Entire high rise alight in London

[AlphonseCapone]

I think ML has finally been abducted by Aliens .

Maybe a good probing will mellow him out.

[Mikey1874]

BBC Panorama programme on now says fire service put out the original fire. Talking about the cladding now.

[frankblack]

I was booked into a hotel in Earls Court, which is in the Kensington area, last weekend.

 

We were travelling down on the train on Friday when I got a phone call from the hotel asking to move us to a different area. The hotel was being used for emergency accommodation.

 

We understandably accepted their offer to move us.

[The Mighty Thor]

BBC Panorama programme on now says fire service put out the original fire. Talking about the cladding now.

Re the original fire being extinguished - Unless I've missed it, that's new news to me.

It was always going to be about the cladding but that puts a very different spin on it.

 

 

Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk

[Mikey1874]

Re the original fire being extinguished - Unless I've missed it, that's new news to me.

It was always going to be about the cladding but that puts a very different spin on it.

 

 

Programme showed some footage looked like fire fighters happy at what they had done

 

BBC programme had a lot of footage from neighbouring flats

[Jambo-Jimbo]

 

 

This information has been around for awhile. Maybe the witch hunters need to refocus their ire.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

You got any back  up evidence to support this.??

 

I mean what was the height restrictions of using this flammable material??

 

Perfectly legal to be used below that height you say, what height??

 

And this is hard for me to accept , since when does a fire risk flammable material stop becoming so when it reaches a certain height, for as we all know fire does not respect what kind of height any flammable substance is at.

 

This material  was banned in Dubai after it was responsible for a fire that damaged a building that was tall in its height design.

 

Are we also to believe that the contractor and  manufacturer  of this material are going to admit that this material is banned in the UK just after what has happened??

 

Total lunacy to rely on height restrictions of a flammable material , the fact its flammable in the first place should outweigh the fire hazard risks.

 

I told you someone posted details from the manufacturers website, it was on the previous page, you just didn't look for it.

 

How many times do you have to be told, it's not banned in the U fecking K. 

 

See my post addressed to you #559 on this page.

 

Jeez this is hard work.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Jambo-Jimbo

[Mikey1874]

BBC Panorama said it's wrong to say the cladding is banned. "Building regulations are unclear".

[maroonlegions]

You can donate here.

 

 

https://grenfelltowerfire.co.uk/#section-our-appeal

[maroonlegions]

I have only one word for these people who made such comments, vile.

 

These were comments from readers of that paper in its comments section on the Grenfell tower tragedy.

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

Nick on Twitter

?Daily Mail readers on Grenfell Towers. Nasty, bigoted and stupid.?

TWITTER.COM

 

 

[Nookie Bear]

 

I have only one word for these people who made such comments, vile.

 

These were comments from readers of that paper in its comments section on the Grenfell tower tragedy.

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

Nick on Twitter

?Daily Mail readers on Grenfell Towers. Nasty, bigoted and stupid.?

TWITTER.COM

 

 

 

 

Not sure why you felt the need to post these, except to fan flames. Everyone knows these people exist out there and I suspect quite a few post this stuff to get a reaction from people exactly like you.

 

Best ignored imo

[maroonlegions]

Again serious questions must be asked as to why today's buildings have a much higher content of combustible material .

 

Seems like there is a very high percentage of councils leasing  out contacts to the lowest bidder ,who in affect have such cheaper combustible materials, out side off combustible materials like  wood used in refurbishments and general building work.

 

Seems that the cheaper option wins every time.

 

Fire safety regulations need to be seriously scrutinised and changes made to make buildings more safer regardless of cost. 

 

Austerity cuts on  council spending budgets on social housing must end too.

 

The law on landlords and councils requiring  them to make sure all properties are fit for human habitation, should be reintroduced after a Labour amendment to make it so was voted out by a Tory majority.  

 

There should be a law to make it a criminal offence for private and local councils to side step fire safety regulations by  using  contractors who use the  cheaper options of materials. 

 

Accountability and transparency with governments on the money they issue to councils for social housing and the private sector through housing benefits paid to them need to be more transparent.

 

Outsourcing refurbishments  from local councils, like repairs and new builds need to adhere to tougher fire safety regulations, and subcontractors need to produce evidence that materials used meets fire safety regulations or face criminal charges if they use materials that are not fire safety.

 

Austerity cuts should never be allowed  to put at risk fire safety for buildings.

 

 

Four ministers were warned about tower block fire risks - BBC News

"Today's buildings have a much higher content of combustible material," read one warning.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40330789?SThisFB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2017 by maroonlegions

[redm]

Some person (or persons) involved in this decision-making chain will have known that these panels are very much not recommended (regulation question aside) for use on buildings of this height. They will have been familiar with the manufacturer's guidelines or they would have known because they're in the business and apparently it's not an obscure piece of knowledge to have if this is the sort of work you do regularly. Somehow, it was approved and the work was done anyway. It's either negligence or incompetence, but I can't imagine a scenario in which this whole tender and associated work package managed to get through to completion without there being any discussion about suitability of the panels or fire safety. It just doesn't seem even remotely plausible.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Some person (or persons) involved in this decision-making chain will have known that these panels are very much not recommended (regulation question aside) for use on buildings of this height. They will have been familiar with the manufacturer's guidelines or they would have known because they're in the business and apparently it's not an obscure piece of knowledge to have if this is the sort of work you do regularly. Somehow, it was approved and the work was done anyway. It's either negligence or incompetence, but I can't imagine a scenario in which this whole tender and associated work package managed to get through to completion without there being any discussion about suitability of the panels or fire safety. It just doesn't seem even remotely plausible.

 

This is what I've been saying.

 

If the architects failed to specify the type of cladding to be used, then I would have thought that someone in the Council Building Department would have noticed the omission and corrected it before the plans were approved.

But even failing that, then surely Rydon and Harley Facades whom you'd have thought being builders and all would have noticed the fault as well.

 

And then you have the Fire Officer and the Building Compliance Officer who both signed off the work, they both appear not to have noticed either.

 

If Human Error was at fault here, I could understand one maybe two people making a mistake, however we have at least 5 different departments/companies all failing to notice a mistake is IMO pushing things a bit.

 

However what if no rules have been broken, what if all the regulations were complied with and it is perfectly legal for this type of cladding to be used on high rise buildings in the UK, would that not explain why nobody noticed the error, because there wasn't an error to notice, as it may only be a manufactures recommendation that this cladding shouldn't be used over a certain height and the fault lies with the UK's building regulations, which BBC Panorama did say were unclear and confusing regarding the use of cladding.

 

Maybe it's the regulations which are to blame, because a week on and still nobody seems to be able to give a definitive answer whether the use of this cladding is legal or illegal over a certain height.

 

I don't know.

 

 

 

[maroonlegions]

They really are a bunch of utterly reprehensible and cold bloodied hypercritical  blameless cowards .

 

They will come out with any thing to protect their own  skins and their mates.

 

Austerity cuts on social housing spending must have impacted on fitting sprinklers in Grenfell Tower and others i would imagine.

 

From the mouths of the fire service union this......The Fire Brigade Union claims that there have never been multiple fire fatalities in a building with a sprinkler system, and common sense says that a system for spraying water onto the fire would at the very least allow people more time to exit the building.

 

 And then  this below;

 

Andrew Marr had asked him why a succession of Tory housing ministers had spent four years sitting on a report into the Lakanal House fire in 2009 that recommended the retrofitting of sprinkler systems in high rise residential buildings.

 

His response was one of utter contempt and desperate quibbling trying to cite that the government needed to do more research into sprinklers systems to see if they are a credible fire safety measure.

 

This utter dog shite of a cop out was said in  despite of  fire safety officers from the fire brigade saying they ARE  a valid fire safety measure.  

 

These are the kind of fools that are being allowed to hold their own inquest,(public inquiry),into the tragedy of Grenfell tower.

 

The fire brigade  union,(tories on here will know them better as those dangerous lefties that dared to ask for a 1% pay rise), have stressed that the survivors of Grenfell  should be allowed a  part in  any  investigation, i will not hold my breathe on that one.

 

For me this is now beyond anger, it is now a serious case of total incompetence and one  mainly of cost  cutting effectiveness and savings  that was put before the safety concerns  of people in such tower blocks as Grenfell.

 

 

Sprinklers can give three very valuable  safety attributes to fires.

 

1; They can contribute or put out a fire at its source,. slow its spread , its starting point before its too intense.

2; They can give people that priceless thing called TIME to evacuate.

3; They also act as an early warning system, and again  offer people TIME to get out.

 

This tragedy was politicised the day austerity cuts  were endorsed on social housing spending.

 

Follow the money trail. 

 

 

Now as Hammond quibbled and dodged and slavered in response to Andrew Marrs questions  he forgot one thing, that is highlighted below.

 

 

 

?1.3 fecking million on a new sprinkler system for the houses of parliament.

 

 

 

There it is, the slowly emerging truth, of just how these very wealthy men actually think about ordinary folk living in shite holes and death traps at that 

 

[redm]

This is what I've been saying.

 

If the architects failed to specify the type of cladding to be used, then I would have thought that someone in the Council Building Department would have noticed the omission and corrected it before the plans were approved.

But even failing that, then surely Rydon and Harley Facades whom you'd have thought being builders and all would have noticed the fault as well.

 

And then you have the Fire Officer and the Building Compliance Officer who both signed off the work, they both appear not to have noticed either.

 

If Human Error was at fault here, I could understand one maybe two people making a mistake, however we have at least 5 different departments/companies all failing to notice a mistake is IMO pushing things a bit.

 

However what if no rules have been broken, what if all the regulations were complied with and it is perfectly legal for this type of cladding to be used on high rise buildings in the UK, would that not explain why nobody noticed the error, because there wasn't an error to notice, as it may only be a manufactures recommendation that this cladding shouldn't be used over a certain height and the fault lies with the UK's building regulations, which BBC Panorama did say were unclear and confusing regarding the use of cladding.

 

Maybe it's the regulations which are to blame, because a week on and still nobody seems to be able to give a definitive answer whether the use of this cladding is legal or illegal over a certain height.

 

I don't know.

 

Maybe that's the alternative right there: that we're about to discover that everyone involved in this type of work knows perfectly well that there's a huge fire risk associated with the panels but everybody ignores it and uses them anyway because it's not strictly and explicitly illegal to do so. Maybe it's some sort of well kent loophole, and one of those very rare major oversights. Those who work in relevant industries may have literally been sitting waiting for this moment, when people die and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

 

This also doesn't seem plausible either though. At least I hope it isn't, because if it IS a loophole then how many others are there and in how many ways are we in danger without knowing it? I just can't get my head around the string of incompetent and dangerous decisions that must have led to it at all. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Maybe that's the alternative right there: that we're about to discover that everyone involved in this type of work knows perfectly well that there's a huge fire risk associated with the panels but everybody ignores it and uses them anyway because it's not strictly and explicitly illegal to do so. Maybe it's some sort of well kent loophole, and one of those very rare major oversights. Those who work in relevant industries may have literally been sitting waiting for this moment, when people die and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

 

This also doesn't seem plausible either though. At least I hope it isn't, because if it IS a loophole then how many others are there and in how many ways are we in danger without knowing it? I just can't get my head around the string of incompetent and dangerous decisions that must have led to it at all. 

 

We all watched this horror unfold right there in front of our eyes and almost everyone, myself included thought OMG how can this happen, who is to blame for this, someone has really fecked up here, maybe even broken the law, even the news channels were pushing this line as well, to begin with.

Something so catastrophic, so horrific has to be someone's fault, it's a natural reaction, however maybe it's been a tragedy just waiting to happen and it's been sheer luck that it's taken until now to happen.

 

Pure speculation here, but maybe some tower blocks and other high rise buildings have both types of cladding fitted whilst others only have the cheaper option fitted, it all just depends on the budget, the architects, the builders etc etc, perhaps like I said it's only a manufacturers recommendation that the PE cladding isn't used over a certain height, and in some cases that recommendation is taken onboard but in other cases it isn't, it's only a recommendation after all, not law.

 

What I do find strange is the fact that giving the amount of news coverage and the scrutiny that has been generated into the use of this cladding, no one, absolutly no one a week on has discovered whether the use of this cladding in the UK over a certain height is banned or not, or indeed whether it's use is against any building regulations, even the copy & paste kid hasn't discovered this either. 

 

Personally I think that is quite telling that nobody can give a definitive yes or no answer for this question, the media, activists, all manner of people will have no doubts poured over the regulations to see if rules were broken, and all we've heard from any of them is silence and that tells it's own story.

 

 

[Don Dan]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sixtyeight-flats-in-2bn-luxury-block-to-be-given-to-families-whose-lives-were-devastated-in-grenfell-a3569876.html

[maroonlegions]

We all watched this horror unfold right there in front of our eyes and almost everyone, myself included thought OMG how can this happen, who is to blame for this, someone has really fecked up here, maybe even broken the law, even the news channels were pushing this line as well, to begin with.

Something so catastrophic, so horrific has to be someone's fault, it's a natural reaction, however maybe it's been a tragedy just waiting to happen and it's been sheer luck that it's taken until now to happen.

 

Pure speculation here, but maybe some tower blocks and other high rise buildings have both types of cladding fitted whilst others only have the cheaper option fitted, it all just depends on the budget, the architects, the builders etc etc, perhaps like I said it's only a manufacturers recommendation that the PE cladding isn't used over a certain height, and in some cases that recommendation is taken onboard but in other cases it isn't, it's only a recommendation after all, not law.

 

What I do find strange is the fact that giving the amount of news coverage and the scrutiny that has been generated into the use of this cladding, no one, absolutly no one a week on has discovered whether the use of this cladding in the UK over a certain height is banned or not, or indeed whether it's use is against any building regulations, even the copy & paste kid hasn't discovered this either. 

 

Personally I think that is quite telling that nobody can give a definitive yes or no answer for this question, the media, activists, all manner of people will have no doubts poured over the regulations to see if rules were broken, and all we've heard from any of them is silence and that tells it's own story.

 

 

You really are sounding like a spokesperson for this cladding company and coming across as someone in complete denial that this cladding was BANNED in other countries , IS a fire risk and was clearly responsible for spreading the fire up the fecking walls of the tower block. 

 

This cladding company are doing all they can to deviate away from any responsibility, why, because those responsible if found guilty face serious manslaughter charges.

 

 We should all  be listen too the  fire safety experts from the fire brigade and those past  recommendations from other sources contacted to that building that did raise fire safety concerns.

 

You forgot to mention in your condescending remark of "copy and pate kid"  that  i have on a number of occasions added my own text to posts and also gave links to quotes from those sources. Takes on a whole new picture when you add those facts dont you think.

 

 

The truth is banned or not ,that cladding should never have stood a chance of passing fire regulations, but it did because of bureaucracy and the so called  "red tape" in which David Cameron boasted about cutting to make it easier for company's and their products but not on  fire safety.   

 

Money in the form of savings through austerity cuts to social housing was also a prime contributor to the state of that building  and the fire risks of it.

 

Ministers were warned as far back as 2009 ffs about the fire and safety risks of Grenfell Tower , but despite those repeated warnings the did diddly squat , feck all about those legitimate concerns and it has cost lifes  and no matter how much you try and spin it  the evidence is overwhelming for gross negligence and failures in regards to those ministers , local council and government.

 

 

The evidence pointing to the wilful neglect of duty responsibilities to fire safety laws and the safety of the residents of  Grenfell Tower from ministers and local council and government speaks volumes .

 

You attack those that want the truth but try and spin the responsibility of those that made, supplied and installed that cladding on your  weak argument that relies on  nothing more than "HEIGHT"?? And in that "height" argument you carry on  ignoring the overwhelming evidence that the cladding used contains combustible fire risk materials, that speaks volumes .

 

Why was a fire hazard material allowed to be used in this cladding in the fist place ? and even  for that matter ,allowed to be  passed  safe  in a "height restricted" regulation based on nothing more than height??

 

Your argument  on height restriction seems to be one of deviation of actual accountability.

 

And that accountability through so many processes  of association  that links responsibility, duty and accountability but  the primary one is the current fire safety regulations  which have contributed  and allowed such cladding to be used.

 

 

The silence from  those ministers  who at that time hid from their  responsibilities and carried  on  ignoring or delaying legitimate fire safety concerns from bodies such as the dozen of letters sent by the All Party Parliamentary Fie Safety and Rescue Group  is what should be a concern  here not on someone copying and pasting some quotes.

 

 

If even, lets say, the burden of responsibility was removed from those responsible for the making, contracting out and installing that cladding on Grendfell tower on the one issue of "height restrictions", there is still the issue that it has been proved to be a fire risk. Several countries HAVE banned it, that also speaks volumes.

 

The point  here is that ,the question that we should be demanding an answer to is why this cladding was allowed pas fire safety regulations in the first place?? which suggest to me is that those regulations need to change in the light of this tragedy  and previous fires involving this cladding.

 

Guilty by association ?? by the following...  

 

1;Wilful neglect due to austerity cuts to social housing budgets handed out  to local councils??

 

2; Wilfully delaying  decisions concerning legitimate  fire safety concerns , these concerns came in the  form of letters from the  All Party Parliamentary Fie Safety and Rescue Group  to those ministers concerned??

 

Take your pick from the above,,but to say that there is no blame just now,  that implicates the cladding contractors, makers , ministers involved , local councillors and government and current fire safety regulations seems a tad stupid, and one that speaks volumes of taking  the establishments route of minimal blame , accountability and responsibility   

 

 The government have just announced that this materiel used on Grenfell could very well have been used on properties out side social housing,

 

It has  also issued a concerned  to private landlords.

 

Now why issue this waning ,if as you say, or are implying that no one  really knows if this cladding was responsible  for the spreading  of the fire on the outside of the building despite this actually happening in countries such as Dubai  and its banned in others too??

 

 

If the government are issuing concerns for this cladding  then were does that leave your argument on "no one really knowing" if this cladding is responsible ???? 

 

 

Here below is some copy and paste for you to digest, link is provided too just in case you want more facts to digest.

 

 

This quote below  from this articule speaks volumes, the serious concerns of this cladding has also been highlighted time and time again by others.

 

 

This is a part of a letter wrote to ministers in 2015 that WARNED  that people in high rise blocks such as GRENFELL TOWER were at risk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The Parliamentary group wrote in March 2014: "Surely ... when you already have credible evidence to justify updating ... the guidance ... which will lead to saving of lives, you don't need to wait another three years in addition to the two already spent since the research findings were updated, in order to take action?

 

"As there are estimated to be another 4,000 older tower blocks in the UK, without automatic sprinkler protection, can we really afford to wait for another tragedy to occur before we amend this weakness?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/20/grenfell-tower-firefighters-put-fridge-blaze-just-leaving-flats

 

Edited June 21, 2017 by maroonlegions

[maroonlegions]

Exposing the copy n' paste Tory lies about the Grenfell fire

The widely accepted narrative from the 2017 General?

ANOTHERANGRYVOICE.BLOGSPOT.COM

 

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

 

You really are sounding like a spokesperson for this cladding company and coming across as someone in complete denial that this cladding was BANNED in other countries , IS a fire risk and was clearly responsible for spreading the fire up the fecking walls of the tower block.  Where have I ignored that this cladding is banned in other countries, indeed I specificity mentioned that it's banned in the USA & Germany for use above a certain height.

 

This cladding company are doing all they can to deviate away from any responsibility, why, because those responsible if found guilty face serious manslaughter charges.  Can't answer that.

 

 We should all  be listen too the  fire safety experts from the fire brigade and those past  recommendations from other sources contacted to that building that did raise fire safety concerns.  The Fire Brigade gave it a fire-safety certificate, they didn't have to to, they could have refused to issue it.

 

You forgot to mention in your condescending remark of "copy and pate kid"  that  i have on a number of occasions added my own text to posts and also gave links to quotes from those sources. Takes on a whole new picture when you add those facts dont you think.   It's sometimes difficult to separate what is copy and paste and what is your own words.

 

 

The truth is banned or not ,that cladding should never have stood a chance of passing fire regulations, but it did because of bureaucracy and the so called  "red tape" in which David Cameron boasted about cutting to make it easier for company's and their products but not on  fire safety.   The regulations are from 2006 so I believe, nothing to do with David Cameron, written long before he came into office.

 

Money in the form of savings through austerity cuts to social housing was also a prime contributor to the state of that building  and the fire risks of it.  No idea about the state of the building before the refurb, I would have thought it was safer before the cladding was applied, so it was probably not as much a fire-risk before the refurb, but I had never heard about Grenfell Tower prior to the fire, so I wouldn't know.

 

Ministers were warned as far back as 2009 ffs about the fire and safety risks of Grenfell Tower , but despite those repeated warnings the did diddly squat , feck all about those legitimate concerns and it has cost lifes  and no matter how much you try and spin it  the evidence is overwhelming for gross negligence and failures in regards to those ministers , local council and government.  No Idea, I'll take your word for it.

 

 

The evidence pointing to the wilful neglect of duty responsibilities to fire safety laws and the safety of the residents of  Grenfell Tower from ministers and local council and government speaks volumes . That is a matter for the Police to determine if there was a wilful neglect of duty.

 

You attack those that want the truth but try and spin the responsibility of those that made, supplied and installed that cladding on your  weak argument that relies on  nothing more than "HEIGHT"?? And in that "height" argument you carry on  ignoring the overwhelming evidence that the cladding used contains combustible fire risk materials, that speaks volumes .  Wow, please show me one sentence where I have ignored that this cladding wasn't combustible?  The manufacturers and the suppliers clearly state their recommendations on how to use the PE cladding and it's limitations, if the fitters don't fit it per the manufactures recommendations then how can the manufacturer and suppliers be held responsible?

If you buy a Diesel Car but then put Petrol into it, whose fault is that?  The manufacturer, the supplier (garage) or yours?  

 

Why was a fire hazard material allowed to be used in this cladding in the fist place ? and even  for that matter ,allowed to be  passed  safe  in a "height restricted" regulation based on nothing more than height??  The regulations it would seem.

Sky News asked a question of some of the UK's leading fire-safety experts at the FIREX exhibition in London, they asked them if they agreed with Philip Hammond that this particular cladding was banned in the UK, none of them agreed with Hammond's claim, one of them went on to add that there is no restrictions for the use of this PE cladding provided a full and proper risk assessment is or has been carried out.  So there you have it, the experts interpretation of the regulations.

Who carried out that assessment if one was carried out, will no doubts form part of the Police investigation. 

 

Your argument  on height restriction seems to be one of deviation of actual accountability.

 

And that accountability through so many processes  of association  that links responsibility, duty and accountability but  the primary one is the current fire safety regulations  which have contributed  and allowed such cladding to be used.

Looks like the regulations are unclear and confusing and need completely updated.

 

The silence from  those ministers  who at that time hid from their  responsibilities and carried  on  ignoring or delaying legitimate fire safety concerns from bodies such as the dozen of letters sent by the All Party Parliamentary Fie Safety and Rescue Group  is what should be a concern  here not on someone copying and pasting some quotes.  Do you really think politicians are going to come out and admit any responsibility, not a hope, nothing new there.

There is a current Police investigation therefore lots of people who will be connected in some way to this tragedy, will probably, under legal advice have been told to say nothing in case it affects the Police investigation.

 

If even, lets say, the burden of responsibility was removed from those responsible for the making, contracting out and installing that cladding on Grendfell tower on the one issue of "height restrictions", there is still the issue that it has been proved to be a fire risk. Several countries HAVE banned it, that also speaks volumes.  Again it would seem that the UK's fire regulations need tightened up.

 

The point  here is that ,the question that we should be demanding an answer to is why this cladding was allowed pas fire safety regulations in the first place?? which suggest to me is that those regulations need to change in the light of this tragedy  and previous fires involving this cladding.  As above answer.

 

Guilty by association ?? by the following...  

 

1;Wilful neglect due to austerity cuts to social housing budgets handed out  to local councils??

 

2; Wilfully delaying  decisions concerning legitimate  fire safety concerns , these concerns came in the  form of letters from the  All Party Parliamentary Fie Safety and Rescue Group  to those ministers concerned??

 

Take your pick from the above,,but to say that there is no blame just now,  that implicates the cladding contractors, makers , ministers involved , local councillors and government and current fire safety regulations seems a tad stupid, and one that speaks volumes of taking  the establishments route of minimal blame , accountability and responsibility   I'll let the Police decide if anyone has shown any wilful neglect, that's their job and responsibility.

 

 The government have just announced that this materiel used on Grenfell could very well have been used on properties out side social housing,  No shock there, it'll have been used in thousands of properties, I'd have thought.

 

It has  also issued a concerned  to private landlords.

 

Now why issue this waning ,if as you say, or are implying that no one  really knows if this cladding was responsible  for the spreading  of the fire on the outside of the building despite this actually happening in countries such as Dubai  and its banned in others too??  It's clear that this cladding was most likely responsible for the rapid spread of the fire, never once have I disputed that.

 

 

If the government are issuing concerns for this cladding  then were does that leave your argument on "no one really knowing" if this cladding is responsible ????  Can't comment, as I've not heard anything about the Government issuing warnings about this cladding.  Please provide link, because I can't find any mention about it online.

 

 

Here below is some copy and paste for you to digest, link is provided too just in case you want more facts to digest.

 

 

This quote below  from this articule speaks volumes, the serious concerns of this cladding has also been highlighted time and time again by others.

I'm well aware that there has been numerous warning expressed about the use of this cladding, that has never been in dispute, what was in dispute was whether it was 'Banned' in the UK or not.

 

 

This is a part of a letter wrote to ministers in 2015 that WARNED  that people in high rise blocks such as GRENFELL TOWER were at risk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The Parliamentary group wrote in March 2014: "Surely ... when you already have credible evidence to justify updating ... the guidance ... which will lead to saving of lives, you don't need to wait another three years in addition to the two already spent since the research findings were updated, in order to take action?

 

"As there are estimated to be another 4,000 older tower blocks in the UK, without automatic sprinkler protection, can we really afford to wait for another tragedy to occur before we amend this weakness?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/20/grenfell-tower-firefighters-put-fridge-blaze-just-leaving-flats

 

 

[maroonlegions]

Queen guitarist  Brian May is not holding back here.

 

His outrage   can be seen in his tweets he posted on social  media via his website.

 

He is right though, this tragedy was politically instigated by "guiltily" through direct "association".

 

 From the very start of  the failings to do any thing about the legitimate fire safety concerns  raised and by austerity cuts on social housing. 

 

Brian May has total respect from me.

 

 

 " he wrote on his website brianmay.com : ?It?s now so clear to everyone that the red tape and the social care network that the Tories absolutely consciously destroyed have led to our country being a wasteland for the common people.  

 

  And he expanded  even further on his anger with.....

 

 

?Worse than that ? even the simple safeguards to keep people secure in their beds at night was thrown away. This is why we have a burning building spelling out the truth for us. It has cost the lives of these poor people to wake us up ? and we all know that if they had been rich people, this never would have happened.?  

 

 

Brian May savages Tories after devastating Grenfell Tower fire

The Queen star called for ?every last vestige of the rotten, filthy, old-style privileged Tory edifice to be torn down"

MIRROR.CO.UK

 

 

[Ricardo Shillyshally]

Bore off Mulder FFS

[Seymour M Hersh]

Brian ****ing May should be torn down and buried under 1000 tons of rubble.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Brian May, that well known champion of the common people, takes the fight to British Airways and complains about the view from his ?11,000 First Class Seat.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3845866/rockstar-brian-may-rants-over-11000-plane-seat-as-the-country-is-gripped-by-tragedy/

 

[Nookie Bear]

 

There it is, the slowly emerging truth, of just how these very wealthy men actually think about ordinary folk living in shite holes and death traps at that

 

Exactly, Brian May sums it up to perfection...

[frankblack]

Brian May, that well known champion of the common people, takes the fight to British Airways and complains about the view from his ?11,000 First Class Seat.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3845866/rockstar-brian-may-rants-over-11000-plane-seat-as-the-country-is-gripped-by-tragedy/

 

Typical shite journalism there from the Sun.

 

How they decided to connect a story about a rocker talking about first class seats to the Tower Block tragedy is plain shit-stirring.  Hopefully BM bans those ***** from his shows.

[Unknown user]

Brian May, that well known champion of the common people, takes the fight to British Airways and complains about the view from his ?11,000 First Class Seat.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3845866/rockstar-brian-may-rants-over-11000-plane-seat-as-the-country-is-gripped-by-tragedy/

So? How does that negate any of the points he makes? Yeah he's worth millions but he's also a highly respected musician and astrophysicist - a very intelligent dude. I'd travel first class if I was worth 100 million+ too AND I'd still have an opinion or two to share!

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Exactly, Brian May sums it up to perfection...

 

Leave the poor wee soul alone, it can't have been easy sitting in his leather reclining chair with his feet up in a BA First Class seat with a crap window view, it's enough to put anyone off their champers and caviar FFS.

 

So just you remember the next time that you are crammed in like sardines on a budget airline along with all the other common people, that there are folks who are much worse off then you are.

 

 

[Marvin]

After pressure from staff my work is having a dress down day tomorrow and all money raised will got to the fund to help the victims of the tragedy.

[Nookie Bear]

I suppose Brian May is at least a Kensington resident so has a valid opinion to make.

 

Probably can assume he wasn't one of the mega rich residents who started the fire, as the Guardian sneakily implied this week.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Typical shite journalism there from the Sun.

 

How they decided to connect a story about a rocker talking about first class seats to the Tower Block tragedy is plain shit-stirring.  Hopefully BM bans those ***** from his shows.

 

Also here - http://www.nme.com/news/music/brian-may-slams-british-airways-on-board-seating-first-class-2091213

 

And here - http://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/brian-may-in-meltdown-over-british-airways-horrible-firstclass-seating-a3569096.html

 

And here - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/where-s-my-first-class-view-brian-may-rages-at-british-airways-bjnqkx03l

[Unknown user]

Also here - http://www.nme.com/news/music/brian-may-slams-british-airways-on-board-seating-first-class-2091213

 

And here - http://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/brian-may-in-meltdown-over-british-airways-horrible-firstclass-seating-a3569096.html

 

And here - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/where-s-my-first-class-view-brian-may-rages-at-british-airways-bjnqkx03l

And to them I also say "So?"

[gashauskis9]

"Bridge over troubled water" as a tribute single for folk who perished in a fire

 

FFS

Edited June 21, 2017 by Gashauskis9

[Boab]

"Bridge over troubled water" as a tribute single for folk who perished in a fire

 

FFS

 

 

The people need money to re-build their lives. Everyone agrees with that simple fact.

 

Robbie Williams....on his own....could donate what that single will raise and not even notice it missing.

 

Don't want to appear cynical but stay oot the studio and donate a huge wedge each eh  !

 

Just a thought.

[The Mighty Thor]

The people need money to re-build their lives. Everyone agrees with that simple fact.

 

Robbie Williams....on his own....could donate what that single will raise and not even notice it missing.

 

Don't want to appear cynical but stay oot the studio and donate a huge wedge each eh !

 

Just a thought.

I take it Bono was too busy?

 

Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk

[Geoff the Mince]

As expected some scumbags have been turning up to take "Selfies" with the Tower .

 

The decline in morals continue .

[Marvin]

As expected some scumbags have been turning up to take "Selfies" with the Tower .

 

The decline in morals continue .

Tbh, I am not surprised at all.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Being reported that some of the victims could have been killed by Hydrogen Cyanide which was given off by the foam insulation panels which were fitted behind the cladding.

http://news.sky.com/story/toxic-gases-released-during-grenfell-tower-fire-may-have-caused-some-deaths-10922685

 

Seems that some experts have been warning that this was an accident just waiting to happen as far back as 2011.

 

Again nothing in the regulations preventing the use of these insulating foam panels, indeed Sky News mentioned that this particular insulation has been widely used and could be fitted to around about half of all new buildings in the UK built in the last 10 years, that could be a hell of a lot of buildings, and not just houses.

 

The Fire Brigade Union have written to MP's wanting a complete review of the UK's fire regulations, because the Union say's that the regulations about cladding are ambiguous at best and needs to urgently be updated.

 

The fire regulations seem to be at the heart of every new revelation concerning this tragedy, and it's taken this tragedy to highlight just how inadequate the current regulations are. 

 

Not the first time it's taken tragedies to highlight inadequate UK fire safety rules, remember how long it took to change the law concerning flammable children's nightwear, children died and dozens were left disfigured because their nightwear caught fire, it took years to change the law, and then there was the foam used in furniture such as chairs and settees which used to be highly flammable and gave off toxic gases, again it took many fires before anything was done about it, despite numerous warnings.

 

I think this is one of those cases, where materials being used really shouldn't have been allowed, but the regulations didn't outlaw them and therefore they continue to be used and will continue to be used until they are eventually outlawed.  I don't know if the Government can push through emergency legislation banning the use of these materials, however doing that may prejudice the public enquiry.

[redm]

The people need money to re-build their lives. Everyone agrees with that simple fact.

 

Robbie Williams....on his own....could donate what that single will raise and not even notice it missing.

 

Don't want to appear cynical but stay oot the studio and donate a huge wedge each eh !

 

Just a thought.

They could but it would take several extraordinary gestures from individuals to make the sort of money this single will. There's a donation page attached to it as well. I can't criticise people for trying to help. Most of those involved don't need the extra publicity, and several have done other things to help the cause/made donations off their own backs anyway.

 

Also, Bridge Over Troubled Water. [emoji30] it's one of the small number of tunes that sets me off at the best of times anyway. Beautiful song. They've done a decent enough job of it.

[Boab]

They could but it would take several extraordinary gestures from individuals to make the sort of money this single will. There's a donation page attached to it as well. I can't criticise people for trying to help. Most of those involved don't need the extra publicity, and several have done other things to help the cause/made donations off their own backs anyway.

 

Also, Bridge Over Troubled Water. [emoji30] it's one of the small number of tunes that sets me off at the best of times anyway. Beautiful song. They've done a decent enough job of it.

As I say, Red, probably being cynical but cut out the middle man i.e. a single, and just put a " pop star kitty " together and the money goes straight to the poor souls that need it now.

Sorry, i've no interest in watching Robbie Williams in a praying stance in a studio. Just club together and hand over the money, guys eh !

[redm]

[Jambo-Jimbo]

 

Yes that was confirmed in the Commons today by the PM.

 

The question now is, will these Tower Blocks be fitted with fire-resistant cladding & who pays for it, if so.

 

 

[Ray Gin]

Christ. A handy tip for any extremists looking to cause some easy devastation.

[Alwayssunnyingorgie]

Christ. A handy tip for any extremists looking to cause some easy devastation.

It would be so easy, just block the bottom of the stairs and no one gets out.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Camden Council are to replace the cladding on some of it's Tower Blocks.

 

Apparently after safety checks were carried out the cladding failed flammable tests.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/22/camden-council-removes-cladding-tower-blocks-flammability-testing/

 

In a disturbing development Camden Council discovered that the specifications of the cladding that it had ordered was not the cladding which had been fitted.

The work had been carried out between 2006-2009 by the same company (Rydon) which had carried out the Grenfell refurbishment.

 

This would explain why Theresa May refused to answer questions in the Commons on whether the cladding used on the Grenfell Tower was legal or not, all she said was that the Police and Fire Service were conducting tests on it and they will report back within the next 48 hours.

[Bindy Badgy]

In a disturbing development Camden Council discovered that the specifications of the cladding that it had ordered was not the cladding which had been fitted.

The work had been carried out between 2006-2009 by the same company (Rydon) which had carried out the Grenfell refurbishment.

 

This is terrifying if true. Looks like it's been an accident waiting to happen.

[Escobar PHM]

This is terrifying if true. Looks like it's been an accident waiting to happen.

I'd say Mr Rydon and some of his pals should be saving up his snouts and soap as he'll be having a wee holiday at her majesty's pleasure some time soon.

[269miles]

They are all to be tested. Of those that have been tested, so far , only a few are an issue. That's my understanding of the news at 16.00.

[Marvin]

My mate is moving into Bath's highest tower block, 16th floor too. The housing association are cost cutting barstewards imo. So told him to research the building plans before he moves.

[maroonlegions]

Ongoing tests being carried out on Grenfell Tower block.

 

"Making a statement to the Commons about the fire last week in which at least 79 people died, the prime minister said initial test results had shown other blocks had seemingly used flammable cladding".

 

 

Tests being carried out on 600 English tower blocks with cladding

PM says urgent tests on buildings are taking place in wake of Grenfell Tower disaster to see if cladding is flammable

5 hours ago ? theguardian.com

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/22/flammable-cladding-found-on-other-flats-after-grenfell-fire-says-may