Jump to content

Massive fire at high rise flats in London


Recommended Posts

You wonder how many of those police would want to step away from May's side and let the crowd have her.

Saw clips last night of people banging council office doors shouting "We want answers". What answers do they think that the phone answering types who work there are going to actually have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Emily Maitliss interview was genuine car crash stuff.  What the f**k does Theresa May think she sounds like?  To me, she sounds on the verge of a breakdown.

Apologies for once again politicising this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Fide said:

That Emily Maitliss interview was genuine car crash stuff.  What the f**k does Theresa May think she sounds like?  To me, she sounds on the verge of a breakdown.

Apologies for once again politicising this.

I thought this exact thing watching that. Don't know when she last slept but she has the look of someone with a tremendous meltdown incoming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, blanco said:

29c in London today and it's Saturday, plenty of people out protesting. The place will probably be worse than the 2011 riots by tonight.

There won't be riots. Maybe the odd scuffle but nothing substantial. The mood is not as angry as the media are portraying. 

The media are almost instigating trouble with emotive reporting beyond the actual events

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope there isn't any violence, it won't help what needs to be done, which is investigate the causes of the fire and bring charges against anyone found to have broken the law.

I think the protests are entirely justified though. The council was responsible for the building, the refurbishment, the safety of tenants. The government is responsible for the laws that govern what materials can be used in building and the requirements set for them. This event could set off a sea change in how we look at building regulations and development in cities.

The rent-a-mob SWPers and masked rioter brigades who had a protest at the BBC, of all places, and The loonball conspiracy theorists seem to be latching on as well. An event as awful as this doesn't need them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, jupe1407 said:

Fucking hell. Was he trying to pass off some of the blame re the failure to fit sprinkler systems to residents? 

Most of whom wouldn't have understood the question, depending on how it was put to them.

Had they asked, do you want the safer version of the refit, or the cheap, less safe one? How many would have answered? "You hammer on with the cheap one, save yourself a bit of cash. Don't let us hold you back."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, badgerthewitness said:

I've noticed a distinct lack of #prayforgrenfells memes or union flag profile photos on social media. Wrong kind of victims?

Too busy praying for a hard brexit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whiskychimp said:

The media are almost instigating trouble with emotive reporting beyond the actual events

Stopped by the Town Hall protest on my way home from work yesterday. I would describe the mood of the people there as incandescent. There is a long and bitter history between these communities and the council that still appears to be only doing the absolute minimum to keep the press of their backs. 

 

But I am sure someone in, where is it you are again, has a better read on this than me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, dorlomin said:

I dont think it would stick. 

The contractors went to the letter of the law. I have heard that even then you can make a case but it is hard. The real problem is the layer or two above where the laws are made. I do not think Labour escape share of the guilt here by any stretch of the imagination but a lot of people in the current government have sat on reports or voted down amendments that could have helped. The machinery of government is grasping to hit cover up mode and find a contractor or local borough level official to pin the blame on. 

I still think there's a case to answer. Yes, they may have done the minimum of what the law required, but in doing so they put people in danger and have ultimately cost lives. 

The speed limit on the motorway is 70 mph, but if I end up ploughing into the back of someone at 70mph in heavy fog, I can't use sticking to the limit as an excuse. I was going too fast for the conditions despite keeping within the regulations. 

I think the same is true here and that sticking with the regulations is not good enough - the cladding used, although permissible, was not appropriate for a building of that size. Someone really ought to have identified that. If the building was 3 or 4 stories high, fair enough as it's easy enough to get out if you need to, but 20+? Not a chance. 

To me, this seems a bit like the Titanic and the lifeboats - legal, but not appropriate and I don't think it is good enough as a defence. They have breached their duty of care and have not acted properly in making the choice that they did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michael W said:

I still think there's a case to answer. Yes, they may have done the minimum of what the law required, but in doing so they put people in danger and have ultimately cost lives. 

The speed limit on the motorway is 70 mph, but if I end up ploughing into the back of someone at 70mph in heavy fog, I can't use sticking to the limit as an excuse. I was going too fast for the conditions despite keeping within the regulations. 

I think the same is true here and that sticking with the regulations is not good enough - the cladding used, although permissible, was not appropriate for a building of that size. Someone really ought to have identified that. If the building was 3 or 4 stories high, fair enough as it's easy enough to get out if you need to, but 20+? Not a chance. 

To me, this seems a bit like the Titanic and the lifeboats - legal, but not appropriate and I don't think it is good enough as a defence. They have breached their duty of care and have not acted properly in making the choice that they did. 

I'm hoping this isn't the case as it'll just let those at the top off the hook, those at the top are supposed to put legislation in place that protects the public from unscrupulous/profit driven/greedy b*****d/corner cutting cowboy b*****ds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
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...