London Tower Block Engulfed In Flames

[bwfcfan5]

3 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

Just as an aside fanny5. Was it the governments fault that a 999 call was made by a resident on the 20th floor who was told to stay put. Firefighters reached the 20th floor but failed to knock on her door. She latterly too matters into her own hands and fled and made it to the 10th floor before she died tragically. 

i assume this was the governments fault also yes? 

It isn't anyone's singular fault. Its a whole set of systemic errors - that need to be corrected - the issue is that people were clearly finding ways around regulations - regulations that should have been tightened up - but weren't. And warnings were issued. It wasn't like a freak out of the blue thing. Yet warnings weren't acted on.

I find throwing blame on the fire service who carried out national policy for large building fires - is a bit distasteful - they are part of the set of systemic failures - but lets differentiate between real and serious mistakes on the ground where you might look at the service - and wider systemic errors where they simply acted on what they knew and what they'd been told to do. They did not know how the building had been altered...

[Escobarp]

2 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

It isn't anyone's singular fault. Its a whole set of systemic errors - that need to be corrected - the issue is that people were clearly finding ways around regulations - regulations that should have been tightened up - but weren't. And warnings were issued. It wasn't like a freak out of the blue thing. Yet warnings weren't acted on.

I find throwing blame on the fire service who carried out national policy for large building fires - is a bit distasteful - they are part of the set of systemic failures - but lets differentiate between real and serious mistakes on the ground where you might look at the service - and wider systemic errors where they simply acted on what they knew and what they'd been told to do. They did not know how the building had been altered...

I’m throwing blame on nobody. This was a huge tragedy where too many people lost their lives because primarily the building wasn’t up to scratch.  So somebody’s profiteering and somebody’s negligence led to unnecessary deaths and I hope they rot for it. 

Blaming the government is highly distasteful

[bwfcfan5]

1 minute ago, Escobarp said:

I’m throwing blame on nobody. This was a huge tragedy where too many people lost their lives because primarily the building wasn’t up to scratch.  So somebody’s profiteering and somebody’s negligence led to unnecessary deaths and I hope they rot for it. 

Blaming the government is highly distasteful

They have to be partly responsible - for failure to act on the recommendations from the 2013 report into the similar flats fire in Southwark....given the risks of something similar occurring were highlighted yet the regulations not tightened as had been recommended.

You can't just dodge that. The warning was there but not heeded. 

[birch-chorley]

It’s a Rabbit Warren of process and red tape trying to find out where the regulation failings have fallen down 

I’d have thought that the FireService have a hand in writing their own play book on how to tackle fires and as such should have re written it after the earlier fire 

Not a dig at fire fighters on the ground but the people at the top in charge of writing the play books based on precedent of other incidents / reviews 

[kent_white]

I know this isn't probably a popular opinion. But I also sympathise with some of the controllers making the decisions. 

I can't imagine many of them have dealt with something like that before - and if they'd been trained that people were more likely to survive if they stayed put - them I can could see why that's what they fell back on. 

There's probably a hundred reasons this happened the way it did.

[MalcolmW]

10 minutes ago, kent_white said:

I know this isn't probably a popular opinion. But I also sympathise with some of the controllers making the decisions. 

I can't imagine many of them have dealt with something like that before - and if they'd been trained that people were more likely to survive if they stayed put - them I can could see why that's what they fell back on. 

There's probably a hundred reasons this happened the way it did.

The Lakanal House fire of 2009 in Camberwell was the clear warning ignored by policy planners. If you read up on it you will find that the "stay put" advice was unsound then but it was not reviewed. That fire was also caused by a faulty electrical product (a TV), but the added feature of dubious quality cladding was not present.

For the head of the London Fire Service not to have offered her resignation at any point is one thing - perhaps she was negotiating her leaving deal - but to say that, even with hindsight, she would not have changed the "stay put" instruction demonstrated clearly that she had failed to take notice of that earlier fire in a 14 storey block. I await MickyD's expert input whenever.

[Escobarp]

Agree there will be a number of decisions made by a number of people across a number of months and prompted by a number of scenarios. 

But in modern society we have to have to have this blame culture it appears. 

[MickyD]

4 hours ago, Duck Egg said:

The main criticism against the fire service isn't against the firefighters themselves, more the organisation that didn't communicate effectively between the control room and the scene.

As for the stay put policy - after 9/11 there's no feckin way I'd have been staying in there once a fire was reported 

4 hours ago, birch-chorley said:

Aye, whoever was is in charge of policy got it badly wrong with the whole ‘stay put’ advice. But then again, it always takes some sort of precedent for things to change, unfortunately it was this tragedy. From what I’ve seen, they are saying that advice should have changed following the other previous smaller London fore (Lacanal House?), hindsight though I suppose 

The other piece of the jigsaw is finding out how sub standard materials got through building control 

2 hours ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Stay put was official government policy. The report staging is that stage two will look at "building regulations and compliance" so in effect this is a huge cover up to try and distract from the fact that warnings were ignored re building and fire safety by the government and down....

There is a reason for a stay put policy; a number of reasons, in fact. And bwfcfan5, you're wrong, "Stay Put" isn't a Government policy, it is (was) a policy designed to give the best possible outcome for the highest numbers of victims of fire within a purpose-vuilt block of flats.

Such blocks are, in effect, a row of terraced houses stood on end. If you lived in a row of terraces and there was a fire 20 houses down the street, would you evacuate your house? 

Obviously, in a block of flats, heat rises but it is retained within the flat of origin by carefully engineered fire separation and hardware such as fire resistant doors and windows. The doors would be rated to one hour and the windows to half hour. Plenty of time for the fire service to attend and direct an orderly evacuation from the areas most in need of such an evacuation rather than encourage everyone to just fill the staircase to go downwards which they would need to be available in order for them to go upwards. 

The stay put policy is absolutely dead right. What it didn't take into account was that the buildings owners, in order to make a drab building look nice as well as to add some degree of external insulation to meet heat-loss standards. Nobody actually thought to communicate such issues to the Fire Brigade; they didn't need to, in 2005 the Blair Government took responsibility for Fire Safety inspections away from Fire Services and gave it to the building owners. Where once the Fire Service could demand changes to a building which impacted financially on the building owners now the building owners got to decide what (and if) money be spent. Turkeys voting for Christmas?

Of course, austerity hasn't helped with cuts to services but, for me, the rot started when John Prescott's Office of the Deputy Prime Minister took over control of Fire Services from The Home Office. When at the Home Office, the Fire Service Inspectorate were former high ranking Fire Officers who were able to justify their concerns from a public safety angle. With the ODPM, the inspectorate were civil servants who justified their concerns from a financial savings stance.

2 hours ago, Escobarp said:

Just as an aside fanny5. Was it the governments fault that a 999 call was made by a resident on the 20th floor who was told to stay put. Firefighters reached the 20th floor but failed to knock on her door. She latterly too matters into her own hands and fled and made it to the 10th floor before she died tragically. 

i assume this was the governments fault also yes? 

I'm not sure where you got this information from, Escobarp. It all sounds like over-sensationalised tabloid supposition to me.

 

 

[Escobarp]

5 minutes ago, MickyD said:

There is a reason for a stay put policy; a number of reasons, in fact. And bwfcfan5, you're wrong, "Stay Put" isn't a Government policy, it is (was) a policy designed to give the best possible outcome for the highest numbers of victims of fire within a purpose-vuilt block of flats.

Such blocks are, in effect, a row of terraced houses stood on end. If you lived in a row of terraces and there was a fire 20 houses down the street, would you evacuate your house? 

Obviously, in a block of flats, heat rises but it is retained within the flat of origin by carefully engineered fire separation and hardware such as fire resistant doors and windows. The doors would be rated to one hour and the windows to half hour. Plenty of time for the fire service to attend and direct an orderly evacuation from the areas most in need of such an evacuation rather than encourage everyone to just fill the staircase to go downwards which they would need to be available in order for them to go upwards. 

The stay put policy is absolutely dead right. What it didn't take into account was that the buildings owners, in order to make a drab building look nice as well as to add some degree of external insulation to meet heat-loss standards. Nobody actually thought to communicate such issues to the Fire Brigade; they didn't need to, in 2005 the Blair Government took responsibility for Fire Safety inspections away from Fire Services and gave it to the building owners. Where once the Fire Service could demand changes to a building which impacted financially on the building owners now the building owners got to decide what (and if) money be spent. Turkeys voting for Christmas?

Of course, austerity hasn't helped with cuts to services but, for me, the rot started when John Prescott's Office of the Deputy Prime Minister took over control of Fire Services from The Home Office. When at the Home Office, the Fire Service Inspectorate were former high ranking Fire Officers who were able to justify their concerns from a public safety angle. With the ODPM, the inspectorate were civil servants who justified their concerns from a financial savings stance.

I'm not sure where you got this information from, Escobarp. It all sounds like over-sensationalised tabloid supposition to me.

 

 

I listened to a snippet from the enquiry into the event mate. Yesterday on 5 live. Haven’t read or heard anything else about it. 

But it was definitely what was said that they reached the door but didn’t knock on her door 

[MickyD]

[MickyD]

2 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

I listened to a snippet from the enquiry into the event mate. Yesterday on 5 live. Haven’t read or heard anything else about it. 

But it was definitely what was said that they reached the door but didn’t knock on her door 

Right. Picture this scenario:

As I previously stated, the door between the common landing and the flat will have been rated at 60 minutes of direct flame impingement. If I, as a fireman, got to a door where a raging inferno was obviously taking place the other side of the door, I wouldn't knock on either. I'd go and find a flat where the likelihood of finding a living and savable person would be better. Nobody ever got better by being taken outside but already dead.

Firefighters will take risk to their own life in order to rescue a SAVABLE person
Firefighters will take a lesser risk to their own life to prevent further damage to a savable building or other property
Firefighters will take no risk at all where life would already be extinct or a building already damaged beyond saving.

[Ani]

Here is the thing. The fire service probably could in retrospect have done some things differently. If they had enough information at the time to do things is up for debate. 
 

But if the building had been fundamentally safe in first place we would not be having the discussion. 

[Escobarp]

14 minutes ago, MickyD said:

Right. Picture this scenario:

As I previously stated, the door between the common landing and the flat will have been rated at 60 minutes of direct flame impingement. If I, as a fireman, got to a door where a raging inferno was obviously taking place the other side of the door, I wouldn't knock on either. I'd go and find a flat where the likelihood of finding a living and savable person would be better. Nobody ever got better by being taken outside but already dead.

Firefighters will take risk to their own life in order to rescue a SAVABLE person
Firefighters will take a lesser risk to their own life to prevent further damage to a savable building or other property
Firefighters will take no risk at all where life would already be extinct or a building already damaged beyond saving.

Please forgive me if you think I was apportioning blame to the fire service. Not in anyway. I have nothing but admiration for what these guys (and you) do/did. They risked their own lives that night to save a lot of people  it is unfortunate that people die in these tragedies but if it wasn’t for the fire service exponentially more people would die that is a Fact  

I was using the example to highlight fanny5 being way off the pace with his Tory government is at fault for everything. 

[Morizio]

12 minutes ago, MickyD said:

Firefighters will take risk to their own life in order to rescue a SAVABLE person
Firefighters will take a lesser risk to their own life to prevent further damage to a savable building or other property
Firefighters will take no risk at all where life would already be extinct or a building already damaged beyond saving.

Thank you for summising the decision making process for firefighters.  
 

Folk doing a dangerous job on behalf of us. 

[MickyD]

20 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

Please forgive me if you think I was apportioning blame to the fire service. Not in anyway. I have nothing but admiration for what these guys (and you) do/did. They risked their own lives that night to save a lot of people  it is unfortunate that people die in these tragedies but if it wasn’t for the fire service exponentially more people would die that is a Fact  

I was using the example to highlight fanny5 being way off the pace with his Tory government is at fault for everything. 

He is wrong. The crap, as I stated, started with John Prescott and the Government's request for a "Government Funded  Independent Review of the British Fire and Rescue Services" and paid Sir George Bain hansomely to aim a wrecking ball at years of tradition.

[Escobarp]

7 minutes ago, MickyD said:

He is wrong. The crap, as I stated, started with John Prescott and the Government's request for a "Government Funded  Independent Review of the British Fire and Rescue Services" and paid Sir George Bain hansomely to aim a wrecking ball at years of tradition.

We all know he is wrong. But sadly his desire to be proven to know everything will not allow this realism to take hold of him 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Escobarp- did you hear the poisonous comments from that slime ball Cherry. Utterly cuntish- fortunately, she was soon slapped down by a labour mp and former firefighter.

Loathsome set of scummers that lot.

[bwfcfan5]

4 hours ago, MickyD said:

There is a reason for a stay put policy; a number of reasons, in fact. And bwfcfan5, you're wrong, "Stay Put" isn't a Government policy, it is (was) a policy designed to give the best possible outcome for the highest numbers of victims of fire within a purpose-vuilt block of flats.

Such blocks are, in effect, a row of terraced houses stood on end. If you lived in a row of terraces and there was a fire 20 houses down the street, would you evacuate your house? 

Obviously, in a block of flats, heat rises but it is retained within the flat of origin by carefully engineered fire separation and hardware such as fire resistant doors and windows. The doors would be rated to one hour and the windows to half hour. Plenty of time for the fire service to attend and direct an orderly evacuation from the areas most in need of such an evacuation rather than encourage everyone to just fill the staircase to go downwards which they would need to be available in order for them to go upwards. 

The stay put policy is absolutely dead right. What it didn't take into account was that the buildings owners, in order to make a drab building look nice as well as to add some degree of external insulation to meet heat-loss standards. Nobody actually thought to communicate such issues to the Fire Brigade; they didn't need to, in 2005 the Blair Government took responsibility for Fire Safety inspections away from Fire Services and gave it to the building owners. Where once the Fire Service could demand changes to a building which impacted financially on the building owners now the building owners got to decide what (and if) money be spent. Turkeys voting for Christmas?

Of course, austerity hasn't helped with cuts to services but, for me, the rot started when John Prescott's Office of the Deputy Prime Minister took over control of Fire Services from The Home Office. When at the Home Office, the Fire Service Inspectorate were former high ranking Fire Officers who were able to justify their concerns from a public safety angle. With the ODPM, the inspectorate were civil servants who justified their concerns from a financial savings stance.

I'm not sure where you got this information from, Escobarp. It all sounds like over-sensationalised tabloid supposition to me.

 

 

My point re stay put is that it was policy/practice and the fire service were doing what they were trained and instructed to do - and they shouldn't be criticised for that. I'm in agreement that as you point out - the failure was that they hadn't been informed of the building changes - and therefore were acting without the required knowledge. 

 

[jayjayoghani]

The stay put advice relies on fire being compartmentalised. There was criticism as 999 operators were continuing the advice even they though they knew the fire was spreading.

I design buildings so know how the process works. In my mind there's been a massive fuck up in that far more culpable than any fire service management or training failures. The structure of this enquiry is wrong, should have just one report when all aspects covered, but everyone wants answers now I guess. 

Vast majority of architects are very clued up on fire so find it hard to believe someone has specced this cladding. Designs are usually vetted by a Fire Service representative as a final check too.

Honestly believe this could down to some bean counter changing the spec, at the last minute without having the knowledge or realizing the implications.  

Edited October 31, 2019 by jayjayoghani

[SatanGreavsie]

2 hours ago, jayjayoghani said:

 

Honestly believe this could down to some bean counter changing the spec, at the last minute without having the knowledge or realizing the implications.  

Thing is, I can see a bean counter trying to cut costs (though less urgent in Kensington and Chelsea which had £1/4 Bn reserves at the time). I suppose if I was in charge a budget for this kind of thing I wouldn't be rushing to deal with reports of rats, the bogs playing up or demands for new paintwork in the stairwells. But summat that's life and death...

As an example - a while back (decade maybe or more) I watched a tv doc where an undercover reporter got a job at a new chain of car mechanic places. The gaffer told him all the tricks - make up faults, take old stuff out and clean it up instead of replacing with new or even just don't do anything, as most people wouldn't know how to check. So setting a pretty low bar to his moral compass. But then, unbidden, he did say "the only thing I don't fuck with is brakes. I'm not going to put lives at risk". So someone more than happy to rip people off to save a few bob still realised some things are more important. Stuck with me at the time and struck me when the fire happened.

[Duck Egg]

4 hours ago, jayjayoghani said:

 

Honestly believe this could down to some bean counter changing the spec, at the last minute without having the knowledge or realizing the implications.  

It's possible some accountant spotted a way to save money late on BUT the cladding was compliant with UK law at the time wasn't it? Any accountant worth their salt aren't going to spend extra money if they don't have to and if they think what's been proposed must be safe because it is compliant.

[jayjayoghani]

38 minutes ago, Duck Egg said:

It's possible some accountant spotted a way to save money late on BUT the cladding was compliant with UK law at the time wasn't it? Any accountant worth their salt aren't going to spend extra money if they don't have to and if they think what's been proposed must be safe because it is compliant.

The cladding is perfectly suitable in some applications which is probably what the manufacturer's defence will be. Single storey small unoccupied building in the middle of nowhere, that needs to be thermally insulated, that kind of thing.

Should clearly never have been specified on a high-rise. 

You can't simply change the specification of something that's been subject to a Building Regs Application process and checking. If this is what has happened, then they should go to prison, simple as. 

[MickyD]

11 hours ago, Duck Egg said:

It's possible some accountant spotted a way to save money late on BUT the cladding was compliant with UK law at the time wasn't it? Any accountant worth their salt aren't going to spend extra money if they don't have to and if they think what's been proposed must be safe because it is compliant.

I think the manufacturers or their sales staff could be high up on the scale of culpability. If, when asked about the fire retardancy, they guessed the answer was yes, then they're guilty. Even so, there are plenty of fire science research establishments who are the over-seers of stufflike this. Cardington is a massive one where they'll spend a fortune building a house and setting fire to it.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Wasn't there something on the BBC not longer after it happened, about the testing regime applied to this stuff: iirc the cladding was passing, but I was explained that the test itself was inadequate and not representative. Or something like that. Been a while.

[Traf]

Who did the testing? The EFL?