the fridge. It should be easy enough for them to check out as they know which flat it was in. That doesn't explain why the fire spread so quickly of course, but it is a bit worrying if fridges can go up in flames at the drop of a hat.

Well if you understand how fires spread, yes it does Rags

I mean the alleged fridge could have caused the fire in the first place, but not the fast spread of the fire.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well if you understand how fires spread, yes it does Rags

I mean the alleged fridge could have caused the fire in the first place, but not the fast spread of the fire.

Really?

So again I ask based off what science?

You really have no clue to how fires spread so quickly, do you?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I mean the alleged fridge could have caused the fire in the first place, but not the fast spread of the fire.

Really?

So again I ask based off what science?

You really have no clue to how fires spread so quickly, do you?

Oh just shut up. You completely misunderstood my post. I have no interest in pursuing this with you - go and hassle someone else.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Really?

So again I ask based off what science?

You really have no clue to how fires spread so quickly, do you?

Oh just shut up. You completely misunderstood my post. I have no interest in pursuing this with you - go and hassle someone else.

So you wish to silence me

Which proves you have not the first fucking clue what you are talking about

Now either put up your claims or bow down

I havnt been able to view any videos posted on any thread for a while now because of shitty internet connx...

But it is definitely eu rules that forced cladding work... and i bet it is also eu rules that dictated this type of cladding could be used too...

Also... how does anyone know for sure that this somalians fridge was the original source...?

He could have been mixing up chemicals for a terrorist bomb attack and it went wrong and caught fire for all we know... his so called bag of clothes could well have been full of dodgy chemicals and other evidence too with him trying to hide it all...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:I havnt been able to view any videos posted on any thread for a while now because of shitty internet connx...

But it is definitely eu rules that forced cladding work... and i bet it is also eu rules that dictated this type of cladding could be used too...

Also... how does anyone know for sure that this somalians fridge was the original source...?

He could have been mixing up chemicals for a terrorist bomb attack and it went wrong and caught fire for all we know... his so called bag of clothes could well have been full of dodgy chemicals and other evidence too with him trying to hide it all...!?

The Police have confirmed it as not deliberate

The first contractor chosen to refurbish Grenfell Tower was dropped to save cash, it was revealed today.

Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council became unhappy when preferred bidder Leadbitter told them the required works would cost £11.27 million because it was £1.6million more than they wanted to spend.

A housing report from 2013 shows that unless the price dropped the contract would be put out to tender again to ensure better 'value for money'.

Rydon would later win the work by saying it could replace windows, install a new heating system for flats and add the cladding, which experts believe accelerated the fire, for £8.7million.

The deal done after re-tendering the Grenfell Tower saved the council £2.5million.

Councils turned to cladding to meet standards set by Blair government scheme

Cladding became popular as councils sought to meet insulation standards laid out under the Blair Government's £22billion Decent Homes Programme, which ran from 2000 to 2010.

The programme's rules dictated that homes should have efficient heating and effective insulation, modern facilities and be in a good state of repair.

For high-rise council blocks, local authorities were faced with either knocking them down, meaning they would have to find or build homes elsewhere, or refurbishing them.

The latter option was much cheaper, despite the millions of pounds then pumped into the scheme.
In London alone, it is believed more than £820million in public funds were paid to contractors to make alterations.
Local authorities turned to cladding the outside of old council house stock, including tower blocks, in a bid to improve the buildings' appearance and the improve so-called 'thermal efficiency' ratings.
A press release by a cladding firm from the time stated: 'Over-cladding existing homes to improve their energy efficiency as well as aesthetics is proving the solution of choice for local authorities in their bid to meet Decent Homes standards.'
The statement gave examples in Bristol and Lanarkshire where cladding had been used to meet the terms of the programme.
A architect was quoted at the time saying: 'The main priorities were to eliminate water ingress, improve the thermal efficiency of the blocks, and enhance the physical appearance of the external envelope.'





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4610158/Grenfell-Tower-contractor-DROPPED-save-council-1-6m.html

Tommy Monk wrote:I havnt been able to view any videos posted on any thread for a while now because of shitty internet connx...

But it is definitely eu rules that forced cladding work... and i bet it is also eu rules that dictated this type of cladding could be used too...

Also... how does anyone know for sure that this somalians fridge was the original source...?

He could have been mixing up chemicals for a terrorist bomb attack and it went wrong and caught fire for all we know... his so called bag of clothes could well have been full of dodgy chemicals and other evidence too with him trying to hide it all...!?

Didn't you read what I posted about fridges exploding?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I havnt been able to view any videos posted on any thread for a while now because of shitty internet connx...

But it is definitely eu rules that forced cladding work... and i bet it is also eu rules that dictated this type of cladding could be used too...

Also... how does anyone know for sure that this somalians fridge was the original source...?

He could have been mixing up chemicals for a terrorist bomb attack and it went wrong and caught fire for all we know... his so called bag of clothes could well have been full of dodgy chemicals and other evidence too with him trying to hide it all...!?

Didn't you read what I posted about fridges exploding?

Good luck, on that with Tommy.

He knows jt was not deliberate, but will try and argue otherwise

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I havnt been able to view any videos posted on any thread for a while now because of shitty internet connx...

But it is definitely eu rules that forced cladding work... and i bet it is also eu rules that dictated this type of cladding could be used too...

Also... how does anyone know for sure that this somalians fridge was the original source...?

He could have been mixing up chemicals for a terrorist bomb attack and it went wrong and caught fire for all we know... his so called bag of clothes could well have been full of dodgy chemicals and other evidence too with him trying to hide it all...!?

The Police have confirmed it as not deliberate

Doesnt rule out what i said...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:


The Police have confirmed it as not deliberate

Doesnt rule out what i said...

I am afraid it does unless you buy into conspiracies

HoratioTarr wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I havnt been able to view any videos posted on any thread for a while now because of shitty internet connx...

But it is definitely eu rules that forced cladding work... and i bet it is also eu rules that dictated this type of cladding could be used too...

Also... how does anyone know for sure that this somalians fridge was the original source...?

He could have been mixing up chemicals for a terrorist bomb attack and it went wrong and caught fire for all we know... his so called bag of clothes could well have been full of dodgy chemicals and other evidence too with him trying to hide it all...!?

Didn't you read what I posted about fridges exploding?

I did...

It is well known that fire may start from a faulty electrical appliance... as well as agreat many number of other ways...

And that when a fire is burning it is also well known that the flames come out the window... so it would be simple common sense not to put a load of flammable materials up the outside walls of a building and around the windows...!!!



Also from your c and p above...


"...Councils turned to cladding to meet standards set by Blair government scheme..."

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Doesnt rule out what i said...

I am afraid it does unless you buy into conspiracies

Have they confirmed the source of the fire yet...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I am afraid it does unless you buy into conspiracies

Have they confirmed the source of the fire yet...?

Yes

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

WTF?!  They are the ones responsible.  It's as if they pulled a trigger on those people.

Why are they responsible? The cladding used was legal, and there was no requirement to use fire-retardant cladding.

Perhaps I can walk you through it.  Once, the British government had regulations that prevented things like this from happening.  Lives were saved as a consequence.  After all, as George Lakoff says, regulations are otherwise known as public protections.

When the Tories took office, one of the first things they did was to go through a phase of deregulation (think: deprotecting the public).  Regulations are unnecessary, frivolous and they get in the way of making money, they reasoned.  You didn't think anything about it then, did you?  Welfare, feeding children, caring for the sick or abused...they are all just programs and Tories are right, probably unnecessary.

UNTIL...something like this happens.  Or (tommy will love the environmental connections) the Deep Water Horizon...

Wiki wrote:..on April 20, 2010, in the Gulf of Mexico on the BP-operated Macondo Prospect. Killing eleven people, it is considered the largest marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry and estimated to be 8% to 31% larger in volume than the previous largest, the Ixtoc I oil spill. The US Government estimated the total discharge at 4.9 million barrels (210 million US gal; 780,000 m3). After several failed efforts to contain the flow, the well was declared sealed on September 19, 2010.[10] Reports in early 2012 indicated the well site was still leaking.

Eleven people died.  These are the results of Tory (or Republican) deregulation.  Your Tower Block fire has killed hundreds.  Only now do you realize what deregulation, or eliminating public protections, has created.  But it's too late.  Lefties--thinking problem-solvers--tried to teach you what forethought and caution could save you, but it interfered with making money.  So Tories deregulated and turned their backs.

Go ahead, live like a pack of rabid dogs.  Just don't pretend you are anything but a lazy, sloppy, third-world country, if you find that way of life acceptable.

And Quill ignores the fact that when Labour was in power or Labour councils. If nothing has been done, then all are culpable to the problem here and its no good looking to either blame left or right, when nothing has been done. All have failed those here.

This is what is wrong with the left, they see no wrong from the left, and claim to stand by what is right. I do not see any of that in what Quill posts. Its looks to make political points off the dead. People have lost their lives because nobody acted and this could have happened in any of the thousands of other buildings whether in a Tory or Labour council area.

This is why I now have little time for those on both left and right. All they do is look to fight each other, when they should unite on major issues like this.

That is why people like Quill have little interest that people have died, its more about political point scoring

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why are they responsible? The cladding used was legal, and there was no requirement to use fire-retardant cladding.

Perhaps I can walk you through it.  Once, the British government had regulations that prevented things like this from happening.  Lives were saved as a consequence.  After all, as George Lakoff says, regulations are otherwise known as public protections.

When the Tories took office, one of the first things they did was to go through a phase of deregulation (think: deprotecting the public).  Regulations are unnecessary, frivolous and they get in the way of making money, they reasoned.  You didn't think anything about it then, did you?  Welfare, feeding children, caring for the sick or abused...they are all just programs and Tories are right, probably unnecessary.

UNTIL...something like this happens.  Or (tommy will love the environmental connections) the Deep Water Horizon...

Wiki wrote:..on April 20, 2010, in the Gulf of Mexico on the BP-operated Macondo Prospect. Killing eleven people, it is considered the largest marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry and estimated to be 8% to 31% larger in volume than the previous largest, the Ixtoc I oil spill. The US Government estimated the total discharge at 4.9 million barrels (210 million US gal; 780,000 m3). After several failed efforts to contain the flow, the well was declared sealed on September 19, 2010.[10] Reports in early 2012 indicated the well site was still leaking.

Eleven people died.  These are the results of Tory (or Republican) deregulation.  Your Tower Block fire has killed hundreds.  Only now do you realize what deregulation, or eliminating public protections, has created.  But it's too late.  Lefties--thinking problem-solvers--tried to teach you what forethought and caution could save you, but it interfered with making money.  So Tories deregulated and turned their backs.

Go ahead, live like a pack of rabid dogs.  Just don't pretend you are anything but a lazy, sloppy, third-world country, if you find that way of life acceptable.

Could you post some links to back that up? It's not that I don't believe you, but I wouldn't know where to look. Did the Tories specifically change the regulations about cladding, and when did they do that?

Lets put the blame where it really lies, the people who sold this cladding,
did they check it was fire proof or not? If they checked and found it burned,
and then sold it without a warning they are 100% to blame. The people who bought it and installed it did not know it was liable to ignite, did they?

nicko wrote:Lets put the blame where it really lies,   the people who sold this cladding,
did they check it was fire proof or not? If they checked and found it burned,
and then sold it without a warning they are 100% to blame.  The people who bought it and installed it did not know it was liable to ignite,  did they?

It's not really their fault if the cladding is perfectly legal.

Raggamuffin wrote:

nicko wrote:Lets put the blame where it really lies,   the people who sold this cladding,
did they check it was fire proof or not? If they checked and found it burned,
and then sold it without a warning they are 100% to blame.  The people who bought it and installed it did not know it was liable to ignite,  did they?

It's not really their fault if the cladding is perfectly legal.

It is if they have wrongly convinced people its safe.

nicko wrote:Lets put the blame where it really lies,   the people who sold this cladding,
did they check it was fire proof or not? If they checked and found it burned,
and then sold it without a warning they are 100% to blame.  The people who bought it and installed it did not know it was liable to ignite,  did they?

But they are trusted to know, and to calculate all the permutations. I'm wondering how the guy with the exploding fridge had time to pack a suitcase! It was his neighbour who called the fire brigade, not him. And why didn't all residents have fire extinguishers in the flats. I have one in my kitchen. If that fridge blaze could have been tackled at source, it might have been a different story. Did he have his windows open so that the fire swept outside and caught the cladding? I thought those apartments were supposed to be self contained and fire proofed so that fire couldn't spread, so how did it spread from his flat so quickly?

That cladding is clearly designed to be put on the outside of buildings, so it must be legal to sell it.

What about the designers? Shouldn't they be clued up on the fire risks of flammable cladding?

HoratioTarr wrote:

nicko wrote:Lets put the blame where it really lies,   the people who sold this cladding,
did they check it was fire proof or not? If they checked and found it burned,
and then sold it without a warning they are 100% to blame.  The people who bought it and installed it did not know it was liable to ignite,  did they?

But they are trusted to know, and to calculate all the permutations.   I'm wondering how the guy with the exploding fridge had time to pack a suitcase!  It was his neighbour who called the fire brigade, not him.   And why didn't all residents have fire extinguishers in the flats.   I have one in my kitchen.   If that fridge blaze could have been tackled at source, it might have been a different story.   Did he have his windows open so that the fire swept outside and caught the cladding?   I thought those apartments were supposed to be self contained and fire proofed so that fire couldn't spread, so how did it spread from his flat so quickly?  

The fire must have gone outside the window and then up the cladding and into other flats via the windows I suppose. That's assuming that the cladding was the problem - everyone assumes it was, but it's not been established yet.

Raggamuffin wrote:That cladding is clearly designed to be put on the outside of buildings, so it must be legal to sell it.

What about the designers? Shouldn't they be clued up on the fire risks of flammable cladding?

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Everyone is screaming hate at Theresa May, but the truth is there is a whole string of events and people to blame here. But I guess, they can't get at the idiot fat cats who actually cut the corners.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:That cladding is clearly designed to be put on the outside of buildings, so it must be legal to sell it.

What about the designers? Shouldn't they be clued up on the fire risks of flammable cladding?

You'd think so, wouldn't you?   Everyone is screaming hate at Theresa May, but the truth is there is a whole string of events and people to blame here.    But I guess, they can't get at the idiot fat cats who actually cut the corners.

I can't see that Theresa May is to blame. She can't know about everything.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

You'd think so, wouldn't you?   Everyone is screaming hate at Theresa May, but the truth is there is a whole string of events and people to blame here.    But I guess, they can't get at the idiot fat cats who actually cut the corners.

I can't see that Theresa May is to blame. She can't know about everything.

Any more than Corbyn would be to blame if Labour were in Government. Each council has jurisdiction over their own boroughs. However, when these fears and warnings came up via MP's in Parliament, it should have at least been acted on. But most Council's are a law unto themselves and all are guilty of taking back handers. I trust my local council even less than I trust the Government, to be honest.

SALFORD TOWER BLOCK CLADDING SIMILAR TO LONDON FIRE MATERIALS

CLADDING USED IN PENDLETON TOWER BLOCKS 'CONTRIBUTES TO FIRE GROWTH' STATE EXPERTS

The cladding used in the Salford tower blocks refurbished by Pendleton Together is similar to that used in Grenfell Tower in London, scene of this week's horrific blaze.

The cladding in Salford blocks consisted of a Standard Polyurethane core, or PUR. And an article in the newsletter of experts Probyn Miers states that PUR "contributes to fire growth in a fully-developed fire". Salford City Council was sent samples of the material and passed it as safe.

Here, all the hype surrounding the refurbishments has been about appearance rather than tenant safety…

"The design has been developed to provide colour and interest at key focal points" stated Pendleton Together "...The rationale for the treatment of Spruce and Thorn is based on the use of the same highly robust and crisply detailed cladding panel, but using two different shades of colour.

"The panel itself, known as 'Chameleon' creates a very dynamic appearance, changing colour as it catches the light" the company slathered "This means that each plane of the building can appear as a different colour shade, depending on the aspect and time of day. The interplay of light and shade and changing colour tones, within each tower and from one tower to the next, will create a mesmerising effect.

"These colours have been carefully considered and selected in conjunction with Salford City Council's planning and design advisors and help to create a stronger sense of character and identity for what are large, grey and somewhat oppressive
buildings" it added "...As the buildings sit adjacent to a major highway they are seen by the public when on the move..."

The appearance hype goes on and on and on – but there is almost nothing written about safety in the blocks. The original 'hybrid' planning proposal for the whole of Pendleton contains little about such issues. And the actual 'outline' application considered by Salford Council, and passed in August 2012, has disappeared from the Council's website completely.

The only clue to the detail of the cladding comes in 2013, amongst dozens of documents in a 'request for confirmation of conditions' from Urban Vision to contractor, Keepmoat, which has two lines giving details of the materials to be used...

"Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) cladding Panels; Composite panels Aluminum Face Sheets; Thickness: 0.020"; Standard Polyurethane core (PE); 4mm thick; panel weight: RB 160 = 1.12 ilbs/sft."

The rest is all about which colours Pendleton Together should be using... "Spruce & Thorn Court shall be predominately in 'Chameleon' finish" etc...

The letter adds that "Prior to the commencement of development of each phase, samples of the following materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority… Bricks; Tiles/slates; Mortar; Structural metal work; Timber work; UPVC; and Cladding."

Salford Council approved the materials, including the 'Standard Polyurethane core', which, it must be stressed, didn't break fire and safety regulations at the time. However, there were numerous warnings about the materials used in the cladding which would take anyone with Google two minutes to find.

An article in the Winter 2016 newsletter of architectural experts, Probyn Miers, goes into huge detail (with sources) of the Fire Risks From External Cladding Panels (see here). It examines fires that have happened all over the world where cladding has been a factor, and highlights polyurethane, or PUR, as one of the materials which poses a risk…

"Polymeric core materials such as EPS [polystyrene] and PUR will burn at temperatures well below that of a fully developed fire and thus contribute to fire spread" it states

"PUR is combustible" it adds "However, it forms a char layer which tends to inhibit further combustion. The char layer is relatively fragile. It may break off to expose fresh combustible foam. PUR also contributes to fire growth in a fully-developed fire, giving off black smoke and toxic fumes, including hydrogen cyanide above 850oC."

Other variants used in cladding are Polyisocyanurate, or PIR, which, the article states "is difficult to ignite and exhibits a pronounced charring which enables it to withstand fire for longer, but is ultimately combustible"; Phenolic foam, which "is difficult to ignite" and Rockwool mineral fibre, which is "non-combustible".

The article concludes that "In the UK, influence from insurers and technical development within the composite panel industry has led to cores of polymer-cored external cladding panels changing from PUR to PIR to phenolic foam, decreasing the fire hazard."

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/16/30000-buildings-in-uk-are-covered-in-the-same-cladding-as-grenfell-tower-6713539/

There are something like 30,000 of these cladded high rise in the UK.

I think the majority of the blame for this rests squarely on the Council's shoulders. At the end of the day, they are one's who give the go ahead to use this stuff.

HoratioTarr wrote:There are something like 30,000 of these cladded high rise in the UK.  

Yes, I read that too.

This cladding is supposed to keep the flats warmer or something. If it's mainly for cosmetic purposes, then it's a waste of money, and now it's cost people their lives. If a block of flats doesn't look nice, it's just tough - they are what they are.

According to the Fire Protection Association, the cladding used should still have resisted fire. The problem might be the gap between the cladding and the building though. The answer is to get rid of this cladding on buildings, and if the buildings then look awful, well no matter - it's better to live in a building which looks a bit tatty than to die in one which looks nice. Better still, get rid of these awful high-rise blocks. I'm aware that they save space but there must be other alternatives.

The thought of those poor people up there whilst the building just burned is horrible.

I must have said this a dozen times, " Was the cladding tested by the Manufactures for fire resistance"? And if not, why not?

Raggamuffin wrote:According to the Fire Protection Association, the cladding used should still have resisted fire. The problem might be the gap between the cladding and the building though. The answer is to get rid of this cladding on buildings, and if the buildings then look awful, well no matter - it's better to live in a building which looks a bit tatty than to die in one which looks nice. Better still, get rid of these awful high-rise blocks. I'm aware that they save space but there must be other alternatives.

The thought of those poor people up there whilst the building just burned is horrible.

Right. Christmas is better with a beautiful tree with quaint candles on it, but...

nicko wrote:I must have said this a dozen times, " Was the cladding tested by the Manufactures for fire resistance"? And if not, why not?

Such orders can only come from the top. What brand of government is on top?

EU regulations set out rules for buildings’ energy consumption with Britain signed up to the 2010 Energy Performance of Buildings Directive.

Express.co.uk asked Geoff Wilkinson, MD of Wilkinson Construction Consultants, if EU laws on improving energy efficiency have any impact on building renovations in the UK.

He said: “In short yes the laws did - there is not currently a requirement to retrofit insulation but if you reroof or re-clad a building you are required to upgrade insulation providing it's technically and economically possible to do so.”

A European Commission spokeswoman said: “Fire safety rules and building material standards are a matter for national authorities. The EU's only role is in making sure materials which meet those national standards are not excluded from national markets in a discriminatory way just because they are made elsewhere in Europe.

“The EU also prescribes that the product performance regarding reaction to fire is tested with a European test method.

“The EU does co-fund various types of building renovation projects, mostly through regional policy - of course it is for Member States to ensure buildings on their territory comply with national law.”

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/817651/london-fire-grenfell-tower-block-cladding-latest-updates-european-union-regulations

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:I must have said this a dozen times, " Was the cladding tested by the Manufactures for fire resistance"? And if not, why not?

Such orders can only come from the top.  What brand of government is on top?

It was Tony Blair’s Labour government that promoted separating the management of the stock from the local authority’s housing and homelessness duties.

Does this mean that the Tories should have changed this. Yes. Thought I don't think for one moment that would have been top of the list for Corbyn either. But this tragedy represents the failure of government at all levels. If you point the finger at just one faction, you weaken bringing to task ALL those who failed these poor people.

Let's face it, if Corbyn had got in, his first thought wouldn't have been to do something about cladding on high-rise flats.

Raggamuffin wrote:Let's face it, if Corbyn had got in, his first thought wouldn't have been to do something about cladding on high-rise flats.

Exactly. That is why we have Local Authorities.

nicko wrote:I must have said this a dozen times, " Was the cladding tested by the Manufactures for fire resistance"? And if not, why not?

The fucking stuff to have been manufactured for the purpose it was in the first place is clearly penny pinching madness.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Such orders can only come from the top.  What brand of government is on top?

It was Tony Blair’s Labour government that promoted separating the management of the stock from the local authority’s housing and homelessness duties.

Does this mean that the Tories should have changed this.  Yes.   Thought I don't think for one moment that would have been top of the list for Corbyn either.    But this tragedy represents the failure of government at all levels.  If you point the finger at just one faction, you weaken bringing to task ALL those who failed these poor people.

I think you're getting to specific: when, where, how, why, etc.  Those are questions of causation.

Deregulation is a theme.  We have regulations for a purpose: they are public protections.  If you are against regulations, you are against protecting the public.  

Generally, Tories are against regulation, or public protection, because it is unprofitable and bothersome.  It matters less when precisely it was done, but inevitably it will happen under a conservative rule.  The BP Oil spill in the Gulf happened less because of formal deregulation, and more because of an attitude of benign neglect as to the rules and enforcement under the Republican administration.  You will probably find that this was the case here.  In order to find the neglect you must determine the cause, or chain of causes.  Then you can pinpoint the lapse.  That's the process of investigation, and why it takes a long time.

But you can depend on it happening under a (any) conservative administration.  Conservatives represent special interests; only LW's represent the general interest.

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

It was Tony Blair’s Labour government that promoted separating the management of the stock from the local authority’s housing and homelessness duties.

Does this mean that the Tories should have changed this.  Yes.   Thought I don't think for one moment that would have been top of the list for Corbyn either.    But this tragedy represents the failure of government at all levels.  If you point the finger at just one faction, you weaken bringing to task ALL those who failed these poor people.

I think you're getting to specific: when, where, how, why, etc.  Deregulation is a theme.  We have regulations for a purpose: they are public protections.  If you are against regulations, you are against protecting the public.  

Generally, Tories are against regulation, or public protection, because it is unprofitable and bothersome.  It matters less when precisely it was done, but inevitably it will happen under a conservative rule.  The BP Oil spill in the Gulf happened less because of formal deregulation, and more because of an attitude of benign neglect as to the rules and enforcement under the Republican administration.  You will probably find that this was the case here.  In order to find the neglect you must determine the cause, or chain of causes.  Then you can pinpoint the lapse.  That's the process of investigation, and why it takes a long time.

But you can depend on it happening under a (any) conservative administration.  Conservatives represent special interests; only liberals represent the general interest.

You accused the Tories earlier, so you need to be more specific yourself as to when, where, why, etc. You can't just make blanket statements and not back them up.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think you're getting to specific: when, where, how, why, etc.  Deregulation is a theme.  We have regulations for a purpose: they are public protections.  If you are against regulations, you are against protecting the public.  

Generally, Tories are against regulation, or public protection, because it is unprofitable and bothersome.  It matters less when precisely it was done, but inevitably it will happen under a conservative rule.  The BP Oil spill in the Gulf happened less because of formal deregulation, and more because of an attitude of benign neglect as to the rules and enforcement under the Republican administration.  You will probably find that this was the case here.  In order to find the neglect you must determine the cause, or chain of causes.  Then you can pinpoint the lapse.  That's the process of investigation, and why it takes a long time.

But you can depend on it happening under a (any) conservative administration.  Conservatives represent special interests; only liberals represent the general interest.

You accused the Tories earlier, so you need to be more specific yourself as to when, where, why, etc. You can't just make blanket statements and not back them up.

I think I've been quite specific.  More than necessary.  

The devil is in the details, and the details are of causation.  But we know that this tragedy arises under the general rubric of someone did something wrong.  That means a lack of oversight, or regulation (for public protection).  So we know that whatever the cause, this occurred because a government wasn't taking care of business.

Most probably standards and control comes from the highest level, in order to assure standardization and blanket enforcement.  The Council may be involved in the inspection and approval, but causation in this case appears to be materials and installation application.  That's up at the top.

As I say, investigation involves causation and that will take time.  But we can make some generalizations about what happened right away.  Just watching the fire, we see the cladding was fully involved.  That shouldn't happen, save that it is made of the wrong material.  So, questions from the approval of materials, and that comes from the top, eh?  Likewise, we have questions as to the application of the cladding, creating vertical channels for the flames to travel from floor to floor.  Procedures come from the top, eh?

I would say not paying attention was a contributing factor, even if it doesn't rise to the level of formal deregulation. It's very much like the Gulf oil spill...neglect at the top.  And that's from the attitude at the top. Who represents special interests and who represents the general interest? Proof in the pudding.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You accused the Tories earlier, so you need to be more specific yourself as to when, where, why, etc. You can't just make blanket statements and not back them up.

I think I've been quite specific.  More than necessary.  

The devil is in the details, and the details are of causation.  But we know that this tragedy arises under the general rubric of someone did something wrong.  That means a lack of oversight, or regulation (for public protection).  So we know that whatever the cause, this occurred because a government wasn't taking care of business.

Most probably standards and control comes from the highest level, in order to assure standardization and blanket enforcement.  The Council may be involved in the inspection and approval, but causation in this case appears to be materials and installation application.  That's up at the top.

As I say, investigation involves causation and that will take time.  But we can make some generalizations about what happened right away.  Just watching the fire, we see the cladding was fully involved.  That shouldn't happen, save that it is made of the wrong material.  So, questions from the approval of materials, and that comes from the top, eh?  Likewise, we have questions as to the application of the cladding, creating vertical channels for the flames to travel from floor to floor.  Procedures come from the top, eh?

I would say not paying attention was a contributing factor, even if it doesn't rise to the level of formal deregulation.  It's very much like the Gulf oil spill...neglect at the top.  And that's from the attitude at the top.  Who represents special interests and who represents the general interest?  Proof in the pudding.

Your accusation was specific, but you haven't managed to back it up, so I can only conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about. This is what you said:

When the Tories took office, one of the first things they did was to go through a phase of deregulation (think: deprotecting the public).