Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

Massive fire in London - Grenfell Tower in Shepherds Bush



Eeyore

Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
23,535
CHAPPERS said:
How is she making things worse?
Click to expand...

I saw the interview and rather wanted her to shut up. There are folk out there still clinging to hope and will come to terms only when they are able. The media are being careful in their approach to this although no-one is doubting there will be some horrible figures coming.

She used the interview to make a political attack and form some chasm between rich and poor. It makes things no better to aggressively push a wider debate when emotions are running so high.

At best she was insensitive at worst stirring up tensions and worse.

I rally against inequality, and want answers, but not in a chaotic and conflictual way. But the wider debate will be heard.
 
Last edited:






beorhthelm

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,303
Dick Head said:
Clueless yourself. Why doesn't the later statement mention insulation but only the appearance?
Click to expand...

because its a pithy comment from a councillor for the local paper "doesn't it look nice". if you read anything you'd find that the purpose of the cladding is for insulation, with a nice shiney outside to make it look nice too, 1970's tower looks all modern.
 


Dick Head

Dick Head

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Jan 3, 2010
13,632
Quaxxann
beorhthelm said:
because its a pithy comment from a councillor for the local paper "doesn't it look nice". if you read anything you'd find that the purpose of the cladding is for insulation, with a nice shiney outside to make it look nice too, 1970's tower looks all modern.
Click to expand...

We'll have to see.
 






Dick Head

Dick Head

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Jan 3, 2010
13,632
Quaxxann
Butch Willykins said:
I'm sorry but I'm going to have to bow out of this exchange, it's not the time or place. You just go ahead and jump to whatever conclusions you like.
Click to expand...

Whatever.
 










edna krabappel

edna krabappel

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
47,221
Dick Head said:
It seems that the aesthetics were more important than the insulation.
Click to expand...

Whilst clearly the overall point that's being made is whether, as you say, aesthetics have been prioritised over safety, I do think there's been a rush by the media to suggest that the visual enhancements resulting from the refurbishment were done for the benefit of the rich residents of the posher neighbouring areas, so they didn't have to look at the ugly old tower block.

Surely any improvement to the way somewhere looks can be for the benefit of its occupants too? The less well off are just as capable of appreciating their surroundings as the filthy rich, and it's been shown previously that when people feel pride in their local area, then it generates other benefits, such as less anti-social behaviour and more of a community feel. There's no reason- assuming safety is NOT compromised- that those in low income areas should have to reside in tired, depressing, crumbling old relics.

As I've said, it's not the main point to be made out of all this tragedy (clearly), but that particular media angle has grated with me slightly.
 


clapham_gull

clapham_gull

Legacy Fan
Aug 20, 2003
25,309
edna krabappel said:
Whilst clearly the overall point that's being made is whether, as you say, aesthetics have been prioritised over safety, I do think there's been a rush by the media to suggest that the visual enhancements resulting from the refurbishment were done for the benefit of the rich residents of the posher neighbouring areas, so they didn't have to look at the ugly old tower block.

Surely any improvement to the way somewhere looks can be for the benefit of its occupants too? The less well off are just as capable of appreciating their surroundings as the filthy rich, and it's been shown previously that when people feel pride in their local area, then it generates other benefits, such as less anti-social behaviour and more of a community feel. There's no reason- assuming safety is NOT compromised- that those in low income areas should have to reside in tired, depressing, crumbling old relics.

As I've said, it's not the main point to be made out of all this tragedy (clearly), but that particular media angle has grated with me slightly.
Click to expand...

It would grate with me if I didn't know the area so well. Of course it makes old buildings look better and cleaning up areas reduces crime.

But a few minutes walk away there are seriously expensive developments taking place. It is quickly morphing into a city centre with expensive residential to accompany it.

Now I live in a nice area of London. I'd argue nicer, but you don't need to pay that.

What I'm seeing is a re-engineering rather than a clean up. Bit like Brighton I guess but in a much shorter period.

I'd really hope there wasn't pressure to clean up the area because the millionaires are moving in. But very nearby 2/3 free bedroom apartments starting at a million pounds. Not a council initiative to improve the street lighting.

The kind millionaire investors look at.

Whilst down the road.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...on-cladding-banned-us-flammable-a7792711.html
 
Last edited:




Dick Head

Dick Head

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Jan 3, 2010
13,632
Quaxxann
edna krabappel said:
Whilst clearly the overall point that's being made is whether, as you say, aesthetics have been prioritised over safety, I do think there's been a rush by the media to suggest that the visual enhancements resulting from the refurbishment were done for the benefit of the rich residents of the posher neighbouring areas, so they didn't have to look at the ugly old tower block.

Surely any improvement to the way somewhere looks can be for the benefit of its occupants too? The less well off are just as capable of appreciating their surroundings as the filthy rich, and it's been shown previously that when people feel pride in their local area, then it generates other benefits, such as less anti-social behaviour and more of a community feel. There's no reason- assuming safety is NOT compromised- that those in low income areas should have to reside in tired, depressing, crumbling old relics.

As I've said, it's not the main point to be made out of all this tragedy (clearly), but that particular media angle has grated with me slightly.
Click to expand...

It's just got a funny smell about it. There is money to give the place a facelift (using the cheaper of available materials) but not to address the residents' safety concerns.
 


Tyrone Biggums

Tyrone Biggums

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2006
13,498
Geelong, Australia
symyjym said:
It wouldn't fill me with confidence if the emergency fire escape instructions was to hurl yourself, children and grand parents from 20 floors plus into a net. It's a Victorian solution not a 21st Century one.
Click to expand...

It's a better solution than being burned or asphyxiated to death when there is no other way out.

The just let them die we can't do anything more to get them out safely is the Victorian solution.

I'd rather take my chance jumping into something than slowly wait to die because rescue is impossible.
 


bWize

bWize

Well-known member
Nov 6, 2007
1,683
edna krabappel said:
Whilst clearly the overall point that's being made is whether, as you say, aesthetics have been prioritised over safety, I do think there's been a rush by the media to suggest that the visual enhancements resulting from the refurbishment were done for the benefit of the rich residents of the posher neighbouring areas, so they didn't have to look at the ugly old tower block.

Surely any improvement to the way somewhere looks can be for the benefit of its occupants too? The less well off are just as capable of appreciating their surroundings as the filthy rich, and it's been shown previously that when people feel pride in their local area, then it generates other benefits, such as less anti-social behaviour and more of a community feel. There's no reason- assuming safety is NOT compromised- that those in low income areas should have to reside in tired, depressing, crumbling old relics.

As I've said, it's not the main point to be made out of all this tragedy (clearly), but that particular media angle has grated with me slightly.
Click to expand...

If in somewhere like Worthing I would agree, but being Kensington, I really feel the rich and afluent residents saw the whole tower block/estate as an eyesore, full of refugees & foreigners and used any means possible to have it cladded and more inline with the richer parts of the area. I'm fairly confident cosmetics came before insulation/safety in this case.
 






beorhthelm

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,303
Butch Willykins said:
I work in cladding, particularly refurbishment of towers blocks. We actually looked at this job in 2014.

There is a piece of guidance - BR135 - which states the materials that should be used in the cladding zone on buildings over 18m. It often gets overlooked. If the correct products are used (and installed correctly) there is little risk of fire spreading like this.
Click to expand...

question, why recommended over 18m? whats different about the lower metres?
 


Chicken Run

Chicken Run

Member Since Jul 2003
NSC Patron
Jul 17, 2003
18,435
Valley of Hangleton
edna krabappel said:
Whilst clearly the overall point that's being made is whether, as you say, aesthetics have been prioritised over safety, I do think there's been a rush by the media to suggest that the visual enhancements resulting from the refurbishment were done for the benefit of the rich residents of the posher neighbouring areas, so they didn't have to look at the ugly old tower block.

Surely any improvement to the way somewhere looks can be for the benefit of its occupants too? The less well off are just as capable of appreciating their surroundings as the filthy rich, and it's been shown previously that when people feel pride in their local area, then it generates other benefits, such as less anti-social behaviour and more of a community feel. There's no reason- assuming safety is NOT compromised- that those in low income areas should have to reside in tired, depressing, crumbling old relics.

As I've said, it's not the main point to be made out of all this tragedy (clearly), but that particular media angle has grated with me slightly.
Click to expand...

John Street Police Station looks much better now doesn't it since the cladding was attached!!
 


Butch Willykins

Butch Willykins

Well-known member
Jun 17, 2011
2,533
Shoreham-by-Sea
beorhthelm said:
question, why recommended over 18m? whats different about the lower metres?
Click to expand...

As with an awful lot of regulation it has evolved over the years without perhaps being reviewed and updated accordingly.

From memory (don't quote me) 18m was the height to which a Firemans ladder would reach. It really is as simple as that.

Note - if a building is over 18m then non combustible materials should be used all the way to ground level, not just above 18m.
 




R

Raleigh Chopper

New member
Sep 1, 2011
12,054
Plymouth
Butch Willykins said:
As with an awful lot of regulation it has evolved over the years without perhaps being reviewed and updated accordingly.

From memory (don't quote me) 18m was the height to which a Firemans ladder would reach. It really is as simple as that.

Note - if a building is over 18m then non combustible materials should be used all the way to ground level, not just above 18m.
Click to expand...

And this is the bit I can't get my head around, whether it was for looks or not materials are just not made that would combust like that and if they were they would not be put on a high rise, with all the people involved there had to be at least one person that said you can't put that on there.
But it seems as if the total opposite is the case.
Kensington council leader seems to be blaming the residents about sprinklers this morning, this chap could be in a lot of trouble.
 


symyjym

symyjym

Banned
Nov 2, 2009
13,138
Brighton / Hove actually
Tyrone Biggums said:
It's a better solution than being burned or asphyxiated to death when there is no other way out.

The just let them die we can't do anything more to get them out safely is the Victorian solution.

I'd rather take my chance jumping into something than slowly wait to die because rescue is impossible.
Click to expand...

I get your point but in reality it would be hard to implement. If the fire regs are updated and residents were told that a safety net system would added to all high rise blocks of flats I wouldn't be satisfied as a resident. It has to be sprinkler systems added and all substandard cladding taken down.

I've just heard that this cladding type is used in the US but not on high rised buildings.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here