The Student Room Group

The more I read about Grenfell the more horrific it gets...

“This was an impossible decision to make. There was no right or wrong answer I could give and I did not give this advice easily. I told the operator ‘tell him to go back and get his daughters’.

“I knew in saying this that the male probably wouldn’t survive but my thinking was that, if it was me, I wouldn’t want to get out of that tower without my family and live with that for the rest of my life.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/16/grenfell-firefighter-took-impossible-decision-distressed-father

Just another reminder of how dreadful it was.

Politics is what caused this event. Which is what makes this such an important event o learn from. It was not an act of god, but was instead the result of a political economy that deams the lives of the working class and prodominantly none-white poeple who live in these tower blocks as being less worthy of protection and cost saving, all to fuel a neoliberal reorganising of society.
The more I read about Grenfell, the more I think that the only system that might have worked here is an automatic sprinkler system, which although expensive, would have apparently been cheaper than the window and cladding retrofit. But then those items were also but in to be environmentally friendly.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/grenfell-tower-fire-one-year-one-kensington-a8397276.html

I personally am not so sure that this is fault of politics, especially after reading the above link. Unfortunately, it usually takes some kind of event on a terrible scale for lessons to be learnt - the US for example changed its rules on fire safety after the MGM Casino fire in Vegas in 1980 which killed a similar amount of people. The UK building regs only started to change in 2007.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly


Politics is what caused this event. Which is what makes this such an important event o learn from. It was not an act of god, but was instead the result of a political economy that deams the lives of the working class and prodominantly none-white poeple who live in these tower blocks as being less worthy of protection and cost saving, all to fuel a neoliberal reorganising of society.


This sort of neo-Marxist claptrap does immeasurable harm.

Effective political action in this country doesn't require 650 MPs to be interested in something. It requires one or two, who are seen by their colleagues to have an interest in a subject without any extraneous agenda.

Unfortunately fire safety has lacked politicians with that interest for many years. Generally the only time any MP has piped up supposedly over fire issues has been when trying to protect firefighters' cushy employment practices rather than their and the public's physical safety.

As a result Building Regulations have totally lost any sense of direction. The depth of that loss of direction can be seen from the fact it is becoming clear that no person with the requisite skills had the requisite information to decide that this cladding was unsuitable.
Reply 3
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
“This was an impossible decision to make. There was no right or wrong answer I could give and I did not give this advice easily. I told the operator ‘tell him to go back and get his daughters’.

“I knew in saying this that the male probably wouldn’t survive but my thinking was that, if it was me, I wouldn’t want to get out of that tower without my family and live with that for the rest of my life.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/16/grenfell-firefighter-took-impossible-decision-distressed-father

Just another reminder of how dreadful it was.

Politics is what caused this event. Which is what makes this such an important event o learn from. It was not an act of god, but was instead the result of a political economy that deams the lives of the working class and prodominantly none-white poeple who live in these tower blocks as being less worthy of protection and cost saving, all to fuel a neoliberal reorganising of society.


it was nothing of the sort.

I have problems with the great hulking towerblocks of the paternalist era of the 60s and early 70s, sold as a utopian dream but almost universally exposed as pretty terrible places to live. That does not mean there's some sort of political blame, simply that someone was wrong.

Grenfell was a tower block that had some cash for a refurb. They spent part of that cash on cladding. No-one expected it to be flammable or that a situation like this could happen - and indeed, the decision to use similar cladding was made on buildings of all types across the country. Equally, the emergency services acted in the best way they knew how to save lives, even though we can see with hindsight that they could've done things differently.

All this politicising of what was simply an unfortunate accident that led to loss of life is distasteful in the extreme.
Reply 4
Original post by L i b
Grenfell was a tower block that had some cash for a refurb. They spent part of that cash on cladding.


"They" in this case being the local council, i.e. politicians. Not the actual residents, who had already voiced several concerns about fire safety in the block which got completely ignored.

Original post by L i b
No-one expected it to be flammable or that a situation like this could happen - and indeed, the decision to use similar cladding was made on buildings of all types across the country.


Which is a failure in setting appropriate safety standards. Who's responsible for making laws that protect the safety of the people? Could it be the politicians again, by any chance?

Original post by L i b
All this politicising of what was simply an unfortunate accident that led to loss of life is distasteful in the extreme.


The fire was an accident. The loss of life on the other hand was a result of poor decisions and lax regulations which we should absolutely be aiming to address and improve.
Original post by Dez
"They" in this case being the local council, i.e. politicians. Not the actual residents, who had already voiced several concerns about fire safety in the block which got completely ignored.


It is true that their concerns, none of which contributed to the fire or loss of life, were ignored. Entirely understandably, none of the residents raised any concerns about the issues that caused the deaths of dozens of people.

The block was actually managed by a council spin off. That meant that the residents had the right, if they had so chosen, to have exercised their "right to manage" by forming their own organisation and taking over the management from the Council spin off. Why do you think they didn't?

I've been professionally involved in issues concerning nice middle class private owner run developments. If you are very lucky you will find two or three residents who re willing to put in the hundreds of hours of work to run (even with professional agents) a block of flats and if you are even luckier you will find that their is no disruptive owner trying to undermine their efforts. Now think of a block like Grenfell.
Reply 6
Original post by nulli tertius
It is true that their concerns, none of which contributed to the fire or loss of life, were ignored. Entirely understandably, none of the residents raised any concerns about the issues that caused the deaths of dozens of people.


The point is the management cannot claim to have been ignorant of the potential risk of a fire.

Original post by nulli tertius
The block was actually managed by a council spin off. That meant that the residents had the right, if they had so chosen, to have exercised their "right to manage" by forming their own organisation and taking over the management from the Council spin off. Why do you think they didn't?


Probably because it's not their responsibility. If you're a retired busybody then right to manage can come in handy, if you're working 3 different jobs to just make ends meet chances are you won't have the time spare for any residential management.

Original post by nulli tertius
I've been professionally involved in issues concerning nice middle class private owner run developments. If you are very lucky you will find two or three residents who re willing to put in the hundreds of hours of work to run (even with professional agents) a block of flats and if you are even luckier you will find that their is no disruptive owner trying to undermine their efforts. Now think of a block like Grenfell.


Yes I know, I live in a block of flats with a similar system. It should not matter either way, if you're paying rent then you have a legal right to a place to live, and the agency or company that you're paying have a responsibility to ensure residents' safety. In the case of Grenfell, they clearly fell short on that responsibility, though how much of the blame lies with the council management in particular I couldn't say.
Reply 7
Original post by Dez
"They" in this case being the local council, i.e. politicians. Not the actual residents, who had already voiced several concerns about fire safety in the block which got completely ignored.


The building was managed by a Tenants Management Organisation, on which residents formed the majority of the members. Yes, there were a small number of councillors and independent members, but it was a distinct organisation.

Which is a failure in setting appropriate safety standards. Who's responsible for making laws that protect the safety of the people? Could it be the politicians again, by any chance?


By the same logic, any failure of "safety", anywhere in the United Kingdom, no matter how broadly defined, is a failure and the fault of politicians. That is, of course, absurd. Building regulations do exist and do reduce fire risk, but they do not completely eliminate it - and often their regulation is broad rather than specific.

The fire was an accident. The loss of life on the other hand was a result of poor decisions and lax regulations which we should absolutely be aiming to address and improve.


I don't think anyone has any problem with the idea of tightening up regulations, but I find the instinct to go around trying to find someone to pin blame on in all this quite ghoulish really.

This was not a situation that was easy to foresee - and any suggestion that anyone along the line somehow didn't care about a foreseeable risk is not remotely supported by any evidence.
Reply 8
Original post by Dez
The point is the management cannot claim to have been ignorant of the potential risk of a fire.


There is always a potential risk of fire in any residential building. Measures taken can mitigate specific risks, but they do not eliminate them. The particular risk here was not foreseen or, given the reaction afterwards, apparently reasonably foreseeable.

Let's also not forget that these people raising concerns were far from experts on fire risk. One of the issues they identified was that there were not sufficient escape routes. Given that the best understanding of fire in such a building at the time was that the building was intended to contain it and residents would be advised to remain in their homes, this was likely seen as not being a particularly useful observation.

Some of the other issues that were raised in terms of fire risk, like the hording of rubbish in communal areas, certainly were being addressed by the management organisation at the time.
Original post by Dez
if you're paying rent then you have a legal right to a place to live, and the agency or company that you're paying have a responsibility to ensure residents' safety.


The existence of a legal right does not create a body of knowledge or a reservoir of skills.

This is the official building regs guidance:-

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/441669/BR_PDF_AD_B2_2013.pdf

The relevant pages are 93-95

As you can see, the cladding was required to be Class 0 (or its EU equivalent).

Here is the industry approval board certificate for the relevant cladding. The version used at Grenfell was the non-fire retardant (that has a technical meaning) version.


http://www.bbacerts.co.uk/CertificateFiles/45/4510PS1i1.pdf

There are one or two caveats.

Only one colour cladding was tested.

The tests were not of the wall plus cladding. However, how realistic is it when buying a building product to build a facsimile of a 40 year old wall, to attach cladding to it in order to create a fire test of wall plus cladding?

Subject to those caveats, the non-fire retardant product was certified to be (regardless of whether it actually was) Class 0.

If you had been the specifier would you have chosen this cladding?

If you had sat on the board of the landlord would you have accepted the specifier's advice to choose this cladding?

If you say, "no, I would have chosen the fire retardent cladding"; you need to answer the question "why"?

Do you only fly on Boeing 737s rather than 747s because 737s are safer or do you consider that both types of plane achieve acceptable safety standards? That certificate says both types of cladding achieve acceptable safety standards.
Original post by Tempest II
The more I read about Grenfell, the more I think that the only system that might have worked here is an automatic sprinkler system, which although expensive, would have apparently been cheaper than the window and cladding retrofit. But then those items were also but in to be environmentally friendly.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/grenfell-tower-fire-one-year-one-kensington-a8397276.html

I personally am not so sure that this is fault of politics, especially after reading the above link. Unfortunately, it usually takes some kind of event on a terrible scale for lessons to be learnt - the US for example changed its rules on fire safety after the MGM Casino fire in Vegas in 1980 which killed a similar amount of people. The UK building regs only started to change in 2007.


You are reading from sources of propaganda. There was nobody living in the building at the time. All of the so called 'survivors' interviewed are crisis actors - some of them are extremely unconvincing. Check out Mahad Egal (youtube: a resident of grenfell tower describes seeing children thrown to safety) and Samira Lamrani (youtube: baby dropped from ninth floor of grenfell) . Mahad Egal owns a media company with an address round the corner from Grenfell. He appears to be reading off a script and laughs at the end.
Reply 11
Original post by L i b
The building was managed by a Tenants Management Organisation, on which residents formed the majority of the members. Yes, there were a small number of councillors and independent members, but it was a distinct organisation.


I was given to understand that it was the council bankrolling the cladding, but maybe that's garbled info.

Original post by L i b
By the same logic, any failure of "safety", anywhere in the United Kingdom, no matter how broadly defined, is a failure and the fault of politicians. That is, of course, absurd. Building regulations do exist and do reduce fire risk, but they do not completely eliminate it - and often their regulation is broad rather than specific.


Failure, yes. Fault, maybe not. The point is if we do not learn from this disaster things aren't going to improve, and right now responsibility for that learning is 100% with our country's lawmakers.

Original post by L i b
I don't think anyone has any problem with the idea of tightening up regulations, but I find the instinct to go around trying to find someone to pin blame on in all this quite ghoulish really.


I totally agree with you on this one, apportioning blame is very much a secondary concern to ensuring peoples' safety.

Original post by L i b
This was not a situation that was easy to foresee - and any suggestion that anyone along the line somehow didn't care about a foreseeable risk is not remotely supported by any evidence.


I have my doubts about this. Not enough evidence to say for sure one way or the other at the moment though I think.

Original post by L i b
There is always a potential risk of fire in any residential building. Measures taken can mitigate specific risks, but they do not eliminate them. The particular risk here was not foreseen or, given the reaction afterwards, apparently reasonably foreseeable.


Which means somewhere along the line, a rather grievous error has been made, since clearly there was a very serious fire risk that nobody was able to identify.

Original post by L i b
Let's also not forget that these people raising concerns were far from experts on fire risk. One of the issues they identified was that there were not sufficient escape routes. Given that the best understanding of fire in such a building at the time was that the building was intended to contain it and residents would be advised to remain in their homes, this was likely seen as not being a particularly useful observation.

Some of the other issues that were raised in terms of fire risk, like the hording of rubbish in communal areas, certainly were being addressed by the management organisation at the time.


Fair point. Though one incorrect observation doesn't automatically exonerate the building owners from responsibility.

Original post by nulli tertius
The existence of a legal right does not create a body of knowledge or a reservoir of skills.

This is the official building regs guidance:-

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/441669/BR_PDF_AD_B2_2013.pdf

The relevant pages are 93-95

As you can see, the cladding was required to be Class 0 (or its EU equivalent).

Here is the industry approval board certificate for the relevant cladding. The version used at Grenfell was the non-fire retardant (that has a technical meaning) version.


http://www.bbacerts.co.uk/CertificateFiles/45/4510PS1i1.pdf

There are one or two caveats.

Only one colour cladding was tested.

The tests were not of the wall plus cladding. However, how realistic is it when buying a building product to build a facsimile of a 40 year old wall, to attach cladding to it in order to create a fire test of wall plus cladding?

Subject to those caveats, the non-fire retardant product was certified to be (regardless of whether it actually was) Class 0.

If you had been the specifier would you have chosen this cladding?

If you had sat on the board of the landlord would you have accepted the specifier's advice to choose this cladding?

If you say, "no, I would have chosen the fire retardent cladding"; you need to answer the question "why"?

Do you only fly on Boeing 737s rather than 747s because 737s are safer or do you consider that both types of plane achieve acceptable safety standards? That certificate says both types of cladding achieve acceptable safety standards.


If it's true that regulations were followed, then evidently either those regulations were flawed in some way, or not stringent enough to ensure peoples' safety.
I think the fact that many of the residents in the building were illegal immigrants needs to be brought to light a bit more.
Original post by wonderuss
I think the fact that many of the residents in the building were illegal immigrants needs to be brought to light a bit more.


not really
Original post by wonderuss
I think the fact that many of the residents in the building were illegal immigrants needs to be brought to light a bit more.


Meaning that you can't identify them. Give me the name of one resident who was there at the time and is not a crisis actor.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
not really


Not really? Why not?
Hello everyone,

I'm an American and I've been fascinated by the Grenfell story. The more I read about it, including about the fact that the cladding was made with petrol and that the person from the fire brigade who was in charge the first crucial hour of the fire was so ill-equipped to deal with it, the more the building just seemed like a deathtrap for those poor people. I agree with Tempest II about the sprinkler system, but the person in charge of the council made excuses for it and actually blamed the residents for no sprinkler system! It just seems everyone is playing the blame game, would you agree?
I'm glad Glenfell happened since most were POC and there are too many in this country

Maybe it was natural selection

Quick Reply

Latest