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

[JohnD]

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.

The only body who we know for sure had been warned of the danger, were the ministers with responsibility for fire safety via Building Regulations.

It is indeed very unsatisfactory, if not criminally negligent, that they failed to do the job they were paid for.

Perhaps it is pure chance that public discourse has been steered towards the fire service, and away from the Ministers who are truly responsible.

Or perhaps it's News Management.

 

[Bosswhite]

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.

The materials used complied with UK building regulations when fitted , the site was visited on ten occasions by building inspectors and certified the works ,
Building Regulations are "As is " there is no requirement to change the cladding once a better product comes along .

 

[JohnD]

The materials used complied with UK building regulations when fitted

And when it burned down.

So the building regulations were wrong.

The dangers were already known and had been repeatedly notified to the Ministers before the cladding was fixed. There had already been two fatal fires.

Had the English Ministers cared, they could have issued new guidance or regulations and the flammable cladding would not have been used.

 

[Bosswhite]

And when it burned down.

So the building regulations were wrong.

The dangers were already known and had been repeatedly notified to the Ministers before the cladding was fixed. There had already been two fatal fires.

Had the English Ministers cared, they could have issued new guidance or regulations and the flammable cladding would not have been used.

The building regulations were not wrong at the time

 

[JohnD]

The building regulations were not wrong at the time

So if the building regulations had said "blocks of flats can be insulated by tying plastic bottles of petrol to the outside" that would not have been "wrong?"

 

[breadnbutter]

The building regulations were not wrong at the time

they were wrong ,they needed updating.

 

[Bosswhite]

Building regulations are regulations if thats what they stated at the time thats how they would have been fitted .

 

[Bosswhite]

they were wrong ,they needed updating.

What about the thousands of other properties that had similar products fitted at the time , who is going to pay towards the replacement, I agree there will be many Landlords that will delve into their own pockets and pay for updated products but as legislation goes the "As Is Policy" remains there is no requirement to replace .

 

[SirGalahad]

Well there are two issues here.

1) Who decides on the regulations.

2) Enforcement of those regulations.

Were the regulations too lax as well as the enforcement regime?

 

[JohnD]

What about the thousands of other properties that had similar products fitted at the time

In the case of Grenfell, that point does not arise, because the cladding was applied after there had already been fatal fires arising from flammable cladding, and the Housing Ministers had been advised of the facts. My point is therefore that in the case of Grenfell, if the Housing Minister had cared enough, the regulations could have been altered early enough to prevent a recurrence.

He didn't.

 

[SirGalahad]

So thinking out of the box like all smart free marketeers what we need is less regulation. What's actually caused the tragic events is that the free market system was not working. Now we know that these kinds of cladding can cause huge fires, in future builders will be encouraged to use different material.

So we actually need more tradegies to contunue to inform the market what is safe and what is not = you cannot leave those decisions to bureaucracy.

 

[Notch7]

The point Rees Mogg was actually making:

'The dead people had no common sense'

Or: 'they died because they were stupid'

I heard firefighters on radio this morning saying that ignoring stayput advice would not necessarily have saved them -very early on, maybe. But the stairwells wouldve been full of fire equipment, it wouldve been dark etc.some of the people were disabled or had young children.

Rees Mogg did not alologise, note the inclusion of 'if'.

 

[breadnbutter]

What about the thousands of other properties that had similar products fitted at the time , who is going to pay towards the replacement

the government and local councils, should.
mogg talks about common sense, fitting anything remotely combustible on a high rise needs there head testing. building regs or not

 

[bernardgreen]

the government and local councils, should.

How about the manufacturers who sold a product that was not fit for purpose.

 

[JohnD]

1) what are the purposes of building regulations

2) who is responsible for revising and issuing them.