FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

5 Tower blocks evacuated in north london

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

The council are evacuating 5 tower blocks. Do you think it's the right thing to do....or is it shutting the stable door?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Imagine if there was another fire. Lord knows where they'll put 4,000 people.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rightonsteveMan
over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

Better late than never

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum

Its the tip of the iceberg. The councils are sending letters out to all people living in high rise flats and will be testing them in the future. They wouldn't have done it if they didn't think there might be a problem.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

Given what they now know they have little real choice..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ethically you would want to get people out of danger.

If they know that it is dangerous, they could be sued. They are public servants they are legally obliged to.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

My fear would be that Grenfell Tower was a tragic accident, but may be giving terrorists some new ideas regarding possible targets... evacuation until the buildings can be made safe/safer seems a prudent move to me

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"My fear would be that Grenfell Tower was a tragic accident, but may be giving terrorists some new ideas regarding possible targets... evacuation until the buildings can be made safe/safer seems a prudent move to me "

That was almost the words I spoke to my daughter yesterday

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"The council are evacuating 5 tower blocks. Do you think it's the right thing to do....or is it shutting the stable door?"

how is reacting to a disaster and hopefully preventing more shutting the stable door??

Would you rather they kept them in potentially unsafe housing?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral


"The council are evacuating 5 tower blocks. Do you think it's the right thing to do....or is it shutting the stable door?

how is reacting to a disaster and hopefully preventing more shutting the stable door??

Would you rather they kept them in potentially unsafe housing?"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"The council are evacuating 5 tower blocks. Do you think it's the right thing to do....or is it shutting the stable door?

how is reacting to a disaster and hopefully preventing more shutting the stable door??

Would you rather they kept them in potentially unsafe housing?"

Did I say that? No! I was asking the question that the tenants of these tower blocks were saying

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"The council are evacuating 5 tower blocks. Do you think it's the right thing to do....or is it shutting the stable door?

how is reacting to a disaster and hopefully preventing more shutting the stable door??

Would you rather they kept them in potentially unsafe housing?

Did I say that? No! I was asking the question that the tenants of these tower blocks were saying "

then i don't get the question....the place they were living in is potentially dangerous and you are asking if it is the right thing to evacuate them? (i see your and raise you a )

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham

iam still not understanding where the stable door comes into it....it is pure luck that none of the other buildings fitted with the cladding that has now been found to be non fire resistant have not gone up in flames.

It would be interesting to see their fire history since having it installed and how it differs from Grenfell. Also what other fire safety measure they have in place.

Grenfell didnt have sprinklers as it was not a requirement in law to retro fit them. if they are newer blocks it is possible that they had them installed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"The council are evacuating 5 tower blocks. Do you think it's the right thing to do....or is it shutting the stable door?

how is reacting to a disaster and hopefully preventing more shutting the stable door??

Would you rather they kept them in potentially unsafe housing?

Did I say that? No! I was asking the question that the tenants of these tower blocks were saying

then i don't get the question....the place they were living in is potentially dangerous and you are asking if it is the right thing to evacuate them? (i see your and raise you a )"

If you look up at the post above your first post....you will see my view!

By asking the question....is that not what the forums are for...or should I answer it myself?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The reality that the tower incident has occurred is astonishing to me.

Considering we have had tower buildings and sky scrapers for so many years the emergency evacuation plan as well as hazard risk assessment should have prevented this incident from escalating to such horrific level.

We have the civil contingencies act 2004, for a reason. So any infrastructure of such scale should be bound to pass some kind of safety tests yet alas a tragedy has occurred.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Knee jerk reaction. It appears there is loads of tower blocks across the country that are unsafe but have been for a number of years. The chances of a second one happening soon are very slim. But there is still a chance. Evacuating the buildings over a small chance of a fire (if that is why they are evacuated of course) won't solve the risk of a fire that has been there for years.

In my opinion something could have been done long ago. My parents both rent houses out and to do so, have to make sure it's upto safety standards which includes fire and carbon monoxide detector or they could be in a lot of trouble. According to the residents of a 500+ occupied towerblock, no alarms sounded at all and they had no fire escape training or instructions. A fair few people should go to jail for it and none of this "so and so has quit his/her job" bullshit just to avoid jail

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"iam still not understanding where the stable door comes into it....it is pure luck that none of the other buildings fitted with the cladding that has now been found to be non fire resistant have not gone up in flames.

It would be interesting to see their fire history since having it installed and how it differs from Grenfell. Also what other fire safety measure they have in place.

Grenfell didnt have sprinklers as it was not a requirement in law to retro fit them. if they are newer blocks it is possible that they had them installed."

The stable door came into it as that was the views of some of the people getting evacuated....I didn't agree with it but these are the people effected...not you or I.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"The council are evacuating 5 tower blocks. Do you think it's the right thing to do....or is it shutting the stable door?

how is reacting to a disaster and hopefully preventing more shutting the stable door??

Would you rather they kept them in potentially unsafe housing?

Did I say that? No! I was asking the question that the tenants of these tower blocks were saying

then i don't get the question....the place they were living in is potentially dangerous and you are asking if it is the right thing to evacuate them? (i see your and raise you a )

If you look up at the post above your first post....you will see my view!

By asking the question....is that not what the forums are for...or should I answer it myself? "

you are quite defensive aren't you! i haven't said you cannot ask a question or that you should answer it yourself but similarly i am entitled to question your question, especially when it doesn't make sense!

I don't see the potential terror threat as the major issue...other than the twin towers, what high rise buildings have been targeted in the name of terrorism?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum


"My fear would be that Grenfell Tower was a tragic accident, but may be giving terrorists some new ideas regarding possible targets... evacuation until the buildings can be made safe/safer seems a prudent move to me "

I doubt that would be something to worry about. Why bother, when dodgy building contracts and cost-cutting can do more damage than one person?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"The council are evacuating 5 tower blocks. Do you think it's the right thing to do....or is it shutting the stable door?

how is reacting to a disaster and hopefully preventing more shutting the stable door??

Would you rather they kept them in potentially unsafe housing?

Did I say that? No! I was asking the question that the tenants of these tower blocks were saying

then i don't get the question....the place they were living in is potentially dangerous and you are asking if it is the right thing to evacuate them? (i see your and raise you a )

If you look up at the post above your first post....you will see my view!

By asking the question....is that not what the forums are for...or should I answer it myself?

you are quite defensive aren't you! i haven't said you cannot ask a question or that you should answer it yourself but similarly i am entitled to question your question, especially when it doesn't make sense!

I don't see the potential terror threat as the major issue...other than the twin towers, what high rise buildings have been targeted in the name of terrorism?"

Ok so they haven't yet....why? I think no terrorist had a inclining of the mass killing that this insulation could cause.

But they do now!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The council are evacuating 5 tower blocks. Do you think it's the right thing to do....or is it shutting the stable door?

how is reacting to a disaster and hopefully preventing more shutting the stable door??

Would you rather they kept them in potentially unsafe housing?

Did I say that? No! I was asking the question that the tenants of these tower blocks were saying

then i don't get the question....the place they were living in is potentially dangerous and you are asking if it is the right thing to evacuate them? (i see your and raise you a )

If you look up at the post above your first post....you will see my view!

By asking the question....is that not what the forums are for...or should I answer it myself?

you are quite defensive aren't you! i haven't said you cannot ask a question or that you should answer it yourself but similarly i am entitled to question your question, especially when it doesn't make sense!

I don't see the potential terror threat as the major issue...other than the twin towers, what high rise buildings have been targeted in the name of terrorism?"

thats a stupid question. I could ask you, how many high rise buildings were targeted before high rise buildings were targeted? How many music concerts were targeted before music concerts were targeted? How many pedestrians were targeted by van driving terrorists before pedestrians were targeted by van driving terrorists? See what I mean? Terrorists change their tactics. in this day an age, being worried about a terrorist changing their tactic to an unfortunatly effective way of causing potentional terrorism does make sense

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The council are evacuating 5 tower blocks. Do you think it's the right thing to do....or is it shutting the stable door?

how is reacting to a disaster and hopefully preventing more shutting the stable door??

Would you rather they kept them in potentially unsafe housing?

Did I say that? No! I was asking the question that the tenants of these tower blocks were saying

then i don't get the question....the place they were living in is potentially dangerous and you are asking if it is the right thing to evacuate them? (i see your and raise you a )

If you look up at the post above your first post....you will see my view!

By asking the question....is that not what the forums are for...or should I answer it myself? "

I get the query on phrasing. I think the question residents in Camden are asking is whether it's an overreaction or knee jerk to proactively evacuate not that it's shutting the stable door, that doesn't make sense.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"The council are evacuating 5 tower blocks. Do you think it's the right thing to do....or is it shutting the stable door?

how is reacting to a disaster and hopefully preventing more shutting the stable door??

Would you rather they kept them in potentially unsafe housing?

Did I say that? No! I was asking the question that the tenants of these tower blocks were saying

then i don't get the question....the place they were living in is potentially dangerous and you are asking if it is the right thing to evacuate them? (i see your and raise you a )

If you look up at the post above your first post....you will see my view!

By asking the question....is that not what the forums are for...or should I answer it myself?

you are quite defensive aren't you! i haven't said you cannot ask a question or that you should answer it yourself but similarly i am entitled to question your question, especially when it doesn't make sense!

I don't see the potential terror threat as the major issue...other than the twin towers, what high rise buildings have been targeted in the name of terrorism?

thats a stupid question. I could ask you, how many high rise buildings were targeted before high rise buildings were targeted? How many music concerts were targeted before music concerts were targeted? How many pedestrians were targeted by van driving terrorists before pedestrians were targeted by van driving terrorists? See what I mean? Terrorists change their tactics. in this day an age, being worried about a terrorist changing their tactic to an unfortunatly effective way of causing potentional terrorism does make sense "

now now....didnt your teachers ever tell you there are no stupid questions!!

i get your point in that they change their tactics from time to time but i still dont think that the threat of terrorists starting fires in tower blocks is that high.

i do think that the response is potentially knee jerk but like i said, further information on fire safety measures in the evacuated blocks is needed to be able to understand why they have taken this action.

Also,where are they going to house them all? housing in London is like rocking horse shit as it is!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I bought a couple of fire extinguishers a few years back (for different types of fire) - live in a bungalow - I thought it pretty sensible to have the means to put a fire out if one started. Now, if every household took it upon themselves to have a fire extinguisher in their own property - the vast majority of fires could be dealt with swiftly and effectively and prevent any spread. My firemen mate reckons that is the answer - and he's pretty sure the fridge fire would have been put out and Grenfell might never have happened.

Just a thought - we all get fire alarms - which is great - but nowt to put out the fire.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The council are evacuating 5 tower blocks. Do you think it's the right thing to do....or is it shutting the stable door?

how is reacting to a disaster and hopefully preventing more shutting the stable door??

Would you rather they kept them in potentially unsafe housing?

Did I say that? No! I was asking the question that the tenants of these tower blocks were saying

then i don't get the question....the place they were living in is potentially dangerous and you are asking if it is the right thing to evacuate them? (i see your and raise you a )

If you look up at the post above your first post....you will see my view!

By asking the question....is that not what the forums are for...or should I answer it myself?

you are quite defensive aren't you! i haven't said you cannot ask a question or that you should answer it yourself but similarly i am entitled to question your question, especially when it doesn't make sense!

I don't see the potential terror threat as the major issue...other than the twin towers, what high rise buildings have been targeted in the name of terrorism?

thats a stupid question. I could ask you, how many high rise buildings were targeted before high rise buildings were targeted? How many music concerts were targeted before music concerts were targeted? How many pedestrians were targeted by van driving terrorists before pedestrians were targeted by van driving terrorists? See what I mean? Terrorists change their tactics. in this day an age, being worried about a terrorist changing their tactic to an unfortunatly effective way of causing potentional terrorism does make sense

now now....didnt your teachers ever tell you there are no stupid questions!!

i get your point in that they change their tactics from time to time but i still dont think that the threat of terrorists starting fires in tower blocks is that high.

i do think that the response is potentially knee jerk but like i said, further information on fire safety measures in the evacuated blocks is needed to be able to understand why they have taken this action.

Also,where are they going to house them all? housing in London is like rocking horse shit as it is!"

I agree, I said myself it's knee jerk, for the next couple of weeks the councils will be trying to look like their working hard to ensure this doesn't happen again until it dies down

And no, because there are stupid questions, hence why the phrase "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" exists

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *yldstyleWoman
over a year ago

A world of my own

I don't think evacuating people from unsafe buildings has anything to do with terrorists. Its just the right thing to do. Landlords have a moral responsibility and legal obligations to maintain properties in line with building regulations and safety acts.

Sadly in this case those responsibilities were not met. They must now do all that is required to avoid a repeat of this horrific incident.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"I bought a couple of fire extinguishers a few years back (for different types of fire) - live in a bungalow - I thought it pretty sensible to have the means to put a fire out if one started. Now, if every household took it upon themselves to have a fire extinguisher in their own property - the vast majority of fires could be dealt with swiftly and effectively and prevent any spread. My firemen mate reckons that is the answer - and he's pretty sure the fridge fire would have been put out and Grenfell might never have happened.

Just a thought - we all get fire alarms - which is great - but nowt to put out the fire."

agree to a point that if someone is present and can make a quick attempt in the early stages before it develops , but have also seen it whereby because of maybe embarrassment they don't call it in or not understanding the speed a fire can develop people get in too deep and it gets out of control then they are in trouble..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If it stops something like this happening again then they need to do what they need to do to ensure that it doesn't happen.

Yes it'll be expensive, yes it'll inconvenience some people, yes it'll be a logistical nightmare, but the alternative is too unbearable to think about.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

the reason it camdens tower blocks is the fire service have deemed them unsafe and the same contractor fitted the same cladding on the tower blocks in camden

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I have been reading the reports of evacuations with many people protesting, saying they have been living with the cladding for ten years without incident. I think each and every resident should be given the choice, move out while the issue is fixed and deal with the inconvenience as a necessary evil. Or stay while it is fixed and accept any consequences. Seems right now the councils can't do right for doing wrong

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *arry247Couple
over a year ago

Wakefield


"

It would be interesting to see their fire history since having it installed and how it differs from Grenfell. Also what other fire safety measure they have in place.

Grenfell didnt have sprinklers as it was not a requirement in law to retro fit them. if they are newer blocks it is possible that they had them installed."

Sprinklers might have caused more deaths and in the Grenfell case it is doubtful if they would have helped as the main fire was outside the building and would not have been in range of a sprinkler system.

The problem is not just the fire but the fumes produced by the fire. Sprinklers could cause the fumes like the cyanide produced to drop lower in the room rather than be sucked out of the building by the heat this could cause more death.

More modern buildings would have a system that had both sprinklers and smoke vents to clear the smoke inside the building, but that is complicated and expensive

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"My fear would be that Grenfell Tower was a tragic accident, but may be giving terrorists some new ideas regarding possible targets... evacuation until the buildings can be made safe/safer seems a prudent move to me

I doubt that would be something to worry about. Why bother, when dodgy building contracts and cost-cutting can do more damage than one person?"

Because if dodgy building contracts and cost-cutting meant a fridege explosion caused this amount of damage in Grenfell Towers, then surely the same could happen in other towers. And a well placed letter bomb could cause all kinds of damage. If you think this is far-fetched and unlikely, well witness the numerous attacks of people being mown down by vans recently. Terrorists can and will use any means at their disposal to deliver maximum casualties. Why would terrorists wait for "due course" as you suggest. When disaster is right there waiting for them to ignite.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rozacMan
over a year ago

london


"Ethically you would want public servants they are legal."

Holy shit your tits are epic

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"Ethically you would want to get people out of danger.

If they know that it is dangerous, they could be sued. They are public servants they are legally obliged to."

Anyone in charge of Any building is legally obliged to ensure the safety of the occupants and can go to prison if they fail to do so, not just public servants.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo


"I bought a couple of fire extinguishers a few years back (for different types of fire) - live in a bungalow - I thought it pretty sensible to have the means to put a fire out if one started. Now, if every household took it upon themselves to have a fire extinguisher in their own property - the vast majority of fires could be dealt with swiftly and effectively and prevent any spread.

."

I thought the fire brigade have always advised people to get out rather than tackle a blaze

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"I bought a couple of fire extinguishers a few years back (for different types of fire) - live in a bungalow - I thought it pretty sensible to have the means to put a fire out if one started. Now, if every household took it upon themselves to have a fire extinguisher in their own property - the vast majority of fires could be dealt with swiftly and effectively and prevent any spread.

.

I thought the fire brigade have always advised people to get out rather than tackle a blaze"

Fire extinguishers should really only be used to aid evacuation. You can tackle the fire of it is small and you feel able to buy essentially they are really only there to help you get our.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

Thanks

To the OP...damned if they do, damned if they don't. After just hearing the woman from the council say the cladding isn't the cladding they commissioned and the FB advised them it isn't safe, then I am not surprised they have asked people to move out while they sort it, although right this minute it isn't compulsory.

I just feel sorry for the poor people who live in it, stay and take a chance or go sleep on a blow up bed in a sports centre if you have no where else to go.

I also think as much as it was horrific for everyone concerned in the burnt out flat and inconvenient for the people being moved now, the council had and have a mammoth task to sort, surely people have to accept it is going to take time to sort

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Thanks

To the OP...damned if they do, damned if they don't. After just hearing the woman from the council say the cladding isn't the cladding they commissioned and the FB advised them it isn't safe, then I am not surprised they have asked people to move out while they sort it, although right this minute it isn't compulsory.

I just feel sorry for the poor people who live in it, stay and take a chance or go sleep on a blow up bed in a sports centre if you have no where else to go.

I also think as much as it was horrific for everyone concerned in the burnt out flat and inconvenient for the people being moved now, the council had and have a mammoth task to sort, surely people have to accept it is going to take time to sort"
.

That's far to sensible of an opinion... Remember theres professional moaners out there that we have to appease

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"The council are evacuating 5 tower blocks. Do you think it's the right thing to do....or is it shutting the stable door?

how is reacting to a disaster and hopefully preventing more shutting the stable door??

Would you rather they kept them in potentially unsafe housing?

Did I say that? No! I was asking the question that the tenants of these tower blocks were saying

then i don't get the question....the place they were living in is potentially dangerous and you are asking if it is the right thing to evacuate them? (i see your and raise you a )

If you look up at the post above your first post....you will see my view!

By asking the question....is that not what the forums are for...or should I answer it myself?

I get the query on phrasing. I think the question residents in Camden are asking is whether it's an overreaction or knee jerk to proactively evacuate not that it's shutting the stable door, that doesn't make sense."

Yes I think I may have used the wrong wording. ...a knee jersey reaction would have been better

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The council's are in a catch 22 situation they as landlords have a duty of care to provide a safe environment for there tenants and as seen the cladding used and or design how it's been installed is lethal so there covering their backs. Better safe than sorry.

The bigger question is why was this designed and not discovered by the architects and building control before it was built this way. Fire resistance and fire barriers etc along with the structure are supposedly checked and inspected by building control before its built.

There is too many questions to be raised...did the contractors change the specified material for a cheaper alternative. Did designers screw up and building control not check good enough the designs..I hope the enquiry is thorough and big businesses don't hide behind scape goats.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aughtyinguMan
over a year ago

swindon

The tower was fine, heck it might even still be fine, but the the cladding spread the fire, not the 60s tower block, and the advice was correct - for the original design that wasn't wrapped in flammable plastic.

I did hear the rockwool proper fireproof (or atleast way better) stuff was 2 quid a panel more. 5k more for the entire tower block to be safe

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It comes down to contractors winning contracts then sub contracting out for less than they quoted and skimming off the top for doing nothing. Pound to a penny! It's a disgraceful scandal, i've read some reports up to 300 people are still unaccounted for. Also seen a planning application from Kensington council dated 2014 for Grenfil tower to be demolished. Make of that what you will!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *htcMan
over a year ago

MK

crazy just like half of the residents from other country's living in that tower are about to move into luxury new multi million pound apartments

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"crazy just like half of the residents from other country's living in that tower are about to move into luxury new multi million pound apartments"

Do you begrudge them this?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex


"crazy just like half of the residents from other country's living in that tower are about to move into luxury new multi million pound apartments"

The residents were all from UK.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lem-H-FandangoMan
over a year ago

salisbury


"crazy just like half of the residents from other country's living in that tower are about to move into luxury new multi million pound apartments

The residents were all from UK. "

I heard that illegal immigrants from the tower were being given residency?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"crazy just like half of the residents from other country's living in that tower are about to move into luxury new multi million pound apartments"

Why is that crazy?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The tower was fine, heck it might even still be fine, but the the cladding spread the fire, not the 60s tower block, and the advice was correct - for the original design that wasn't wrapped in flammable plastic.

I did hear the rockwool proper fireproof (or atleast way better) stuff was 2 quid a panel more. 5k more for the entire tower block to be safe "
.

Rockwoll is mineral based and fire resistant for that reason, but there's so many very similar products, even the plastic versions have much varying degrees of fire resistance, however plastic being plastic, it may insulate better than mineral, it may soundproof better, it may be more cost effective, it might even be greener but it's never going to be as fire resistant.

One high rise building fire does not mean all buildings with this cladding are death traps or certainly not high risk, in fact the chances of this repeating is extremely low

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"crazy just like half of the residents from other country's living in that tower are about to move into luxury new multi million pound apartments

The residents were all from UK.

I heard that illegal immigrants from the tower were being given residency?"
.

No I think the government said that they wouldn't be doing any checks on immigration status, that's not the same as being given residency

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo


"crazy just like half of the residents from other country's living in that tower are about to move into luxury new multi million pound apartments

The residents were all from UK. "

That's not true...there were people from all countries in there...although they obviously live here now

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lem-H-FandangoMan
over a year ago

salisbury


"crazy just like half of the residents from other country's living in that tower are about to move into luxury new multi million pound apartments

The residents were all from UK.

I heard that illegal immigrants from the tower were being given residency?.

No I think the government said that they wouldn't be doing any checks on immigration status, that's not the same as being given residency"

Ah right, i was half expecting there to be a couple of hundred thousand people all claiming to have lived there .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"crazy just like half of the residents from other country's living in that tower are about to move into luxury new multi million pound apartments

The residents were all from UK.

I heard that illegal immigrants from the tower were being given residency?.

No I think the government said that they wouldn't be doing any checks on immigration status, that's not the same as being given residency

Ah right, i was half expecting there to be a couple of hundred thousand people all claiming to have lived there ."

Well a lot of them spent the night on single airbeds....not very luxurious me thinks.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lem-H-FandangoMan
over a year ago

salisbury


"crazy just like half of the residents from other country's living in that tower are about to move into luxury new multi million pound apartments

The residents were all from UK.

I heard that illegal immigrants from the tower were being given residency?.

No I think the government said that they wouldn't be doing any checks on immigration status, that's not the same as being given residency

Ah right, i was half expecting there to be a couple of hundred thousand people all claiming to have lived there .

Well a lot of them spent the night on single airbeds....not very luxurious me thinks."

Will they claim squatter's rights?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex


"crazy just like half of the residents from other country's living in that tower are about to move into luxury new multi million pound apartments

The residents were all from UK.

That's not true...there were people from all countries in there...although they obviously live here now"

That's what I meant.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aughtyinguMan
over a year ago

swindon


"The tower was fine, heck it might even still be fine, but the the cladding spread the fire, not the 60s tower block, and the advice was correct - for the original design that wasn't wrapped in flammable plastic.

I did hear the rockwool proper fireproof (or atleast way better) stuff was 2 quid a panel more. 5k more for the entire tower block to be safe .

Rockwoll is mineral based and fire resistant for that reason, but there's so many very similar products, even the plastic versions have much varying degrees of fire resistance, however plastic being plastic, it may insulate better than mineral, it may soundproof better, it may be more cost effective, it might even be greener but it's never going to be as fire resistant.

One high rise building fire does not mean all buildings with this cladding are death traps or certainly not high risk, in fact the chances of this repeating is extremely low"

Probably the danger is run away fire, there's been other fire(s) that haven't been as bad but still showed this stuff to be fairly deadly...

Also the fire brigade was on-site and packing up when the cladding started to go, and then it spread across the building and couldn't be stopped.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

I think it would be immoral for the council to leave people in its care at high levels of risk - especially as the council will have been responsible for the creation of this level of risk of danger and death.

Worst case, terrorists would step in to create more tragedies or random events could result in fires, despite it being seemingly unlikely

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"crazy just like half of the residents from other country's living in that tower are about to move into luxury new multi million pound apartments

The residents were all from UK.

I heard that illegal immigrants from the tower were being given residency?.

No I think the government said that they wouldn't be doing any checks on immigration status, that's not the same as being given residency

Ah right, i was half expecting there to be a couple of hundred thousand people all claiming to have lived there .

Well a lot of them spent the night on single airbeds....not very luxurious me thinks.

Will they claim squatter's rights?"

Clem feck off with your question marks

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top