Huge fire in Grenfell Tower - West London

[IanXC]

I think the concerns by the residents are poorly articulated.

I think what they're meaning to say is along the lines of "we don't want a public inquiry, we want criminal trials to hold people responsible".

Which is, of course, exactly what the Police investigation is working on!

I've lost track of whether this has been posted (apologies if someone has already posted it), but this is a very good explanation of what is going on with the testing of cladding the government is now undertaking - and the problems with their process.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40418266

Over the past week, the government has been testing high-rise tower blocks in England owned by councils and housing associations. All 95 of those tested so far have been discovered to be covered with an aluminium "rain-screen" exterior cladding that does not meet the required combustibility standards. You would be right to ask: how on earth can this have happened?

 

[Dai Corner]

More from BBC Newsnight (who are doing a lot of work on this)

Newsnight can reveal crucial details about why so many buildings managed to get cladding installed that didn't meet normal safety standards

https://mobile.twitter.com/bbcnewsnight/status/880904343314026500

Basically, it seems that 'desktop studies' have decided that certain materials and construction methods are ok to use without doing actual tests. I also got the impression that there are 'Chinese whispers' and that there is no direct communication between those 'approving' the materials and those signing off the finished work.

 

[158756]

More news on cost cutting coming out this morning....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40453054

Happens all the time - if you visit the SSC forum it is probably more unusual to find a project which is built exactly as it first appeared, and this applies to incredibly expensive private flats just as much as council blocks. If the council thought the aluminium would do the same job at a lower price it is their duty to use their funds wisely and go for the aluminium. Not telling the residents is poor form though.

What matters more is whether the council knew the aluminium cladding was potentially less safe than the zinc. The cost cutting document states only aluminium, we don't know which core they wanted or even if the council knew there were different cores, or if the builders advised or took the decision themselves that the aluminium cladding was perfectly safe. Indeed if the cladding had the best fire safety rating it remains possible that no one on the project knew it could be dangerous or has done anything illegal.


Everyone seems to have forgotten the insulation, and whatever the fire rating I very much doubt any of tests were done on the basis the insulation would be completely open to the elements as it now appears to be on tower blocks across the land.

 

[cjmillsnun]

As I understand it, it isn't a question of aluminium vs. zinc, it's that the aluminium cladding had a polymer core, which appears to have been more combustible than expected under 'real'life' conditions, whereas I recall from the other week that the zinc cladding had a metal honeycomb core and was therefore more resistant to fire due to not containing plastic.

Indeed, and there was an alternative that was significantly cheaper than the zinc cladding and that was fire retardant.

 

[Dent]

Everyone seems to have forgotten the insulation, and whatever the fire rating I very much doubt any of tests were done on the basis the insulation would be completely open to the elements as it now appears to be on tower blocks across the land.

It wasn't completely open to the elements, it was encased behind aluminium panels.

 

[158756]

It wasn't completely open to the elements, it was encased behind aluminium panels.

It is now though with everyone rushing to remove the cladding.

 

[Dent]

It is now though with everyone rushing to remove the cladding.

Are they not also removing the insulation? It would be a bit silly if they were leaving all the flammable stuff and just removing the non flammable panels that protect it.

 

[Dai Corner]

Are they not also removing the insulation? It would be a bit silly if they were leaving all the flammable stuff and just removing the non flammable panels that protect it.

It does appear that in at least some case they are only testing and removing the aluminium (or whatever) outer cladding and leaving the insulation. Nobody would have considered this scenario when designing the refurbishments and I agree it might actually increase the risk of fire.

They should remove everything back to bare concrete to be safe.

 

[najaB]

It does appear that in at least some case they are only testing and removing the aluminium (or whatever) outer cladding and leaving the insulation. Nobody would have considered this scenario when designing the refurbishments and I agree it might actually increase the risk of fire.

It should reduce the impact of the chimney effect where the insulation smoulders in the relative protection provided by the outer cladding.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I do wonder what happens if we get some prolonged heavy rain and this newly exposed insulation gets waterlogged?

It'll become extremely heavy - would that present a risk of it detaching and falling down with the obvious risk to anyone who is underneath at the wrong moment?

 

[cjmillsnun]

I do wonder what happens if we get some prolonged heavy rain and this newly exposed insulation gets waterlogged?

It'll become extremely heavy - would that present a risk of it detaching and falling down with the obvious risk to anyone who is underneath at the wrong moment?

Depending on the insulation, it is a possibility. Some types are impervious to water and should be OK, others will soak it up like a sponge.

Not only would the weight be an issue, the fact that the inner concrete would be constantly wet and cold could cause damp and mould issues in the flats

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Not only would the weight be an issue, the fact that the inner concrete would be constantly wet and cold could cause damp and mould issues in the flats

I thought about that, but then I thought - isn't that in fact the former exterior concrete since the insulation and cladding was added to the outside of existing buildings?

Of course, if there are new-builds rather than refurbishments affected then yes, there definitely will be severe cases of penetrating damp in those circumstances.

 

[IanXC]

Indeed if the cladding had the best fire safety rating it remains possible that no one on the project knew it could be dangerous or has done anything illegal.

Just to add further jeopardy to this, building regulations have become so complex as a result of the government's desire to reduce regulation, that it may only be the combination of factors, eg a lower quality choice to insulation, coupled with a lower quality of cladding and the overall structure of the overcladding, which together have created the circumstances for such a fire.

It seems to me that there is a distinct likelihood that the regulatory situation created means that there may well be no one single person who has considered how these factors work together.

Everyone seems to have forgotten the insulation, and whatever the fire rating I very much doubt any of tests were done on the basis the insulation would be completely open to the elements as it now appears to be on tower blocks across the land.

I do wonder what happens if we get some prolonged heavy rain and this newly exposed insulation gets waterlogged?

It'll become extremely heavy - would that present a risk of it detaching and falling down with the obvious risk to anyone who is underneath at the wrong moment?

And this comes back to the poorly thought out testing that the government seems to be entirely set on. They are testing only the overscreen cladding panels, which is almost pointless if you don't consider the underlying insulation and system used to attach it. If there is mineral based insulation then the risk of the cladding even being exposed to fire is completely different to Grenfell.

The government seem entirely set on undertaking unspecified tests, completely out of context, and not providing any meaningful commentary on what on earth they are doing. I expect that, in time, Social Housing providers, perhaps forced to make modifications to buildings which actually have no fire risk issues, will be forced to take legal action against the government to recover the cost of unnecessary modifications the government have foisted on them.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I thought about that, but then I thought - isn't that in fact the former exterior concrete since the insulation and cladding was added to the outside of existing buildings?

Of course, if there are new-builds rather than refurbishments affected then yes, there definitely will be severe cases of penetrating damp in those circumstances.

Most external structures are designed to get wet, but they then dry out when the weather improves.

Most tower blocks that have been refurbished had damp problems to begin with, and the cladding is there to provide a rain screen to keep the building and the insulation dry.

Wet insulation may not dry out as quickly as the original concrete as well, and would tend to dry from the outside in, thus keeping the original concrete wetter for longer.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Most external structures are designed to get wet, but they then dry out when the weather improves.

Most tower blocks that have been refurbished had damp problems to begin with, and the cladding is there to provide a rain screen to keep the building and the insulation dry.

Wet insulation may not dry out as quickly as the original concrete as well, and would tend to dry from the outside in, thus keeping the original concrete wetter for longer.

Ah.... do they not build these things with cavity walls then?

Hmm... be about 6 months from now for all this new round of penetrating damp to show up in the headlines, I think... I reckon three months for the signs to start appearing, another month for the first few mentions to start appearing, a couple more months for the extent to become apparent and the connection made...

 

[tspaul26]

Ah.... do they not build these things with cavity walls then?

For this type of concrete structure, generally not.

 

[DarloRich]

Why was the clarification of the remit of the appointee not made clear to the residents by those agencies, official or charitable, who have been helping them since the occurrence. There have been previous instances of such misunderstanding by people, notably the painted "paedo" graffiti over the house of a paediatrician some years ago.

Paul - i think part of the problem is the transmission and acceptance of the message. What you think is being said is not always what is received especially if the recipients have a reduced understanding of the language or terminology used.

 

[HSTEd]

I think we are going to need to build a lot of new high density social housing, I think public confidence on 70s block with modern clad refurbishments is pretty much gone.

A lot of steel framed stuff with light steel curtain walls and rock wool insulation.

 

[AlterEgo]

Grenfell survivors issue 12 demands to PM to overhaul response to tragedy

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...demands-to-pm-to-overhaul-response-to-tragedy

Survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire are writing to the prime minister with 12 demands for change in the way the disaster is being handled.

At a meeting in parliament last week, about 150 survivors of the fire and BMElawyers4Grenfell, a team of black and minority ethnic lawyers who are supporting them, condemned what they described as the failures of the government and the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (RBKC) to deal with the tragedy appropriately. They warned that unless the terms of reference of the inquiry change significantly the trust of the community will be undermined.

The letter to the prime minister, written by lawyers on the survivors’ behalf, is based on feedback from the meeting.

The shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott, called the meeting, which was also attended by the shadow justice minister, Richard Burgon, Kensington MP Emma Dent Coad and Tottenham MP David Lammy.

The survivors say it is vital that the inquiry maintains public confidence when it begins. Their demands include:

Ensuring a properly diverse expert panel sits alongside the inquiry judge to advise on a variety of issues, including housing need, fire and safety construction;

Response team to be available to survivors 24 hours a day

Withdraw Sir Martin Moore-Bick from heading up the inquiry

Centralise all donations into one charity and produce a full record of monies collected;

The home secretary to confirm in writing within 28 days that undocumented survivors are given full UK citizenship forthwith;

Guarantee that the interim findings will be made public within four months.

The group are concerned about comments from Moore-Bick, the former court of appeal judge who is heading the inquiry, that the process will be restricted to issues relating to how the fire started and spread rather than examining wider issues relating to Grenfell Tower, RBKC, central government and the management and funding of social housing.

cot'd...etc etc

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Grenfell survivors issue 12 demands to PM to overhaul response to tragedy

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...demands-to-pm-to-overhaul-response-to-tragedy

Are they in any position to demand anything?

 

[NSEFAN]

Out of interest, how could an undocumented surivor be given any kind of citizenship status? Surely there would need to be documentation created for them in order to exist for the purposes of citizenship?

 

[BestWestern]

Are they in any position to demand anything?

I have to say, without wishing to forget the awful suffering, have the authorities not largely completed most of their work now, in real terms? We know what happened, we know why it happened and we have identified other risk locations nationally with a view to preventing it happening again. The search for remains will be completed soon I presume, with the inevitable conclusion that some will never be found. Whether or not anybody was criminally negligent we shall discover in due course, but it does appear that the material used was compliant and that this was a terrible tragedy rather than some sort of conspiracy to expose people to risk. I can't help but wonder how much more can be achieved by high profile shouting, and whether the time is nearing to focus on the grief and the difficult next steps in trying to continue with life. Is the specific mention of ethnic minority solicitors a good thing? Were there no white British victims or survivors involved?

 

[tspaul26]

Are they in any position to demand anything?

A 'diverse' panel? What this really means is that they want a range of skin colours rather than persons with objective expertise.

The removal of Moore-Bick LJ? David Lammy MP has specifically linked this demand to the learned judge's race and sex.

Terms of reference? If so, this inquiry will be as much of a farce as the current child abuse inquiry.

Citizenship? What relevance does this have to anything in this unfortunate affair?

I may confess that the degree of hot air coming from politicians, lobbyists and the like is very much starting to try my patience. 'BME lawyers', indeed!

 

[najaB]

A 'diverse' panel? What this really means is that they want a range of skin colours rather than persons with objective expertise.

I must confess, I read that in the context of the rest of the sentence that followed it "to sit alongside the inquiry judge to advise on a variety of issues, including housing need, fire and safety construction" and took it to mean diverse in terms of areas of expertise so that it isn't just engineers looking at *what* happened, but social workers, etc. looking at *why* it happened and how the response could be improved.

 

[bramling]

Are they in any position to demand anything?

I think these sorts of demands will quickly start to erode sympathy. The general feeling among people I know is now along the lines of sick and tired of turning on the news and keep hearing the latest on this story. For those who manage and own their own homes the issue is simply not salient.

Personally I don't see why anyone's immigration status should be affected by the incident.

 

[IanXC]

I think these sorts of demands will quickly start to erode sympathy. The general feeling among people I know is now along the lines of sick and tired of turning on the news and keep hearing the latest on this story. For those who manage and own their own homes the issue is simply not salient.

Personally I don't see why anyone's immigration status should be affected by the incident.

I'm not sure I agree that I am "sick and tired" of hearing about this on the news - these are big issues and they do impact a vast number of people.

What I am sick and tired of is the starting presumption of the groups purporting to represent the people affected, who seem to start from the presumption that there is a conspiracy theory going on, and the criticism of due process being followed. These criticisms often make it abundantly clear that those making the criticism do not understand what the process is. How can you criticise a process when you have not taken the time to understand what the process is?

 

[tspaul26]

I must confess, I read that in the context of the rest of the sentence that followed it "to sit alongside the inquiry judge to advise on a variety of issues, including housing need, fire and safety construction" and took it to mean diverse in terms of areas of expertise so that it isn't just engineers looking at *what* happened, but social workers, etc. looking at *why* it happened and how the response could be improved.

On the surface it would seem so.

However, my experience of such demands for 'diversity' leads me to the conclusion that this lobby group means nothing if the sort: they want a panel of their people in place to report their pre-determined conclusions. Note that this group refers to itself as 'BMElawyers4Grenfell', which makes plain that there is a racial (and, I would say, racialist) element. This should also be read in the context of Lammy's comments on Moore-Bick LJ.

The last thing this group wants is an independent expert inquiry: what if it found that the government, the corporation, the social housing provider and the developers were not at fault? Simply doesn't fit the narrative.

 

[tspaul26]

These criticisms often make it abundantly clear that those making the criticism do not understand what the process is. How can you criticise a process when you have not taken the time to understand what the process is?

There are three possibilities:

1. People are ignorant and lazy, because they do not research matters;
2. People are stupid, which cannot be helped; or
3. People do know, but are deliberately obfuscating in order to promote a pre-determined political narrative.

By way of example, BMElawyers4Grenfell probably fall into the third category, unless you are feeling uncharitable in which case perhaps the first.

 

[Senex]

Did anyone hear the interview on the Today programme with Emma Coad, the new Labour MP, in which she called for the removal of Moore-Bick LJ because, although he might be technically the ideal chairman, he lacks empathy for the residents? In this she was of course simply re-stating one of the 12 demands from what was effectively a Labour Party meeting called and chaired by Diane Abbott and held at Westminster. Does Labour now see empathy as more important in circumstances such as this than the ability to handle what will be a massive enquiry competently, bring out all the relevant evidence, and draw conclusions that will be of some future use? Or is the idea of empathy being used to try to ensure that only a left-winger could possibly chair such an enquiry as only they can shew empathy?

(As for BMElawyers4Grenfell, where did such a group as that spring from, and doesn't it suggest that there is now a deliberate attempt to play the race-card? Likewise the notion that any illegal immigrants ("undocumented survivors") found should be given full UK citizenship within 28 days. The usual suspects seem to be busy climbing on board an appalling and possibly well avoidable disaster.)

 

[158756]

The last thing this group wants is an independent expert inquiry: what if it found that the government, the corporation, the social housing provider and the developers were not at fault? Simply doesn't fit the narrative.

It would not be surprising if we never actually learn the fire safety lessons and how this flammable stuff came to be on so many buildings, because it seems some will not be satisfied unless the inquiry says there is some huge conspiracy going on and ' the evil Torieeez did it'.