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
 Share
spacemunky

Huge fire London building

By spacemunky, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

yorkie1999

yorkie1999

Posted
Posted

Guy on the radio this morning also saying most high rise buildings in the country contain insulation that would fail current fire regs. It's going to end up with every high rise tower block being pulled down over safety concerns.

Guest Foxin_mad

Guest Foxin_mad

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, yorkie1999 said:

Guy on the radio this morning also saying most high rise buildings in the country contain insulation that would fail current fire regs. It's going to end up with every high rise tower block being pulled down over safety concerns.

Good, they are horrid.

 

Trying to make a 1970s tower block look good is akin to polishing a turd, I am not sure why they spent 8 million refurbishing them, use the money to remove these death trap blots on the landscape for good. Whoever thought it a good idea to removing well built Victorian/Georgian homes (even if classified slums) and replace them with these was insane.  

yorkie1999

yorkie1999

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Good, they are horrid.

 

Trying to make a 1970s tower block look good is akin to polishing a turd, I am not sure why they spent 8 million refurbishing them, use the money to remove these death trap blots on the landscape for good. Whoever thought it a good idea to removing well built Victorian/Georgian homes (even if classified slums) and replace them with these was insane.  

Totally agree, the problem is though, all those people currently living in them want to carry on living in low cost accommodation in the place where they currently live, and that's just not going to happen in places like Kensington.

Guest Col city fan

Guest Col city fan

Posted
Posted

It is absolutely beyond comprehension in this day and age that anyone signed off this cladding as being suitable.

I have no idea how on earth it could have happened. Christ, even stuff like chairs in nursing homes (quite rightly) have to be made of inflammable material. To think that all these buildings could have been covered in flammable material....it just beggars belief.

Strokes

Strokes

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Babylon said:

Have they failed fire regs, or are they just been found to use the flamable cladding? I've not really kept up with the story but there is a big difference if it's the latter.

Encasing a building in flammable material would be a failure of the fire regulations I'm sure.

  • Like 1
ajthefox

ajthefox

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Strokes said:

Encasing a building in flammable material would be a failure of the fire regulations I'm sure.

 

7 hours ago, Col city fan said:

It is absolutely beyond comprehension in this day and age that anyone signed off this cladding as being suitable.

I have no idea how on earth it could have happened. Christ, even stuff like chairs in nursing homes (quite rightly) have to be made of inflammable material. To think that all these buildings could have been covered in flammable material....it just beggars belief.

I don't mean to pick on you two personally but I keep hearing the word flammable being used as if lots of materials in construction every day across the world aren't flammable and it's simply not true. I'm not necessarily suggesting you two don't realise this, but the use of language here frustrates me because it confuses the issue.

 

The cladding is clearly not suitable and should never have been used, but things in and on buildings are flammable and/or burn. The regulations cover different types/sizes of buildings in slightly different ways but they are essentially based on the concept of compartmentation i.e. limiting the fire to a certain area which prevents spread of fire into another compartment for enough time for the occupants of said compartment to have either left the building or be in another protected compartment in a different place. They also ensure that anything structural is protected to the extent that it will retain its integrity for the time required for the occupants to egress safely, but that was obviously not the issue here.

 

 

z-layrex

z-layrex

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Totally agree, the problem is though, all those people currently living in them want to carry on living in low cost accommodation in the place where they currently live, and that's just not going to happen in places like Kensington.

 

I used work in Kensington at the Royal Brompton, you know why I lived ages away and commuted in? Because I couldn't afford to live there!

Guest Col city fan

Guest Col city fan

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

 

I don't mean to pick on you two personally but I keep hearing the word flammable being used as if lots of materials in construction every day across the world aren't flammable and it's simply not true. I'm not necessarily suggesting you two don't realise this, but the use of language here frustrates me because it confuses the issue.

 

The cladding is clearly not suitable and should never have been used, but things in and on buildings are flammable and/or burn. The regulations cover different types/sizes of buildings in slightly different ways but they are essentially based on the concept of compartmentation i.e. limiting the fire to a certain area which prevents spread of fire into another compartment for enough time for the occupants of said compartment to have either left the building or be in another protected compartment in a different place. They also ensure that anything structural is protected to the extent that it will retain its integrity for the time required for the occupants to egress safely, but that was obviously not the issue here.

 

 

I'm aware of the concept of compartmentation.

Covering the whole of the outside of a building with flammable cladding I'm thinking would render any compartmentation inside the building, completely redundant. 

I don't know what point you are making. Using this stuff I imagine essentially made the building into a tinderbox.

Parafox

Parafox

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Col city fan said:

It is absolutely beyond comprehension in this day and age that anyone signed off this cladding as being suitable.

I have no idea how on earth it could have happened. Christ, even stuff like chairs in nursing homes (quite rightly) have to be made of inflammable material. To think that all these buildings could have been covered in flammable material....it just beggars belief.

Fire retardant.

Not the same as inflammable, Col.

Babylon

Babylon

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Strokes said:

Encasing a building in flammable material would be a failure of the fire regulations I'm sure.

I've been trying to do a bit of reading on it. The panels are just one part of a cladding system, according to the manufacturer. And the Guardian say the panels themselves weren't banned in this country. So it seems like how they are used, what cladding system they are used with (there are different parts, eg. the insulation) amongst other things can dictate if it's ok to use or not.

 

Seems very complex and certainly not as easy as x panel has been used and that makes it fail the fire regs alone.

 

There seem to be experts suggesting the governments testing is rather pointless as if they are just testing the panel alone, it doesn't take into account the full system in place.

  • Like 1
Guest Col city fan

Guest Col city fan

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Parafox said:

Fire retardant.

Not the same as inflammable, Col.

My bad mate. You're quite right

Buce

Buce

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I guess this isn't new but hard to argue with

 

 

 

This is where social media can actually be useful.

 

Everyone should see this - there should be no place for the bãstards to hide.

Guest Foxin_mad

Guest Foxin_mad

Posted
Posted

Lets be clear this cladding has been installed since the Labour government years, its nothing to do with austerity or councils giving away £100 (that is political point scoring) it is to do with people trying to polish a turd and make a shit building look good up and down the country. Why this stuff has repeatedly not been tested properly and banned is a massive failing by all parties, all sides including the saint that is Mr Corbyn.

 

These high rises have always been inherently dangerous since they were built as supposed slum clearances 50/60/70s, the fact they are higher than the highest platform means the fire can only ever be left to burn above a certain height. Why do /did they only have one (Seemingly not smoke sealed) fire exit?

 

The same cladding has been installed by the wonderful Labour council in Camden, the same council have been frantically resolving hundreds of other fire regulation breaches in their buildings this week after evacuating people. From the gospel too.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/28/london-council-that-evacuated-building-knew-of-fire-door-problem-five-years-ago

 

There are public sector failings up and down the country in different run councils, there are people in councils that get paid a lot of money to do their jobs. If they are not doing them after being warned questions must be asked. My experience in working in the public sector in the past is that there is a massive accountability problem within most councils.

 

This stuff is on over 100 buildings so far, up and down the country in Labour Areas, Lib Dem areas, Tory areas, its on new buildings, old buildings, hospitals, schools, universities. Surely someone should have tested this stuff better? The only people who seem to have taken note were the Scots after a fire in 1999.

 

A lot of questions need to be answered but this is a cross party problem and the petty squabbling and political point scoring must stop. If this had happened in Camden would it still be the Tories fault that Labour run Camden council have ignored guidance they were given on breaches of fire regulations for 5 years?! I'm Corbyn trying to blame everything on austerity.......its got nothing to do with that! this is pure incompetence and a national disgrace nothing more nothing less

lifted*fox

lifted*fox

Posted
Posted

so the judge came out today and said it would purely be an enquiry into the start of the fire and why it spread but those seeking a wider enquiry into the negligence beforehand weren't going to get that? 

 

it's already being brushed under the carpet. 

 

**** sake lol. honestly, it's unreal.  

  • Like 2
Strokes

Strokes

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, daz*dsb said:

so the judge came out today and said it would purely be an enquiry into the start of the fire and why it spread but those seeking a wider enquiry into the negligence beforehand weren't going to get that? 

 

it's already being brushed under the carpet. 

 

**** sake lol. honestly, it's unreal.  

I know it sounds bad but at least they know now and can start putting pressure on for a inquest. Imagine waiting for this to end before realising it was a charade.

  • Like 1
lifted*fox

lifted*fox

Posted
Posted

Sounds bad is an understatement dude. I honestly can't believe it. 

 

I can't even put it into words tbh. ****ing hell lol. 

 

This country is run by crooks and thieves and never has it been more obviously and out in the open.

 

They literally might as well have come out said "**** you, your families and friends are dead but you you really thought we were going actually do something about it?! lol". 

  • Like 1
James.

James.

Posted
Posted

Whatever they were before they are now victims of a horrendous tragedy and as such should be treated accordingly. I'd be pretty worried about the humanity of anyone who argues otherwise.

 

And to be honest whatever people may privately think, given the delicate civil and political situation around this, surely no one in power would dare to publicly suggest prosecution.

  • Like 1
Babylon

Babylon

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, James. said:

Whatever they were before they are now victims of a horrendous tragedy and as such should be treated accordingly. I'd be pretty worried about the humanity of anyone who argues otherwise.

 

And to be honest whatever people may privately think, given the delicate civil and political situation around this, surely no one in power would dare to publicly suggest prosecution.

Are you replying to Matt P? The people subletting the flats aren't victims in any shape or form, nobody is going to prosecute the person renting it, who is a victim.

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...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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