Barwell doesn't seem keen to answer questions as to if he suppressed a fire report when Housing Minister
[TWEET]875622281774473216[/TWEET]
[TWEET]875622281774473216[/TWEET]
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Massive fire in London - Grenfell Tower in Shepherds Bush
- Thread starter Dick Head
- Start date
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,329
i gather the "stay put " advise is based on the principle that you're in more danger in the stairwell from smoke and moving fire, while the fire brigade expect to get to the fire and put it out or get to you before it does. which works if the fire moves slowly, so the main protection in tall buildings is fireproofing between walls, floors and doors. though i wonder how many people prop open a fire door for convenience (answer, we all do it, though i take great issue when i see a fire extinguisher being used to prop
)what if he's right though?
Most large buildings are separated into zones that are protected from fire. As long as you are not in the zone that's on fire the best advice is normally to stay put. However in this case the fire bypassed this protection by spreading up the outside of the building and entering through windows. In that situation you need to get out as quickly as you can. You're better off taking a risk and making a run for it through the smoke and flames than waiting around for the fire to get to you. Which it will.
symyjym
Banned
So what is coming out is that the cladding type used is illegal to install above four stories in the US, and the cladding recommended for high rise would have only been an added cost of £5000 on the £10m total refit.
Cost of refurb of Buckingham Palace to the taxpayer?
You lefties are all the same. There's not a magic money tree. And before you start going on about things such as the recent £130 million cost to the public purse of the election last week, remember we now have a strong and stable government, so it was money well spent.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,329
the data specs for the cladding say that its specifically suitable for stories above 18m, about 4/5 stories. it also seems unlikely a product switch would be made for £5k saving on a £2.6m job (the value of the cladding contract). so i'd suggest being very careful about some of the information.
if you're reading the Indi article, there looks like a significant difference in the material, citing polythene rather than polyisocyanurate. it may be that the US has prohibited similar type of cladding? or that journalists are finding different bits of info that aren't all correct.
Last edited:
portlock seagull
Why? Why us?
- Jul 28, 2003
- 17,190
The real issue here is the hugh gap in equality and wealth, not just here but across the world some of which tragically caused lots of the victims to seek a better life here in the UK. It will never narrow, not before things become extremely violent anyway. Check your history books over the weekend, it's how we're programmed as a species. Millions of us don't give a feck about our fellow men and women. We all want a bit more than our neighbours, many want a lot more! And we justify this through our choice of work, career, spending etc. What if you had no choice though? Weren't born into certain advantages, everything from your basic biology to postcode you're brought up in? When this imbalance between the haves and have nots, who are always in the majority, becomes too big then it spills over into civil disorder and breakdown triggered by events just such as this. I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen over course of this weekend, akin to Croydon and other riots in 2011. There are enormous splits in this country right now and a real sense of anger.
symyjym
Banned
I get your point. This was from the Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...inquiry-latest-reynobond-london-a7792781.html
portlock seagull
Why? Why us?
- Jul 28, 2003
- 17,190
And that's why we need a full public inquiry to go into every aspect of the reasons why this fire was so quick to spread.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it? With c£10m spent on this building recently, it doesn't sound as though scrimping has taken place, but I say that as a complete layman.
It's difficult to try and not point the finger immediately following tragedies such as this, but it's clearly concerning to read that governments as far back as 1999 were given warnings about this:
Glyn Evans from the Fire Brigades Union told a Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs "we do not really recognise the problem of vertical envelopment. If you get multistorey buildings you will get fire spread up the outside if the cladding will permit it."
- Thread starter
- #273
I realise that. Do you realise that means they got it done even more on the cheap?
Hillian1
( . ) ( . )
So when I stated Insulation, I was right, or more accurately the bloke on TV was.
pb21
Well-known member
- Apr 23, 2010
- 6,335
If a company thought a product was suitable and would save them £5k then they would go for the cheaper product.
It will depend on whether this product was believed to be and is accepted as suitable and fit for purpose; which it now appears clearly not be.
Hillian1
( . ) ( . )
Just a thought: Could it be that the company who actually made the cladding was and not the company who fitted it be at fault here?
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
There could be a whole host of possibilities regarding specification, certification, implementation, on-site quality control and inspections, existing cladding and materials, testing conditions etc. Very early to be speculating I feel on where the fault lies with the cladding.
Tooting Gull
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,033
This is going to be one of the biggest, and most significant game-changing public inquiries we've had in years if it is done properly. I reckon most of us could come up with about 100 questions that need asking/answering for it - and that's as non-experts.
It's hard to recall a tragedy that was so accurately predicted and you suspect that a lot of people in authority will not be sleeping well at the moment.
It's hard to recall a tragedy that was so accurately predicted and you suspect that a lot of people in authority will not be sleeping well at the moment.
Its naïve to think like that though, I'm afraid.
To explain (apologies for massively simplifying):
1. The client wants a big construction job done. They write a specification of what is required (more accurately, pay someone else to write a spec). Various experts and consultants may have input into the spec. Various organisations and suppliers will happily provide free 'consultancy' that leans towards their preferred products being specified. Once your product is specified, the final contractor HAS to buy from you.
2. The client, invites main contractors to tender for the job of delivering the agreed specification. Most tender processes will lay out the criteria for choosing the successful bidder. 'Value' (ie price) is normally the highest weighted of the criteria. Other criteria will include experience in similar projects, quality of products, etc.
3. The company that wins the contract, undertakes to deliver the spec, in return for their quoted sum (lets say for example, £10m)
4. That Main Contractor may do some work themselves. Some main contractors these days (Wilmot Dixon, for example) don't really do any. They split the job up into smaller contracts, and invite sub-contractors to tender for those. (For example the cladding contract at Grenfell). Once again the tender process will 'weight' different criteria, to choose a winning bidder. I've personally worked on tenders for council projects (Leisure Centres) where the 'Value' is stated as the ONLY criteria. The companies tendering against those smaller contracts will each be working to an agreed spec, but each will want to strike a balance between winning the contract (so quoting as low as possible) whilst still making profit (keep costs as low as possible).
5. The subcontractor will then try to buy products to complete the job at lowest cost to themselves, without falling below the agreed specification. If there is any ambiguity in the spec they WILL seek to exploit it, by using materials / products that meet the wording rather than the spirit of that spec. We see this on a weekly basis in our industry.
Final point - a lot has been made of this '£5,000 saving' - suggestions that there's no way the compromise would be made over such a small figure. It might. Main contractors work to insanely small margins (sometimes as low as 2.5%). They will ALWAYS use the lowest price option that meets the spec.
symyjym
Banned
No it doesn't sound like scrimping, it's a failure on several levels. From what I understand about Brighton Council they will nitpick every aspect of a development and this is the sort of thing I am sure they would have spotted. The developer and council would be working very close with each other on large contracts like this. More than one person hasn't paid attention to a very important detail.
If it wasn't for the cladding the flats were probably very safe and didn't need sprinkler systems other than for piece of mind.