Massive fire in London - Grenfell Tower in Shepherds Bush

Psychobilly freakout · Jun 26, 2017

hans kraay fan club said:
Of course - eventually. My point is that the urgency is only to make the blocks firesafe - ergo remove the dodgy cladding. Then the rest can happen.

I think Camden are playing safe and trying to rather than inconvenience the residents twice,(and it's got to be done) they are just getting it done now, before the contractors get booked up for months if not years and then obviously the cost shoots up. To me it makes sense, and they are being pro active this will save money, now that is something that people don't want to hear in this situation, but they will when theirs and yours council tax goes up to pay for all of this.

Butch Willykins · Jun 26, 2017

hans kraay fan club said:
Have they said that is the target then?

Surely the urgency is just to strip the existing cladding.

Re-cladding can be done later?

Yes, that should be OK, especially as it seems to be mineral wool insulation on these towers, which can be left exposed for several months. PIR insulation is much more sensitive to the elements and should not be left exposed for long. Then again, if it's PIR it shouldn't really be above 18m in the first place.

Stripping the towers in 3-4 weeks is still hugely ambitious. The access equipment and labour isn't available instantly.

hans kraay fan club · Jun 26, 2017

Butch Willykins said:
Yes, that should be OK, especially as it seems to be mineral wool insulation on these towers, which can be left exposed for several months. PIR insulation is much more sensitive to the elements and should not be left exposed for long. Then again, if it's PIR it shouldn't really be above 18m in the first place.

Stripping the towers in 3-4 weeks is still hugely ambitious. The access equipment and labour isn't available instantly.

I wish I owned an access platform company, right now.

Some folk are going to be able to retire off the back of all this.

Thunder Bolt · Jun 26, 2017

Psychobilly freakout said:
The wife who works for Camden Council on the regeneration housing team and worked on projects like Agar Grove & Maiden Lane, has been moved over to help the other department in supervising the contractors working 24 hour shifts and I understand they are replacing all the cladding, possibly the window frames and some internal works in the affected buildings.

https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/879377170606456833

[tweet]879377170606456833[/tweet]

[tweet]879377312327901184[/tweet]

symyjym · Jun 26, 2017

Psychobilly freakout said:
The wife who works for Camden Council on the regeneration housing team and worked on projects like Agar Grove & Maiden Lane, has been moved over to help the other department in supervising the contractors working 24 hour shifts and I understand they are replacing all the cladding, possibly the window frames and some internal works in the affected buildings.

I believe that in many if not all cases the windows are built into the cladding system. It would be ahell of a lot easier if they were independent, not sure if they are though.

Psychobilly freakout · Jun 27, 2017

Thunder Bolt said:
https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/879377170606456833

[tweet]879377170606456833[/tweet]

[tweet]879377312327901184[/tweet]

You gotta love the BBC and press, these are the same people who this weekend when Camden were ripping internal flammable materials out and staking it outside would not allow a skip lorry to pass because there were so many of them camped outside the blocks.

Psychobilly freakout · Jun 27, 2017

Thunder Bolt said:
https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/879377170606456833

[tweet]879377170606456833[/tweet]

[tweet]879377312327901184[/tweet]

Also what is not mentioned in that tweet is the fact that residents remove the fire doors because they do not like the aesthetic look of the big bulky fire doors and put sometimes put metal doors in front of the doors, which again can contribute to a fire hazard.

colinz · Jun 27, 2017

I don't know if this has been posted before. This guy is toast. The buck stops with him for the cladding decision and also the decision not to install sprinklers.

Anyone know why only Grenfell Tower was fitted with this cladding & none of the other nearby Towers ?

neilbard · Jun 27, 2017

[Tweet]879663228267229184[/Tweet]

[Tweet]879662191590428672[/Tweet]

beorhthelm · Jun 27, 2017

colinz said:
I don't know if this has been posted before. This guy is toast. The buck stops with him for the cladding decision and also the decision not to install sprinklers.

i think he already resigned. his comments on the sprinkers raised some hackles, i wonder if he could be right. its a bold statement to make and would be the sort of thing covered in the minutes of a meeting. i have read some of the meetings and presentation material for the renovations and fire safety isn't mentioned at all.

the general point about sprinklers seems wider ranging, after all why didnt block, or thousands of others have them fitted? talking to our building manager yesterday and she said sprinklers isn't simple, you have to control them so they do not automatically go off at any sign of smoke - risk millions in damage in a office tower block if someone burns their toast. yet on the other hand they have to be fitted in office, i dont know why not residential and no one seems to be explaining why (without reverting to political blame). maybe its because its expected that by the time they are in use, the fire brigade should be on site?

and something bugging me about the cladding is if the panels used weren't compliant with regulations, how were they signed off in so many projects? apparently contractors, inspectors, councils across the land involved in use of similar cladding, are they all negligent? something to think on.

Boys 9d · Jun 27, 2017

beorhthelm said:
the general point about sprinklers seems wider ranging, after all why didnt block, or thousands of others have them fitted? talking to our building manager yesterday and she said sprinklers isn't simple, you have to control them so they do not automatically go off at any sign of smoke - risk millions in damage in a office tower block if someone burns their toast. yet on the other hand they have to be fitted in office, i dont know why not residential and no one seems to be explaining why (without reverting to political blame). maybe its because its expected that by the time they are in use, the fire brigade should be on site?

Unless sprinkler design has changed in the last few years, smoke does not activate them. The sprinkler heads are activated by excessive heat in that the outlet for water is stopped by a glass bulb containing a liquid which expands in the heat and breaks the glass bulb. This releases the water stream. I also seem to remember that the bulbs can be manufactured to break at different set temperatures.

PeterOut · Jun 27, 2017

beorhthelm said:
talking to our building manager yesterday and she said sprinklers isn't simple, you have to control them so they do not automatically go off at any sign of smoke - risk millions in damage in a office tower block if someone burns their toast. yet on the other hand they have to be fitted in office, i dont know why not residential and no one seems to be explaining why (without reverting to political blame). maybe its because its expected that by the time they are in use, the fire brigade should be on site?

.

I think you need a new building manager. As Boyd 9d explained, sprinkles are only activated by a rise in temperature. Not enough heat, no sprinkler activation - and despite the Hollywood adverts, each sprinkler needs to be raised to it's activation temperature. It is simply not the case that because one activates, they all do.

colinz · Jun 28, 2017

One of the points raised in the, "there should have been sprinklers installed" is the fact that it would have only cost 200K. I'm sure it would have been a lot more. Unless sprinklers were only installed in the stairwell.

neilbard · Jun 30, 2017

[Tweet]880643795863437316[/Tweet]

Psychobilly freakout · Jun 30, 2017

colinz said:
One of the points raised in the, "there should have been sprinklers installed" is the fact that it would have only cost 200K. I'm sure it would have been a lot more. Unless sprinklers were only installed in the stairwell.

This may sound bad but 200k on sprinklers, then 300k saving on the different cladding all adds up to a project going ahead, take into account that sometimes when the choices are put to residents they would prefer that if a block was being renovated residents have been known to prefer that money was spent internally to their properties with updated kitchens, bathrooms, decorations etc....

It is ultimately about budgets being cut across the board for local councils who then have to find savings, while at the same time providing/updating services and properties a very tall order especially in one of the most expensive cities in the country.

The new requirements and repercussions from this terrible accident (that is what it is, all accidents are avoidable and no one on gods green earth wanted this to happen - NO ONE tory or labour whoever) will be far reaching and extremely expensive and will further more eat into council budgets who will then have to make further savings elsewhere be it in the local park or youth centre or building due for renovations.

I would propose we cut immediately cut large funding we give to foreign aid to countries that do not need such as these last year.

Pakistan £374 million
Ethiopia £339 million
Afghanistan £300 million
Nigeria £ 263 million
Syria £258 million !!!

Bold Seagull · Jun 30, 2017

Psychobilly freakout said:
Pakistan £374 million
Ethiopia £339 million
Afghanistan £300 million
Nigeria £ 263 million
Syria £258 million !!!

In our brave new brexit world, these are investments in potentially new markets. If you consider India where some of our foreign aid has gone over the years, post brexit it is thought we might have an extra £2bn worth of trade seeing our exports rise to over £6bn - that is not bad for foreign aid investment in helping a developing nation which is rapidly growing – and that is just the economic benefits. In establishing a stronger economy for them, you also cut migration from that economy.

If we can give £1.5bn to NI to secure a government, we can help developing nations. Consider the cost of asylum, immigration etc. and you are investing in these countries to develop their own economies, economies that we want to provide goods or services to and trade with.

Take that a step forward post brexit, and you have to sit at the negotiation table with someone of the world's biggest economies, and they're not seeing any commitment from you in world affairs, the world economy - its not a good place to start cutting foreign aid.

This is quite cynical, because you are helping real people, but it is shortsighted not to see there is huge benefit to the UK for doing this.

Psychobilly freakout · Jun 30, 2017

Bold Seagull said:
In our brave new brexit world, these are investments in potentially new markets. If you consider India where some of our foreign aid has gone over the years, post brexit it is thought we might have an extra £2bn worth of trade seeing our exports rise to over £6bn - that is not bad for foreign aid investment in helping a developing nation which is rapidly growing – and that is just the economic benefits. In establishing a stronger economy for them, you also cut migration from that economy.

If we can give £1.5bn to NI to secure a government, we can help developing nations. Consider the cost of asylum, immigration etc. and you are investing in these countries to develop their own economies, economies that we want to provide goods or services to and trade with.

Take that a step forward post brexit, and you have to sit at the negotiation table with someone of the world's biggest economies, and they're not seeing any commitment from you in world affairs, the world economy - its not a good place to start cutting foreign aid.

This is quite cynical, because you are helping real people, but it is shortsighted not to see there is huge benefit to the UK for doing this.

Point taken and a very valid one, however there are some that I do not understand such as Syria and money to S Arabia these countries should not be receiving any aid. I know what you are going to say in terms of arms deals and oil.

Do these deals far out way and make the aid profitable to us the "normal people" or just the elite making money from the deals, and that aid could be spent on this country instead of cutting budgets. genuine question no malice or argument sort, just a friendly debate

Bold Seagull · Jun 30, 2017

Psychobilly freakout said:
Point taken and a very valid one, however there are some that I do not understand such as Syria and money to S Arabia these countries should not be receiving any aid. I know what you are going to say in terms of arms deals and oil.

Do these deals far out way and make the aid profitable to us the "normal people" or just the elite making money from the deals, and that aid could be spent on this country instead of cutting budgets. genuine question no malice or argument sort, just a friendly debate

I gave a fairly cynical explanation of the benefit you can take from what is charity, through looking at the economic payback. Big business does it all the time, they'll see charitable work as enhancing their brand and adding brand value, but of course it is also helping the charities they support. The principle benefit of foreign aid is helping the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world, whether through vaccinations, health aid, simply setting up a clean water supply. Things like eradicating disease from the entire planet should be a goal of humanity. Some of the money is actually paid to UK companies who provide the consultancy, supply the drugs etc. I think it is an incredibly complex area, because like you said, where is that all going, is it lining the pockets of people it shouldn't, are people here losing out, so it is an area that looks like big sums, but is 0.7% of our total tax revenue a fair enough gesture as one the world's strongest economies? Is it a moral responsibility that while making billion dollar trade deals around the world, we have to be helping the poorest? Who gets it and why, again, I honestly don't know enough to know how that is established, it would seem pretty abhorrent to be doing massive arms deals with S.Arabia, and giving them aid.

symyjym · Jun 30, 2017

neilbard said:
[Tweet]880643795863437316[/Tweet]

There was always going to be one or a few taking advantage of this. Some residents are claiming up to 500 are dead or missing so if you can hide your wife and kids you could be on to a very big payout. There are probably quite a few scams possible in this.

surrey jim · Jun 30, 2017

Since the tragedy there has been a lot of talk of the cladding etc which caused the fire to spread, however not so much of the fridge/freezer which initially caused the fire. Have the models been recalled? / is there any safety concerns over these?

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

Massive fire in London - Grenfell Tower in Shepherds Bush

HellBilly

Well-known member

The voice of reason.

Silly old bat

Banned

HellBilly

HellBilly

Banned

Hedging up

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Hedging up

HellBilly

strong and stable with me, or...

HellBilly

strong and stable with me, or...

Banned

Not in Surrey

Share this page