Been watching BBC's coverage of the horrible fire that engulfs a 24-storey apartment building in West London, some 120 flats. It started at 12:55 am today. So awful. And, so sad.
Last edited:
-
CONTACT US if you have any problems registering for the forums.
London Fire
- Thread starter JustTravel
- Start date
Sojourner
10+ Posts
The question I will be looking to hear the answer to is how it spread so fast and who is going to be held accountable for it. From what I understand, it took almost no time at all for the entire building to be engulfed. That is not normal and there has to be some reason why it happened. Someone cut a corner somewhere.
Pauline
Forums Admin
From what I read here, the building was built by the council in the 70s but remodelled a year or two ago. The fire spread very quickly on the outside because of the cladding that had been added. I think many corners were cut. The residents association had asked the council to do a review of the fire safety for the building because they were concerned, but the council did not do a review. Another horrible tragedy after a series of other horrible tragedies here in recent months.
Ian Sutton
1000+ Posts
Whilst there has been speculation, the BBC noted that a large number of experts refused to give an opinion until more was known. Perhaps wise if they have to give expert evidence in court, as one assumes will happen.
A truly horrific event and it's not just the increasing death toll, but the awfulness of what they went through.
A truly horrific event and it's not just the increasing death toll, but the awfulness of what they went through.
Sojourner
10+ Posts
No doubt, the investigation will show what is all too common, everyone involved was in part to blame.
Much like this tragedy: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbu...s-down-to-human-failure-report-says-1.2799021
Much like this tragedy: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbu...s-down-to-human-failure-report-says-1.2799021
Rome Addict
100+ Posts
Screw up of immense proportion. Fire extinguishers were installed and then taken out because people were using them to prop open stairwells. Alarms failed to go off for 20 minutes after fire started. Many people claim They NEVER heard fire alarms. People were told STAY in your unit. Have we heard that before? They spent millions upgrading the exterior but did not install sprinklers. A spectacular example of bureaucracy at its worst.
Ian Sutton
1000+ Posts
Definitely wanting to stay apolitical on this, but the following article talks about what the all-party committee (of MPs) wrote to the government ministers about. The 2015 letter explicitly discusses flammable materials used in cladding
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40330789
Could I ask that we tread gently around the politics if discussing the above link. I don't want to lead someone astray into breaking the forum rules on politics
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40330789
Could I ask that we tread gently around the politics if discussing the above link. I don't want to lead someone astray into breaking the forum rules on politics
Rome Addict
100+ Posts
I hope I wasn't being too political just amazed that the system can elect a Prime Minister and 15 days later they can be what would you call it? Fired? Impeached?
Actually I am envious. Sinecure has not turned out so well! For the US.
Actually I am envious. Sinecure has not turned out so well! For the US.
Ian Sutton
1000+ Posts
Hi Rome Addict
No, no offence taken at all- it's just that the link I added is just the sort of thing that can move conversation to a party political (and hence awfully dull & obnoxious) game of ping pong
regards
Ian
No, no offence taken at all
- it's just that the link I added is just the sort of thing that can move conversation to a party political (and hence awfully dull & obnoxious) game of ping pong regards
Ian
Ian Sutton
1000+ Posts
Yes it is different to Presidential positions, where people vote for the individual. Here it is for your MP, and they together establish the PM (typically the leader of the party with the most votes). However the Conservatives could oust Theresa May tomorrow and replace her with Boris Johnson or Kenneth Clarke, or any of their MPs. That is indeed how Theresa May came to be PM, when David Cameron resigned after the Brexit vote.
There is certainly merit in the Presidential model, in that you vote for the person who is on charge and can reasonably expect them to stick to their principles. If Theresa May is forced out, it is likely to trigger significant policy change, as either a pre-election appeal to voters, or because power has shifted in the party. The downside is that a President elected without having the same support in the other houses, can easily lead to stalemate and little change achieved (though one wonders whether this is actually seen as a positive by the electorate!)
There is certainly merit in the Presidential model, in that you vote for the person who is on charge and can reasonably expect them to stick to their principles. If Theresa May is forced out, it is likely to trigger significant policy change, as either a pre-election appeal to voters, or because power has shifted in the party. The downside is that a President elected without having the same support in the other houses, can easily lead to stalemate and little change achieved (though one wonders whether this is actually seen as a positive by the electorate!)
Sojourner
10+ Posts
Sometimes the way the BBC reports things really annoys me. They have this habit of using the terms, UK, Britain, England when it suits them.
What I mean is, with this fire they are currently referring to buildings in the UK. Well, all the buildings found to have this type of cladding are in England so far. There are none in Scotland and I don't know about Wales or N. Ireland. So why don't they say, 'in England'?
Why does it matter you ask. Well, they are making it sound like it is everywhere when it is not and if I were an Englishman, I would be asking why is it here but not in Scotland? But first I would have to know to ask that question.
The BBC is notorious for being selective in what term they use. When Andrew Murray wins a golf tournament, he is referred to as a Brit, not a Scot. ie. 'Britain's Andrew Murray won the X Open Golf Tournament yesterday.' They same applies in all areas such as the Olympics etc. When an English person wins something, they are referred to as 'England's Joe Blow won Olympic Gold today.'
It isn't hard to see why so many Scots voted to leave the UK in their last referendum.
Either everyone is a Brit or a Scot is a Scot and an English person is English. They shouldn't get to turn a Scot into a Brit when it suits them and refer to an English person as English rather than a Brit when it suits them to do that.
For anyone who thinks this is not intentional, think again. This issue has been a bone of contention with Scots for many decades, it is not possible that the BBC is not aware of it.
Regarding the fire, England has a problem, not the UK as a whole.
What I mean is, with this fire they are currently referring to buildings in the UK. Well, all the buildings found to have this type of cladding are in England so far. There are none in Scotland and I don't know about Wales or N. Ireland. So why don't they say, 'in England'?
Why does it matter you ask. Well, they are making it sound like it is everywhere when it is not and if I were an Englishman, I would be asking why is it here but not in Scotland? But first I would have to know to ask that question.
The BBC is notorious for being selective in what term they use. When Andrew Murray wins a golf tournament, he is referred to as a Brit, not a Scot. ie. 'Britain's Andrew Murray won the X Open Golf Tournament yesterday.' They same applies in all areas such as the Olympics etc. When an English person wins something, they are referred to as 'England's Joe Blow won Olympic Gold today.'
It isn't hard to see why so many Scots voted to leave the UK in their last referendum.
Either everyone is a Brit or a Scot is a Scot and an English person is English. They shouldn't get to turn a Scot into a Brit when it suits them and refer to an English person as English rather than a Brit when it suits them to do that.
For anyone who thinks this is not intentional, think again. This issue has been a bone of contention with Scots for many decades, it is not possible that the BBC is not aware of it.
Regarding the fire, England has a problem, not the UK as a whole.
Ian Sutton
1000+ Posts
Hi Sojourner
The only current article on the subject on the BBC site refers to just England, whilst separate stories have been posted on each of the other regional sub-sites saying they are not affected.
Whilst there is / has been bias, generally unintentional and/or lazy, this (the Grenfell fire) is not the subject to attempt to argue separate divisions.
The Andy Murray thing has been played out too much, with one-eyed opinions on either side. Whilst he himself said a couple of stupid things in his youth, there is no reason to hold that against him, because he's matured beyond that. There are extremely bigoted views on both sides of the England /Scotland rivalry and I've seen / experienced both. We don't have to perpetuate it.
There is bias in sport, and one or two commentators who I think do it rather too often (John Inverdale is IMO the poster boy for pro-England bias). However some of this is down to events which have multiple commentary streams, one for Scotland, one for Wales, one for England. Thus it may appear biased, but it's because the coverage is more focused on that country.
Cricket commentator Richie Benaud credits the BBC with a key instruction when learning his skills, that he should avoid any sense of bias in his commentary. It helped him become a legend of the sport (for the second time, he was a brilliant bowler for Australia as well). Where they've lost their way in recent years, is getting ex-pros into the commentary team without this level of / approach to the skills of the job. Rugby commentary suffered greatly, with the likes of Jonathan Davies (Wales), Matt Dawson (England), Andy Nichol (Scotland) each being guilty of commentating only on one of the sides. Of that era, only Keith Wood (Ireland) made a natural transition, with the ability to put past loyalties behind him and call the game as a whole.
regards
Ian
The only current article on the subject on the BBC site refers to just England, whilst separate stories have been posted on each of the other regional sub-sites saying they are not affected.
Whilst there is / has been bias, generally unintentional and/or lazy, this (the Grenfell fire) is not the subject to attempt to argue separate divisions.
The Andy Murray thing has been played out too much, with one-eyed opinions on either side. Whilst he himself said a couple of stupid things in his youth, there is no reason to hold that against him, because he's matured beyond that. There are extremely bigoted views on both sides of the England /Scotland rivalry and I've seen / experienced both. We don't have to perpetuate it.
There is bias in sport, and one or two commentators who I think do it rather too often (John Inverdale is IMO the poster boy for pro-England bias). However some of this is down to events which have multiple commentary streams, one for Scotland, one for Wales, one for England. Thus it may appear biased, but it's because the coverage is more focused on that country.
Cricket commentator Richie Benaud credits the BBC with a key instruction when learning his skills, that he should avoid any sense of bias in his commentary. It helped him become a legend of the sport (for the second time, he was a brilliant bowler for Australia as well). Where they've lost their way in recent years, is getting ex-pros into the commentary team without this level of / approach to the skills of the job. Rugby commentary suffered greatly, with the likes of Jonathan Davies (Wales), Matt Dawson (England), Andy Nichol (Scotland) each being guilty of commentating only on one of the sides. Of that era, only Keith Wood (Ireland) made a natural transition, with the ability to put past loyalties behind him and call the game as a whole.
regards
Ian
Rome Addict
100+ Posts
Today's London Times now reports that school buildings have been found to have the same cladding. Schools aren't 30 stories high but the idea that something that flammable is used in schools is horrifying.
Pauline
Forums Admin
This whole thing is horrifying. One council had people leave their homes at night because they declared the building not safe. Now they are in temporary accommodation until it is fixed.
The New York Times had a detailed article about this today.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/world/europe/grenfell-tower-london-fire.html
The New York Times had a detailed article about this today.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/world/europe/grenfell-tower-london-fire.html
Ian Sutton
1000+ Posts
Hi Pauline
Someone already tipped me off about that article. Well worth a read and we agreed it was a very thorough piece for a US newspaper to run. Lead story and 2 page spread inside. Thanks for posting the link here.
It does go further than the BBC online articles have so far, in apportioning blame. I've got my own feelings, but would want to rely on a thorough and honest enquiry to get to the bottom of the failings, which I hope is what will happen.
regards
Ian
Someone already tipped me off about that article. Well worth a read and we agreed it was a very thorough piece for a US newspaper to run. Lead story and 2 page spread inside. Thanks for posting the link here.
It does go further than the BBC online articles have so far, in apportioning blame. I've got my own feelings, but would want to rely on a thorough and honest enquiry to get to the bottom of the failings, which I hope is what will happen.
regards
Ian
Sojourner
10+ Posts
Umm, don't hold your breath Ian. While I agree with you that an enquiry should bring out the truth, look at the Hillsborough Stadium disaster of 1989. A cover up by those at the top that has taken 28 years to get justice seen to be done. I'm pretty cynical when it comes to expecting people in positions of power to be held accoutable for anything.
Ian Sutton
1000+ Posts
Cynicism is indeed warranted. There have certainly been concerns about the choice of ex-judge to head the enquiry, and he himself says its remit will disappoint those affected
i.e. he's hinting it will exclude how such dangerous materials were approved, which seems to be the bigger issue.
We'll see whether the charges stick iro Hillsborough. I think it will be a tough case to prove (Manslaughter by gross negligence) on Duckenfield. The others potentially much easier, effectively perverting the course of justice by colluding to amend witness statements. It is a disgrace it took this long.
i.e. he's hinting it will exclude how such dangerous materials were approved, which seems to be the bigger issue.
We'll see whether the charges stick iro Hillsborough. I think it will be a tough case to prove (Manslaughter by gross negligence) on Duckenfield. The others potentially much easier, effectively perverting the course of justice by colluding to amend witness statements. It is a disgrace it took this long.
Rome Addict
100+ Posts
Yesterday's papers state that charges are being brought against the council.