[UK] Grenfell Tower Fire: 80 dead; Camden towers evacuated

[Philjia]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40389148

Well this isn't going to be putting pressure on already stretched social housing resources....

Better than leaving the folks in those buildings though.

Well, yeah, but the buildings shouldn't have been made out of matchsticks and firelighters to start with.

[Corrian]

Emails show Arconic knowingly supplied flammable panels for Grenfell House despite recommending they not be used on buildings taller than 30m.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brita ... SKBN19F05M

Geeeeez

[Minoa]

Source: http://islingtontribune.com/article/ten ... after-fire

A flat fire broke out at Hind House, one of the four tower blocks of the Harvist Estate, but it did not spread. However, two people were injured after jumping from the window. The four tower blocks of the Harvist Estate were refurbished in stages during the last-half of the 1990s.

I can personally confirm that the panels held the fire well, but the damage was too minor to be worthy of any photos.

[Costa Fierro]

Better than leaving the folks in those buildings though.

Well, yeah, but the buildings shouldn't have been made out of matchsticks and firelighters to start with.

Those materials aren't illegal though. They're not recommended for buildings over certain heights, because fire services can only reach so high with ladders and platform trucks. Personally I think banning all flammable cladding would go a long way than simply restricting its use to the height in which firefighters can gain access to all floors without entering the building itself.

[Rangila]

One thing irritating me is the leftist agitators hijacking the fire and using it to foment anti-government activity.

[Philjia]

One thing irritating me is the leftist agitators hijacking the fire and using it to foment anti-government activity.

The fire occurred in social housing that had been outsourced by a Tory council to a private company who both repeatedly ignored the concerns of residents about the fire safety of the tower. It's not been politicised, it's a political issue. Social housing is being neglected and unless action is taken tragedies like this will happen again.

[Ifreann]

Bloody leftists, blaming the government for something that's probably the government's fault.

[Minoa]

At the scene: Chalcot Estate evacuations


Photograph by Minoa on NationStates.

I decided to see for myself the drama that was unfolding at Chalcot Estate, and to photograph the buildings before the existing cladding is removed for good. As I was taking the photographs, I came across another young photographer who told me a council housing-related “social cleansing” conspiracy theory, in which the Conservative government was conspiring to evacuate the tenants from Chalcot Estate, so that they can demolish the tower blocks to reduce social housing further.

Sadly, I briefly fell for the conspiracy theory before I got to the evacuation centre, which compromised my ongoing mental health problems, especially with my low level of faith in the UK at present. I cannot believe that so many young people would believe in the alleged conspiracy theories like that without using Media Bias/Fact Check to check the source.

Most of the journalists focused on Taplow tower (where a flat fire happened in 2012) and the evacuation centre. When I got to the evacuation centre, I talked to the press about the events, and a BBC reporter got me one of the evacuees, who told me that they were very critical of how Camden Council evacuated the tenants. The person, which I will keep anonymous, believed that Camden should find alternative accommodation before carrying out the evacuations.

It seems that the way Camden carried out the evacuations is very similar to to the US hurricane evacuation drill; I can understand why people don't prefer evacuation centres, but I can also understand why Camden isn't taking chances.

-- Minoa

(First posted at Swiss Cottage Library, edited at home.)

---

Extra: Before getting the taxi home, I put the photographer’s “social cleansing” conspiracy theory to the test with Tulip Siddiq MP (Labour - Co-op, Hampstead and Kilburn). While she said that Camden is extremely critical of the Conservative government, she believed that the theory was “ridiculous”.

[Neu Leonstein]

Source: http://islingtontribune.com/article/ten ... after-fire

A flat fire broke out at Hind House, one of the four tower blocks of the Harvist Estate, but it did not spread. However, two people were injured after jumping from the window. The four tower blocks of the Harvist Estate were refurbished in stages during the last-half of the 1990s.

I can personally confirm that the panels held the fire well, but the damage was too minor to be worthy of any photos.

I would imagine that anyone in the UK living in a high rise who even so much as suspects a fire will end up making dumb decisions for a while.

-snip-

Thanks for this, appreciate the effort!

[Imperializt Russia]

Emails show Arconic knowingly supplied flammable panels for Grenfell House despite recommending they not be used on buildings taller than 30m.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brita ... SKBN19F05M

I don't think they have any legal right to demand the customer not purchase a retardant or non-combustible type. Especially since they operate in France. I mean, senior members of our own government didn't seem to know whether or not this cladding type on a building of this height was illegal or not until four days after the fire, and I've still not heard of any concrete statements to the tune of "this cladding should never have been allowed on the building", except as a remark of hindsight, not regulation.
One could however argue that they should have investigated, sourced who the bidding was overseen by, and alerted them to the choice being made and the recommendations against it.

Given the allegations of collusion between Tory councillors and Rydon, it is possible that nothing may have been done. Or Rydon could have revised their costs with the A2 model non-combustible panelling, or lost the contract entirely.

[Ethel mermania]

Better than leaving the folks in those buildings though.

Well, yeah, but the buildings shouldn't have been made out of matchsticks and firelighters to start with.

Agreed, but it is a bit to late for that.

[Minoa]

Well, yeah, but the buildings shouldn't have been made out of matchsticks and firelighters to start with.

Agreed, but it is a bit to late for that.

Maybe the matchsticks and firelighters bit shouldn't be taken too literally, because the main material for all the tower blocks back in the 60s and 70s was mostly reinforced concrete, brick and/or steel.

That is, before the cladding stuff.

[Ethel mermania]

Emails show Arconic knowingly supplied flammable panels for Grenfell House despite recommending they not be used on buildings taller than 30m.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brita ... SKBN19F05M

There are some serious liability issues here. Contractors and councils are suppose to know building codes. I would say criminal liability, but I don't know British law.

[Ethel mermania]

Agreed, but it is a bit to late for that.

Maybe the matchsticks and firelighters bit shouldn't be taken too literally, because the main material for all the tower blocks back in the 60s and 70s was mostly reinforced concrete, brick and/or steel.

That is, before the cladding stuff.

Nothing like putting paper around a safe core.

[Imperializt Russia]

Emails show Arconic knowingly supplied flammable panels for Grenfell House despite recommending they not be used on buildings taller than 30m.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brita ... SKBN19F05M

There are some serious liability issues here. Contractors and councils are suppose to know building codes. I would say criminal liability, but I don't know British law.

I've still not seen any actual confirmation that building codes prohibit or even advise against this.

It took four days for the Chancellor to say "well, I think this is meant to be against the regs" and no-one's corroborated that statement to my knowledge.

[Ifreann]

There are some serious liability issues here. Contractors and councils are suppose to know building codes. I would say criminal liability, but I don't know British law.

I've still not seen any actual confirmation that building codes prohibit or even advise against this.

It took four days for the Chancellor to say "well, I think this is meant to be against the regs" and no-one's corroborated that statement to my knowledge.

Official government position: ¯\(°_o)/¯

[Fartsniffage]

I've still not seen any actual confirmation that building codes prohibit or even advise against this.

It took four days for the Chancellor to say "well, I think this is meant to be against the regs" and no-one's corroborated that statement to my knowledge.

Official government position: ¯\(°_o)/¯

Seems par for the course these days. And asking for specifics make you an enemy of the people.

[Fartsniffage]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O1CcwYf79I

[Greed and Death]

Wow this is terrible. The usage of the cladding seems fairly widespread.

[Fartsniffage]

Wow this is terrible. The usage of the cladding seems fairly widespread.

Who are you and what did you do with greed and death?

[Costa Fierro]

There are some serious liability issues here. Contractors and councils are suppose to know building codes. I would say criminal liability, but I don't know British law.

Depends on whether or not any criminal charges are presented against the contractors. And yes, there is such a thing as criminal liability in common law, although I think it's usually levied against people running businesses. I'm going by what the law is like here, seeing as it's basically the same as British law in terms of who is liable in cases like this.

However I could see an argument being made that because the cladding wasn't illegal, it wasn't a breach of any building codes or any other regulations. The materials weren't recommended for buildings like Grenfell Tower, which means that they could still be used on such buildings, it just isn't advisable to do so.

I've still not seen any actual confirmation that building codes prohibit or even advise against this.

It took four days for the Chancellor to say "well, I think this is meant to be against the regs" and no-one's corroborated that statement to my knowledge.

Because there isn't any law at a local or national level that actually prohibits these kinds of materials from being used. When it's down to a recommendation, it's suggesting that it's not advisable to do so but it's not prohibited, meaning the cladding used on Grenfell Tower is perfectly legal.

[Fartsniffage]

Because there isn't any law at a local or national level that actually prohibits these kinds of materials from being used. When it's down to a recommendation, it's suggesting that it's not advisable to do so but it's not prohibited, meaning the cladding used on Grenfell Tower is perfectly legal.

You know that for sure? Like, you're a solicitor who has expertise in this area of British law?

[Costa Fierro]

Because there isn't any law at a local or national level that actually prohibits these kinds of materials from being used. When it's down to a recommendation, it's suggesting that it's not advisable to do so but it's not prohibited, meaning the cladding used on Grenfell Tower is perfectly legal.

You know that for sure? Like, you're a solicitor who has expertise in this area of British law?

I'm operating on the assumption that such materials were legal to use on the basis that it wasn't recommended to use them, rather than it was an illegal act. Given that others have said that they haven't seen anything in building codes that confirm such materials are prohibited, it's a reasonable assumption to make.

[Greed and Death]

Wow this is terrible. The usage of the cladding seems fairly widespread.

Who are you and what did you do with greed and death?

I took a break from drinking.

[Imperializt Russia]

You know that for sure? Like, you're a solicitor who has expertise in this area of British law?

I'm operating on the assumption that such materials were legal to use on the basis that it wasn't recommended to use them, rather than it was an illegal act. Given that others have said that they haven't seen anything in building codes that confirm such materials are prohibited, it's a reasonable assumption to make.

I don't remember the actual wording, but four days after the fire, the Chancellor gave a TV interview where he alluded that "I think this is not legal", that it would somehow not have been permitted to use this cladding.
Several councils, including RBKC, have said they are seeking legal advice against contractors, or already launching legal proceedings, on the basis that a flammable cladding is somehow "not to standards/specifications expected".