Terrible fire in West London

Fallible · **#61** by **Fallible** » Jun 15, 2017 12:54 pm

Well, it's only the plebs. There are plenty of them, so it doesn't really matter.

laklak · **#62** by **laklak** » Jun 15, 2017 2:58 pm

Too many, truth be told. Love living in squalor, that lot. Best thing would be workhouses, otherwise they spend their futures on gin and bear baiting.

ronmcd · **#63** by **ronmcd** » Jun 15, 2017 3:51 pm

Someone from the blog that had raised problems with this block before was interviewed yesterday, he suggested the building had indeed had a fire inspection done, but it was before the refurbishment was complete. He pointedly suggested it might be something they should do *after* refurbishments, because he said we just don't know if all the work done on the stair for new gas etc had replaced the required fire stop material. And that's on top of the cladding issue, it may well be a combination, because it doesnt seem to just (just!) have been the cladding passing the fire up the building, but the internal fire compartmentalision failed.

Byron · **#64** by **Byron** » Jun 15, 2017 4:05 pm

Yes, there's also been reports that the interior was laced with gas pipes and boilers. Whatever the exact causes turn out to be, sounds like a tinderbox. With no centralized fire alarm, drills, or sprinklers, and residents advised to stay in their homes even as the block was burning, a perfect storm for the horrific loss of life.

See the Maybot's been getting the same quality of advice on display throughout the election. Whatever the residents said to her, it couldn't be worse than the impression of cowardice she's given by avoiding them. Barbs to one side, she showed in the 1922 Committee meeting that she's capable of at least acting like a human, and defusing a tense situation. Time to put her newfound skills to work and take her licks.

Shrunk · **#65** by **Shrunk** » Jun 15, 2017 4:14 pm

Theresa May has visited the scene of the Grenfell Tower blaze where at least 17 people died.

The Prime Minister carried out a private visit of the scene and spoke with emergency service crews but reportedly refused to meet any survivors of the tragedy and blocked media access.

The decision was taken due to "security reasons", it was claimed, but local residents were furious that she did not stop to listen to their concerns.

One Grenfell Tower resident reportedly told Jeremy Corbyn, who also visited the scene, Ms May was "s***", adding: "Theresa May was here but she didn't speak to any of us."....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 91726.html

I'm beginning to figure out why she didn't win the election.

Byron · **#66** by **Byron** » Jun 15, 2017 4:24 pm

And with her charm on full display.

Much as I'd love to see her out of office quick as, putting partisanship aside for a sec, it's seriously destabilizing to have the PM act like this. I want her gone from No. 10, but with a hung parliament and rogues' alliance with the Ulstermen, plenty other ways that can happen. National interest needs to take precedence. If she's the personal skills to climb the greasy pole, she's sure as hell capable of speaking to the survivors for half an hour.

VazScep · **#67** by **VazScep** » Jun 15, 2017 4:29 pm

Where is Khadija Saye? A beautiful young woman, a hugely talented emerging artist whom my wife mentored and who had become a part of my family. She is just one of many human stories emerging from the disaster wreaked on Grenfell Tower. I have heard nothing since her Facebook post from 4am on Wednesday reading: “Please pray for me and my mum. Just tried to leave, it’s impossible.” I fear that she may have perished in the inferno on the 20th floor.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... olice-fire

Calilasseia · **#68** by **Calilasseia** » Jun 15, 2017 4:38 pm

Meanwhile, I've discovered something interesting with respect to the matter of a Rule 43 Letter, such as that issued by the coroner investigating the 2009 Lakanal House deaths, whose report was published in 2013, and accompanied by a Rule 43 Letter.

A Rule 43 Letter, or Prevention Of Further Deaths Notice, is an instrument sent to responsible parties, who are required to respond in 56 days with respect to [1] whether any of the recommendations in the Rule 43 Letter are, or will be, carried out, of [2] what reasons are being presented for failure to implement said recommendations.

One immediate avenue of inquiry to pursue, was whether this Rule 43 Letter was responded to in a timely manner, and what form the response took, as this could have a material bearing on the outcome of litigation. If the Rule 43 Letter in question was accompanied by a response indicating no intention to implement the recommendations, and the reasons cited include protection of "business interests" of those charged with ensuring future deaths do not occur, this is going to look very sleazy indeed.

Now responses to Rule 43 Letters are usually public domain, courtesy of the Lord Chancellor's Office. It would be interesting to see if a public domain copy of the response exists. Anyone curious about this, feel free to investigate.

mcgruff · **#69** by **mcgruff** » Jun 15, 2017 9:22 pm

With Grenfell Tower, we’ve seen what ‘ripping up red tape’ really looks like

For years successive governments have built what they call a bonfire of regulations. They have argued that “red tape” impedes our freedom and damages productivity. Britain, they have assured us, would be a better place with fewer forms to fill in, fewer inspections and less enforcement.

But what they call red tape often consists of essential public protections that defend our lives, our futures and the rest of the living world. The freedom they celebrate is highly selective: in many cases it means the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor, of corporations to exploit their workers, landlords to exploit their tenants and industry of all kinds to use the planet as its dustbin. As RH Tawney remarked, “Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows.”

...full article

Scot Dutchy · **#70** by **Scot Dutchy** » Jun 15, 2017 9:23 pm

I see the BBC are going for the personal touch. Just talk about the victims. Crying guys on tv seem to be popular.

mcgruff · **#71** by **mcgruff** » Jun 15, 2017 9:30 pm

Media accused of covering up death toll

Not sure if I'd go that far but the media certainly should be criticised for sticking to the "12 dead" line for so long.

One of the very first tasks of the fire crews would have been be to figure out how many people were in the building. They will also know how many they managed to get out. Lots of people on the ground will know roughly how many people have been killed (around 150 according to the above article) but this information doesn't seem to be getting out.

Scot Dutchy · **#72** by **Scot Dutchy** » Jun 15, 2017 9:33 pm

Look it was a dumping ground. They just tarted it up for the area and what happened inside they could not care about.

ronmcd · **#73** by **ronmcd** » Jun 15, 2017 9:36 pm

mcgruff wrote:Media accused of covering up death toll

Not sure if I'd go that far but the media certainly should be criticised for sticking to the "12 dead" line for so long.

One of the very first tasks of the fire crews would have been be to figure out how many people were in the building. They will also know how many they managed to get out. Lots of people on the ground will know roughly how many people have been killed (around 150 according to the above article) but this information doesn't seem to be getting out.

Not sure this is any different from any other incident with deaths though, the difference is surely just the difficulty of finding out, at the moment. I think it's been made clear every time the number has been mentioned that it will be much higher.
:dunno:

minininja · **#74** by **minininja** » Jun 15, 2017 9:37 pm

The true scale of this disaster is only starting to come out.

Police fear they will not be able to identify all victims of Grenfell Tower fire

-

The senior officer said that 5,000 missing person calls had been made to the police casualty bureau, many involving multiple reports concerning one individual; one person was reported missing 46 times. As a result, it was hard to be sure precisely how many remained to be accounted for.

The senior officer said he hoped the number of fatalities would not reach more than 100, although he would not give any more precise estimate as to how many had died. Responding to questions, Cundy said: “I like to hope it [the fatality count] isn’t going to be triple figures, I really do,” he said.

Byron · **#75** by **Byron** » Jun 15, 2017 9:39 pm

mcgruff wrote:Media accused of covering up death toll

Not sure if I'd go that far but the media certainly should be criticised for sticking to the "12 dead" line for so long.

One of the very first tasks of the fire crews would have been be to figure out how many people were in the building. They will also know how many they managed to get out. Lots of people on the ground will know roughly how many people have been killed (around 150 according to the above article) but this information doesn't seem to be getting out.

There's been some grim reports on social media that haven't made the press yet. Can't corroborate, and wouldn't repeat until I could; but they appeared credible, and this toll (apparently common knowledge among reporters) is in-line with them. Wouldn't be surprised to see it, and the rest, confirmed soon.

:nono:

Tortured_Genius · **#76** by **Tortured_Genius** » Jun 15, 2017 10:55 pm

I remember from about a week ago a forensics guy on PM Radio 4 last week explaining why they don't release numbers and/or suspected casualty details until they have positively identified victims beyond all doubt. Basically it is far, far worse for relatives to be given incorrect information than no information at all. He made a very persuasive case for why it had to be that way (well, it convinced me!)

Consequently it's likely that the full list and exact number of victims will not be released for several weeks at the earliest.

Byron · **#77** by **Byron** » Jun 15, 2017 11:06 pm

Names of the deceased of course mustn't be released until identity's confirmed and relatives are informed. A realistic estimate of the death toll, however, would stem the rage being expressed off the legacy media grid, not to mention the conspiracy theories that are already flying.

Regardless, that's arguable. What isn't is that Whitehall needs to get a handle on the situation before it boils over. Already, there's disturbing talk about "direct action" this summer from the usual suspects, and if nothing's done, they could well get their wish.

Setting aside snark about May being incapable of dealing with the justifiably furious residents (she's a ruthless power politician who's played the game for decades, of course she's capable), a meeting's gotta be set up ASAP, followed by fast and substantive reforms to building codes.

crank · **#78** by **crank** » Jun 16, 2017 2:22 am

What a seriously fucked up situation. Can someone inform a parochial american about what a block tower or tower block is? Is there some more implication than a building on a block with a lot of apartments? Like is it low-income housing generally? Is it all rental apartments/flats?

mrjonno · **#79** by **mrjonno** » Jun 16, 2017 6:34 am

The block was a council house /public housing I think Americans call this housing projects.

Flats= apartments. They are generally all rented of local government (or paid for by welfare).

No one generally chooses to live there as a first choice and you do tend to get those at the bottom of society living there. However while there are crime problems there we aren't really talking the 'The Wire' here.

I lived in one when I was a kid

Matt_B · **#80** by **Matt_B** » Jun 16, 2017 7:36 am

mrjonno wrote:The block was a council house /public housing I think Americans call this housing projects.

Flats= apartments. They are generally all rented of local government (or paid for by welfare).

No one generally chooses to live there as a first choice and you do tend to get those at the bottom of society living there. However while there are crime problems there we aren't really talking the 'The Wire' here.

I lived in one when I was a kid

Just to add to the picture, there'll probably be a lot of working families with young children in there too, because with London house prices being what they are, ex-Council flats - where the tenant exercised their right to buy and subsequently sold them on - tend to be the most affordable option.

North Kensington is a very affluent area. We're talking people who'd have to borrow five times a typical joint income to live there rather than fifteen times for an equivalent property in a commercial development nearby.

Basically, one of those council flats in a 1970s block would typically change hands for around £400,000 on the open market. This ain't no slum.

Terrible fire in West London

Re: Terrible fire in West London

Re: Terrible fire in West London

Re: Terrible fire in West London

Re: Terrible fire in West London

Re: Terrible fire in West London

Re: Terrible fire in West London

Re: Terrible fire in West London

Re: Terrible fire in West London

Re: Terrible fire in West London

Re: Terrible fire in West London

Re: Terrible fire in West London

Re: Terrible fire in West London

Re: Terrible fire in West London

Re: Terrible fire in West London

Re: Terrible fire in West London

Re: Terrible fire in West London

Re: Terrible fire in West London

Re: Terrible fire in West London

Re: Terrible fire in West London

Re: Terrible fire in West London

Who is online