UK's May rushed from area of London fire after protests

[Grouse]

https://www.arconic.com/aap/europe/pdf/Our fire solutions_BR36EN_012017.pdf

 

This is  Interesting. I hope posting this doesn't infringe any TV rules. The point is type of cladding v building height is clearly known

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

On 6/17/2017 at 5:39 PM, 4737 Carlin said:

How is Theresa May responsible for the fire ? These things happen all over the developing world. If you import and subsidise a third world population then eventually your country will look like the third world.

 

This isn't about what kinds of people were living in the building.  This is about the local authorities there failing to adopt and enforce proper fire safety codes with things like required fire sprinklers and requiring the use of fire-resistant materials that would likely have prevented this tragedy from occurring.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

It's a bit distressing that a lot of the Brit posters here seem to want to focus on political gamesmanship -- which party is to blame and which politicians did or didn't have some role in past decisions.

 

When instead, what people really ought to be focusing on is:

 

Regarding the past, why weren't such older high-rise buildings required to have fire sprinklers and why didn't building codes prevent the use of flammable materials.

 

And regarding the future, what's going to be done NOW to prevent the same kind of tragedy from occurring again at any of the many other older high-rises in London that also don't have fire sprinklers and related safety measures. The focus needs to be on adopting those changes and then making sure they're enforced and executed -- not on playing political games.

 

A lot of people died and were injured in this tragedy. At least at this point, those deaths and injuries ought to serve to spur the London and local authorities to make the long-overdue building code changes. And the public ought to demand that those changes be made, so that at least some good comes out of this.

 

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[colinneil]

4 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

It's a bit distressing that a lot of the Brit posters here seem to want to focus on political gamesmanship -- which party is to blame and which politicians did or didn't have some role in past decisions.

 

When instead, what people really ought to be focusing on is:

 

Regarding the past, why weren't such older high-rise buildings required to have fire sprinklers and why didn't building codes prevent the use of flammable materials.

 

And regarding the future, what's going to be done NOW to prevent the same kind of tragedy from occurring again at any of the many other older high-rises in London that also don't have fire sprinklers and related safety measures. The focus needs to be on adopting those changes and then making sure they're enforced and executed -- not on playing political games.

 

I agree with you, all politicians are the same.

Blame the others for what has happened.

 

At the end of the day they are all the same, only interested in blaming others.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Just curious, perhaps one of the Brits here can answer this question:

 

Who's responsible for setting fire and building code laws in London?

 

Is it the London central government under Khan, or are those laws and regulations decided locally at the council level?

 

[Khun Han]

10 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Just curious, perhaps one of the Brits here can answer this question:

 

Who's responsible for setting fire and building code laws in London?

 

Is it the London central government under Khan, or are those laws and regulations decided locally at the council level?

 

 

They're supposed to follow EU laws, which are enforced by a combination of the local authority and the Health and Safety Executive, AFAIK.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Just curious, perhaps one of the Brits here can answer this question:

 

Who's responsible for setting fire and building code laws in London?

 

Is it the London central government under Khan, or are those laws and regulations decided locally at the council level?

 

Electrical wiring must comply with BS 7671 and this is a legal requirement. It is harmonised with IEC 60364 which is the International Standard

[DaveE13]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

They're supposed to follow EU laws, which are enforced by a combination of the local authority and the Health and Safety Executive, AFAIK.

You are more or less spot on. HSE enforce the laws set guidelines etc

[evadgib]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/details-of-grenfell-tower-residents-discretionary-fund

[AGareth2]

9 hours ago, baboon said:

Maybe they are just appalled that fellow human beings could meet with such a horrifying end in their neighborhood in a developed country, as odd as that may appear to some on here.

we are all appalled!

and saddened by the loss of life!

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

9 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

They're supposed to follow EU laws, which are enforced by a combination of the local authority and the Health and Safety Executive, AFAIK.

 Are you saying some EU committee somewhere is supposed to decide whether older high-rises in London are or aren't required to be retrofit with fire sprinklers???   That sounds a bit loony!!!!

 

Other, prior posters here have made it sound like the decision not to require fire sprinklers in older buildings was a past decision made by some British politicians....  I have no idea... I'm just asking.

 

Edited June 19, 2017 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[impulse]

8 hours ago, AGareth2 said:

we are all appalled!

and saddened by the loss of life!

 

On the plus side, they saved around $6,000.  That's about $100 per human life.

 

The cladding believed to have been used at Grenfell Tower are BANNED in the US and Germany, it has been revealed.

.....

US-based Reynobond makes three types of panel: one with a flammable plastic core and two with fire-resistant cores.

.....

Reynobond’s fire-resistant panel sells for £24 per square metre— £2 more expensive than the standard version. Estimates suggest that the cost of using the more expensive version would have cost about £5000.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cladding-fitted-grenfell-tower-banned-10631454

 

[rockingrobin]

2 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 Are you saying some EU committee somewhere is supposed to decide whether older high-rises in London are or aren't required to be retrofit with fire sprinklers???   That sounds a bit loony!!!!

 

Other, prior posters here have made it sound like the decision not to require fire sprinklers in older buildings was a past decision made by some British politicians....  I have no idea... I'm just asking.

 

The  non mandating use of sprinklers was a govenment decision m along with  proposals not to install in schools.

I will try and get the relevant documents

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

8 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The  non mandating use of sprinklers was a govenment decision m along with  proposals not to install in schools.

I will try and get the relevant documents

So, are you saying the issue of deciding the fire sprinklers and building materials policy rests with the local London or UK politicians, and NOT some EU committee somewhere? I don't need any documents, just looking for a clear answer, London/UK or EU???

 

"Non-mandating" is an interesting choice of words... I'd prefer to use the term "FAILING!"

 

Edited June 19, 2017 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[rockingrobin]

13 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

So, are you saying the issue of deciding the fire sprinklers and building materials policy rests with the local London or UK politicians, and NOT some EU committee somewhere? I don't need any documents, just looking for a clear answer, London/UK or EU???

 

"Non-mandating" is an interesting choice of words... I'd prefer to use the term "FAILING!"

 

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140206/halltext/140206h0002.htm

' However, not all buildings carry the same level of risk. Those with responsibility for ensuring fire safety in their businesses, in their homes or as landlords should and must make informed decisions on how best to manage the risks in their own properties. '

 

The issue regarding schools and sprinklers

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/17/tower-block-fire-warnings-grenfell-victims?

“The Department for Education have their own strict guidance for schools. Last July they issued their amended document as a final draft. Previously they said automatic fire sprinklers would be installed in all new schools except for a very few low-risk schools. They then issued revised guidance, which said that because of XYZ they are removing the requirement for sprinklers in all new schools.”

[superal]

2 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140206/halltext/140206h0002.htm

' However, not all buildings carry the same level of risk. Those with responsibility for ensuring fire safety in their businesses, in their homes or as landlords should and must make informed decisions on how best to manage the risks in their own properties. '

 

The issue regarding schools and sprinklers

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/17/tower-block-fire-warnings-grenfell-victims?

“The Department for Education have their own strict guidance for schools. Last July they issued their amended document as a final draft. Previously they said automatic fire sprinklers would be installed in all new schools except for a very few low-risk schools. They then issued revised guidance, which said that because of XYZ they are removing the requirement for sprinklers in all new schools.”

Just got to jump in here cos I have just heard that there are 3000 buildings in the UK with the same cladding , yes 3000 . This is a big can of worms . Sprinkler systems cost money to install and maintain . They eat into the housing budget of the local councils .  Big conflict between what materials are safe to use and fire preventative measures . Many if not most contracts are awarded to the lowest tender , by the companies accountants influence with their shareholders profits in mind . When the criminal investigations begin  , both the cladding company and the council's  building control / regulators  will be asked if they were aware of any safety issues concerning the cladding within the UK or globally .  It is all pointing towards  corporate manslaughter with many involved . High profile enquiry with nowhere to hide .   

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, superal said:

Just got to jump in here cos I have just heard that there are 3000 buildings in the UK with the same cladding , yes 3000 . This is a big can of worms . Sprinkler systems cost money to install and maintain . They eat into the housing budget of the local councils .  Big conflict between what materials are safe to use and fire preventative measures . Many if not most contracts are awarded to the lowest tender , by the companies accountants influence with their shareholders profits in mind . When the criminal investigations begin  , both the cladding company and the council's  building control / regulators  will be asked if they were aware of any safety issues concerning the cladding within the UK or globally .  It is all pointing towards  corporate manslaughter with many involved . High profile enquiry with nowhere to hide .   

 

Have to say that we worked on a project a few years back just outside Manchester's Northern Quarter with one of my conpany's bigger clients, where this cladding (or hat, as they referred to it) was used. I hasten to add that the cladding was not my company's aspect of the works.

[JAG]

If the cladding and other aspects of the refurbishment of the tower were as specified by the relevant regulations then the government and more specifically its agencies which draw up these regulations are at fault. If the cladding and other aspects of the refurbishment were in breach of those regulations then those commissioning, carrying out and inspecting the work were at fault.
The Judge led Public Inquiry, about as independent a process as you can get, will decide. I should imagine prosecutions will follow.

[Khun Han]

46 minutes ago, JAG said:

If the cladding and other aspects of the refurbishment of the tower were as specified by the relevant regulations then the government and more specifically its agencies which draw up these regulations are at fault. If the cladding and other aspects of the refurbishment were in breach of those regulations then those commissioning, carrying out and inspecting the work were at fault.
The Judge led Public Inquiry, about as independent a process as you can get, will decide. I should imagine prosecutions will follow.

 

I would be astonished if there weren't irregularities. And, soooo important to move quickly on issues with other buildings, such as the one my company worked on. There can be no delays on this.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Here's a somewhat shoddy BBC report on the issue of fire sprinklers for the UK's older high-rises.

 

I say shoddy because it explains that sprinklers weren't required for pre 2007 high-rises, but doesn't say who exactly made that decision, when it was made,  or what if any debate went into reaching that conclusion.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-40293035

 

 

Quote

 

A sprinkler system is one of the most effective tools available to prevent the spread of fire in tall buildings. Grenfell Tower and thousands of others in the UK do not have sprinklers installed. Reality Check explores the reasons.
 

Regulations in England mean that only buildings constructed since 2007 and which are taller than 30m are required to have sprinklers fitted. This requirement wasn't applied retroactively so did not apply to Grenfell Tower, which was built in 1974.
 

Existing high-rises in England must have them fitted if a fundamental change is made to the structure or use of the building.

 

These regulations are the same in Northern Ireland. In Scotland all new residential buildings taller than 18m must be fitted with sprinklers. In Wales since last year, all new and refurbished residential accommodation must have sprinklers. Nowhere in the UK is it a requirement to retroactively fit sprinklers in existing buildings.

MORE:

 

 

Threre's also an inherent contradiction between what the report says in two different places, as noted in bold above.

 

Edited June 20, 2017 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[evadgib]

Communities Secretary statement: safety checks following the Grenfell Tower fire

 

PM chairs third meeting of the Grenfell Tower Recovery Taskforce