Huge fire in Grenfell Tower - West London

[w0033944]

Well comments like that are unacceptable as well, but there are plenty jumping on austerity bandwagon when at the end of the day it may boil down to someone/company/organisation not following the Fire Regulations but of course we do not really know that at this stage and even if it boils down to wanting to save £5000 pound, as tragic as that maybe I would hardly blame that on Austerity in general.

I notice quite a few of the placards at the Town Hall demonstration were in Labour Colours, and now there talk of a day of rage, which the more sensible people in Labour party are now trying to rapidly disassociate themselves from.

If Labour are agitating, then they're obviously in the wrong. All I'm saying is that some posts on here seem to be placing halos over the heads of the PM and every Conservative politician who's been associated with this incident, which is likely to be at least partly inaccurate (most disasters are the result of multiple long-term failures) and seems to me to be a 'protect my preferred political party from any and all criticism' move rather than anything constructive. On that same note, while it appears that past Labour administrations have to take some of the blame, the fact that the current leadership hasn't been in power yet surely reduces their liability in terms of the causes of this disaster to an extent?

 

[backontrack]

If Labour are agitating, then they're obviously in the wrong. All I'm saying is that some posts on here seem to be placing halos over the heads of the PM and every Conservative politician who's been associated with this incident, which is likely to be at least partly inaccurate (most disasters are the result of multiple long-term failures) and seems to me to be a 'protect my preferred political party from any and all criticism' move rather than anything constructive.

Agreed.

Trying to point out Government responsibility is not 'political posturing'. People want answers. Nobody should be shying away from their questions.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Agreed. Trying to point out Government responsibility is not 'political posturing'. People want answers. Nobody should be shying away from their questions.

Was it the Government or the local council who authorised the refurbishment works on that tower block?

Were the refurbishment plans submitted by the council to the Government for approval?

 

[takno]

I notice quite a few of the placards at the Town Hall demonstration were in Labour Colours, and now there talk of a day of rage, which the more sensible people in Labour party are now trying to rapidly disassociate themselves from.

Do you mean the placards were red? Lots of people use red as a colour. If they didn't have Labour written on them they weren't Labour placards.

As to the "Day of Rage" thing, searching for it on the internet I can see one facebook event with 150 people attending, and a whole bunch of reports exclusively in the right-wing press. Safest to assume it's something that some fringe group have come up with the idea and the press are using to try and tarnish Labour.

 

[Dai Corner]

The potential hazards of combustible cladding have been known for many years. Politicians may not have got round to legislating but that shouldn't stop the construction industry ensuring what they build is safe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-high-rise-building-cladding-ignored-decades/

Fire safety experts warned as long ago as 1999 that the cladding used on buildings such as Grenfell Tower posed a deadly threat to hundreds of residents inside, it has emerged.

The experts, from industry and the firefighters’ union, predicted that such cladding could help drive any fire upwards to quickly engulf an entire building.

In a chilling premonition of what would happen 18 years later at Grenfell Tower - where at least at least 58 people are now feared to have been killed - Fire Brigades Union official Glyn Evans told MPs: “The problem with cladding is that it will, if it is able, spread fire and it will spread it vertically. If you get multistorey buildings you will get fire spread up the outside if the cladding will permit it.”

After hearing evidence from Mr Evans and others, a House of Commons committee concluded in early 2000 that the authorities could not afford to wait before taking action to tackle the risk.

It’s report stated: “We do not believe that it should take a serious fire in which many people are killed before all reasonable steps are taken towards minimising the risks.”

Members of the emergency services work inside the charred remnains of Grenfell Tower
Members of the emergency services work inside the charred remnains of Grenfell Tower CREDIT: TOLGA AKMEN/ AFP
The report appears to have been one of several alarm bells rung over the safety of high rise buildings which went unheeded.

There now is a growing conviction among construction and fire experts that the cladding system fixed to Grenfell Tower to improve the energy efficiency and appearance of the building as part of a £8.6 million refurbishment helped spread the fire.

The Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs - the Government department then presided over by Labour’s John Prescott - had gathered in July 1999 to hear evidence on the use of external cladding in high rise towers, following a fire at a 14-storey block in Irvine, Ayrshire, the previous month, in which a 55-year-old disabled man was killed.

That followed a fire in 1991 at Knowsley Heights in Liverpool, where flames spread from the bottom to the top of the 11-storey block, causing serious damage.

Mr Evans told the committee that if external cladding failed to resist flames from a fire inside the building it could rapidly spread upwards to engulf the entire structure.

He said: “If a fire occurs within a building it leaves the building through a window opening in an external wall, and the strong probability is that the cladding will be involved.”

Mr Evans added: “If the cladding cannot resist the spread of flame across the surface then it will vertically envelop the building; in other words, the fire will spread to the outside of the building and it will go vertically.”

The committee also heard a number of other potential problems which existing safety tests were not taking into account.

 

[47802]

Do you mean the placards were red? Lots of people use red as a colour. If they didn't have Labour written on them they weren't Labour placards.

As to the "Day of Rage" thing, searching for it on the internet I can see one facebook event with 150 people attending, and a whole bunch of reports exclusively in the right-wing press. Safest to assume it's something that some fringe group have come up with the idea and the press are using to try and tarnish Labour.

They were Red and Yellow as frequently used by Labour, and no they were probably not official Labour Signs but no doubt Labour Colours were deliberately chosen to make a point.

 

[takno]

The potential hazards of combustible cladding have been known for many years. Politicians may not have got round to legislating but that shouldn't stop the construction industry ensuring what they build is safe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-high-rise-building-cladding-ignored-decades/

It shouldn't, but the government have spent 7 years celebrating a "bonfire of regulations", removing many of the checks that were previously done, and taking away the funding that pays for local authority oversight of the industry. They then encourage a culture of cost-cutting and always accepting the lowest tender. In those circumstances it's effectively impossible to do business at all if you insist on meeting the legal standards, let alone exceeding them.

 

[bramling]

If Labour are agitating, then they're obviously in the wrong. All I'm saying is that some posts on here seem to be placing halos over the heads of the PM and every Conservative politician who's been associated with this incident, which is likely to be at least partly inaccurate (most disasters are the result of multiple long-term failures) and seems to me to be a 'protect my preferred political party from any and all criticism' move rather than anything constructive. On that same note, while it appears that past Labour administrations have to take some of the blame, the fact that the current leadership hasn't been in power yet surely reduces their liability in terms of the causes of this disaster to an extent?

I don't see why there should be any blame floating about at the moment in terms of the cause. Fact is money *was* spent on refurbishing the building, and it could well turn out to be ironic that the disaster may not have happened if there hadn't been this investment.

Meanwhile, we wait to hear from the experts (not the media, nor the local people) on what caused the fire and its rapid spread. If anything it sounds to me more like a technical error within what would be a relatively specialist field, rather than a political one.

What I would say, is I'd prefer an honest and functional (if appearing cold) response from a political leader, as opposed to a display of fake tears and empathy of the sort we came to be used to from the likes of Tony Blair. Politicians should be real people not actors. And, to be fair to TM, there are other big issues going on at the moment - forming a government for the country is rather important too, and it's easy to forget there have been three terrorist attacks this year and the government can't be taking their eye of that ball.

 

[backontrack]

Was it the Government or the local council who authorised the refurbishment works on that tower block?

Were the refurbishment plans submitted by the council to the Government for approval?

Ah, my bête noire has returned...

The local Conservative council authorised those refurbishment works. So it is a Conservative responsibility.

Theresa's top aide Gavin Barwell ignored fire warnings when he was housing minister. He also delayed a review of Part B of Building Regulations 2010 - so yes, the government is also responsible.

 

[Dai Corner]

It shouldn't, but the government have spent 7 years celebrating a "bonfire of regulations", removing many of the checks that were previously done, and taking away the funding that pays for local authority oversight of the industry. They then encourage a culture of cost-cutting and always accepting the lowest tender. In those circumstances it's effectively impossible to do business at all if you insist on meeting the legal standards, let alone exceeding them.

Reading the various reports online at the moment it sounds like a cheaper type of polyethylene-cored cladding was used rather than that specified by the architects and this potentially saved £5000-£6000.

The Government have said that this type of cladding would not comply with current* building regs guidance.

I find it hard to believe that anyone agreed to the change however tight budgets were and that however busy they were nobody checked that the cladding on the building was that specified before signing off the work.Let's hope the inquiry gets to the bottom of it and in the meantime all similarly clad buildings are inspected PDQ and the cladding removed or replaced PDQ.

* has anything changed since Grenfell Tower was done?

 

[bramling]

Reading the various reports online at the moment it sounds like a cheaper type of polyethylene-cored cladding was used rather than that specified by the architects and this potentially saved £5000-£6000.

I find it hard to believe that anyone agreed to the change however tight budgets were and that however busy they were nobody checked that the cladding on the building was that specified before signing off the work.Let's hope the inquiry gets to the bottom of it and in the meantime all similarly clad buildings are inspected PDQ and the cladding removed or replaced PDQ.

I agree, and simply don't believe a figure of £5-6k would have made that much difference to the decision process. In political terms this is the equivalent of dropping a 1p on the floor and not bothering to pick it up.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Call me cynical, but a good riot always helps distract people from the real issues. Helpfully we know the Met have a lot of experience in using undercover cops to organise riots, when they weren't impregnating young female activists anyway.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Well comments like that are unacceptable as well, but there are plenty jumping on austerity bandwagon when at the end of the day it may boil down to someone/company/organisation not following the Fire Regulations but of course we do not really know that at this stage and even if it boils down to wanting to save £5000 pound, as tragic as that maybe I would hardly blame that on Austerity in general.

I blame austerity entirely. It isn't just the obvious things, but the fact that councils have had to get rid of most of their buildings inspectors and enforcement officers because of the incessant cost cutting.

We have a culture which encourages corner cutting by celebrating it as "efficiency", and takes away the power for people to enforce the rules that do exist. I don't see how that can be as a result of anything but neoliberalism and the austerity agenda.

And it's not a party political thing- Labour were just as bad, before and after Blair- either.

 

[takno]

I find it hard to believe that anyone agreed to the change however tight budgets were and that however busy they were nobody checked that the cladding on the building was that specified before signing off the work.

I'm not sure you're really getting this. There isn't any "however busy" left. Local Authorities have been utterly gutted. This type of checking used to be done by a team of qualified people. There is still somebody whose responsibility it is, but it will often be one person who isn't actually a specialist in the area facing a relentless unending pile of paperwork going across their desk. It's probably not even getting looked at, let alone checked.

 

[Dai Corner]

I'm not sure you're really getting this. There isn't any "however busy" left. Local Authorities have been utterly gutted. This type of checking used to be done by a team of qualified people. There is still somebody whose responsibility it is, but it will often be one person who isn't actually a specialist in the area facing a relentless unending pile of paperwork going across their desk. It's probably not even getting looked at, let alone checked.

Really? Somebody just sits at their desk and writes a cheque for £8m without even going on site at any time during the work. Blimey.

 

[takno]

Really? Somebody just sits at their desk and writes a cheque for £8m without even going on site at any time during the work. Blimey.

That's about the size of it. The £8m was probably grant money, with a deadline for when it had to be spent by. Even if not then it's investment, which is to be encouraged. Checking the £8m is being spent well is bureaucracy and must be stamped out.

 

[bramling]

I blame austerity entirely. It isn't just the obvious things, but the fact that councils have had to get rid of most of their buildings inspectors and enforcement officers because of the incessant cost cutting.

We have a culture which encourages corner cutting by celebrating it as "efficiency", and takes away the power for people to enforce the rules that do exist. I don't see how that can be as a result of anything but neoliberalism and the austerity agenda.

And it's not a party political thing- Labour were just as bad, before and after Blair- either.

There is of course the slight issue that money has to come from somewhere, which is what caused the mess in the first place in the form of a massive government budget deficit.

 

[w0033944]

I don't see why there should be any blame floating about at the moment in terms of the cause. Fact is money *was* spent on refurbishing the building, and it could well turn out to be ironic that the disaster may not have happened if there hadn't been this investment.

Meanwhile, we wait to hear from the experts (not the media, nor the local people) on what caused the fire and its rapid spread. If anything it sounds to me more like a technical error within what would be a relatively specialist field, rather than a political one.

What I would say, is I'd prefer an honest and functional (if appearing cold) response from a political leader, as opposed to a display of fake tears and empathy of the sort we came to be used to from the likes of Tony Blair. Politicians should be real people not actors. And, to be fair to TM, there are other big issues going on at the moment - forming a government for the country is rather important too, and it's easy to forget there have been three terrorist attacks this year and the government can't be taking their eye of that ball.

Decisions, whether brilliant or disastrous, are not made in a vacuum. If there is pressure from central government to make ever further spending cuts, economies are likely to be made and oversight may be reduced. Having a more convoluted network of responsibility in regard to ownership, management, contracting and sub-contracting, creates a system wherein responsibility is diluted by being spread between many individuals, agencies and companies. To claim that, in this complex situation, it's possible to isolate central government from blame any more than local government, management companies, construction contractors etc. is pushing credibility. I appreciate you're not directly making that claim, but others are, so it bears mentioning.

To your other points: there is a difference between a bad acting job from a PM and an utter inability to make oneself perceived as anything more than a cold technocrat. I agree that over-acting isn't much better than what Mrs. May is doing, but her inability to demonstrate any human warmth really doesn't help. All people are asking for is some outward indication that she feels something rather than just that fixed stare she gives to the camera, and a statement in that strangely-emphasised, slightly irritated way of hers that sounds rather as though she's reading her shopping list to her husband. Not for nothing have political commentators called her the Maybot.

I also find it strange that, within two sentences you go from arguing that we ought not pre-empt the findings of the fire investigation to speculating that the fire resulted from an arcane technical matter that had nothing to do with the political climate. It's almost as though it's wishful thinking on your part or that it just does not compute that governments (of multiple colours given the fact that the Blair years saw responsibility for fire inspections removed from the Fire Brigade and given to councils) might have created the environment for this to happen. Further to this point, assuming that you're correct in this assumption, does it not concern you that this would demonstrate that our high-rise towers are one small technical error removed from catastrophic fires? I'm finding this sort of detached, clinical acceptance of the situation from some on the Right quite baffling and unsettling, actually - there seems to be a tendency to shrug shoulders and regard it as 'one of those things'. I'm not to only one to wonder whether it's easy for some to think that way if it happens to those at the fag end of society, many of whom are 'foreign'. Oh, and on your last point, governments have Ministries staffed by fleets of Civil Servants, advisors and researchers, not to mention senior and Junior Ministers so that it's possible for more than one priority to be managed by Whitehall concurrently.

 

[w0033944]

There is of course the slight issue that money has to come from somewhere, which is what caused the mess in the first place in the form of a massive government budget deficit.

If we can't afford as a nation for our citizens to live in housing that isn''t a tinderbox then something's badly wrong. This isn't Nicaragua or Laos, you know - we're supposed to be the world's fifth-largest economy. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some people to question where all the money's going.

 

[IanXC]

Really? Somebody just sits at their desk and writes a cheque for £8m without even going on site at any time during the work. Blimey.

The Council have two hats in this scenario. One as client for the works being done on their building, where they are acting as a client as per any business contracting for works to be done on a building - this team may or may not have detailed knowledge of the methods and materials being used, and will almost certainly be relying on advice purchased from other building industry firms.

The other is as Building Control. These official(s) are acting under statutory obligations the council has to inspect and approve building works. This team are typically at arm's length from the council acting as a client, and it is here where the suggestion is that costs have been cut and manpower reduced, leaving many developments inspected at much, much lower frequency during their works, than would have been the case historically.

 

[Dai Corner]

That's about the size of it. The £8m was probably grant money, with a deadline for when it had to be spent by. Even if not then it's investment, which is to be encouraged. Checking the £8m is being spent well is bureaucracy and must be stamped out.

According to this Newsletter, the building control officer passed the cladding (insulation) on 15 May 2015 when it was only half done, and probably without even visiting the site according to your previous post.

http://www.kctmo.org.uk/files/105552_kctmo_rydon_grenfell_tower_newsletter_may_2015.pdf

 

[Cowley]

According to this Newsletter, the building control officer passed the cladding (insulation) on 15 May 2015 when it was only half done, and probably without even visiting the site according to your previous post.

http://www.kctmo.org.uk/files/105552_kctmo_rydon_grenfell_tower_newsletter_may_2015.pdf

I can't imagine, if you'd been involved with the inspection regarding the cladding how you would be feeling now.
This can't come down to one persons decision though, the system has inherently failed to cause what's happened here.

 

[jon0844]

This photo has been going around on my social media feeds.

(photo of the tower as the i in austerity).

The left have gone to great lengths on various Facebook feeds and how the right is doing the same by pointing out what the left didn't do over their time in office. And I'm sure some will blame the EU for requiring buildings to be more energy efficient - the key reason for the cladding and presumably not seen as being part of any fire safety work.

People are right to ask questions but sadly they have to be prepared to wait for the proper answers and not just jump to conclusion or lash out at individuals.

There are so many factors and I don't believe it's a big conspiracy, like the one saying they cut back on fire safety deliberately so the building would burn and be pulled down to enable more gentrification. Like any MP would think that would be a good idea, or even a group it people plotting in a private members club.

It seems that the cladding will be the cause and had that not been used, the building wouldn't have gone up and people would continue to not treat this like the most serious injustice in the world, just as I'm sure there are other disasters waiting to happen that nobody is talking about until it makes the news.

For now, all focus should be on the residents and how to deal with the aftermath, as well as checking all other buildings that could have been compromised by refurbishment work.

 

[tellytype]

Not least by obstructing firefighters coming up.[by evacuating the entire building]

It seems to be the case that some buildings are just inherently dangerous and will need to be decommissioned if they can't be upgraded.

Just a quick observation here folks, from someone who at one time was involved in Fire, Security & CCTV systems. Modern panels (Gent Vigilon, Advanced, Kentec etc) can be configured with very complex cause & effect, such that a fire on one floor only tips out that floor, ditto if nothing is done to the alarm within a set amount of time, it can sequentially evacuate floors through use of further time delays etc etc. There really is no excuse in 2017 for tall towers like this not to have such a system - when they're properly configured & maintained, they save lives. Old panels didn't have this, it was one out all out - things have moved on, massively.

Bringing it round to relevance on this forum - we all know of Inspector Sands on LU & NR stations. LU certainly have recently upgraded most (all?) of their fire panels to Kentec's from various old systems. The 2 minute delay, and the automatic evacuation which we all know so well on these systems is just a very minor implementation of Cause & Effect on these systems.

I used to live in a low-rise apartment (3 floors, 1950s concrete with stucco over) - fire alarms here were woeful - Consumer grade interconnected smokes which woke nobody up the night we had a small fire in the electric cupboard. I was up anyway & heard it. Even the fire service couldn't wake sleeping residents. The fire self extinguished & all was well, but after that day I put in a very basic system of my own into my apartment with a smoke head outside in the stairwell.

I moved out of there long ago & whilst this may appear overkill to some I have a Gent Vigilon system in the house which I put in myself - its the kind of panel you see in Hospitals (Addenbrookes for instance has a Vigilon system) & airports (Belfast City also has one, LHR has too or did) etc - I had the parts of the system & thought it wise. It replaced the old consumer grade smokes which went off whenever one made toast, and can easily be removed when I move house, reinstating the old system. I know I'm the exception to the rule here as I also have a top notch alarm as installed in every RBS branch, and CCTV that wouldn't look out of place in a shopping centre, but each to their own.

I guess what I'm saying here is that with modern fire panels, there is no excuse for any building of any size not to have them.

Yes, there is always the risk of false alarms, but if you put the smokes & heats in the communal area, Jonny making his toast wont set them off, but any larger fire will.

If you want to put heads in the flat, put heat heads in - these only trip at pre-determined heat levels (bi-metal strips are used as the element) which would only be found in a fire.

Vigilons, and this is now the same for most systems, have combined smoke/heat/CO sensors which are nigh on impossible to 'false' - trust me I've tried, even the professional testing kits designed for them sometimes fail to set them off. Only lighting a real fire (paper in a saucepan, before you ask!) will set them off as they need a bit of all 3 elements to make them go.

Robust, 'non falseable' heads in every apartment, Sounders in every flat (heads & sounders are usually combined these days) so nobody misses the alarm. Proper Cause & Effect programming on the panel. Guidance to evacuate not stay put when you hear the alarm. Maintain it. Test it. If this was enforced as law, and it isnt onerous or OTT in any way, then I guarantee you we would likely be seeing fatalities in low single digits in this case at worst instead of mass casualties. There are just no excuses in 2017 with the technology which is now out there.

 

[Dai Corner]

I can't imagine, if you'd been involved with the inspection regarding the cladding how you would be feeling now.
This can't come down to one persons decision though, the system has inherently failed to cause what's happened here.

Indeed. I wasn't intending to pin the blame on one person.

 

[najaB]

This photo has been going around on my social media feeds.

(photo of the tower as the i in austerity)...

The irony being that it appears that the severity of the fire was due to money being spent on the building. If not for the refurb this fire would barely have made the inside cover of a local paper.

 

[w0033944]

Just a quick observation here folks, from someone who at one time was involved in Fire, Security & CCTV systems. Modern panels (Gent Vigilon, Advanced, Kentec etc) can be configured with very complex cause & effect, such that a fire on one floor only tips out that floor, ditto if nothing is done to the alarm within a set amount of time, it can sequentially evacuate floors through use of further time delays etc etc. There really is no excuse in 2017 for tall towers like this not to have such a system - when they're properly configured & maintained, they save lives. Old panels didn't have this, it was one out all out - things have moved on, massively.

Bringing it round to relevance on this forum - we all know of Inspector Sands on LU & NR stations. LU certainly have recently upgraded most (all?) of their fire panels to Kentec's from various old systems. The 2 minute delay, and the automatic evacuation which we all know so well on these systems is just a very minor implementation of Cause & Effect on these systems.

I used to live in a low-rise apartment (3 floors, 1950s concrete with stucco over) - fire alarms here were woeful - Consumer grade interconnected smokes which woke nobody up the night we had a small fire in the electric cupboard. I was up anyway & heard it. Even the fire service couldn't wake sleeping residents. The fire self extinguished & all was well, but after that day I put in a very basic system of my own into my apartment with a smoke head outside in the stairwell.

I moved out of there long ago & whilst this may appear overkill to some I have a Gent Vigilon system in the house which I put in myself - its the kind of panel you see in Hospitals (Addenbrookes for instance has a Vigilon system) & airports (Belfast City also has one, LHR has too or did) etc - I had the parts of the system & thought it wise. It replaced the old consumer grade smokes which went off whenever one made toast, and can easily be removed when I move house, reinstating the old system. I know I'm the exception to the rule here as I also have a top notch alarm as installed in every RBS branch, and CCTV that wouldn't look out of place in a shopping centre, but each to their own.

I guess what I'm saying here is that with modern fire panels, there is no excuse for any building of any size not to have them.

Yes, there is always the risk of false alarms, but if you put the smokes & heats in the communal area, Jonny making his toast wont set them off, but any larger fire will.

If you want to put heads in the flat, put heat heads in - these only trip at pre-determined heat levels (bi-metal strips are used as the element) which would only be found in a fire.

Vigilons, and this is now the same for most systems, have combined smoke/heat/CO sensors which are nigh on impossible to 'false' - trust me I've tried, even the professional testing kits designed for them sometimes fail to set them off. Only lighting a real fire (paper in a saucepan, before you ask!) will set them off as they need a bit of all 3 elements to make them go.

Robust, 'non falseable' heads in every apartment, Sounders in every flat (heads & sounders are usually combined these days) so nobody misses the alarm. Proper Cause & Effect programming on the panel. Guidance to evacuate not stay put when you hear the alarm. Maintain it. Test it. If this was enforced as law, and it isnt onerous or OTT in any way, then I guarantee you we would likely be seeing fatalities in low single digits in this case at worst instead of mass casualties. There are just no excuses in 2017 with the technology which is now out there.

Thanks for this. Would me mind me quoting it on other forums?

 

[Cowley]

Indeed. I wasn't intending to pin the blame on one person.

I know you weren't Dai. It was just something that occurred to me when I was reading through the last few posts.

 

[WelshBluebird]

There are so many factors and I don't believe it's a big conspiracy, like the one saying they cut back on fire safety deliberately so the building would burn and be pulled down to enable more gentrification. Like any MP would think that would be a good idea, or even a group it people plotting in a private members club.

To be far, there are not that many people trying to claim such insane things.

What I do worry about though, and I think this is a genuine worry, is that some of the families will be housed outside of London and the land sold off (which will be a nice earner for the council!). Lets just say I seriously doubt that we will see a new build to replace the homes lost!

So while it is pretty obvious this wasn't some kind of plan for it to happen, that will likely be the result. And I don't think that is an outlandish suggestion considering there have already been some backtracking to the initial statement of all families would be rehoused in the area.

 

[bramling]

This photo has been going around on my social media feeds.

(photo of the tower as the i in austerity).

The left have gone to great lengths on various Facebook feeds and how the right is doing the same by pointing out what the left didn't do over their time in office. And I'm sure some will blame the EU for requiring buildings to be more energy efficient - the key reason for the cladding and presumably not seen as being part of any fire safety work.

People are right to ask questions but sadly they have to be prepared to wait for the proper answers and not just jump to conclusion or lash out at individuals.

There are so many factors and I don't believe it's a big conspiracy, like the one saying they cut back on fire safety deliberately so the building would burn and be pulled down to enable more gentrification. Like any MP would think that would be a good idea, or even a group it people plotting in a private members club.

It seems that the cladding will be the cause and had that not been used, the building wouldn't have gone up and people would continue to not treat this like the most serious injustice in the world, just as I'm sure there are other disasters waiting to happen that nobody is talking about until it makes the news.

For now, all focus should be on the residents and how to deal with the aftermath, as well as checking all other buildings that could have been compromised by refurbishment work.

I agree with much of this. Life experience generally tells me to look for incompetence before conspiracy.