Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
28 minutes ago, lgfualol said:

Wouldn't be shocked if this figure doubles by the end of the search. They found 42 people in just one room apparently.

Christ.

Guest MattP
Posted
58 minutes ago, lgfualol said:

Wouldn't be shocked if this figure doubles by the end of the search. They found 42 people in just one room apparently.

Is that supposed to be a joke or serious? 

Posted
6 minutes ago, MattP said:

Is that supposed to be a joke or serious? 

 

2 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

A party? Thought it safer as a group? A fake story?

I would guess they were trying to escape and ended up trying to hide away and wait for a rescue

Posted
8 minutes ago, MattP said:

Is that supposed to be a joke or serious? 

Entirely serious - I couldn't joke about something like this. 

 

There was a video doing the rounds where a guy's firefighter friend had told him 42 people were found in one flat on the 4th (I think) floor - presumably the smoke got too thick to go any further and the people in the flat were letting everyone in for air. I just couldn't imagine what these people went through.  

Guest MattP
Posted
24 minutes ago, lgfualol said:

Entirely serious - I couldn't joke about something like this. 

 

There was a video doing the rounds where a guy's firefighter friend had told him 42 people were found in one flat on the 4th (I think) floor - presumably the smoke got too thick to go any further and the people in the flat were letting everyone in for air. I just couldn't imagine what these people went through.  

Sorry, I got sent a joke last week about 40 being found dead and "now they have moved onto the second flat"

 

Thanks for clarifying, that's sounds absolutely horrific. I hope its either not true or the people at least managed to pass out and not feel much.

Posted

This is what cuts and deregulation gets you. Sorry to politicise it but it's the reality. 

Posted

I don't understand this bit from the BBC article:

 

In a separate development, Panorama has discovered that firefighters put out the first fire at Grenfell Tower.

They were called to a fridge fire, and within minutes told residents the fire was out in the flat.

The crew was leaving the building when firefighters outside spotted flames rising up the side of the building.

 

I'm sure it will all come out in the investigation, but does this suggest the fire brigade thought they'd put the initial fire out, but actually they hadn't?

 

Not sure I quite get it... 

Posted
1 minute ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I don't understand this bit from the BBC article:

 

In a separate development, Panorama has discovered that firefighters put out the first fire at Grenfell Tower.

They were called to a fridge fire, and within minutes told residents the fire was out in the flat.

The crew was leaving the building when firefighters outside spotted flames rising up the side of the building.

 

I'm sure it will all come out in the investigation, but does this suggest the fire brigade thought they'd put the initial fire out, but actually they hadn't?

 

Not sure I quite get it... 

The fridge that originally combusted was put out, but by that time, unknown to the firefighters, the fire had already spread to the cladding, and that spread "up" the building. 

 

That's my understanding anyways. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

The fridge that originally combusted was put out, but by that time, unknown to the firefighters, the fire had already spread to the cladding, and that spread "up" the building. 

 

That's my understanding anyways. 

Ah, O.K, I see.

Thanks.

 

Posted
7 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I don't understand this bit from the BBC article:

 

In a separate development, Panorama has discovered that firefighters put out the first fire at Grenfell Tower.

They were called to a fridge fire, and within minutes told residents the fire was out in the flat.

The crew was leaving the building when firefighters outside spotted flames rising up the side of the building.

 

I'm sure it will all come out in the investigation, but does this suggest the fire brigade thought they'd put the initial fire out, but actually they hadn't?

 

Not sure I quite get it... 

By the sounds of that, they put out the internal fire but were unaware it had spread outside. You can't see the outside walls unless you are outside and as this cladding fire was unprecedented I would guess they were not expecting it.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

By the sounds of that, they put out the internal fire but were unaware it had spread outside. You can't see the outside walls unless you are outside and as this cladding fire was unprecedented I would guess they were not expecting it.

What a nightmare.

I can't imagine what it must have been like for the crew to leave the building thinking they'd sorted it, to then get outside and turn around to see flames rising up the side of the building.

It's 2017 FFS. We can cure Cancer and make driver-less cars, but we can't properly protect people living in a high rise building from the risk of fire. 

Posted
Just now, Izzy Muzzett said:

What a nightmare.

I can't imagine what it must have been like for the crew to leave the building thinking they'd sorted it, to then get outside and turn around to see flames rising up the side of the building.

It's 2017 FFS. We can cure Cancer and make driver-less cars, but we can't properly protect people living in a high rise building from the risk of fire. 

We can protect them, we just chose not too prevent it. That's the truth.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

We can protect them, we just chose not too prevent it. That's the truth.

Well that's totally inexcusable and unforgivable then.

  • Like 2
Posted
Just now, Izzy Muzzett said:

Well that's totally inexcusable and unforgivable then.

Absolutely, so many things that could and would have prevented this, have been missed. If the proof is there that they were warned and given evidence of it and still ignored it, then they should be locked up. It's manslaughter and it's outrageous.

  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

We can protect them, we just chose not too prevent it. That's the truth.

Maybe so, but if your are playing the blame game, you need to drill down to get it right.

 

If it was a fridge that started the fire, what about the manufacturer, what about the firms that supplied the parts? Did the fridge manufacturer cut corners? Did the flat tenant have five electrical items off one plug? Could have been many factors that led to the tradegy. 

 

Until the the facts are known, which I accept may be years, it's de riguer to blame an easy target. I am not saying it's ok to use second rate insulation, if that was the case, but when you say "we" do you include yourself, or just everybody else? 

 

It's an absolute tradegy, but I can't see the point of chucking out accusations until the facts are known. It won't bring anybody back unfortunately. 

Posted
14 minutes ago, BoyJones said:

Maybe so, but if your are playing the blame game, you need to drill down to get it right.

 

If it was a fridge that started the fire, what about the manufacturer, what about the firms that supplied the parts? Did the fridge manufacturer cut corners? Did the flat tenant have five electrical items off one plug? Could have been many factors that led to the tradegy. 

 

Until the the facts are known, which I accept may be years, it's de riguer to blame an easy target. I am not saying it's ok to use second rate insulation, if that was the case, but when you say "we" do you include yourself, or just everybody else? 

 

It's an absolute tradegy, but I can't see the point of chucking out accusations until the facts are known. It won't bring anybody back unfortunately. 

We are talking about a specific report which claims evidence was laid at the hands of ministers, that forewarned this was a huge risk. If what is claimed, is true and it seems to be well documented. Then they are culpable to manslaughter charges. If this was a hotel, MDs CEOs would be in courts and charged, this should be no different.

Someone/people, are to blame for the building catching fire and 79 people dying and it isn't the fridge manufacturer. The building should not light up like that, the fire advice was to stay put, why? Because it was supposed to be contained, why wasn't it? If they were told this could happen by experts and did nothing to prevent it, they have to be made accountable no?

Posted
30 minutes ago, BoyJones said:

Maybe so, but if your are playing the blame game, you need to drill down to get it right.

 

If it was a fridge that started the fire, what about the manufacturer, what about the firms that supplied the parts? Did the fridge manufacturer cut corners? Did the flat tenant have five electrical items off one plug? Could have been many factors that led to the tradegy. 

 

Until the the facts are known, which I accept may be years, it's de riguer to blame an easy target. I am not saying it's ok to use second rate insulation, if that was the case, but when you say "we" do you include yourself, or just everybody else? 

 

It's an absolute tradegy, but I can't see the point of chucking out accusations until the facts are known. It won't bring anybody back unfortunately. 

Bu those things are all things that might have killed 3-4 people. Having flammable cladding which, it appears, has caused an entire tower block to burn down despite the fire service believing the initial fire was out, is something else entirely. You'd have to be blind not to think blame NEEDS to be apportioned if people have ignored warnings etc. Of course we need the full facts to place that blame properly. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...