Grenfell Tower fire in North Kensington - news and discussion

[Pickman's model]

i don't understand your question. The letters says that the writer received with their bill a notification that due to its careful managing of its finances the council was able to send £100 back to all full tax paying residents, as that money was surplus to requirements.

2208. They've saved so much into the reserves they're handing it out.

 

[bimble]

yeah as i said i don't know what you're on about. If you get a different interpretation from the letter do explain what i've got wrong.

 

[Pickman's model]

yeah as i said i don't know what you're on about. If you get a different interpretation form the letter do explain what i've got wrong.

Your post 2208. I'm asking you about your post.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Why do you want to?

Ok you're playing your usual dick moves...but it's obvious: why would you want wild bullshit speculation dominating? Don't you want an informed intelligent citizenry?


.

 

[binka]

Your post 2208.

Fucking hell does it matter? It doesn't affect the point being made - the council giving rebates to the wealthiest residents

 

[bimble]

Your post 2208. I'm asking you about your post.

You have a problem with "reserves" or "handing it out" or "to the people who need it least" ? WTF.
Or do you think the information in the letter is not of interest?

 

[Pickman's model]

Ok you're playing your usual dick moves...but it's obvious: why would you want wild bullshit speculation dominating? Don't you want an informed intelligent citizenry?


.

Tell you what, read the thread.

 

[Pickman's model]

You have a problem with "reserves" or "handing it out" or "to the people who need it least" ? WTF.
Or do you think the information in the letter is not of interest?

Lots of things are of interest. But 1) I'm struggling to see how you get your money from reserves reading from the letter, but more importantly 2) I don't see how this £100 rebate is related to the fire except as context of general rbkc culture

 

[bimble]

Lots of things are of interest. But 1) I'm struggling to see how you get your money from reserves reading from the letter, but more importantly 2) I don't see how this £100 rebate is related to the fire

i don't think i can help as both seem so obvious that i think you're just having a bad day. Drink some water its hot out there.
ah, good edit: Yes except as in context, as in in context with decisions made on what to do with their money, like for instance that they decided to send it back to the wealthy residents instead of installing sprinkler systems in the council housing.

 

[Pickman's model]

i don't think i can help as both seem so obvious that i think you're just having a bad day. Drink some water its hot out there.

Right. Obvious to you. But it doesn't say the money came from the reserves, and we've been through the issue of rkbc culture already.

 

[8den]

What does everyone make of the conspiracy theories about the death toll; that the government know it's much higher but are suppressing the actual number?


.

There was a theory that a D-notice was sent out over the death toll, but it's been widely discredited. Anyway, D-notices are a terribly British way of dealing with press censorship of sensitive stories, they aren't legally binding for a start, and have often been ignored (see the Guardian & Snowden). The British Press are far too competitive to sit on this story, and besides even if some reason they all agreed to keep stum, there's nothing the British Govt could do to stop foreign media reporting it.

So yeah I'm saying it's bollocks.

 

[YouSir]

.

 

[Idris2002]

The death toll in the twin towers took months to come out, but in the early days after the attack, people we talking figures 3 or 4 times greater than the final figure. Granted the original death toll was base on full occupancy, and the planes hit early in the morning before most people arrived for work. And the WTC had about 100 times more people working in it than Grenfell Tower, the point is at this junction speculation is little more than guesswork. Between the difficulties in investigating a fire and the likelihood the building is unstable making such work even harder, it may be a week or two before we know.

I remember the day after 9/11, the Belfast Telegraph's headline was "20,000 Dead".

 

[FridgeMagnet]

BTW I removed one more post that was trying to bring up 911. Don't do this please.

 

[Pickman's model]

ah, good edit: Yes except as in context, as in in context with decisions made on what to do with their money, like for instance that they decided to send it back to the wealthy residents instead of installing sprinkler systems in the council housing.

Near the start of the thread the gag blog was introduced which went through the rkbc refusal to do anything about residents' concerns. We've been through the bit about the view from conservation areas. We've looked at the small price difference between insulation used and fire resistant insulation. Not sure if we've mentioned rydon nepostistic sub-contracting. I think the council's attitude to its social housing residents - tenants and leaseholders - has been examined in some detail, and this letter to my mind adds at most icing to that cake of contempt and derision. Tory councils over the years, Wandsworth, Westminster, rkbc, Barnet, have in turn acted as flagship councils allegedly showing how tories offer better value for money whereas the tawdry truth is they all shaft their working class inhabitants. Walking from the Westway to Holland Park you see very much two boroughs, where even the pavement seems to improve as you walk south, the carriageway seems smoother. There are trees in the posh parts. If the council had installed sprinklers I think they'd have been as effective as the fire alarms already in the blocks, as safe as the insulation on the outside of the building

 

[8den]

This vile piece of editorial was prominent on the DM website an hour ago and then dissapeared so I had to do an advanced search for it. So to preserve this bile I will qoute it in full. So this is how they intend framing 'their fightback'.

DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Shame of playing politics with tragedy | Daily Mail Online


Yes, there are devastating questions for officials, contractors, councillors and ministers to answer about Grenfell Tower. But to exploit this tragedy in order to foment division is our job, and no one else's.

Fixed that for them.

 

[bimble]

Near the start of the thread the gag blog was introduced which went through the rkbc refusal to do anything about residents' concerns. We've been through the bit about the view from conservation areas. We've looked at the small price difference between insulation used and fire resistant insulation. Not sure if we've mentioned rydon nepostistic sub-contracting. I think the council's attitude to its social housing residents - tenants and leaseholders - has been examined in some detail, and this letter to my mind adds at most icing to that cake of contempt and derision. Tory councils over the years, Wandsworth, Westminster, rkbc, Barnet, have in turn acted as flagship councils allegedly showing how tories offer better value for money whereas the tawdry truth is they all shaft their working class inhabitants. Walking from the Westway to Holland Park you see very much two boroughs, where even the pavement seems to improve as you walk south, the carriageway seems smoother. There are trees in the posh parts. If the council had installed sprinklers I think they'd have been as effective as the fire alarms already in the blocks, as safe as the insulation on the outside of the building

Yep agreed . Icing on cake is all it is, but not sure why you got so arsey with me.

 

[Gramsci]

Ive been thinking about the possibility of a possible criminal conviction...i know others here are quite hot on law so would be curious if you have an opinion

my understanding so far is that no one will be convicted...i say this partially from my own experience in dealing with fire regulations in my own place of work. When Fire Regs people come around there is a legal basic limit of what has to be there, and everything on top is recommended, or advised, but not mandatory. The level of what becomes recommended as opposed to essential seems pretty wide and deep.

I gather the buildings cladding wasnt illegal (as it is in other countries), and internal building bits would've been signed off as a basic pass at some point. I expect all the things to blame for the fire would be "advisory" changes. Which just goes to show how diluted these laws are.

The list of who is guilty is long of course: from politicans who refused to pass laws down to all those in charge of making the decisions for Grenfell itself. Sadly I expect all those many levels of guilt will not translate into a criminal conviction - not because of a cover up, but because they acted within the confines of what seems to be to be very weak law.

I haven't looked closely at the list of complaints that the community blogger highlighted - was there a claim there that any of them contravened a law? Or was it a case of doing the 'advisory' bloody obvious good practice thing?

Thats all my impression anyhow.... Curious what others think

Looking at the blog posts. None refer to the cladding. Access for emergency vehicles is brought up, rubbish not being cleared and also issues around the Fire Risk Assessment.

The action group were complaining about emergency lighting and out of date fire extinguishers for example.

The action group were bringing up issues of poor management by the TMO.

Fire Risk Assessments are a judgement call. Many buildings in London are old. What was acceptable in 70s is not so now.

The Fire Risk Assessment had a stay put advice for residents. This is standard for blocks of flats. Putting in fireproof front doors with smoke seals is supposed to mean that one is safer staying in one's flat. This also depends on the assessment seeing that "compartmentalization" of the building works. That is that if fire starts in one flat it will not spread. Due to structure of building. Smoke seals on front doors should mean that smoke does not get into flats.

Something went badly wrong. I'm guessing but looks like staying put in one's flat didn't work.

I would say that the most recent FRA should be looked at. What it said and whether recommendations were followed.

 

[editor]

From today's protest

Protest photos: No Coalition of Chaos with the DUP, Whitehall, London, Sat 17th June

 

[Pickman's model]

Yep agreed . Icing on cake is all it is, but not sure why you got so arsey with me.

Because so frequently when you're presented with long bits of text you read into them things that aren't in fact there and, in at least this instance, don't do the simplest due diligence to see whether they're from a reasonable source. And then you get arsey when it's pointed out you're seeing things not there. I'm sure we've been through this before on a score of occasions.

 

[bimble]

Never mind pickmans, don't think i did anything wrong but lets just leave it shall we, we don't disagree about anything of any significance here at all.

 

[ChrisD]

The author of this blog know more about history and design of social housing than most local authority housing managers. Here's his take on Grenfell :
Municipal Dreams
"....Thirdly, and underlying everything said so far here and elsewhere, comes MONEY. For almost four decades, we have been taught to see public spending as a bad thing; ruthless economising as a virtue. We have come to know the price of everything and the value of nothing…and have ended with the funeral pyre of Grenfell Tower..."

 

[Casual Observer]

Looking at the blog posts. None refer to the cladding. Access for emergency vehicles is brought up, rubbish not being cleared and also issues around the Fire Risk Assessment.

The action group were complaining about emergency lighting and out of date fire extinguishers for example.

The action group were bringing up issues of poor management by the TMO.

Fire Risk Assessments are a judgement call. Many buildings in London are old. What was acceptable in 70s is not so now.

The Fire Risk Assessment had a stay put advice for residents. This is standard for blocks of flats. Putting in fireproof front doors with smoke seals is supposed to mean that one is safer staying in one's flat. This also depends on the assessment seeing that "compartmentalization" of the building works. That is that if fire starts in one flat it will not spread. Due to structure of building. Smoke seals on front doors should mean that smoke does not get into flats.

Something went badly wrong. I'm guessing but looks like staying put in one's flat didn't work.

I would say that the most recent FRA should be looked at. What it said and whether recommendations were followed.

This is the point I made earlier today or perhaps yesterday. The last FRA was in December 2015, when the renovations (including cladding) were underway but had not been completed. There has been no FRA in the last 18 months. Half of the 82 buildings under KCTMO 'management' have even had an FRA in the last 18 months but Grenfell Tower hasn't despite the fact that it's undergone a £10m refurbishment and despite the fact that it's the second tallest building that KCTMO 'manage' and therefore a greater fire risk concern. KCTMO have dropped an enormous bollock by not commissioning a post-refurbishment FRA.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

This is the point I made earlier today or perhaps yesterday. The last FRA was in December 2015, when the renovations (including cladding) were underway but had not been completed. There has been no FRA in the last 18 months. Half of the 82 buildings under KCTMO 'management' have even had an FRA in the last 18 months but Grenfell Tower hasn't despite the fact that it's undergone a £10m refurbishment and despite the fact that it's the second tallest building that KCTMO 'manage' and therefore a greater fire risk concern. KCTMO have dropped an enormous bollock by not commissioning a post-refurbishment FRA.

This sort of thing would be handy but mandatory rather than reccomended

http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/Docum...n_refurbished_buildings_audit_tool_report.pdf

 

[Gramsci]

This is the point I made earlier today or perhaps yesterday. The last FRA was in December 2015, when the renovations (including cladding) were underway but had not been completed. There has been no FRA in the last 18 months. Half of the 82 buildings under KCTMO 'management' have even had an FRA in the last 18 months but Grenfell Tower hasn't despite the fact that it's undergone a £10m refurbishment and despite the fact that it's the second tallest building that KCTMO 'manage' and therefore a greater fire risk concern. KCTMO have dropped an enormous bollock by not commissioning a post-refurbishment FRA.

A FRA does not have to be done every year. A block of this age and height once every three years with an annual review.

If annual reviews have not been done and recorded the TMO may have a problem.

The refurbishment would if it had been done properly probably have kept fire risk level the same as before or less. ( New front doors with higher rating of fire proof.)

So TMO may argue that within the best of there knowledge they haven't been careless.

FRA are not infaluable. Most people who do them are ex firemen. They are not builders. If told and shown documentation that works are done properly they must accept that.

Some people who do FRA are also surveyors. With greater knowledge of buildings.

 

[Casual Observer]

A FRA does not have to be done every year. A block of this age and height once every three years with an annual review.

If annual reviews have not been done and recorded the TMO may have a problem.

The refurbishment would if it had been done properly probably have kept fire risk level the same as before or less. ( New front doors with higher rating of fire proof.)

So TMO may argue that within the best of there knowledge they haven't been careless.

FRA are not infaluable. Most people who do them are ex firemen. They are not builders. If told and shown documentation that works are done properly they must accept that.

Some people who do FRA are also surveyors. With greater knowledge of buildings.

I was trying to find out about this yesterday and it seems there are no hard and fast legal requirements on how frequently FRAs should be undertaken. Once every couple of years may be the norm for a low-rise multiple dwelling residential building, but an ageing 24 storey tower block which has just had £10m of work done and only has one staircase fire escape route should be having them more frequently. You would think it would have had one immediately after the refurbishment has finished at the very least. I expect FRA laws may change in light of what happened this week.

As you probably know, FRAs aren't done by the fire brigade, they're done by third party companies who are hired by managing agents (KCTMO in this case). The company who conducted a previous FRA at Grenfell Tower in 2010 were hired because, according to KCTMOs own board meeting notes, they offered the 'most competitive price'. That's not to say that company did a shitty job, but it is indicative of KCTMO's miserly, safety-last attitude towards the less affluent residents in the borough.

 

[Who PhD]

Here she is, Rachel Johnson. Piece of shit

 

[Lord Camomile]

Here she is, Rachel Johnson. Piece of shit

I've got work tomorrow so should be going to bed soon, I really don't think I want to listen to that...

 

[Lorca]

The author of this blog know more about history and design of social housing than most local authority housing managers. Here's his take on Grenfell :
Municipal Dreams
"....Thirdly, and underlying everything said so far here and elsewhere, comes MONEY. For almost four decades, we have been taught to see public spending as a bad thing; ruthless economising as a virtue. We have come to know the price of everything and the value of nothing…and have ended with the funeral pyre of Grenfell Tower..."

only a small point, but I wish people wouldn't use 'we' like that...we don't do these things, they're imposed upon most of us by a bunch of heartless bastards and their chums in the media.

 

[squirrelp]

What does everyone make of the conspiracy theories about the death toll; that the government know it's much higher but are suppressing the actual number?

A friend local to the area has posted on facebook that there are 160 confirmed dead according to emergency services but that the figure is being repressed.