fire in London tower block

[OnTheBranchline]

Then there's Wail readers....

Edited June 24, 2017 by OnTheBranchline

[jjb1970]

A few pages back one of the posters suggested we might have a terrible situation where everyone can say they've done nothing wrong within the letter of law and yet it's all gone terribly wrong.

 

In the last 24 hours I've seen two instances:

 

a/ Some expert on tv news last night stating there's a gap in the regs whereby the cladding has to be fire-resitant, but where you have a sandwich of say 2 layers of aluminium you can have anything between them, which isn't regulated.

b/ One of the papers today saying that although materials have to meet UK regs, they can be tested at any lab anywhere in the world, and that lab standards of course vary.

 

I don't know how accurate these statements are, but both seem plausible to me inasmuch as cladding might meet the Regs per se, but be tragically inadequate. 

 

The problem is that unless you:

 

understand the building regs, and,

understand the standards used in this project, and,

understand how to use standards, and,

are familiar with this design

 

then it is pretty much impossible to have any sort of meaningful opinion. Regulations invariably have general provisions to the effect that whatever you make has to be safe, therefore a failure like this has failed to meet regulations. Beyond that it gets much more complicated, as I've said earlier, the approvals for a material are inherently linked to the conditions of approval meaning that a material can be simultaneously approved for use and not approved for the way it has been used.

If looking at standards, most standards these days are either global or regional as the last thing suppliers want is to have to get separate approvals for national standards around the world. Bodies such as ISO promote global standards. What most don't really appreciate is that all an approval indicates is that the product has met the criteria for approval against the referenced standard, it does not mean the product is good, or is safe or anything else, it starts and ends with telling you whatever it is met the criteria for approval. The majority of the certificates I signed in my time stated that the design satisfied the rules referenced on the certificate, end of, I said nothing about whether the design was any good. Design engineers and constructors and regulators generally understand that but it is very clear that politicians and journalists don't. Standards are great, but unless you understand their limitations and what an approval actually means then they can end in tears.

I really think we need to let people who know what they're doing get on with things and for politicians to act like grown ups and realise that if you haven't got a clue what you're talking about then shut up.

[Nearholmer]

Very well said indeed!

 

K

[Horsetan]

....I really think we need.....politicians to act like grown ups and realise that if you haven't got a clue what you're talking about then shut up.

 

You do know that's never going to happen, don't you?

[Nearholmer]

It would be a really interesting experiment if a person set out to become a politician, and both consistently behaved like an intelligent adult, and consistently treated their electorate like intelligents adults.

 

Would they get anywhere?

 

I think a good sprinkling of local politicians, councillors, do actually give it a go, but something seems to poison any attempt by an MP ago do so.

 

K

[Horsetan]

It would be a really interesting experiment if a person set out to become a politician, and both consistently behaved like an intelligent adult, and consistently treated their electorate like intelligents adults.

 

Would they get anywhere?....

 

Probably not. Sometimes politicos and their electorate deserve each other.

[pH]

It would be a really interesting experiment if a person set out to become a politician, and both consistently behaved like an intelligent adult, and consistently treated their electorate like intelligents adults.

Would they get anywhere?

 

You have seen "The Candidate", haven't you? Edited June 24, 2017 by pH

[pete_mcfarlane]

I think the rolling 24 hour news makes you lose perspective. A couple of days after the tower block fire, Portugal experienced forest fires killing 64 people in a short space of time. I saw just 60-90 seconds coverage on the news that day.

Presumably no Britons were involved. The usual pattern is to mention the hundreds of dead Johnny Foreigners in passing, and then focus on interviews with some British holidaymakers who've been mildly inconvenienced by the disaster. 

[Clearwater]

Presumably no Britons were involved. The usual pattern is to mention the hundreds of dead Johnny Foreigners in passing, and then focus on interviews with some British holidaymakers who've been mildly inconvenienced by the disaster.

 

Calls to mind the working title of 'Drop the Dead Donkey' - 'Dead Belgians Don't Count."

[Horsetan]

Presumably no Britons were involved. The usual pattern is to mention the hundreds of dead Johnny Foreigners in passing, and then focus on interviews with some British holidaymakers who've been mildly inconvenienced by the disaster. 

 

A faraway country of which we prefer to know nothing, etc.

[OnTheBranchline]

A faraway country of which we prefer to know nothing, etc.

Like St George's Island...

[raymw]

wrt reporting of foreign problems....

 

 

[rockershovel]

A faraway country of which we prefer to know nothing, etc.

To put this in perspective, a quick straw poll of colleagues in various locations shows that the Grenfell Tower issue is receiving pretty much nil coverage in non-English-language press outside UK (I exclude Sky from this, because they have quite a lot of UK news on their satellite channels) Edited June 25, 2017 by rockershovel

[Southernman46]

To put this in perspective, a quick straw poll of colleagues in various locations shows that the Grenfell Tower issue is receiving pretty much nil coverage in non-English-language press outside UK (I exclude Sky from this, because they have quite a lot of UK news on their satellite channels)

Indeed in many places south and east of the Mediterranean, the death toll at Grenfell represents a fairly good day at the market / bazaar / religious festival ....................................  I watch Aljazeera quite a bit - gives a different perspective on the news.

 

 

I realise how flippant and in bad taste that comment might seem but I'm in an uncharitable bad mood 'cos MY life isn't quite perfect at the mo' ................

[Horsetan]

....I watch Aljazeera quite a bit - gives a different perspective on the news..............

Yes, I see that the channel has given a number of Gulf states a bad case of Qatar....

[hayfield]

The problem is that unless you:

 

understand the building regs, and,

understand the standards used in this project, and,

understand how to use standards, and,

are familiar with this design

 

then it is pretty much impossible to have any sort of meaningful opinion. Regulations invariably have general provisions to the effect that whatever you make has to be safe, therefore a failure like this has failed to meet regulations. Beyond that it gets much more complicated, as I've said earlier, the approvals for a material are inherently linked to the conditions of approval meaning that a material can be simultaneously approved for use and not approved for the way it has been used.

If looking at standards, most standards these days are either global or regional as the last thing suppliers want is to have to get separate approvals for national standards around the world. Bodies such as ISO promote global standards. What most don't really appreciate is that all an approval indicates is that the product has met the criteria for approval against the referenced standard, it does not mean the product is good, or is safe or anything else, it starts and ends with telling you whatever it is met the criteria for approval. The majority of the certificates I signed in my time stated that the design satisfied the rules referenced on the certificate, end of, I said nothing about whether the design was any good. Design engineers and constructors and regulators generally understand that but it is very clear that politicians and journalists don't. Standards are great, but unless you understand their limitations and what an approval actually means then they can end in tears.

I really think we need to let people who know what they're doing get on with things and for politicians to act like grown ups and realise that if you haven't got a clue what you're talking about then shut up.

 

 

This is all well and good but the question is professionals must have been employed both on a permanent basis and as contractors. Forgetting all about materials meeting minimum standards etc. The design was for this building and whilst the panels I guess were for 2 purposes (insulation and looks) they must still be safe to use in the situation situation they were used in, ie in upgrading an existing building, not a new one.

 

I am currently extending my existing 90 year old property, I have to have interlinked mains smoke, heat and C02 detectors, meet both today's building, electrical and gas regulations. End of, if I don't comply then I do not get a certification of completion. If I rented a house or flat out as a private landlord I would have to have regular (annual?) safety checks.

 

I would have thought irrespective of a block of flats being either privately owned or rented, each one should have an annual safety certificate. Clearly there have been many failings both in this block and those now coming to light, its about time that those responsible for the failings not only take responsibility for their actions, but if necessary face legal action. This includes those who designed the modifications, those who did the work and those responsible for checking and I guess those who commissioned the work

 

Also those who are supposed to be responsible for insuring the regulations are up to date should ensure this is done.

[Mallard60022]

It would be a really interesting experiment if a person set out to become a politician, and both consistently behaved like an intelligent adult, and consistently treated their electorate like intelligents adults.

 

Would they get anywhere?

 

I think a good sprinkling of local politicians, councillors, do actually give it a go, but something seems to poison any attempt by an MP ago do so.

 

K

Jo Cox. RIP  Enough said by me, execpt for mentioning that Will Self gave the situation a good 'blast' this morning.

P.

Edited June 25, 2017 by Mallard60022

[meil]

This is all well and good but the question is professionals must have been employed both on a permanent basis and as contractors. Forgetting all about materials meeting minimum standards etc. The design was for this building and whilst the panels I guess were for 2 purposes (insulation and looks) they must still be safe to use in the situation situation they were used in, ie in upgrading an existing building, not a new one.

 

I am currently extending my existing 90 year old property, I have to have interlinked mains smoke, heat and C02 detectors, meet both today's building, electrical and gas regulations. End of, if I don't comply then I do not get a certification of completion. If I rented a house or flat out as a private landlord I would have to have regular (annual?) safety checks.

 

I would have thought irrespective of a block of flats being either privately owned or rented, each one should have an annual safety certificate. Clearly there have been many failings both in this block and those now coming to light, its about time that those responsible for the failings not only take responsibility for their actions, but if necessary face legal action. This includes those who designed the modifications, those who did the work and those responsible for checking and I guess those who commissioned the work

 

Also those who are supposed to be responsible for insuring the regulations are up to date should ensure this is done.

That's why I said there must be a few building inspectors that are feeling non too secure at the moment.

 

One thing puzzles me - one of the principle fire expertise sources is the Fire section of BRE (formally the Building Research Establishment). They hold a lot of design expertise and they are a principal testing laboratory. No mention of them appears to have emerged. I will be interested in seeing where they emerge from all this.

Edited June 25, 2017 by meil

[The Stationmaster]

Jo Cox. RIP  Enough said by me, execpt for mentioning that Will Self gave the situation a good 'blast' this morning.

P.

 

Alas she did one or two rather daft things too including a rather silly thing on the river near Parliament.

 

Generally I think almost every single one of them in the Lower Part of the aptly named 'House of Fools' is into something or has said something which no sane person who really cared would do or say., which ever party they claim affiliation with.

 

But enough of politics, and I wish they would stop exploiting this fire and start getting down to commonsense at a time when so many things need to be properly drawn together and dealt with.   The fire is going to involve a lot of proper investigation, a hopefully lot of unbiased examination of numerous aspects by the Inquiry (where I would bar the presence of the legal trade from Day 1 otherwise we run the risk of of yet more nonsense and probably to an extent that would put their stupidities at the Ladbroke Grove collision in the shade).  An effective Inquiry needs expertise and objectivity, not obfuscation, scapegoating, and political claptrap (and the danger of the latter must be considerable in this one with all the irresponsible background stirring which is clearly going on).

[rockershovel]

Watching Al Jazeera certainly gives a different view of life...

 

I hadn't heard of Jo Cox until the tragic events of last year, and wouldn't wish to be construed as making any specific comment.

 

Paul Theroux offers (particularly in Dark Star Safari) a thoughtful and downbeat view of the Overseas Aid world, from his considerable experience. He also offers some fairly trenchant views on the subject of Western "adventure tourists" and from experiences of my own, I can only concur.

 

I would take issue with various posts above, in that I don't regard anyone who manages to get themselves actually adopted, nominated and elected as stupid. It's a considerable achievement. That said, I met my (Conservstive) MP at a constituency surgery, where he spoke on the subject of Brexit. All I can say, is that I wouldn't dare present a position so completely lacking in substance or detail, to my employers. It's no particular secret that my final parting with the Labour Party, revolved around my unwillingness to support a candidate who seemed to me, to have no merit at all other than a high level of ideological orthodoxy.

 

So, do I think MPs are childish or stupid? No, not at all. Do I think they frequently display self-interest, support of special interests, naivety or groupthink, to a degree which adversely affects their performance of their duties? In some cases, certainly. Do I think they represent their constituents? In too many cases, certainly not.

[hayfield]

That's why I said there must be a few building inspectors that are feeling non too secure at the moment.

 

One thing puzzles me - one of the principle fire expertise sources is the Fire section of BRE (formally the Building Research Establishment). They hold a lot of design expertise and they are a principal testing laboratory. No mention of them appears to have emerged. I will be interested in seeing where they emerge from all this.

 

 

Yes you do have the building inspectors, but what about those who planned the refurbishment ? Surely they must ensure the design and specification is safe, then the building company, should they not have some responsibility to carry out work to a safe standard ? The building inspectors then have a duty to sign off the build as safe

 

I guess most will state what was fitted was within building regs, so some of the blame must go for those who administer building regulations. I guess it has taken a second tragedy to get separate regulations for high rise buildings. 

[hayfield]

Watching Al Jazeera certainly gives a different view of life...

 

I hadn't heard of Jo Cox until the tragic events of last year, and wouldn't wish to be construed as making any specific comment.

 

Paul Theroux offers (particularly in Dark Star Safari) a thoughtful and downbeat view of the Overseas Aid world, from his considerable experience. He also offers some fairly trenchant views on the subject of Western "adventure tourists" and from experiences of my own, I can only concur.

 

I would take issue with various posts above, in that I don't regard anyone who manages to get themselves actually adopted, nominated and elected as stupid. It's a considerable achievement. That said, I met my (Conservstive) MP at a constituency surgery, where he spoke on the subject of Brexit. All I can say, is that I wouldn't dare present a position so completely lacking in substance or detail, to my employers. It's no particular secret that my final parting with the Labour Party, revolved around my unwillingness to support a candidate who seemed to me, to have no merit at all other than a high level of ideological orthodoxy.

 

So, do I think MPs are childish or stupid? No, not at all. Do I think they frequently display self-interest, support of special interests, naivety or groupthink, to a degree which adversely affects their performance of their duties? In some cases, certainly. Do I think they represent their constituents? In too many cases, certainly not.

 

 

I came across both local and national politicians where I used to live, both said one thing and then reneged on it, anything to get a vote. They seem to both look after themselves, each other, as well as their mates and local minority interest groups. Of course not all are as bad, and all most do seem to help some constituents with problems. But they still think they know better than Joe public. As for the civil service I guess they will still be Teflon coated and take no responsibility for their failings

 

I must admit to taking great pleasure in the last 2 elections, seeing some leading lights get their comeuppance, less satisfying was seeing some pop up on TV shows. I do not adhere to Nick Clegg's politics, but I felt sorry for him as I felt he was quite genuine.

[Oldddudders]

There are MPs and MPs. Sherry's MP stood up in the House the other day saying how wrong it was (or similar worthy sentiment) that inflammable materials had not been used on Grenfell Tower.

 

Just imagine having voted (Sherry didn't) for someone who doesn't know that flammable and inflammable are synonyms.

[stewartingram]

I was talking to a chap at lunch time who has to pass the tower almost every day. He is the Chief Bouncer at a well know London club and as such is something of a hard man. He was very moved by the event. One remark was that although he did not believe in ghosts he felt the spirits moving the next day. He did make one comment that I have not heard from official sources though hints have been dropped. He expects the death total to reach 120.

Bernard

I was on night shift last week, and had to drive out (alone) along the A40 to Ruislip depot. I passed the tower just before midnight, a hot summer's evening with the van windows open. I actually shivered as I passed that eerie site. RIP those who perished there.

 

Stewart

[Bernard Lamb]

That's why I said there must be a few building inspectors that are feeling non too secure at the moment.

 

One thing puzzles me - one of the principle fire expertise sources is the Fire section of BRE (formally the Building Research Establishment). They hold a lot of design expertise and they are a principal testing laboratory. No mention of them appears to have emerged. I will be interested in seeing where they emerge from all this.

I did mention in a previous post that when I had worked on jobs that involved fire doors we had the structures tested by the BRE.

I presume that nobody consulted them in this case. I always found them to be very rigorous in both their testing and their reporting.

Toughest of all checks were those done by the Agremont Board, I think these days know as BBA. With them you not only had to get the product to pass a test, you had to comply with a statistical chance of any item failing by working to a set standard deviation. Ironically this could result in a failure, as if the sample tested was too good in certain respects the calculations applied a down rating, as the calculation did not like a wide range of results.

Bernard

Bernard