UK General Election Dec 2019

[quilp]

A pertinent question is why May's adviser, Gavin Barwell sat on recommendations made by a fire safety report of London tower blocks, for 4 years, delaying any precautions which arguably could've saved lives had the recommended installation of sprinkler-systems been instigated. 

[woolley]

It would certainly have helped not to have covered the buildings in tinder. Why was this ever thought appropriate?

[P.K.]

50 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Yes, stating the bleeding obvious, because it’s operational. But the other side of the bleeding obvious coin ( one that you always miss in your poisonous cryptic fake news posts ) is that when your paymaster makes deep cuts in your budget you have to make impossible choices; any of which impinge on service delivery. You make the best. But it isn’t your fault.

The bleeding obvious is also that the tory council were sitting on a large pot of funds. But safety features were not fitted. It's a joke that the right whingers on here try to give the impression that you should only fit safety features when forced to by edict.

One thing you can be sure of is that a Labour or Lib-Dem council in the immediate aftermath of this tragedy would never have left the poor now homeless people to their own devices.

But hey, they don't vote tory so fuck 'em a la Margaret Thatcher....

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, woolley said:

It would certainly have helped not to have covered the buildings in tinder. Why was this ever thought appropriate?

I’m not having a pop at either political side.

I have sympathy with Grenfell residents ( and others in similarly affected blocks) and Fire brigades.

I don’t have sympathy for Reed Mogg and his stupid insensitive comments, neither the first, nor the, in my opinion, bungled apology.

The design of the tower blocks was always that each unit and each floor was firesafe, ie could contain a fire in a flat or stop fire getting in, and if it spread could be contained to a single floor. Stay put meant the emergency services had unimpeded access via the stairwell to fire fight and evacuate and flames and smoke didn’t get into the stairwells. It’s not just UK standard practice but something developed world wide.

Fire Services used to check and issue fire certificates. Changed about 20 years ago. The new cladding would never have passed muster, and the Fire Service would have known its dangers. 
 

The changes to the building and fire regs led the way to Grenfell. But other factors then compounded it.

The block,  in common with many others, wasn’t adequately built, managed or maintained. This seems a peculiarly British thing. No, or limited, tenant input. Tenants viewed as a nuisance. Management outsourced, insufficient resources. Almost as if occupiers of social housing don’t count. This mounts up for years.

Then there are improvements, but every job is cut to the bone, costs pared. No attention is paid to risk - in the cladding, dry risers not maintained, cuts in the fabric that allow spread of smoke and flames.

The stay put policy is still standard, and appropriate, even after the enquiry part 1 report, for all multi storey buildings without the cladding danger.

Its only the minority of blocks with dangerous cladding. Which hopefully are now identified and known to the Emergency Services.

So, for JR-M, it may be counterintuitive, but the initial advice was correct, stay put, by moving you impede emergency services and put yourself and others at risk. That remains the case for non ( dangerously ) cladded buildings. So JR-M in his apology when he suggests it’s common sense post ipso facto, post part 1 report, is still wrong. You follow fire service advice.
 

This wouldn’t have happened if the original building had decent insulation. The cladding was a retrofit to remedy that. It wouldn’t have happened if proper fire resistant/retardant cladding had been used. Why wasn’t that used? I suspect cost was the driving factor.

[quilp]

44 minutes ago, P.K. said:

It's a joke that the right whingers on here try to give the impression that you should only fit safety features when forced to by edict.

Are you for real? Where have any of your so-called "right whingers" on here EVER tried to give that impression? A disgusting and thoroughly absurd allegation.

 

1 hour ago, quilp said:

A pertinent question is why May's adviser, Gavin Barwell sat on recommendations made by a fire safety report of London tower blocks, for 4 years, delaying any precautions which arguably could've saved lives had the recommended installation of sprinkler-systems been instigated. 

 

44 minutes ago, P.K. said:

One thing you can be sure of is that a Labour or Lib-Dem council in the immediate aftermath of this tragedy would never have left the poor now homeless people to their own devices.

How can you possibly state this with any credibility? Hopefully this tragedy was a one-off so we'll likely never know whether your statement would be a truism or not.

[woolley]

33 minutes ago, P.K. said:

One thing you can be sure of is that a Labour or Lib-Dem council in the immediate aftermath of this tragedy would never have left the poor now homeless people to their own devices.

 

15 minutes ago, quilp said:

How can you possibly state this with any credibility? Hopefully this tragedy was a one-off so we'll likely never know whether your statement would be a truism or not.

Well as Quilpy says, we fervently hope that the tragedy was a one off so we'll likely never see the performance of a Labour or Lib-Dem council in caring for stricken, homeless residents.

Wait a moment, though. Perhaps we can gain some insight by checking how Labour controlled Doncaster Council is responding to those poor souls flooded out of their homes in its area this weekend. Where can we turn for some "balanced" reporting? Well there's always PK's trusty Grauniad.

Oh dear. Looks like Labour don't care either:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/10/uk-weather-severe-flood-warnings-remain-in-place-in-yorkshire

The Hare and Hounds was sending hot meals to people trapped in their homes and firefighters were in the village to provide rescue if necessary, Holling said.

Pam Webb, who lives in Fishlake and runs a spa hotel there, told the BBC her home and business had been flooded and that the situation in her community was “absolutely devastating”. She said it would be impossible to estimate the cost of the damage.

Webb said Doncaster council had not dispatched representatives to the evacuation sites, nor was it communicating with affected people and rescue crews were hampered in their efforts because they did not know the local area.

“Why has Doncaster council not been in attendance to at least help with the evacuation of elderly and vulnerable people?” she said. “We’ve been failed on a level of significant magnitude by Doncaster council … I don’t know how they can possibly say that they’ve given us any support.”

The council was contacted for comment.

But never mind. At least they have a lot of folk getting a lot of money from the ratepayers. So that's OK:

https://dmbcwebstolive01.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/Workforce/Organisational Chart 2018-19.pdf

 

[woody2]

2 hours ago, mojomonkey said:

Were the budget cuts planned before 2010 then?

yes.......and the unfunded spending by labour added more......

[woody2]

stay put is no longer the advice given........jrm was responding to the report........

"The more one's read over the weekend about the report and about the chances of people surviving, if you just ignore what you're told and leave you are so much safer.

"And I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building. It just seems the common sense thing to do.

"And it is such a tragedy that that didn't happen."

 

 

 

[woody2]

2 hours ago, woolley said:

It would certainly have helped not to have covered the buildings in tinder. Why was this ever thought appropriate?

or fit gas......

[woody2]

sir nige is not standing anyone in tory seats........

[P.K.]

ETA: Well, that certainly stirred up the usual suspects with their faux outrage. Couldn't read Woolley's post because of the tiny font.

Interesting you mentioned floods:

Flood defences row: UK paying price for David Cameron's broken promises 

Cameron cannot say he was not warned: he has ignored red flag after red flag, right from the start of his premiership. In the first year of the coalition, he cut capital spending on flood defences by 27% year-on-year. That was despite the 2008 Pitt Review – a systematic analysis of major floods in 2007 – concluding that much more funding was needed. Funding had risen quickly under the Labour government, only to be slashed by Cameron.

A £58m scheme in Leeds – one of the cities hit in the latest round of flooding – was one affected project, which would have saved many times its cost in avoided damages. Richard Lewis, a city councillor, said at the time: “The cuts are the economics of the madhouse.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/28/flood-defences-row-uk-paying-price-david-cameron-tories-broken-promises

[woolley]

39 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I’m not having a pop at either political side.

I have sympathy with Grenfell residents ( and others in similarly affected blocks) and Fire brigades.

I don’t have sympathy for Reed Mogg and his stupid insensitive comments, neither the first, nor the, in my opinion, bungled apology.

 Fire Services used to check and issue fire certificates. Changed about 20 years ago. The new cladding would never have passed muster, and the Fire Service would have known its dangers. 

The changes to the building and fire regs led the way to Grenfell. But other factors then compounded it.

So, for JR-M, it may be counterintuitive, but the initial advice was correct, stay put, by moving you impede emergency services and put yourself and others at risk. That remains the case for non ( dangerously ) cladded buildings. So JR-M in his apology when he suggests it’s common sense post ipso facto, post part 1 report, is still wrong. You follow fire service advice.
 

This wouldn’t have happened if the original building had decent insulation. The cladding was a retrofit to remedy that. It wouldn’t have happened if proper fire resistant/retardant cladding had been used. Why wasn’t that used? I suspect cost was the driving factor.

I don't think that anyone could fail to have sympathy with the residents, and that surely includes Rees-Mogg. The firefighters were clearly devastated when they arrived. I remember seeing a fire service video from within a fire engine as a crew arrived with the tower well alight. There were audible gasps from them at what they were seeing, and comments such as "How can that be happening?" and "What the **** are we supposed to do with that?"

I think Rees-Mogg is big and ugly enough to fight his own battles so I am not doing that for him, but I remain disgusted at the crass and ridiculous way his admittedly ill-judged comment has been stretched out of all recognition to pander to the political narrative that he believes the victims were authors of their own misfortune and is therefore a despicable oaf. As a thinking person you must surely recognise that this is the truth of what has happened. It is obvious.

As for the change in the fire regulations that abolished the fire certificate issued by the fire brigade, it appears to have emerged from the Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order 2005.

https://www.firesafe.org.uk/regulatory-reform-fire-safety-order-2005/

I am not sure what the exact thinking was, but I would hazard a guess that it was to create an ongoing responsibility for fire safety through a "responsible person" rather than have a certificate issued by a fire officer which would merely be a snapshot in time, like an MOT test. It sounds good, but like much that emerged from the Blair years it has proved to be a triumph of style over substance.

[mojomonkey]

22 minutes ago, woody2 said:

sir nige is not standing anyone in tory seats........

sir nige is too chicken to stand in any seat himself but as I read it The Brexit Party are not standing in any of the 317 seats that the Conservatives won in 2017. Its open season on any other seats (i.e. target seats). The potential to split the vote still remains.

[quilp]

18 minutes ago, P.K. said:

ETA: Well, that certainly stirred up the usual suspects with their faux outrage. 

"Stirred up the usual suspects" this alone is a slur, you'll go to no end to cast aspersions will you? No faux outrage at your post though. It was an outrageous suggestion that the "right whingers" don't care about the plight of the Grenfell residents. And once again you're trying to wriggle out of it by distraction. Typical...

[quilp]

10 minutes ago, mojomonkey said:

sir nige is too chicken to stand in any seat himself but as I read it The Brexit Party are not standing in any of the 317 seats that the Conservatives won in 2017. Its open season on any other seats (i.e. target seats). The potential to split the vote still remains.

Not if the brexit party won't stand.