Huge fire in Grenfell Tower - West London

[Bletchleyite]

I disagree vehemently with the views expressed by tspaul26. I dare not express my contempt for his lack of empathy or understanding further. The views and experiences of the victims need to be examined and considered rather than ignored and brushed under the carpet. That is not "a mass of sentimentality and emotionalism" but decency and humanity.

The adequacy of the building regulations should be just a part of the scope of the investigation. That should be the subject of an expedited interim report. There is much more to look at than simply the building regulations. Part of that should be a look at the impact, if any, of the governments austerity agenda on decisions made leading up to this terrible tragedy.

Agreed with both of those principles, but I don't think either contradict the point that the investigation must be completely impartial and un-emotional in itself, which to me was what was being put across. It must consider emotions, but it must consider them in a totally unemotional manner as facts.

I also agree with the point he made that people being "picky" about alternative accommodation, at least short-term, is not viable given the numbers to be rehoused, unless they are willing to relocate out of the area to somewhere with a greater availability of homes. If for example they had a three bedroom apartment in the block, a three bedroom house or apartment in the local area of any kind is in my view going to have to be acceptable at least in the short to medium term.

Private leaseholders won't necessarily be being rehoused in the same way, though I'm unsure how the shared collective buildings insurance policy handles these kind of things - with a house it's simpler, if my house burns down my insurer accommodates me until they either rebuild it or write it off and pay me out a sum of money which I would then use to purchase another property to live in.

Private tenants basically have no rights at all in this kind of cirumstance, they basically have to claim on their contents policy for their belongings and find somewhere else to live on the private rental market.

 

[AlterEgo]

I disagree vehemently with the views expressed by tspaul26. I dare not express my contempt for his lack of empathy or understanding further. The views and experiences of the victims need to be examined and considered rather than ignored and brushed under the carpet.

Presumably we, as a country, would prefer a factual and dispassionate investigation.

The victims will get their chance to tell the inquiry what happened, and what they saw and heard - and how they feel. How they feel is not relevant to discovering the causes of the fire or establishing the sequence of events (note that when all is said and done it seems likely that some residents' behaviour re: ignoring fire regulations will be criticised in the lead up to the fire). That is the primary concern and focus should rightly be on that.

The victims should be rehoused as quickly as possible and given assistance in rebuilding their lives (with a caveat for those who were in the country illegally).

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's quite possible that central government policy has contributed directly to the disaster at Grenfell Tower. For 'Cutting Red Tape' read 'cutting corners'.

That does not necessarily follow.

One "cutting of red tape" I strongly support as a competent and quite picky DIYer is the rolling back of Part P of the regulations, which severely restricted the electrical work a DIYer could do without needing to seek, at considerable cost and inconvenience when compared to the cost of the actual work, an inspection and approval.

All those regulations did was to discourage well-behaved and competent DIYers from performing home electrical work and by doing so discouraged improvements to their home electrical systems being carried out. "Cowboy" builders and DIYers would still continue to ignore it and do the work to a poor standard anyway regardless of any regulations or inspection requirements as it was basically unenforceable.

Had there been a genuine interest in improving electrical safety, something like a mandated detailed PIR (periodic installation report) to be carried out and reported back to the local authority every N years (5 perhaps) would have been more effective, as there would have been far less scope to circumvent it, and it would have identified developing issues e.g. insulation breakdown in the existing system rather than just potential faults in a new part of it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

(with a caveat for those who were in the country illegally).

Even they are deserving, as fellow humans, of assistance. However in some cases that will have to be assistance with leaving the UK, e.g. anyone present who would not be eligible to enter if they had arrived at the border with their passport in the normal manner. It will depend on each case, but there is no sensible reason, beyond not wishing to lose their contribution to the investigation, why anyone traumatised by a serious fire in this particular instance should receive treatment over and above anyone in the same situation but traumatised by a serious fire in a two storey privately rented house.

The key difference is that the latter would barely make the local rag, whereas the former makes national news. Where something appears in the Press should not influence how it is handled.

I therefore think the Government's plan of 12 months of leave to remain even where they were illegally in the UK, in which time proper consideration can be given to each case, is a sensible and proportionate plan.

 

[AlterEgo]

Even they are deserving, as fellow humans, of assistance. However in some cases that will have to be assistance with leaving the UK. It will depend on each case, but there is no sensible reason, beyond not wishing to lose their contribution to the investigation, why anyone traumatised by a serious fire in this particular instance should receive treatment over and above anyone in the same situation but traumatised by a serious fire in a two storey privately rented house.

I therefore think the Government's plan of 12 months of leave to remain even where they were illegally in the UK, in which time proper consideration can be given to each case, is a sensible and proportionate plan.

Agreed very much in principle, particularly in the part I've bolded.

And for clarity, I wasn't suggesting those in the country illegally should be left to rot. These people should be intercepted by the authorities and given a safe place to stay (even if that is detention) until their case for staying in the UK can be heard.

 

[DarloRich]

Agreed with both of those principles, but I don't think either contradict the point that the investigation must be completely impartial and un-emotional in itself, which to me was what was being put across.

I agree with this point. The investigation MUST be impartial but it must also carry "legitimacy" which I accept is something of a nebulous measure!

I also agree with the point he made that people being "picky" about alternative accommodation, at least short-term, is not viable given the numbers to be rehoused, unless they are willing to relocate out of the area to somewhere with a greater availability of homes.

Sorry your house burned down and your family died horribly. Please move to this house in Carlisle or else. I would tell them where to stick it. The authorities need to be more flexible, understanding and more empathetic and find housing locally. If that costs the local council money then tough.

Private tenants won't necessarily be being rehoused in the same way, though I'm unsure how the shared collective buildings insurance policy handles these kind of things - with a house it's simpler, if my house burns down my insurer accommodates me until they either rebuild it or write it off and pay me out a sum of money which I would then use to purchase another property to live in.

Policies for flats normally only cover the internals with the structure insured by the freeholder.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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

Looking at it morally, I'd agree with you. However, there are practical considerations - the main one being the need to get as much information as possible about events on the ground from the survivors in order to best determine the causes of the incident and what action might need to be taken to minimize casualties in any fires going forward. That process is going to be hampered if people don't want to come forward because they fear that if they provide information, they (or their friends or their partners or relatives) will as a result be quickly deported. In that light, the Government's approach of giving a year's amnesty does seem a reasonable compromise. The reported demand for people to be directly given citizenship is clearly way over the top.

 

[DarloRich]

Presumably we, as a country, would prefer a factual and dispassionate investigation.

The victims will get their chance to tell the inquiry what happened, and what they saw and heard - and how they feel. How they feel is not relevant to discovering the causes of the fire or establishing the sequence of events (note that when all is said and done it seems likely that some residents' behaviour re: ignoring fire regulations will be criticised in the lead up to the fire). That is the primary concern and focus should rightly be on that.

The victims should be rehoused as quickly as possible and given assistance in rebuilding their lives (with a caveat for those who were in the country illegally).

I don't disagree and if part of the cause of the fire spreading is that residents, say, swapped fire doors with less than adequate replacements then they must shoulder their share of the blame.

However, their views and feelings have to be considered in order to show if they are realistic or not. If the residents feel the council or government let them down then this should be tested. It shouldn't be ignored or it will just fester and lead to the building of conspiracy theories and claims of a cover up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sorry your house burned down and your family died horribly. Please move to this house in Carlisle or else. I would tell them where to stick it. The authorities need to be more flexible, understanding and more empathetic and find housing locally. If that costs the local council money then tough.

Housing is being found locally. The lack of choice has involved, for example, people unhappy with moving to a ground floor flat from a higher-up one. I understand why some prefer the feeling of security of a higher floor, but if people are to be rehoused to much more common low-rise blocks (and I'll be honest if it were me I'd be quite happy with the ground or at most first floor for ease of escape after that kind of incident) at least some of them will end up on the ground floor who weren't previously simply because if you have say 90 flats in 3-storey blocks 30 of them are going to be ground floor flats as opposed to I think 4 of them in a block like Grenfell.

There simply isn't the quantity of housing in the local area (which itself is a nebulous concept given that people seem to live *very* locally in places like London) to allow anyone to be "picky" in that kind of regard. My point about considering a move elsewhere was that there are parts of the country with spare housing (I know someone who works for a housing association and they offer it out at break-even level rents to private tenants just to keep it occupied and so in a decent state of repair and avoid it losing money), so it would be an option that could be offered to move to, say, the North East, and have a much wider and more immediate choice of what kind of property they could have. No doubt some people who lost their families, or some who were single anyway with few local commitments, would be happy with the opportunity to choose to start a completely new life in a new location.

Policies for flats normally only cover the internals with the structure insured by the freeholder.

I would be interested to know how this is being handled with regard to Grenfell and private leaseholders, and what kind of sum will be paid out, and what will be done in the interim where it is being decided whether to demolish the block or repair it, and if it is decided, as I think is likely, to demolish it, what will be built in its place if anything.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Looking at it morally, I'd agree with you. However, there are practical considerations - the main one being the need to get as much information as possible about events on the ground from the survivors in order to best determine the causes of the incident and what action might need to be taken to minimize casualties in any fires going forward. That process is going to be hampered if people don't want to come forward because they fear that if they provide information, they (or their friends or their partners or relatives) will as a result be quickly deported. In that light, the Government's approach of giving a year's amnesty does seem a reasonable compromise. The reported demand for people to be directly given citizenship is clearly way over the top.

Agreed, I think the 12 month offer is a sensible, proportionate and balanced one.

 

[WelshBluebird]

That does not necessarily follow.

One "cutting of red tape" I strongly support as a competent and quite picky DIYer is the rolling back of Part P of the regulations, which severely restricted the electrical work a DIYer could do without needing to seek, at considerable cost and inconvenience when compared to the cost of the actual work, an inspection and approval.

All those regulations did was to discourage well-behaved and competent DIYers from performing home electrical work and by doing so discouraged improvements to their home electrical systems being carried out. "Cowboy" builders and DIYers would still continue to ignore it and do the work to a poor standard anyway regardless of any regulations or inspection requirements as it was basically unenforceable.

Had there been a genuine interest in improving electrical safety, something like a mandated detailed PIR (periodic installation report) to be carried out and reported back to the local authority every N years (5 perhaps) would have been more effective, as there would have been far less scope to circumvent it, and it would have identified developing issues e.g. insulation breakdown in the existing system rather than just potential faults in a new part of it.

The problem is we are not talking about sensible things. I'll give you an example. One of the things that the government is still boasting about is the cutting the time it takes to carry out fire safety inspections in businesses from 6 hours to 45 minutes. Without cutting corners you simply cannot make that kind of time saving, so obviously corners are being cut there.

 

[w0033944]

The problem is we are not talking about sensible things. I'll give you an example. One of the things that the government is still boasting about is the cutting the time it takes to carry out fire safety inspections in businesses from 6 hours to 45 minutes. Without cutting corners you simply cannot make that kind of time saving, so obviously corners are being cut there.

It might be inadvisable to make such a definitive statement. For all we know, there may have been a significant amount of time spent checking things that had little to no bearing on fire safety. That being said, it does seem to be a remarkable reduction, and I do wonder whether the degreee and extent of time reduction was pre-determined rather than examining what could safely be removed from the process and allowing that to determine how much quicker such inspections could be carried-out.

 

[underbank]

One of the things that the government is still boasting about is the cutting the time it takes to carry out fire safety inspections in businesses from 6 hours to 45 minutes. Without cutting corners you simply cannot make that kind of time saving, so obviously corners are being cut there.

Not necessarily. Depends on what the 6 hours were being spent on. If the time was spent on unnecessary form filling (i.e. writing the same basic information on multiple forms), then that wasn't actually achieving anything. My day job is dealing with a governmental department and most of my time is spent filling in the same repetitive basic information on multiple different official forms and proportionally very little time actually doing my proper job. With a more efficient data capture system, I'd probably have more time to do the real work if I didn't have to keep writing the same information time and time again. Didn't police officers say the same - several different long forms for every intervention they deal with? 45 minutes of quality meaningful work is far better than 5.5 hours of data entry with just 30 minutes of real work!

 

[cjmillsnun]

Not necessarily. Depends on what the 6 hours were being spent on. If the time was spent on unnecessary form filling (i.e. writing the same basic information on multiple forms), then that wasn't actually achieving anything. My day job is dealing with a governmental department and most of my time is spent filling in the same repetitive basic information on multiple different official forms and proportionally very little time actually doing my proper job. With a more efficient data capture system, I'd probably have more time to do the real work if I didn't have to keep writing the same information time and time again. Didn't police officers say the same - several different long forms for every intervention they deal with? 45 minutes of quality meaningful work is far better than 5.5 hours of data entry with just 30 minutes of real work!

Knowing the way government IT works (or doesn't), it won't be the form filling that will be cut down.

 

[najaB]

Grenfell death toll 'may be below 80'

Death toll in the Grenfell fire in London may be a little less than previous estimate of 80, police say
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

Story just published on the BBC website with details to follow.

 

[Cowley]

Evening everyone.

I’m bumping this thread up because I’ve been following the Grenfell Tower Fire enquiry for a number of weeks now on BBC Radio iplayer.
I was wondering if anyone else has been following it and had any opinions on what’s been aired so far?
So far we’ve had evidence from (1) The London Fire Service and.
(2) Surviving residents.

This next section (starting today) I believe will involve Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council amongst others giving evidence, and may start to throw some light onto how this horrific scenario was able to unfold.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, I've been following it. It's harrowing in places but very, very interesting (I suppose it has parallels in watching something like Air Crash Investigation or indeed reading RAIB reports) and does highlight a significant number of major deficiencies which will need to be resolved, particularly in terms of stay-put policies and how to input into the changing of such decisions, quite apart from not putting matchwood down the side of blocks of flats in the first place. The idea that people were still being suggested to stay put in flats that were actually on fire is quite something and seems to highlight a spectacular breakdown of communications at multiple levels, for instance.

I find it hard to criticise the supplier for selling it, as there are applications for which flammable cladding is acceptable; you can after all build a house entirely out of wood, but that's with the presumption that the house will be evacuated immediately and quickly at any sign of fire, something that is not practicable for a tower block. I'd probably suggest that really flammable cladding should not be used on any block or even house taller than two stories (noting that there are flats near me with wooden cladding that are 5 stories high), as that's the height from which it's practical to get out of upstairs windows without the likelihood of life changing injuries for most people.

 

[Cowley]

Yes, I've been following it. It's harrowing in places but very, very interesting, and does highlight a significant number of major deficiencies which will need to be resolved, particularly in terms of stay-put policies and how to input into the changing of such decisions. The idea that people were still being suggested to stay put in flats that were actually on fire is quite something and seems to highlight a spectacular breakdown of communications at multiple levels, for instance.

Exactly my thoughts too Bletchleyite.
Very difficult to listen to at times, and it’s probably fair to say that although some of the fire staff went far beyond the call of duty in the moment, mistakes were definitely made during the night.
I wonder though whether the inquiry decided that it would be good to get the LFS evidence dealt with at the beginning of the process so that it could concentrate on the main failures that ran up to the incident later in the process?
The descriptions of the poor building refurbishment work, badly fitted draughty windows, badly fitted cladding, inadequate floor numbering systems, non existent evacuation plans and various other apparent corners that were cut beggars belief.

This next few weeks will be quite telling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly my thoughts too Bletchleyite.
Very difficult to listen to at times, and it’s probably fair to say that although some of the fire staff went far beyond the call of duty in the moment, mistakes were definitely made during the night.

Agreed, the issues seemed to be largely of management rather than of the individual firefighters who, as ever, went well beyond the call of duty. But I did cringe when I heard that a few firefighters (who were doing what they had been told to do in a service that is very hierarchical and orders-based, so cannot be criticised here) sent some people back to their flats, and some survivors had had to push past them to get out. I would hate to be them having to live with having done that and wondering "what if" they had instead disobeyed instructions and told them to get out.

The descriptions of the poor building refurbishment work, badly fitted draughty windows, badly fitted cladding, inadequate floor numbering systems, non existent evacuation plans and various other apparent corners that were cut beggars belief.

It's all rather Herald of Free Enterprise, isn't it?

 

[GusB]

I can't remember which programme I watched on iPlayer, but I was particularly moved by the story of the lady who was on the phone to the 999 call handler the whole time, constantly being assured that help was on its way and to stay put - and then there was the ultimate silence.

I wasn't aware of the "stay put" policy in relation to tower blocks. I rented a room in a 14th floor flat some years ago and, to be honest, escaping in the event of a fire was something I didn't really think about. The hose reels were there, as were the usual instructions not to use lifts in such an event, but the risk of fire didn't really register. Our block was one of a group which were slowly being refurbished, although the exteriors were simply repainted rather than having cladding added.

My reservations about living so high up were more to do with my fear of heights than fear of fire.

 

[xc170]

I can't remember which programme I watched on iPlayer, but I was particularly moved by the story of the lady who was on the phone to the 999 call handler the whole time, constantly being assured that help was on its way and to stay put - and then there was the ultimate silence.

That was Fires that foretold Grenfell, quite an interesting, yet shocking programme, the lady you're thinking of was in Lakanal house, not Grenfell.

 

[underbank]

Yes, I've been watching it most days, and reading the witness statements for days I've missed. It does seem to have been a "perfect storm" of bad decisions by ALL organisations involved before and during the fire. I don't think any organisation is going to come out of it without severe criticism (except all the innocent residents!). It goes far beyond who decided on using that cladding or whose fridge started the whole thing. Yesterday were some police witnesses - there was a list of telephone calls involving police officers, some of whom were saying stay put, some of whom saying get out. The poor communication and poor leadership yet again highlighted as it was during the fire fighters evidence. When we have state of the art communication systems available, poor communication within each emergency service and between emergency services simply isn't acceptable! And I wish to make it clear, I'm talking about mistakes/failures by the organisations as a whole, not the individual fire fighters and police constables who were there that night!

 

[Bletchleyite]

My personal view is that we shouldn't have separate emergency service call centres and dispatchers but rather one set that handles the lot. Having them separate must result in at least some of the communication issues in this kind of thing, though at least it was obvious that "fire" was the service required in this case.

Regarding the fridge owner, that must be yet another person who must suffer terribly from a feeling of guilt of something he basically had no control over. Minor electrical appliance fires happen from time to time, and usually result in nothing more than an insurance claim.

 

[underbank]

Regarding the fridge owner, that must be yet another person who must suffer terribly from a feeling of guilt of something he basically had no control over.

I'd say every single person involved will feel that same guilt right from the original architect in the 60s through to everyone involved in the renovation, the local authority, emergency services, law makers, etc. Everyone who had even the slightest involvement with Grenfell, before and during the fire, will be questioning themselves as to whether they could have done more or something different.

The fact is that Grenfell was a disaster waiting to happen. If it hadn't been that guy's fridge on that night, it would have been something else on a different day. The real tragedy is that no-one looked at the bigger picture, the building as a whole, and thought "****"! Everyone was just looking at their particular area of responsibility and not putting 2 and 2 together to equal catastrophic event!

But having said all that, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

My personal view is that we shouldn't have separate emergency service call centres and dispatchers but rather one set that handles the lot. Having them separate must result in at least some of the communication issues in this kind of thing, though at least it was obvious that "fire" was the service required in this case.

What I have found interesting is that as per the Paddington TV series, there is what looks to be a permanent police officer present in the railway control room who presumably acts as liaison and to give advice to the controllers. I wonder if that would be a model that the emergency services could use, i.e. have at least one member from the other emergency services in each respective control room.

Though in the Grenfell case, it wasn't so much a lack of communication between services - there was a lack of communication within the fire service itself, with the officers at the scene not updating the fire control room of the situation at the fire ground meaning those in control talking to the residents on 999 calls didn't have enough information as to what was happening at the tower to give proper advice. The inquiry has heard that some 999 operators in the fire control room were getting information from callers themselves and having to form their own view as to what was happening from what they were being told. There is also evidence that not all fire brigade personnel were giving consistent advice. Also poor fire ground communication & management, eg at one stage, two different senior fire officers believed they were in command having apparently "taken over" from two more junior officers who each thought they were in command!