Rees Mogg - Grenfell victims who followed Fire Service advice lacked common sense

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Smogg truly is a nasty piece of work...

But then of course he lives in an Ivory Tower!
 
Most of the residents will have had no idea of the wider situation, so we're totally reliant on those who were expected to.

Or, in short, Smogg is a monumental bell hend :LOL:
 
So are we supposed to follow the advice of the emergency services?


As I'm sure Smogg would agree, you only make that decision after the event.

Anyway, it's extremely important to keep the public discussion targetted on the Fire Service, and not to mention the FOUR housing ministers, responsible for Building Regulations, who were warned of this risk after a similar fatal fire in 2009, and who ignored it.
 
Sponsored Links
and not to mention the FOUR housing ministers, responsible for Building Regulations,

and the manufacturers of the cladding, or the manufaturers of the new "improved" windows which melted and allowed the external fire to enter the flats.
 
I see you want to divert attention from the ministers responsible for Building Regulations, who did nothing, despite repeated warnings following the 2009 Lakenal fire.

Do you have an opinion, on who is the person responsible for official regulations to prevent homes being turned into Roman Candles by encasing them in flammable material?

Do you think that there is nobody with such a responsibility?
 
"In 1999 external cladding was blamed when a fire at Garnock Court in Irvine spread to other floors, claiming the life of a disabled man. A committee of MPs probed the blaze and set down new safety standards.

Mr Gibb said: “After that fire a report was published by a government committee that advised the use of entirely non-combustible materials for cladding of towers should be required. The report said ‘we do not believe it should take a serious fire in which many people are killed…’

“In Scotland, the advice was heeded and regulations were updated to ensure cladding was non-combustible. In England, the advice was ignored.”

Six people died in Camberwell, London, in 2009 in a fire involving combustible cladding.

Mr Gibb said: “The coroner’s court made recommendations and over the following four years representations were made to upgrade the regulations. However, with the Tory bonfire of regulation and red tape in play, this was not possible because all regulations supporting health and safety have been seen as an albatross around the neck of British businesses.”"


https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/archi...er-18-years-before-tragedy-but-failed-to-act/
 
"The government was warned ... about the risks of Grenfell-style cladding but did not act, it has emerged

Minutes from a meeting of the Centre for Window and Cladding Technology’s fire group in July 2014 show that civil servants responsible for health and safety were alerted of the risk to high-rise buildings from aluminium and polyethylene cladding."


https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk...-type-cladding-was-dangerous/10033893.article

"This type of cladding, known as ACM, was fitted to Grenfell during refurbishment works on the tower completed in 2016.

The minutes, released under FOI to Inside Housing, show that Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) officials were warned that the government’s building regulation guidance was ’not clear’ in banning its use.

They were told: ’There have been major fires in buildings in various parts of the world where ACM materials have been used for the cladding with the ACM responsible for the external fire spread."
 
The type of cladding Reynobond PE was banned in Germany on High Rise buildings in the 1980`s
 
Most of the residents will have had no idea of the wider situation, so we're totally reliant on those who were expected to.

Or, in short, Smogg is a monumental bell hend :LOL:
In Latin - Bell Finis Mogg likes Latin FFS
 
I see you want to divert attention from the ministers responsible for Building Regulations,

No that is NOT my intention. They and the manufacturers are both to blame. The manufacturers knew there was a risk but continued to market the cladding system. It is not impossible that the manufacturer's product information was "less than complete" in respect of how th product would behave if there was an ignition source.

It is a pity that the report on the Fire Brigade response was published before the full report on the cladding was completed and published. I am sure that if the Fire Brigade had been made aware that windows in the building were no longer fire resistant and the compartmental integrity was lost then the decision to evacuate instead of stay would have been made after the first couple of 999 calls. Put simply the Fire Brigade were apparently un-aware that the building's original safe construction ( as built ) had been altered so much as to make it so dangerous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top