OT Grenfell tower fire

I dont think if you read real news that any of that is disputed. it was lack of oversight of the whole which was the problem and nobody actually listened to the residents themselves. Unfortunately broken structures like this exist in all political echo systems. Its got nothing to do with party politics, its a lack of management and proper oversight as I said. Everyone has an axe to grind now and is trying to point the finger elsewhere. its about time they all woke up and admitted that the structure of the contract lacked any kind of 'the buck stops here' person with an overall view of what was being done. Brian

'Listens to the Residents', how many of them know anything about buildings- seriously. How many average people really have a clue about building construction etc?

Don't try and claim 'neglected tower blocks etc' - there are excellent tower blocks with people living perfectly fine in them all over the world- including even in the UK.

Unfortunately, and not necessarily Grenfell, the problem with 'neglected tower blocks' or any 'neglected area' isn't the building at all, it is those who live there and abuse it.

As students, we rented a perfectly fine place. It was available to us as it was deemed to be in a 'neglected' estate. The actual accommodation was fine, as was the building. Had it been in the private sector, it would have been worth a fortune. It was 'neglected' because some tenants were little more than pigs. There were numerous EMPTY places on the same estate in an area supposedly with 6000 on the waiting list who would accept them.

Advice that would have been perfectly sound, had the building performed as originally designed. In that case, the risk of death or injury from an evacuation would have been much greater than from a fire that was properly contained. As ever, experience may modify the advice in future, but a lot of people appear to have died trying to evacuate the building.

...

Research from around the world shows that sprinklers are far from a complete solution. Their main benefit is that they reduce casualties in the room where a fire starts and may delay the spread of the fire. They cannot be guaranteed to extinguish a fire and cannot deal with all types of fire. Sprinklers would have had no effect on the external spread that occurred at Grenfell tower.

And that's your first bit of fake news.

The 'tenants' requirement was not for them to be tenants of the block - but simply legal tenants of the council.

Actually some did in this particular case as they got so annoyed they got an expert in. I think that the attitude you just demonstrated is exactly the one infesting many of these management structures. Sometimes common sense is ignored. Brian

That's the problem. The fire wasn't contained. The insulation was incorrectly installed.

In message , at 00:25:09 on Sat, 2 Sep

Many/most of which would also have been KCTMO tenants, but they have numerous buildings and it's not necessarily the case that tenants are the best to be making decisions about blocks the other side of the borough.

Something the LFB would not have known when they gave the advice.

And the insulationm was not incorrectly installed. Incorrect cladding was installed.

The KCTMO has nearly 10,000 properties from which to get the 8 tenant representatives.

In message , at 10:37:49 on Sun, 3 Sep

I wonder how many of them even live in any of the tower blocks in their portfolio?

Quite. They could be tenants of some old traditional house in a posh part of the borough. So know nothing about tower block life.

Rather than speculate you could of course always ask them: their names are all published.

The tenant/leaseholder directors were of course also elected by the tenants/leaseholders. So they apparently thought they were the best people for the job. It is of course one of the drawbacks of democracy combined with universal suffrage that voters from time to time elect people who are good at campaigning, offering all sorts of promises, but useless at delivering and so leave a mess for someone else to sort out.

A gap was left between the building and the insulation Horizontal barriers were supposed to be installed at every floor in this gap. And apparently weren't The windows were moved away from the wall onto the insulation. The gap round the windows was not sealed with fire proof material.

So the fire came up the gap and was conducted into every flat.

As per original construction, staying put was the best advice. The flats were isolated from each other. But not after the insulation was fitted.

a huge error in logic there

NT

Please explain my error *using the meaning of "best" implicit in my statement*.

the voters evidently thought they were the best of the few they could vote for, which is routinely a long way from the best for the job. We all know that, don't we?

NT

In message , at

And their addresses?

Best from a rather short list of candidates?

Sorry but no, I don't know that.

I used "best" to mean implicitly "those the person voting thought were best according to whatever criteria that person chose to use".

You appear to be using "best" to mean something different. But you haven't defined it. So I don't know about "we" but *I* haven't got the faintest idea what you mean. Feel free to enlighten me though as to what makes the "best" director of the KCTMO from the viewpoint of a tenant/leaseholder.