Towering inferno in London

[sgtkate]

I agree, Corbyn never misses an opportunity to blame the Tory's, shame on him.

It won't be long before Thatcher is getting blamed for it.

 

Yet this building was in a Tory council area, who had been warned repeatedly of the issues, who suppressed reports of fire hazards, who refused to install sprinklers or check the fire alarms and who had AMPLE knowledge and opportunity to correct the faults well before this fire happened. So yes, this one is most definitely on the Kensington Council I'm afraid and as they happen to be a Tory run council then, yes it's on the Tories, in the exact same way that the Lakanal fire was on Labours watch and the local council there was also to blame.

[Pinkman]

A view that will be shared by others. The police have said the HSE are now involved so there is every opportunity for this to happen once an investigation has opened.

 

If there is sufficient grounds then yes there will be a charge and the defendant will then face trial and be found guilty or not guilty.

 

The way I read the post you quote it seems the poster equates being charged with being guilty. And that would be insane.

[barleycorn]

So this company, witt uk group, decided to delete a web page...

 

http://wittukgroup.co.uk/grenfell-tower-london-w11-1tq-regeneration-project/

 

Good job it was archived

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20170614035707/http://wittukgroup.co.uk/grenfell-tower-london-w11-1tq-regeneration-project/

Your second link says page not found...

[Pinkman]

They will......but later

 

Then I refer you to my comment in reply; I doubt very much a government minister of any flavour signed that building off.

 

---------- Post added 15-06-2017 at 14:07 ----------

 

Yet this building was in a Tory council area, who had been warned repeatedly of the issues, who suppressed reports of fire hazards, who refused to install sprinklers or check the fire alarms and who had AMPLE knowledge and opportunity to correct the faults well before this fire happened. So yes, this one is most definitely on the Kensington Council I'm afraid and as they happen to be a Tory run council then, yes it's on the Tories, in the exact same way that the Lakanal fire was on Labours watch and the local council there was also to blame.

 

This is an issue across political divides perhaps. What are councillors? What are their expertise? When complaints are raised by residents about such things as fire risk with whom do they consult for a response if at all?

 

Puggie mentions an expert who stated sprinklers wouldn't have stopped the fire. As I mention, the British approach to fire safety is to design buildings to contain the fire within the flat it originates. When concerns about no sprinklers were raised were the council told they aren't necessary because fires would be contained?

 

---------- Post added 15-06-2017 at 14:11 ----------

 

Your second link says page not found...

 

Usurped by a later version now being archived in its place perhaps?

[spilldig]

A friend of mine who is a firefighter once told me never to live in a towerblock. He said there is no equipment to fight fires above a certain height. I've seen pictures of this around the world and he is was right.

 

A good point but it's hard to find a hotel that's not multi-story.

[I1L2T3]

Then I refer you to my comment in reply; I doubt very much a government minister of any flavour signed that building off.

 

Strawman. Who honestly argued that?

 

This is embarrassing. You're arguing like you know all the ins and outs of this fire.

[Pinkman]

Strawman huh?

 

The Tories have some questions to answer, and most likely councils of all types the length and breadth of the land.

 

But later for that. There are still probably many people trapped inside that building.

 

---------- Post added 15-06-2017 at 14:23 ----------

 

Strawman. Who honestly argued that?

 

This is embarrassing. You're arguing like you know all the ins and outs of this fire.

 

No. I'm not being cynical.

[mickey finn]

Another thread turned vile by good old SF

[Pinkman]

Yet this building was in a Tory council area, who had been warned repeatedly of the issues, who suppressed reports of fire hazards, who refused to install sprinklers or check the fire alarms and who had AMPLE knowledge and opportunity to correct the faults well before this fire happened. So yes, this one is most definitely on the Kensington Council I'm afraid and as they happen to be a Tory run council then, yes it's on the Tories, in the exact same way that the Lakanal fire was on Labours watch and the local council there was also to blame.

 

I want to elaborate on my earlier point. I've heard of people running for council because the community centre is being closed down and they don't like it. I don't think you need qualifications in anything.

 

As a made up scenario based on what happened yesterday. It was decided to modernise a building and the work one assumes went out to tender. What if concerns were raised about fire risk during that process? Does the council recall the contractor for a response? Does the contractor use jargon and bluster the councillors don't understand in reply? Does the council seek an expert opinion to challenge the contractor or just take the word of a contractor they assume knows his onions?

 

Should there always be people on the council that are experts in a particular field and can provide independant opinion?

[sgtkate]

Then I refer you to my comment in reply; I doubt very much a government minister of any flavour signed that building off.

 

---------- Post added 15-06-2017 at 14:07 ----------

 

 

This is an issue across political divides perhaps. What are councillors? What are their expertise? When complaints are raised by residents about such things as fire risk with whom do they consult for a response if at all?

 

Puggie mentions an expert who stated sprinklers wouldn't have stopped the fire. As I mention, the British approach to fire safety is to design buildings to contain the fire within the flat it originates. When concerns about no sprinklers were raised were the council told they aren't necessary because fires would be contained?

 

 

Yes absolutely. I'd wager nearly every council in the UK is failing in it's responsibilities to safety right now. I think the reason we should make sure that the local council are absolutely held responsible, unless there is proof otherwise that they were absolutely not to blame, so that other councils understand that if an avoidable tragedy happens on their patch because of what appears to be poor management of council housing stock that they too will be held responsible, and this might mean some councils start pulling their fingers out and get stuff fixed so not 1 more person dies needlessly.

 

---------- Post added 15-06-2017 at 14:40 ----------

 

I want to elaborate on my earlier point. I've heard of people running for council because the community centre is being closed down and they don't like it. I don't think you need qualifications in anything.

 

As a made up scenario based on what happened yesterday. It was decided to modernise a building and the work one assumes went out to tender. What if concerns were raised about fire risk during that process? Does the council recall the contractor for a response? Does the contractor use jargon and bluster the councillors don't understand in reply? Does the council seek an expert opinion to challenge the contractor or just take the word of a contractor they assume knows his onions?

 

Should there always be people on the council that are experts in a particular field and can provide independant opinion?

 

I totally understand your point, but responsibility and accountability do not always mean you are an expert in every field under your control. Managers in firms are often responsible for a team of experts, and that manager has to trust those experts when needed, but if that team ultimately fails then the manager carries the can. Councils, MPs and governments should work in the same way.