Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
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 |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A lot of the immediate backlash was toward the government when I'd think the fire service should have signed off safety checks. Things like smoke alarms, fire doors, fire extinguishers, adequate routes out even signage.. I think these were things that were found missing. If this had been raised by fire officials then yes the management firm or council should be culpable. If residents had raised them but the fire service had checked them, then questions still need to be asked." The residents would raise them with the landlord wouldn't they? It's then up to the landlord to arrange the safety checks isn't it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"*hadn't checked them" If they are commissioned to do safety checks I assume they have to. How does it work? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A lot of the immediate backlash was toward the government when I'd think the fire service should have signed off safety checks. Things like smoke alarms, fire doors, fire extinguishers, adequate routes out even signage.. I think these were things that were found missing. If this had been raised by fire officials then yes the management firm or council should be culpable. If residents had raised them but the fire service had checked them, then questions still need to be asked." The initial backlash wasnt in the right direction. It's the local authority and building contractors who are potentially responsible. The fire officer would never have signed off on the building if it didn't comply with the regs. However they can only base their assessment on what they see and the information they're given. They don't carry out intrusive surveys, nor are they civil engineers or surveyors. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A lot of the immediate backlash was toward the government when I'd think the fire service should have signed off safety checks. Things like smoke alarms, fire doors, fire extinguishers, adequate routes out even signage.. I think these were things that were found missing. If this had been raised by fire officials then yes the management firm or council should be culpable. If residents had raised them but the fire service had checked them, then questions still need to be asked. The residents would raise them with the landlord wouldn't they? It's then up to the landlord to arrange the safety checks isn't it? " I think it is the fire services duty to write to and inspect all buildings. I believe they can inspect without notice. (I have only just googled and this is what it appears to say: Fire safety law is enforced by Fire Safety Enforcement Officers from the local Fire and Rescue Service. They have the right to enter any workplace at any reasonable hour, without giving notice, though notice may be given where the inspector thinks it is appropriate) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A lot of the immediate backlash was toward the government when I'd think the fire service should have signed off safety checks. Things like smoke alarms, fire doors, fire extinguishers, adequate routes out even signage.. I think these were things that were found missing. If this had been raised by fire officials then yes the management firm or council should be culpable. If residents had raised them but the fire service had checked them, then questions still need to be asked. The residents would raise them with the landlord wouldn't they? It's then up to the landlord to arrange the safety checks isn't it? I think it is the fire services duty to write to and inspect all buildings. I believe they can inspect without notice. (I have only just googled and this is what it appears to say: Fire safety law is enforced by Fire Safety Enforcement Officers from the local Fire and Rescue Service. They have the right to enter any workplace at any reasonable hour, without giving notice, though notice may be given where the inspector thinks it is appropriate) " They can't have time to check all buildings though can they? There are hundreds, possibly thousands of buildings in London. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A lot of the immediate backlash was toward the government when I'd think the fire service should have signed off safety checks. Things like smoke alarms, fire doors, fire extinguishers, adequate routes out even signage.. I think these were things that were found missing. If this had been raised by fire officials then yes the management firm or council should be culpable. If residents had raised them but the fire service had checked them, then questions still need to be asked. The initial backlash wasnt in the right direction. It's the local authority and building contractors who are potentially responsible. The fire officer would never have signed off on the building if it didn't comply with the regs. However they can only base their assessment on what they see and the information they're given. They don't carry out intrusive surveys, nor are they civil engineers or surveyors. " I doubt anyone could foresee the fire that took place but if sprinklers were not in place or fire doors were not being used then someone has to advise about that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The advice initially given by the fire service that people should stay in their flats was relevant when the flats were originally built - they were designed as a series of individual fire proof boxes owing to the concrete construction. Unfortunately the subsequent replacing of the windows with UPVC and the addition of the cladding meant that this was no longer the case. Inevitably as a result the advice turned out to be wrong but i don't feel that it's fair to hold the fire service accountable. In situations like this split second decisions have to be made and it's unlikely that their training took this into account. They did the best job they could under the circumstances with bravery and diligence and many have been left traumatised. As far as i'm concerned the fault still lies at the feet of the developers." If they hadn't received further training when new cladding or building materials are used, whose fault would that be? And who passed the cladding as fit to be used in the first place? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The advice initially given by the fire service that people should stay in their flats was relevant when the flats were originally built - they were designed as a series of individual fire proof boxes owing to the concrete construction. Unfortunately the subsequent replacing of the windows with UPVC and the addition of the cladding meant that this was no longer the case. Inevitably as a result the advice turned out to be wrong but i don't feel that it's fair to hold the fire service accountable. In situations like this split second decisions have to be made and it's unlikely that their training took this into account. They did the best job they could under the circumstances with bravery and diligence and many have been left traumatised. As far as i'm concerned the fault still lies at the feet of the developers. If they hadn't received further training when new cladding or building materials are used, whose fault would that be? And who passed the cladding as fit to be used in the first place? " The problem is is that no one realised the tinderbox that was being created. Surely the need for additional training comes with knowledge of the additional risk. The fault lies with whoever thought it was a good idea to make these changes to the building using these particular materials. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"cutbacks , has whoever made these cut backs been mentioned Since 2010, more than 10,000 firefighters have been axed, dozens of fire stations have closed, fire engines have been scrapped and levels of emergency rescue equipment has been slashed. In London, 10 fire stations have been closed, 27 fire engines axed and more than 600 firefighter posts have been cut." Cutbacks or not. Even if there were 50 engines on site it has been reported there were water shortages and no equipment built able to tackle a blaze that tall. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" They did the best job they could under the circumstances with bravery and diligence and many have been left traumatised. As far as i'm concerned the fault still lies at the feet of the developers."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The climate was also largely responsible. It was a very hot spell. Windows would have been open. This is what allowed the fire to spread between the inside and outside of the building. Had the windows been closed the cladding would have had no source of ignition. ." I think the enquiry said the windows were defective and how the fire kept going inside then out | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The climate was also largely responsible. It was a very hot spell. Windows would have been open. This is what allowed the fire to spread between the inside and outside of the building. Had the windows been closed the cladding would have had no source of ignition. . I think the enquiry said the windows were defective and how the fire kept going inside then out" https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/shock-grenfell-dossier-reveals-disastrous-refurbishment-turned-tower-into-a-tinderbox-a3814866.html | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think I’m some respects it’s a shared culpability that all involved were partly responsible. But that was circumstances that lead to the tragic event. Ultimately it was the local authorities and their decision to use sub standard materials in the name of cost cutting and not updating the fire procedures for the building. We all know they will try to shift the blame elsewhere, and the government will stand back and let others fall rather than accept their austerity measures are to blame x " The austerity argument is right but it must be proportionate. There is cladding up and down the country on both public and privately owned towers even on universities and hospitals. It is in councils that have hundreds of thousands in their coffers, across all party regions. When you look at the wider picture saying this is down to austerity is a cop out as the product was for sale and people were using it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I heard part of the enquiry on Radio 4 yesterday, as one of the first fire fighters to arrive on scene was being questioned? It really seemed as though there was an implication that the fire service did not do their duty properly and that more lives could have been saved if they had. If this really was what was being implied,does anyone else feel as angry as I do that such heroes should be made a scapegoat for incompetent planning departments and penny pinching building contractors? I know who I'd rather have coming to my aid in an emergency and it wouldn't be a councillor or a politician. " They weren’t using firefighters as scapegoats but highlighting that fact that the fire staff wasn’t trained to deal with high rise fires. I used to live in the neighbourhood before the tragedy and local council member were a pain to deal with. Even getting a parking permit from them was a mission! They categorically ignored those people’s voices about the fire risk in the building. I would be very angry if they weren’t prosecuted including the building contractors, architects and the governing body! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" They weren’t using firefighters as scapegoats but highlighting that fact that the fire staff wasn’t trained to deal with high rise fires. I used to live in the neighbourhood before the tragedy and local council member were a pain to deal with. Even getting a parking permit from them was a mission! They categorically ignored those people’s voices about the fire risk in the building. I would be very angry if they weren’t prosecuted including the building contractors, architects and the governing body! " I'd forgotten about that interview. If the chief inspector of the fire brigade says his personnel aren't properly trained, isn't that an admission of guilt? With the number of high rises there are in London you'd think that would be a priority. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A lot of the immediate backlash was toward the government when I'd think the fire service should have signed off safety checks. Things like smoke alarms, fire doors, fire extinguishers, adequate routes out even signage.. I think these were things that were found missing. If this had been raised by fire officials then yes the management firm or council should be culpable. If residents had raised them but the fire service had checked them, then questions still need to be asked." These are the responsibilities of the landlord managing agents, they are the ones who should be testing the alarms weekly, emergency lighting systems monthly not the fire brigade. How many on here live in apartment blocks, do you hear the fire alarms getting tested regularly?. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" They weren’t using firefighters as scapegoats but highlighting that fact that the fire staff wasn’t trained to deal with high rise fires. I used to live in the neighbourhood before the tragedy and local council member were a pain to deal with. Even getting a parking permit from them was a mission! They categorically ignored those people’s voices about the fire risk in the building. I would be very angry if they weren’t prosecuted including the building contractors, architects and the governing body! I'd forgotten about that interview. If the chief inspector of the fire brigade says his personnel aren't properly trained, isn't that an admission of guilt? With the number of high rises there are in London you'd think that would be a priority. " I wouldn’t say it’s guilt but it is due to funding cuts.. boris Johnson went around closing fire stations in his time as mayor. They had to get a crane from Kent to reach the top of the building where the fire was. They didn’t even have a crane in London available to reach the top of the building to tackle the fire. But the fire staff did the best with what they had. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" They weren’t using firefighters as scapegoats but highlighting that fact that the fire staff wasn’t trained to deal with high rise fires. I used to live in the neighbourhood before the tragedy and local council member were a pain to deal with. Even getting a parking permit from them was a mission! They categorically ignored those people’s voices about the fire risk in the building. I would be very angry if they weren’t prosecuted including the building contractors, architects and the governing body! I'd forgotten about that interview. If the chief inspector of the fire brigade says his personnel aren't properly trained, isn't that an admission of guilt? With the number of high rises there are in London you'd think that would be a priority. " If they aren't properly trained because they weren't made aware they needed more training, because of building changes, who is responsible for that? Who tells the fire brigade we're using different materials and you need to be aware and train your fire fighters? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" They weren’t using firefighters as scapegoats but highlighting that fact that the fire staff wasn’t trained to deal with high rise fires. I used to live in the neighbourhood before the tragedy and local council member were a pain to deal with. Even getting a parking permit from them was a mission! They categorically ignored those people’s voices about the fire risk in the building. I would be very angry if they weren’t prosecuted including the building contractors, architects and the governing body! I'd forgotten about that interview. If the chief inspector of the fire brigade says his personnel aren't properly trained, isn't that an admission of guilt? With the number of high rises there are in London you'd think that would be a priority. I wouldn’t say it’s guilt but it is due to funding cuts.. boris Johnson went around closing fire stations in his time as mayor. They had to get a crane from Kent to reach the top of the building where the fire was. They didn’t even have a crane in London available to reach the top of the building to tackle the fire. But the fire staff did the best with what they had. " Also no helicopters were used to tackle the fire either??!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" They weren’t using firefighters as scapegoats but highlighting that fact that the fire staff wasn’t trained to deal with high rise fires. I used to live in the neighbourhood before the tragedy and local council member were a pain to deal with. Even getting a parking permit from them was a mission! They categorically ignored those people’s voices about the fire risk in the building. I would be very angry if they weren’t prosecuted including the building contractors, architects and the governing body! I'd forgotten about that interview. If the chief inspector of the fire brigade says his personnel aren't properly trained, isn't that an admission of guilt? With the number of high rises there are in London you'd think that would be a priority. I wouldn’t say it’s guilt but it is due to funding cuts.. boris Johnson went around closing fire stations in his time as mayor. They had to get a crane from Kent to reach the top of the building where the fire was. They didn’t even have a crane in London available to reach the top of the building to tackle the fire. But the fire staff did the best with what they had. Also no helicopters were used to tackle the fire either??!! " What could helicopters do to help? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" They weren’t using firefighters as scapegoats but highlighting that fact that the fire staff wasn’t trained to deal with high rise fires. I used to live in the neighbourhood before the tragedy and local council member were a pain to deal with. Even getting a parking permit from them was a mission! They categorically ignored those people’s voices about the fire risk in the building. I would be very angry if they weren’t prosecuted including the building contractors, architects and the governing body! I'd forgotten about that interview. If the chief inspector of the fire brigade says his personnel aren't properly trained, isn't that an admission of guilt? With the number of high rises there are in London you'd think that would be a priority. I wouldn’t say it’s guilt but it is due to funding cuts.. boris Johnson went around closing fire stations in his time as mayor. They had to get a crane from Kent to reach the top of the building where the fire was. They didn’t even have a crane in London available to reach the top of the building to tackle the fire. But the fire staff did the best with what they had. Also no helicopters were used to tackle the fire either??!! What could helicopters do to help?" They could drop water/anti fire material from top of the building and to save people from windows | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" They weren’t using firefighters as scapegoats but highlighting that fact that the fire staff wasn’t trained to deal with high rise fires. I used to live in the neighbourhood before the tragedy and local council member were a pain to deal with. Even getting a parking permit from them was a mission! They categorically ignored those people’s voices about the fire risk in the building. I would be very angry if they weren’t prosecuted including the building contractors, architects and the governing body! I'd forgotten about that interview. If the chief inspector of the fire brigade says his personnel aren't properly trained, isn't that an admission of guilt? With the number of high rises there are in London you'd think that would be a priority. I wouldn’t say it’s guilt but it is due to funding cuts.. boris Johnson went around closing fire stations in his time as mayor. They had to get a crane from Kent to reach the top of the building where the fire was. They didn’t even have a crane in London available to reach the top of the building to tackle the fire. But the fire staff did the best with what they had. Also no helicopters were used to tackle the fire either??!! What could helicopters do to help? They could drop water/anti fire material from top of the building and to save people from windows " I don't think we have those kinds of helicopters in the UK. I think they are used in bush fires. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" They weren’t using firefighters as scapegoats but highlighting that fact that the fire staff wasn’t trained to deal with high rise fires. I used to live in the neighbourhood before the tragedy and local council member were a pain to deal with. Even getting a parking permit from them was a mission! They categorically ignored those people’s voices about the fire risk in the building. I would be very angry if they weren’t prosecuted including the building contractors, architects and the governing body! I'd forgotten about that interview. If the chief inspector of the fire brigade says his personnel aren't properly trained, isn't that an admission of guilt? With the number of high rises there are in London you'd think that would be a priority. I wouldn’t say it’s guilt but it is due to funding cuts.. boris Johnson went around closing fire stations in his time as mayor. They had to get a crane from Kent to reach the top of the building where the fire was. They didn’t even have a crane in London available to reach the top of the building to tackle the fire. But the fire staff did the best with what they had. Also no helicopters were used to tackle the fire either??!! What could helicopters do to help? They could drop water/anti fire material from top of the building and to save people from windows I don't think we have those kinds of helicopters in the UK. I think they are used in bush fires." That’s alright then | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I heard part of the enquiry on Radio 4 yesterday, as one of the first fire fighters to arrive on scene was being questioned? It really seemed as though there was an implication that the fire service did not do their duty properly and that more lives could have been saved if they had. If this really was what was being implied,does anyone else feel as angry as I do that such heroes should be made a scapegoat for incompetent planning departments and penny pinching building contractors? I know who I'd rather have coming to my aid in an emergency and it wouldn't be a councillor or a politician. " I got angry when I heard that too. I know a rigorous enquiry needs to take place. I hope its rigorous in every area. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I fear the scapegoat use will be a factor as people won’t want to be guilty seen/heard yday how they already pointing fingers as fire service I just hope truth comes out but I doubt it as think will be buried in bureaucracy " Not this time! There will be riots again if justice isn’t served | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I heard part of the enquiry on Radio 4 yesterday, as one of the first fire fighters to arrive on scene was being questioned? It really seemed as though there was an implication that the fire service did not do their duty properly and that more lives could have been saved if they had. If this really was what was being implied,does anyone else feel as angry as I do that such heroes should be made a scapegoat for incompetent planning departments and penny pinching building contractors? I know who I'd rather have coming to my aid in an emergency and it wouldn't be a councillor or a politician. " as you said, youv heard part of it... im sure others will have to take part of the blame too as it goes on. tragic all round | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A basic question to ask is why aren't tenants given the basics for dealing with a fire? Like Extinguisher and fire blankets...... also if it was a business block they have to do fire drills do residential blocks ? You can throw 100's of reasons it happened and who's to blame and who the scapegoats are but all they need to do is ENSURE THIS TYPE OF DISASTER DOESNT HAPPEN AGAIN. " That would covered by a fire risk assessment, some one would have been round and inspected the place for fire safety. There will have been recommendations made, but as well all know it all boils down to cost of these things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a sad state of affairs when we are more interested in holding someone accountable for a tragedy than we are in learning from it and ensuring it cannot happen again." When you know people were held accountable others will be careful
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a sad state of affairs when we are more interested in holding someone accountable for a tragedy than we are in learning from it and ensuring it cannot happen again." The two go hand in hand I think. If mistakes were made its only by finding out how they were made and by default by who that they won't be repeated. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a sad state of affairs when we are more interested in holding someone accountable for a tragedy than we are in learning from it and ensuring it cannot happen again. The two go hand in hand I think. If mistakes were made its only by finding out how they were made and by default by who that they won't be repeated. " It's pretty obvious that coating a building with plastic is not going to do it any favours if there's a fire. It shouldn't need a public enquiry to establish plastic burns. If you put it on a building and the building catches fire, the plastic will catch fire. The average ten year old should be able to see what a bad idea cladding it was. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a sad state of affairs when we are more interested in holding someone accountable for a tragedy than we are in learning from it and ensuring it cannot happen again. The two go hand in hand I think. If mistakes were made its only by finding out how they were made and by default by who that they won't be repeated. It's pretty obvious that coating a building with plastic is not going to do it any favours if there's a fire. It shouldn't need a public enquiry to establish plastic burns. If you put it on a building and the building catches fire, the plastic will catch fire. The average ten year old should be able to see what a bad idea cladding it was." There is more to it
You will find out as the enquiry progresses | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a sad state of affairs when we are more interested in holding someone accountable for a tragedy than we are in learning from it and ensuring it cannot happen again. The two go hand in hand I think. If mistakes were made its only by finding out how they were made and by default by who that they won't be repeated. It's pretty obvious that coating a building with plastic is not going to do it any favours if there's a fire. It shouldn't need a public enquiry to establish plastic burns. If you put it on a building and the building catches fire, the plastic will catch fire. The average ten year old should be able to see what a bad idea cladding it was." From what I have been told the outer casing was fire resistant, the inner insulation melts very quickly turning into a molten river inbetween the two outer layers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just found a copy of Tuesday's sun. There is an article in there which appears to put blame on not only the organisation of London fire brigade but also onto individual fire fighters. Yet another reason not to buy this disgusting rag." But they were simply reporting what the public inquiry has discovered so far, and the decision by the fire service to tell people to stay was wrong and the blame for that is down to the fire service and the person there who gave the order. You cannot blame a newspaper for reporting facts. The Guardian reported the same thing at the beginning of June. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just found a copy of Tuesday's sun. There is an article in there which appears to put blame on not only the organisation of London fire brigade but also onto individual fire fighters. Yet another reason not to buy this disgusting rag. But they were simply reporting what the public inquiry has discovered so far, and the decision by the fire service to tell people to stay was wrong and the blame for that is down to the fire service and the person there who gave the order. You cannot blame a newspaper for reporting facts. The Guardian reported the same thing at the beginning of June." The wording of the article implies the reporters opinion,in my opinion. Sun,Tuesday 26th.page 19. Article with the headline 'Fire Chief Fail'. There is a clear implication just in the headline. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just found a copy of Tuesday's sun. There is an article in there which appears to put blame on not only the organisation of London fire brigade but also onto individual fire fighters. Yet another reason not to buy this disgusting rag. But they were simply reporting what the public inquiry has discovered so far, and the decision by the fire service to tell people to stay was wrong and the blame for that is down to the fire service and the person there who gave the order. You cannot blame a newspaper for reporting facts. The Guardian reported the same thing at the beginning of June. The wording of the article implies the reporters opinion,in my opinion. Sun,Tuesday 26th.page 19. Article with the headline 'Fire Chief Fail'. There is a clear implication just in the headline." Well it isn't opinion. It is fact. The "stay put" command was a fail. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just found a copy of Tuesday's sun. There is an article in there which appears to put blame on not only the organisation of London fire brigade but also onto individual fire fighters. Yet another reason not to buy this disgusting rag. But they were simply reporting what the public inquiry has discovered so far, and the decision by the fire service to tell people to stay was wrong and the blame for that is down to the fire service and the person there who gave the order. You cannot blame a newspaper for reporting facts. The Guardian reported the same thing at the beginning of June. The wording of the article implies the reporters opinion,in my opinion. Sun,Tuesday 26th.page 19. Article with the headline 'Fire Chief Fail'. There is a clear implication just in the headline. Well it isn't opinion. It is fact. The "stay put" command was a fail." The Article repeatedly refers to the officer being questioned as 'incident commander' and 'fire chief' implying that he was responsible for policies.It also states that he printed off outdated information. It does not say that he would have been in command of the first crew to arrive and that he was given outdated information,which would have been more accurate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A lot of the immediate backlash was toward the government when I'd think the fire service should have signed off safety checks. Things like smoke alarms, fire doors, fire extinguishers, adequate routes out even signage.. I think these were things that were found missing. If this had been raised by fire officials then yes the management firm or council should be culpable. If residents had raised them but the fire service had checked them, then questions still need to be asked. The residents would raise them with the landlord wouldn't they? It's then up to the landlord to arrange the safety checks isn't it? I think it is the fire services duty to write to and inspect all buildings. I believe they can inspect without notice. (I have only just googled and this is what it appears to say: Fire safety law is enforced by Fire Safety Enforcement Officers from the local Fire and Rescue Service. They have the right to enter any workplace at any reasonable hour, without giving notice, though notice may be given where the inspector thinks it is appropriate) " Sorry but your interpretation is way off. It is the landlords responsibility to prove the building complies with regulations, the landlord would be licensed by the council for any property over 3 floors with more than 5 people. So the landlord arranges the tests, gathers the evidence and the council checks it and grants the licence. Nothing to do with the fire service. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just found a copy of Tuesday's sun. There is an article in there which appears to put blame on not only the organisation of London fire brigade but also onto individual fire fighters. Yet another reason not to buy this disgusting rag. But they were simply reporting what the public inquiry has discovered so far, and the decision by the fire service to tell people to stay was wrong and the blame for that is down to the fire service and the person there who gave the order. You cannot blame a newspaper for reporting facts. The Guardian reported the same thing at the beginning of June. The wording of the article implies the reporters opinion,in my opinion. Sun,Tuesday 26th.page 19. Article with the headline 'Fire Chief Fail'. There is a clear implication just in the headline. Well it isn't opinion. It is fact. The "stay put" command was a fail. The Article repeatedly refers to the officer being questioned as 'incident commander' and 'fire chief' implying that he was responsible for policies.It also states that he printed off outdated information. It does not say that he would have been in command of the first crew to arrive and that he was given outdated information,which would have been more accurate. " It's The Sun, not a broadsheet. They cannot write articles 4 pages of broadsheet long. Their readers expect a very short article, so they have to condense an article that a broadsheet would write, and so the details that you quote have to be left out. It does not change the fact that their article was correct, and that your criticism was wrong. The person who gave the command to "stay put" was in charge at the time, and in hindsight, his command was wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just found a copy of Tuesday's sun. There is an article in there which appears to put blame on not only the organisation of London fire brigade but also onto individual fire fighters. Yet another reason not to buy this disgusting rag. But they were simply reporting what the public inquiry has discovered so far, and the decision by the fire service to tell people to stay was wrong and the blame for that is down to the fire service and the person there who gave the order. You cannot blame a newspaper for reporting facts. The Guardian reported the same thing at the beginning of June. The wording of the article implies the reporters opinion,in my opinion. Sun,Tuesday 26th.page 19. Article with the headline 'Fire Chief Fail'. There is a clear implication just in the headline. Well it isn't opinion. It is fact. The "stay put" command was a fail." The building upgrade was a fail. No building should behave like that one did in a fire in the developed world. There was one staircase which was smoke logged and dark with water cascading down it from numerous burst hoses and obviously firefighters in bulky fire kit and large breathing apparatus trying to use it. It was only slightly wider than a domestic staircase and would be made narrower with large diameter hose all over it like a plate of spaghetti, all of which you wouldn't be able to see due to decreased visibily. No firefighter there would have expected the fire to spread so rapidly as it did that night therefore, the decision to stick to the stay put policy, was the correct one at the time. Now we know these shoddy upgrades are happening, this policy will obviously need to be reviewed because lets face it, the government are doing sod all about this leathal cladding. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just found a copy of Tuesday's sun. There is an article in there which appears to put blame on not only the organisation of London fire brigade but also onto individual fire fighters. Yet another reason not to buy this disgusting rag. But they were simply reporting what the public inquiry has discovered so far, and the decision by the fire service to tell people to stay was wrong and the blame for that is down to the fire service and the person there who gave the order. You cannot blame a newspaper for reporting facts. The Guardian reported the same thing at the beginning of June. The wording of the article implies the reporters opinion,in my opinion. Sun,Tuesday 26th.page 19. Article with the headline 'Fire Chief Fail'. There is a clear implication just in the headline. Well it isn't opinion. It is fact. The "stay put" command was a fail. The Article repeatedly refers to the officer being questioned as 'incident commander' and 'fire chief' implying that he was responsible for policies.It also states that he printed off outdated information. It does not say that he would have been in command of the first crew to arrive and that he was given outdated information,which would have been more accurate. It's The Sun, not a broadsheet. They cannot write articles 4 pages of broadsheet long. Their readers expect a very short article, so they have to condense an article that a broadsheet would write, and so the details that you quote have to be left out. It does not change the fact that their article was correct, and that your criticism was wrong. The person who gave the command to "stay put" was in charge at the time, and in hindsight, his command was wrong." He also had absolutely zero training to and wasn't qualified to deal with a fire of that scale. He was clearly traumatised by the event too. He didn't need to be trotted out in public like that for trying to help. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just found a copy of Tuesday's sun. There is an article in there which appears to put blame on not only the organisation of London fire brigade but also onto individual fire fighters. Yet another reason not to buy this disgusting rag. But they were simply reporting what the public inquiry has discovered so far, and the decision by the fire service to tell people to stay was wrong and the blame for that is down to the fire service and the person there who gave the order. You cannot blame a newspaper for reporting facts. The Guardian reported the same thing at the beginning of June. The wording of the article implies the reporters opinion,in my opinion. Sun,Tuesday 26th.page 19. Article with the headline 'Fire Chief Fail'. There is a clear implication just in the headline. Well it isn't opinion. It is fact. The "stay put" command was a fail. The Article repeatedly refers to the officer being questioned as 'incident commander' and 'fire chief' implying that he was responsible for policies.It also states that he printed off outdated information. It does not say that he would have been in command of the first crew to arrive and that he was given outdated information,which would have been more accurate. It's The Sun, not a broadsheet. They cannot write articles 4 pages of broadsheet long. Their readers expect a very short article, so they have to condense an article that a broadsheet would write, and so the details that you quote have to be left out. It does not change the fact that their article was correct, and that your criticism was wrong. The person who gave the command to "stay put" was in charge at the time, and in hindsight, his command was wrong. He also had absolutely zero training to and wasn't qualified to deal with a fire of that scale. He was clearly traumatised by the event too. He didn't need to be trotted out in public like that for trying to help. " It's a public enquiry. That is it's function. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just found a copy of Tuesday's sun. There is an article in there which appears to put blame on not only the organisation of London fire brigade but also onto individual fire fighters. Yet another reason not to buy this disgusting rag. But they were simply reporting what the public inquiry has discovered so far, and the decision by the fire service to tell people to stay was wrong and the blame for that is down to the fire service and the person there who gave the order. You cannot blame a newspaper for reporting facts. The Guardian reported the same thing at the beginning of June. The wording of the article implies the reporters opinion,in my opinion. Sun,Tuesday 26th.page 19. Article with the headline 'Fire Chief Fail'. There is a clear implication just in the headline. Well it isn't opinion. It is fact. The "stay put" command was a fail. The Article repeatedly refers to the officer being questioned as 'incident commander' and 'fire chief' implying that he was responsible for policies.It also states that he printed off outdated information. It does not say that he would have been in command of the first crew to arrive and that he was given outdated information,which would have been more accurate. It's The Sun, not a broadsheet. They cannot write articles 4 pages of broadsheet long. Their readers expect a very short article, so they have to condense an article that a broadsheet would write, and so the details that you quote have to be left out. It does not change the fact that their article was correct, and that your criticism was wrong. The person who gave the command to "stay put" was in charge at the time, and in hindsight, his command was wrong. He also had absolutely zero training to and wasn't qualified to deal with a fire of that scale. He was clearly traumatised by the event too. He didn't need to be trotted out in public like that for trying to help. It's a public enquiry. That is it's function." No it isn't and you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Evidence can be written, there's no inherent need for public appearances. At the point you learn that he wasn't qualified then it all become academic and an exercise in scapegoating. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just found a copy of Tuesday's sun. There is an article in there which appears to put blame on not only the organisation of London fire brigade but also onto individual fire fighters. Yet another reason not to buy this disgusting rag. But they were simply reporting what the public inquiry has discovered so far, and the decision by the fire service to tell people to stay was wrong and the blame for that is down to the fire service and the person there who gave the order. You cannot blame a newspaper for reporting facts. The Guardian reported the same thing at the beginning of June. The wording of the article implies the reporters opinion,in my opinion. Sun,Tuesday 26th.page 19. Article with the headline 'Fire Chief Fail'. There is a clear implication just in the headline. Well it isn't opinion. It is fact. The "stay put" command was a fail. The Article repeatedly refers to the officer being questioned as 'incident commander' and 'fire chief' implying that he was responsible for policies.It also states that he printed off outdated information. It does not say that he would have been in command of the first crew to arrive and that he was given outdated information,which would have been more accurate. It's The Sun, not a broadsheet. They cannot write articles 4 pages of broadsheet long. Their readers expect a very short article, so they have to condense an article that a broadsheet would write, and so the details that you quote have to be left out. It does not change the fact that their article was correct, and that your criticism was wrong. The person who gave the command to "stay put" was in charge at the time, and in hindsight, his command was wrong. He also had absolutely zero training to and wasn't qualified to deal with a fire of that scale. He was clearly traumatised by the event too. He didn't need to be trotted out in public like that for trying to help. It's a public enquiry. That is it's function. No it isn't and you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Evidence can be written, there's no inherent need for public appearances. At the point you learn that he wasn't qualified then it all become academic and an exercise in scapegoating. " What you have said proves my point! This is a very important part of the public enquiry and probably the basis of criminal charges in the same was as Hillsborough, so of course the person will be named. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just found a copy of Tuesday's sun. There is an article in there which appears to put blame on not only the organisation of London fire brigade but also onto individual fire fighters. Yet another reason not to buy this disgusting rag. But they were simply reporting what the public inquiry has discovered so far, and the decision by the fire service to tell people to stay was wrong and the blame for that is down to the fire service and the person there who gave the order. You cannot blame a newspaper for reporting facts. The Guardian reported the same thing at the beginning of June. The wording of the article implies the reporters opinion,in my opinion. Sun,Tuesday 26th.page 19. Article with the headline 'Fire Chief Fail'. There is a clear implication just in the headline. Well it isn't opinion. It is fact. The "stay put" command was a fail. The Article repeatedly refers to the officer being questioned as 'incident commander' and 'fire chief' implying that he was responsible for policies.It also states that he printed off outdated information. It does not say that he would have been in command of the first crew to arrive and that he was given outdated information,which would have been more accurate. It's The Sun, not a broadsheet. They cannot write articles 4 pages of broadsheet long. Their readers expect a very short article, so they have to condense an article that a broadsheet would write, and so the details that you quote have to be left out. It does not change the fact that their article was correct, and that your criticism was wrong. The person who gave the command to "stay put" was in charge at the time, and in hindsight, his command was wrong." The same edition has a two page spread dedicated to a football player having a tent in his garden. I totally agree that the sun should not be relied on to report news accurately but they can hardly complain that the reason is that of not having enough space. My criticism of the sun (not of the inquiry) was correct?in my opinion. They have taken it on themselves to villify individual firefighters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just found a copy of Tuesday's sun. There is an article in there which appears to put blame on not only the organisation of London fire brigade but also onto individual fire fighters. Yet another reason not to buy this disgusting rag. But they were simply reporting what the public inquiry has discovered so far, and the decision by the fire service to tell people to stay was wrong and the blame for that is down to the fire service and the person there who gave the order. You cannot blame a newspaper for reporting facts. The Guardian reported the same thing at the beginning of June. The wording of the article implies the reporters opinion,in my opinion. Sun,Tuesday 26th.page 19. Article with the headline 'Fire Chief Fail'. There is a clear implication just in the headline. Well it isn't opinion. It is fact. The "stay put" command was a fail. The Article repeatedly refers to the officer being questioned as 'incident commander' and 'fire chief' implying that he was responsible for policies.It also states that he printed off outdated information. It does not say that he would have been in command of the first crew to arrive and that he was given outdated information,which would have been more accurate. It's The Sun, not a broadsheet. They cannot write articles 4 pages of broadsheet long. Their readers expect a very short article, so they have to condense an article that a broadsheet would write, and so the details that you quote have to be left out. It does not change the fact that their article was correct, and that your criticism was wrong. The person who gave the command to "stay put" was in charge at the time, and in hindsight, his command was wrong. He also had absolutely zero training to and wasn't qualified to deal with a fire of that scale. He was clearly traumatised by the event too. He didn't need to be trotted out in public like that for trying to help. It's a public enquiry. That is it's function. No it isn't and you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Evidence can be written, there's no inherent need for public appearances. At the point you learn that he wasn't qualified then it all become academic and an exercise in scapegoating. What you have said proves my point! This is a very important part of the public enquiry and probably the basis of criminal charges in the same was as Hillsborough, so of course the person will be named. " Making the goalposts now i see. I didn't say don't name him and I didn't say he couldn't give evidence. I said he didn't need to give oral evidence in front of the cameras because there's no benefit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just found a copy of Tuesday's sun. There is an article in there which appears to put blame on not only the organisation of London fire brigade but also onto individual fire fighters. Yet another reason not to buy this disgusting rag. But they were simply reporting what the public inquiry has discovered so far, and the decision by the fire service to tell people to stay was wrong and the blame for that is down to the fire service and the person there who gave the order. You cannot blame a newspaper for reporting facts. The Guardian reported the same thing at the beginning of June. The wording of the article implies the reporters opinion,in my opinion. Sun,Tuesday 26th.page 19. Article with the headline 'Fire Chief Fail'. There is a clear implication just in the headline. Well it isn't opinion. It is fact. The "stay put" command was a fail. The Article repeatedly refers to the officer being questioned as 'incident commander' and 'fire chief' implying that he was responsible for policies.It also states that he printed off outdated information. It does not say that he would have been in command of the first crew to arrive and that he was given outdated information,which would have been more accurate. It's The Sun, not a broadsheet. They cannot write articles 4 pages of broadsheet long. Their readers expect a very short article, so they have to condense an article that a broadsheet would write, and so the details that you quote have to be left out. It does not change the fact that their article was correct, and that your criticism was wrong. The person who gave the command to "stay put" was in charge at the time, and in hindsight, his command was wrong. The same edition has a two page spread dedicated to a football player having a tent in his garden. I totally agree that the sun should not be relied on to report news accurately but they can hardly complain that the reason is that of not having enough space. My criticism of the sun (not of the inquiry) was correct?in my opinion. They have taken it on themselves to villify individual firefighters." No they haven't! You have just proved my point! They write about what appeals to their target market - footballers. They can understand them. They cannot understand the intricacies of public enquiries. The vilification is inevitable. There are likely to be Hillsborough style charges in the future. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just found a copy of Tuesday's sun. There is an article in there which appears to put blame on not only the organisation of London fire brigade but also onto individual fire fighters. Yet another reason not to buy this disgusting rag. But they were simply reporting what the public inquiry has discovered so far, and the decision by the fire service to tell people to stay was wrong and the blame for that is down to the fire service and the person there who gave the order. You cannot blame a newspaper for reporting facts. The Guardian reported the same thing at the beginning of June. The wording of the article implies the reporters opinion,in my opinion. Sun,Tuesday 26th.page 19. Article with the headline 'Fire Chief Fail'. There is a clear implication just in the headline. Well it isn't opinion. It is fact. The "stay put" command was a fail. The Article repeatedly refers to the officer being questioned as 'incident commander' and 'fire chief' implying that he was responsible for policies.It also states that he printed off outdated information. It does not say that he would have been in command of the first crew to arrive and that he was given outdated information,which would have been more accurate. It's The Sun, not a broadsheet. They cannot write articles 4 pages of broadsheet long. Their readers expect a very short article, so they have to condense an article that a broadsheet would write, and so the details that you quote have to be left out. It does not change the fact that their article was correct, and that your criticism was wrong. The person who gave the command to "stay put" was in charge at the time, and in hindsight, his command was wrong. The same edition has a two page spread dedicated to a football player having a tent in his garden. I totally agree that the sun should not be relied on to report news accurately but they can hardly complain that the reason is that of not having enough space. My criticism of the sun (not of the inquiry) was correct?in my opinion. They have taken it on themselves to villify individual firefighters. No they haven't! You have just proved my point! They write about what appeals to their target market - footballers. They can understand them. They cannot understand the intricacies of public enquiries. The vilification is inevitable. There are likely to be Hillsborough style charges in the future." The same paper also carries an in depth article on the intricacies of defence spending by none other than Max Hastings,an article about brexit (another complex issue) and another about Heathrow expansion. You can't tell me the sun is underestimating the intelligence of its readership. In my opinion,it is clearly trying to sway opinion against the London fire brigade and one officer in particular. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" No it isn't and you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Evidence can be written, there's no inherent need for public appearances. At the point you learn that he wasn't qualified then it all become academic and an exercise in scapegoating. " How can he scapegoat himself? He admitted he didn't have the proper training and was overwhelmed by the situation. He is the authority that all others look to so should be well versed in policy and procedure in times of intense stress. He gave the appearance freely and as a public servant. The whole enquiry has been public - Cressida Dick has given updates throughout. It seems one update has moved the focus away from the council, the distributors, manufacturers and government and people now don't want to talk about the role of the fire service in this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" No it isn't and you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Evidence can be written, there's no inherent need for public appearances. At the point you learn that he wasn't qualified then it all become academic and an exercise in scapegoating. How can he scapegoat himself? He admitted he didn't have the proper training and was overwhelmed by the situation. He is the authority that all others look to so should be well versed in policy and procedure in times of intense stress. He gave the appearance freely and as a public servant. The whole enquiry has been public - Cressida Dick has given updates throughout. It seems one update has moved the focus away from the council, the distributors, manufacturers and government and people now don't want to talk about the role of the fire service in this. " He looked like he had PTSD ffs  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just found a copy of Tuesday's sun. There is an article in there which appears to put blame on not only the organisation of London fire brigade but also onto individual fire fighters. Yet another reason not to buy this disgusting rag. But they were simply reporting what the public inquiry has discovered so far, and the decision by the fire service to tell people to stay was wrong and the blame for that is down to the fire service and the person there who gave the order. You cannot blame a newspaper for reporting facts. The Guardian reported the same thing at the beginning of June. The wording of the article implies the reporters opinion,in my opinion. Sun,Tuesday 26th.page 19. Article with the headline 'Fire Chief Fail'. There is a clear implication just in the headline. Well it isn't opinion. It is fact. The "stay put" command was a fail. The Article repeatedly refers to the officer being questioned as 'incident commander' and 'fire chief' implying that he was responsible for policies.It also states that he printed off outdated information. It does not say that he would have been in command of the first crew to arrive and that he was given outdated information,which would have been more accurate. It's The Sun, not a broadsheet. They cannot write articles 4 pages of broadsheet long. Their readers expect a very short article, so they have to condense an article that a broadsheet would write, and so the details that you quote have to be left out. It does not change the fact that their article was correct, and that your criticism was wrong. The person who gave the command to "stay put" was in charge at the time, and in hindsight, his command was wrong. The same edition has a two page spread dedicated to a football player having a tent in his garden. I totally agree that the sun should not be relied on to report news accurately but they can hardly complain that the reason is that of not having enough space. My criticism of the sun (not of the inquiry) was correct?in my opinion. They have taken it on themselves to villify individual firefighters. No they haven't! You have just proved my point! They write about what appeals to their target market - footballers. They can understand them. They cannot understand the intricacies of public enquiries. The vilification is inevitable. There are likely to be Hillsborough style charges in the future. The same paper also carries an in depth article on the intricacies of defence spending by none other than Max Hastings,an article about brexit (another complex issue) and another about Heathrow expansion. You can't tell me the sun is underestimating the intelligence of its readership. In my opinion,it is clearly trying to sway opinion against the London fire brigade and one officer in particular." You're reading too much into it. Why would a right-wing paper want to do that? The fact is, that as another poster has just said on here, the fire service and the person who was in charge at the time, in hindsight, appear to bear some responsibility for making the situation worse, because of a decision, that for whatever reason may have been perfectly reasonable at the time. And if you put all that into The Sun, most people are going to condense it into - the fire service got it wrong. So the journalist condenses it for them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just found a copy of Tuesday's sun. There is an article in there which appears to put blame on not only the organisation of London fire brigade but also onto individual fire fighters. Yet another reason not to buy this disgusting rag. But they were simply reporting what the public inquiry has discovered so far, and the decision by the fire service to tell people to stay was wrong and the blame for that is down to the fire service and the person there who gave the order. You cannot blame a newspaper for reporting facts. The Guardian reported the same thing at the beginning of June. The wording of the article implies the reporters opinion,in my opinion. Sun,Tuesday 26th.page 19. Article with the headline 'Fire Chief Fail'. There is a clear implication just in the headline. Well it isn't opinion. It is fact. The "stay put" command was a fail. The Article repeatedly refers to the officer being questioned as 'incident commander' and 'fire chief' implying that he was responsible for policies.It also states that he printed off outdated information. It does not say that he would have been in command of the first crew to arrive and that he was given outdated information,which would have been more accurate. It's The Sun, not a broadsheet. They cannot write articles 4 pages of broadsheet long. Their readers expect a very short article, so they have to condense an article that a broadsheet would write, and so the details that you quote have to be left out. It does not change the fact that their article was correct, and that your criticism was wrong. The person who gave the command to "stay put" was in charge at the time, and in hindsight, his command was wrong. The same edition has a two page spread dedicated to a football player having a tent in his garden. I totally agree that the sun should not be relied on to report news accurately but they can hardly complain that the reason is that of not having enough space. My criticism of the sun (not of the inquiry) was correct?in my opinion. They have taken it on themselves to villify individual firefighters. No they haven't! You have just proved my point! They write about what appeals to their target market - footballers. They can understand them. They cannot understand the intricacies of public enquiries. The vilification is inevitable. There are likely to be Hillsborough style charges in the future. The same paper also carries an in depth article on the intricacies of defence spending by none other than Max Hastings,an article about brexit (another complex issue) and another about Heathrow expansion. You can't tell me the sun is underestimating the intelligence of its readership. In my opinion,it is clearly trying to sway opinion against the London fire brigade and one officer in particular. You're reading too much into it. Why would a right-wing paper want to do that? The fact is, that as another poster has just said on here, the fire service and the person who was in charge at the time, in hindsight, appear to bear some responsibility for making the situation worse, because of a decision, that for whatever reason may have been perfectly reasonable at the time. And if you put all that into The Sun, most people are going to condense it into - the fire service got it wrong. So the journalist condenses it for them." I wouldn't dream of implying that a newspaper could ever have any connections with the business world or that they would ever allow that to affect thei impartiality. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just found a copy of Tuesday's sun. There is an article in there which appears to put blame on not only the organisation of London fire brigade but also onto individual fire fighters. Yet another reason not to buy this disgusting rag. But they were simply reporting what the public inquiry has discovered so far, and the decision by the fire service to tell people to stay was wrong and the blame for that is down to the fire service and the person there who gave the order. You cannot blame a newspaper for reporting facts. The Guardian reported the same thing at the beginning of June. The wording of the article implies the reporters opinion,in my opinion. Sun,Tuesday 26th.page 19. Article with the headline 'Fire Chief Fail'. There is a clear implication just in the headline. Well it isn't opinion. It is fact. The "stay put" command was a fail. The Article repeatedly refers to the officer being questioned as 'incident commander' and 'fire chief' implying that he was responsible for policies.It also states that he printed off outdated information. It does not say that he would have been in command of the first crew to arrive and that he was given outdated information,which would have been more accurate. It's The Sun, not a broadsheet. They cannot write articles 4 pages of broadsheet long. Their readers expect a very short article, so they have to condense an article that a broadsheet would write, and so the details that you quote have to be left out. It does not change the fact that their article was correct, and that your criticism was wrong. The person who gave the command to "stay put" was in charge at the time, and in hindsight, his command was wrong. The same edition has a two page spread dedicated to a football player having a tent in his garden. I totally agree that the sun should not be relied on to report news accurately but they can hardly complain that the reason is that of not having enough space. My criticism of the sun (not of the inquiry) was correct?in my opinion. They have taken it on themselves to villify individual firefighters. No they haven't! You have just proved my point! They write about what appeals to their target market - footballers. They can understand them. They cannot understand the intricacies of public enquiries. The vilification is inevitable. There are likely to be Hillsborough style charges in the future. The same paper also carries an in depth article on the intricacies of defence spending by none other than Max Hastings,an article about brexit (another complex issue) and another about Heathrow expansion. You can't tell me the sun is underestimating the intelligence of its readership. In my opinion,it is clearly trying to sway opinion against the London fire brigade and one officer in particular. You're reading too much into it. Why would a right-wing paper want to do that? The fact is, that as another poster has just said on here, the fire service and the person who was in charge at the time, in hindsight, appear to bear some responsibility for making the situation worse, because of a decision, that for whatever reason may have been perfectly reasonable at the time. And if you put all that into The Sun, most people are going to condense it into - the fire service got it wrong. So the journalist condenses it for them." Please read my comment above. If the building had behaved as it should have done in a fire, the stay put policy would have worked. No firefighter there would have expected the building to behave as it did. These duys had to write their names on their helmets knowing full well they may not come back out. They had to decide who to rescue knowing when they go back in, the person they didn't take first time around may be dead. They have to live with that. They are heros and are not at fault. Whoever was responsible for the shoddy upgrade should be hung out to dry. This should never have happened in 2017 in the capital city of a developed country. Its appauling. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And you may be right, but the function of the enquiry isn't just to look at the performance of the building, in the same way that you cannot say that had all those extra fans with no tickets not turned up, and tried to force their way into the ground, there would not have been a problem. " Lots should be learned from this. The LFB were saying for years to ban smoking on the underground and when was it done? When 31 people including an experienced fire officer were killed at Kings Cross. Sadly it takes a major disater for things to change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes you are right, it does. And maybe in the future, the instruction will be to evacuate asap, as I thought was always the rule. I wouldn't stay in a burning building, whatever anyone told me to do!" Did you read my first post? In a building of that size any evacuation would be phased. The fire took hold too quickly, spread way faster than would ever be expected and if the buildings fire safety was not comprimised as we now know it was, stay put was the best option. I bet, it that building was as it was when it was built, the fire would not have been any where near as severe. None of that work should have been signed off. 3 more floors were added taking it above what is permissable for a dry riser as it had. It should have had a wet riser fitted. 2 firefighters died in Southampton when they were trapped by cables that fell down from poorly fitted trunking following a refurb. Hopefully refurbs of this nature will be more closely scrutinised in futrure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don't seem to understand the purpose of an enquiry. The reason for deaths and injuries does not appear to be all down to the building or it's design or maintenance. " I understand fully, I've been to several. The fire service stay put policy is based on a building being fit for purpose. The alterations meant it wasn't. So yes, the fire service need to rethink their policy but as a result of shoddy workmanship and incorrect materials. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My heart goes out to everyone who lost someone in the fire and the firefighters who did their best with the resources they had. Having suffered with PTSD for 4 years, I hope they get the help they need. What they saw and did that night will stay with them forever. They went beyond the call of duty to save as many people as they could and for that, I salute them. " But did they get everything right? Did they contribute towards to problems? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just found a copy of Tuesday's sun. There is an article in there which appears to put blame on not only the organisation of London fire brigade but also onto individual fire fighters. Yet another reason not to buy this disgusting rag. But they were simply reporting what the public inquiry has discovered so far, and the decision by the fire service to tell people to stay was wrong and the blame for that is down to the fire service and the person there who gave the order. You cannot blame a newspaper for reporting facts. The Guardian reported the same thing at the beginning of June. The wording of the article implies the reporters opinion,in my opinion. Sun,Tuesday 26th.page 19. Article with the headline 'Fire Chief Fail'. There is a clear implication just in the headline. Well it isn't opinion. It is fact. The "stay put" command was a fail. The Article repeatedly refers to the officer being questioned as 'incident commander' and 'fire chief' implying that he was responsible for policies.It also states that he printed off outdated information. It does not say that he would have been in command of the first crew to arrive and that he was given outdated information,which would have been more accurate. It's The Sun, not a broadsheet. They cannot write articles 4 pages of broadsheet long. Their readers expect a very short article, so they have to condense an article that a broadsheet would write, and so the details that you quote have to be left out. It does not change the fact that their article was correct, and that your criticism was wrong. The person who gave the command to "stay put" was in charge at the time, and in hindsight, his command was wrong. He also had absolutely zero training to and wasn't qualified to deal with a fire of that scale. He was clearly traumatised by the event too. He didn't need to be trotted out in public like that for trying to help. " The defend in place evacuation strategy would not have been the responsiblity of the fire officer, it woild have bern developed by a competent fire safety person. He/she would have been advising the builders and landlord, on the best way to preserve life in the event of a fire. However the fire risk assessment should have been revisited after the cladding was added to the building, as it is a significant change to the building. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We used to carry out inspections regularly on all buildings and public places where the risk was potentially higher if a fire broke out, we would check each floor, charging the dry riser to ensure we would have water at the highest level.. Access for appliances would be part of that too.. We had specialist officers in fire prevention and fire safety who would work with council building and planning personnel when buildings were being built, changes of use or amended as Grenfell and others have been.. We used to have a pre determined attendance on such buildings where an aerial was part of the initial attendance plus 4 pumps, pump ladders.. All were changed to the detriment of the community post 05 when Blair government brought in the changes which cut jobs and responsibilities for safety in such buildings is solely down to the 'responsible person' in this case the tenants management or the landlord in the Borough.. A major social policy decision purely on cost which along with lax and easily exploited building regs led to this fire developing as it did.. The stay inside policy is based upon the sound advice that the individual flat or compartment is safe for a period where normal tried and tested globally accepted means of fighting the fire will happen.. That the building was unsafe as was Lakanal house where 6 people also sadly lost their lives is in a large part down to the fact that it was wrapped in flammable material and the necessary fire stopping measures where breached.. There is not an officer in my experience who would not have been overwhelmed initially given the speed of the fire spread.. He is being hung out and asked questions on national policy and procedural issues which are at the level of the home office and those who make such decisions.. " As someone who clearly knows more than average Joe public,what rank would you expect this officer to hold? I imagine something like what used to be Station Officer. I believe that by referring to him as Fire Chief,they are trying to lay more responsibility at his door than is reasonable. He may have been the senior officer at first response but major decisions would quickly have been taken out of his hands by even more senior officers,surely. Even the top fire chief of London would probably have had only limited say in major decisions about resources and tactics.These are more political matters aren't they? It really does seem like responsibility is being shifted where it does not belong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The public enquiry isn't about apportioning blame. That is for the criminal courts." The part of the inquiry that was broadcast on R4 and the article in the sun really do seem to be about blame. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I heard part of the enquiry on Radio 4 yesterday, as one of the first fire fighters to arrive on scene was being questioned? It really seemed as though there was an implication that the fire service did not do their duty properly and that more lives could have been saved if they had. If this really was what was being implied,does anyone else feel as angry as I do that such heroes should be made a scapegoat for incompetent planning departments and penny pinching building contractors? I know who I'd rather have coming to my aid in an emergency and it wouldn't be a councillor or a politician. " Not many people are in jobs where others lives depend on the decisions we make. Imagine how it felt for those firefighters attending to be placed in what was an impossible situation where the loss of life despite their heroic efforts was massive. An enquiry is needed but to criticize those who put their own lives in danger can only add to their agony. I hope that the enquiry is as hard on the real culprits! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The council, and government will want to shift as much blame away from their penny pinching and in consideration of the poorer people of London. They allowed unsafe cladding to be fitted and now they want to blame someone else for not knowing it was unsafe and a fire risk. " This every time | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I heard part of the enquiry on Radio 4 yesterday, as one of the first fire fighters to arrive on scene was being questioned? It really seemed as though there was an implication that the fire service did not do their duty properly and that more lives could have been saved if they had. If this really was what was being implied,does anyone else feel as angry as I do that such heroes should be made a scapegoat for incompetent planning departments and penny pinching building contractors? I know who I'd rather have coming to my aid in an emergency and it wouldn't be a councillor or a politician. Not many people are in jobs where others lives depend on the decisions we make. Imagine how it felt for those firefighters attending to be placed in what was an impossible situation where the loss of life despite their heroic efforts was massive. An enquiry is needed but to criticize those who put their own lives in danger can only add to their agony. I hope that the enquiry is as hard on the real culprits!" So how do you explain Hillsborough? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The council, and government will want to shift as much blame away from their penny pinching and in consideration of the poorer people of London. They allowed unsafe cladding to be fitted and now they want to blame someone else for not knowing it was unsafe and a fire risk. This every time " By "poorer people" we mean "illegal immigrants"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The council, and government will want to shift as much blame away from their penny pinching and in consideration of the poorer people of London. They allowed unsafe cladding to be fitted and now they want to blame someone else for not knowing it was unsafe and a fire risk. This every time By "poorer people" we mean "illegal immigrants"?" What difference does it make? They are still people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We used to carry out inspections regularly on all buildings and public places where the risk was potentially higher if a fire broke out, we would check each floor, charging the dry riser to ensure we would have water at the highest level.. Access for appliances would be part of that too.. We had specialist officers in fire prevention and fire safety who would work with council building and planning personnel when buildings were being built, changes of use or amended as Grenfell and others have been.. We used to have a pre determined attendance on such buildings where an aerial was part of the initial attendance plus 4 pumps, pump ladders.. All were changed to the detriment of the community post 05 when Blair government brought in the changes which cut jobs and responsibilities for safety in such buildings is solely down to the 'responsible person' in this case the tenants management or the landlord in the Borough.. A major social policy decision purely on cost which along with lax and easily exploited building regs led to this fire developing as it did.. The stay inside policy is based upon the sound advice that the individual flat or compartment is safe for a period where normal tried and tested globally accepted means of fighting the fire will happen.. That the building was unsafe as was Lakanal house where 6 people also sadly lost their lives is in a large part down to the fact that it was wrapped in flammable material and the necessary fire stopping measures where breached.. There is not an officer in my experience who would not have been overwhelmed initially given the speed of the fire spread.. He is being hung out and asked questions on national policy and procedural issues which are at the level of the home office and those who make such decisions.. As someone who clearly knows more than average Joe public,what rank would you expect this officer to hold? I imagine something like what used to be Station Officer. I believe that by referring to him as Fire Chief,they are trying to lay more responsibility at his door than is reasonable. He may have been the senior officer at first response but major decisions would quickly have been taken out of his hands by even more senior officers,surely. Even the top fire chief of London would probably have had only limited say in major decisions about resources and tactics.These are more political matters aren't they? It really does seem like responsibility is being shifted where it does not belong. " Watch manager is the old Station Officer more or less after we went from rank to role, I believe that Danny Cotton the brigade Chief is reverting back to the old system.. He was in being the oic of the first attendance in charge but would or should have had an ADO, station manager there pretty soon who would have acted as monitoring on a smaller job eg. House fire or rtc but in this would or should have taken over.. In which case an officer of the next rank would be ordered on.. I have heard various views on when it was made up and who took charge but can't say on here given the circumstances.. I think it's more that the enquiry hasn't had sufficient guidance from the home office and or the fire service inspectorate / government advisor on what the parameters of responsibility actually are.. Which is worrying, the Fbu are right in their criticism of his questioning thus far.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The firemen came out after putting the original blaze out to find the cladding layer was ablaze "No they didn't! Read what Firefighter Batterbee told the enquiry today. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My heart goes out to everyone who lost someone in the fire and the firefighters who did their best with the resources they had. Having suffered with PTSD for 4 years, I hope they get the help they need. What they saw and did that night will stay with them forever. They went beyond the call of duty to save as many people as they could and for that, I salute them. But did they get everything right? Did they contribute towards to problems?" No, I don't think they contributed towards the problems, they implemented everything they needed to taking all training and historic fires in similar buildings into account. No high rise in this country has behaved that badly in a fire and as someone else has mentioned, the fire was spreading unbeknown to them behind the cladding. That building was wrapped in a flammable blanket. I very much doubt the fire would have spread at that rate if the building didn't have it. This speed of spread could never have been foreseen. Coupled with the fact there was only one staircase only slightly wider than a normal domestic one, littered with large diameter hose, water cascading down, smoke logged, limited visibility and firefighters in bulky kit meant total evacuation would have been difficult at best. They did what they were trained to do. They all went in to an unknown inferno numerous times. They are truly hero's. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Heroic in fighting the fire, but was a wrong order to "stay put" given, when the flames had already spread up the side of the building?" A stay put policy had been decided on years before, not on the day. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But was it the right policy on the day when the flames were licking up the side of the building?" It was their policy which they rightly or wrongly stuck to. No one could have foreseen the rapid spread of the fire, it's never happened to that degree. In footage taken by a firefighter on his phone in the back of the pump en route, you can hear one of them say how does that even happen because I will guarantee you, no firefighter would expect a building on fire to behave like that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But was it the right policy on the day when the flames were licking up the side of the building?" Had it been decided to change that policy then how would they let people know? Knock on their door perhaps? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We used to carry out inspections regularly on all buildings and public places where the risk was potentially higher if a fire broke out, we would check each floor, charging the dry riser to ensure we would have water at the highest level.. Access for appliances would be part of that too.. We had specialist officers in fire prevention and fire safety who would work with council building and planning personnel when buildings were being built, changes of use or amended as Grenfell and others have been.. We used to have a pre determined attendance on such buildings where an aerial was part of the initial attendance plus 4 pumps, pump ladders.. All were changed to the detriment of the community post 05 when Blair government brought in the changes which cut jobs and responsibilities for safety in such buildings is solely down to the 'responsible person' in this case the tenants management or the landlord in the Borough.. A major social policy decision purely on cost which along with lax and easily exploited building regs led to this fire developing as it did.. The stay inside policy is based upon the sound advice that the individual flat or compartment is safe for a period where normal tried and tested globally accepted means of fighting the fire will happen.. That the building was unsafe as was Lakanal house where 6 people also sadly lost their lives is in a large part down to the fact that it was wrapped in flammable material and the necessary fire stopping measures where breached.. There is not an officer in my experience who would not have been overwhelmed initially given the speed of the fire spread.. He is being hung out and asked questions on national policy and procedural issues which are at the level of the home office and those who make such decisions.. " Totally agree - following the change in fire legislation where the onus on risk assessment and fire safety management was put into the hands of non-fire specialist was a government decision - they must therefore be accountable. Secondly wrapping the tower in combustible materials (due to the timescales to undertake this work)surely the Construction Design and Management Regulations would be invoked - again enforced by either the HSE or local building control - someone from one of these departments must have approved the use of these materials. Stop blaming/intimidating the fire service and start looking a little closer to home...……………. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But accept that the fire service had a part to play in the disaster also." Indeed they did - they saved lives - surely nobody could envisage such a disaster - like the Zeebrugge ferry disaster it should never have happened - but it did due to human failings - you cannot practice / train for these types of disaster you just react as best you can. I am really sorry for those who lost their lives and their friends and families but how many tenants removed the fire doors from their flats to give them more space without understanding the consequences and the need to prevent uncontrolled fire spread | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But accept that the fire service had a part to play in the disaster also. Indeed they did - they saved lives - surely nobody could envisage such a disaster - like the Zeebrugge ferry disaster it should never have happened - but it did due to human failings - you cannot practice / train for these types of disaster you just react as best you can. I am really sorry for those who lost their lives and their friends and families but how many tenants removed the fire doors from their flats to give them more space without understanding the consequences and the need to prevent uncontrolled fire spread" As I said yesterday, the tenants, who became landlords by unlawfully sub-letting to illegal immigrants, and the illegal immigrants, as you say, all have a part to play in this, but it is no good saying that fire service do not share some responsibility. What is the difference between the organisation who allowed the cladding panels to remain, in circumstances where on installation or inspection, who could have known their effect, and the decision by the fire service to tell people to "stay put". Both decisions seems correct at the time. The panels modernised and smartened up the buildings. Staying put is sometimes the right thing to do in a tall building. In retrospect, both were wrong decisions and both had terrible consequences. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"yeah, it’s a cunts trick to point the finger of blame at the only people on the ground working their arses off to save people. The fire was unprecedented in this country. The fireman who went into the flat put out a small kitchen fire and radio’d control to say job done. He got the shock of his life when he walked outside and saw the whole building engulfed. The firemen and women arn’t to blame, maybe further up the chain of command but not those on the ground doing as they are told. It seems blame ought start at the very beginning, with planners, safety officer, building regs etc. Not the people who try to put the fire out when it all went wrong." That's wrong as I said yesterday, so why repeat it? I posted yesterday the name of that firefighter, who with his colleague could see the fire on the outside of the building from that kitchen, and then started to fight it. He was also told about it on the radio. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" They weren’t using firefighters as scapegoats but highlighting that fact that the fire staff wasn’t trained to deal with high rise fires. I used to live in the neighbourhood before the tragedy and local council member were a pain to deal with. Even getting a parking permit from them was a mission! They categorically ignored those people’s voices about the fire risk in the building. I would be very angry if they weren’t prosecuted including the building contractors, architects and the governing body! I'd forgotten about that interview. If the chief inspector of the fire brigade says his personnel aren't properly trained, isn't that an admission of guilt? With the number of high rises there are in London you'd think that would be a priority. I wouldn’t say it’s guilt but it is due to funding cuts.. boris Johnson went around closing fire stations in his time as mayor. They had to get a crane from Kent to reach the top of the building where the fire was. They didn’t even have a crane in London available to reach the top of the building to tackle the fire. But the fire staff did the best with what they had. Also no helicopters were used to tackle the fire either??!! What could helicopters do to help? They could drop water/anti fire material from top of the building and to save people from windows " You’re winding us up arn’t you. The heat from the fire would make any helicopter burst into flames when it got within a few hundred feet, it’d be like hovering above an erupting volcano. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"yeah, it’s a cunts trick to point the finger of blame at the only people on the ground working their arses off to save people. The fire was unprecedented in this country. The fireman who went into the flat put out a small kitchen fire and radio’d control to say job done. He got the shock of his life when he walked outside and saw the whole building engulfed. The firemen and women arn’t to blame, maybe further up the chain of command but not those on the ground doing as they are told. It seems blame ought start at the very beginning, with planners, safety officer, building regs etc. Not the people who try to put the fire out when it all went wrong. That's wrong as I said yesterday, so why repeat it? I posted yesterday the name of that firefighter, who with his colleague could see the fire on the outside of the building from that kitchen, and then started to fight it. He was also told about it on the radio." Your attitude stinks mate. Do you think we all hang off your every word and read everything you have posted? Well I’m sorry but I got one don’t. I read that guy transcript from the evidence he gave and that’s how it read. I havnt repeated anything I’ve said before, this is the first time I’ve been on this thread or any other to do with Grenfell. Stop being a prick, there are better ways to point out wrong information. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"yeah, it’s a cunts trick to point the finger of blame at the only people on the ground working their arses off to save people. The fire was unprecedented in this country. The fireman who went into the flat put out a small kitchen fire and radio’d control to say job done. He got the shock of his life when he walked outside and saw the whole building engulfed. The firemen and women arn’t to blame, maybe further up the chain of command but not those on the ground doing as they are told. It seems blame ought start at the very beginning, with planners, safety officer, building regs etc. Not the people who try to put the fire out when it all went wrong. That's wrong as I said yesterday, so why repeat it? I posted yesterday the name of that firefighter, who with his colleague could see the fire on the outside of the building from that kitchen, and then started to fight it. He was also told about it on the radio. Your attitude stinks mate. Do you think we all hang off your every word and read everything you have posted? Well I’m sorry but I got one don’t. I read that guy transcript from the evidence he gave and that’s how it read. I havnt repeated anything I’ve said before, this is the first time I’ve been on this thread or any other to do with Grenfell. Stop being a prick, there are better ways to point out wrong information. " You clearly haven't read the transcript, otherwise you wouldn't post things that are patently untrue. You just posted what you wanted to believe were the facts, because they suit your agenda, which is to criticise anyone in the vernacular, who dares to suggest that the fire service share no responsibility for the tragedy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I heard part of the enquiry on Radio 4 yesterday, as one of the first fire fighters to arrive on scene was being questioned? It really seemed as though there was an implication that the fire service did not do their duty properly and that more lives could have been saved if they had. If this really was what was being implied,does anyone else feel as angry as I do that such heroes should be made a scapegoat for incompetent planning departments and penny pinching building contractors? I know who I'd rather have coming to my aid in an emergency and it wouldn't be a councillor or a politician. " . So all councillors and planning department workers are wankers out to screw you out of your hard earned taxs but all fireman are heroes?. You seem very biased politically,a left wing slant if you don't mind me saying. 80 odd people died in a accident, a very rare accident, according to the inquiry less than 10 people would have died if they hadn't had a "stay put" policy in place,10 people in a once in ten year fire!. Sure there's lessons to be learned, but spending billions ripping cladding of thousands of buildings is crazy and this kinda of nonsense is only ever driven by politically leaning left/right extremists who really aren't interested in how we run a country effectively yet reasonably. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I heard part of the enquiry on Radio 4 yesterday, as one of the first fire fighters to arrive on scene was being questioned? It really seemed as though there was an implication that the fire service did not do their duty properly and that more lives could have been saved if they had. If this really was what was being implied,does anyone else feel as angry as I do that such heroes should be made a scapegoat for incompetent planning departments and penny pinching building contractors? I know who I'd rather have coming to my aid in an emergency and it wouldn't be a councillor or a politician. . So all councillors and planning department workers are wankers out to screw you out of your hard earned taxs but all fireman are heroes?. You seem very biased politically,a left wing slant if you don't mind me saying. 80 odd people died in a accident, a very rare accident, according to the inquiry less than 10 people would have died if they hadn't had a "stay put" policy in place,10 people in a once in ten year fire!. Sure there's lessons to be learned, but spending billions ripping cladding of thousands of buildings is crazy and this kinda of nonsense is only ever driven by politically leaning left/right extremists who really aren't interested in how we run a country effectively yet reasonably." I don't mind at all if you interpret my post as having a left leaning slant but I do mind you misrepresenting what I posted. I never said anything like the way you have chosen to interpret it. You may consider me to be a leftist extremist but I don't quite see how my support for firefighters and my dislike for the shoddy reporting style of The Sun might lead you to that conclusion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" They weren’t using firefighters as scapegoats but highlighting that fact that the fire staff wasn’t trained to deal with high rise fires. I used to live in the neighbourhood before the tragedy and local council member were a pain to deal with. Even getting a parking permit from them was a mission! They categorically ignored those people’s voices about the fire risk in the building. I would be very angry if they weren’t prosecuted including the building contractors, architects and the governing body! I'd forgotten about that interview. If the chief inspector of the fire brigade says his personnel aren't properly trained, isn't that an admission of guilt? With the number of high rises there are in London you'd think that would be a priority. I wouldn’t say it’s guilt but it is due to funding cuts.. boris Johnson went around closing fire stations in his time as mayor. They had to get a crane from Kent to reach the top of the building where the fire was. They didn’t even have a crane in London available to reach the top of the building to tackle the fire. But the fire staff did the best with what they had. Also no helicopters were used to tackle the fire either??!! What could helicopters do to help? They could drop water/anti fire material from top of the building and to save people from windows " no chance of using helicopters to drop water or people the wind from the rotary propellers would just enhance and spread the flames more. im still thinking plugs in baths and sinks and flood every apartment may have slightly helped ,if there was still running water of course , pipes may have melted | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" They weren’t using firefighters as scapegoats but highlighting that fact that the fire staff wasn’t trained to deal with high rise fires. I used to live in the neighbourhood before the tragedy and local council member were a pain to deal with. Even getting a parking permit from them was a mission! They categorically ignored those people’s voices about the fire risk in the building. I would be very angry if they weren’t prosecuted including the building contractors, architects and the governing body! I'd forgotten about that interview. If the chief inspector of the fire brigade says his personnel aren't properly trained, isn't that an admission of guilt? With the number of high rises there are in London you'd think that would be a priority. I wouldn’t say it’s guilt but it is due to funding cuts.. boris Johnson went around closing fire stations in his time as mayor. They had to get a crane from Kent to reach the top of the building where the fire was. They didn’t even have a crane in London available to reach the top of the building to tackle the fire. But the fire staff did the best with what they had. Also no helicopters were used to tackle the fire either??!! What could helicopters do to help? They could drop water/anti fire material from top of the building and to save people from windows no chance of using helicopters to drop water or people the wind from the rotary propellers would just enhance and spread the flames more. im still thinking plugs in baths and sinks and flood every apartment may have slightly helped ,if there was still running water of course , pipes may have melted" I believe the water supply to upper floors was damaged which probably hindered the fire fighting efforts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" They weren’t using firefighters as scapegoats but highlighting that fact that the fire staff wasn’t trained to deal with high rise fires. I used to live in the neighbourhood before the tragedy and local council member were a pain to deal with. Even getting a parking permit from them was a mission! They categorically ignored those people’s voices about the fire risk in the building. I would be very angry if they weren’t prosecuted including the building contractors, architects and the governing body! I'd forgotten about that interview. If the chief inspector of the fire brigade says his personnel aren't properly trained, isn't that an admission of guilt? With the number of high rises there are in London you'd think that would be a priority. I wouldn’t say it’s guilt but it is due to funding cuts.. boris Johnson went around closing fire stations in his time as mayor. They had to get a crane from Kent to reach the top of the building where the fire was. They didn’t even have a crane in London available to reach the top of the building to tackle the fire. But the fire staff did the best with what they had. Also no helicopters were used to tackle the fire either??!! What could helicopters do to help? They could drop water/anti fire material from top of the building and to save people from windows no chance of using helicopters to drop water or people the wind from the rotary propellers would just enhance and spread the flames more. im still thinking plugs in baths and sinks and flood every apartment may have slightly helped ,if there was still running water of course , pipes may have melted" Good point about the plugs. Dont know if it would work though as you said melting pipes. As a dryliner by trade that has installed many cladding system and fire protection like this iam intrigued to aee what happens. How they are going to pass the buck from one person / council department to another. My two cents for what its worth. Government and council to ultimately bare responsibility. They make the laws which we abide to. The cladding was fire rated. If installed incorrectly builing inspector (government body) should have condemned the install and done it again. Builders architects etc only follow the guidelines provided to them. As i said my personal opinion and do not wish to cause any offence to anyone about this terrible tradagy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" They weren’t using firefighters as scapegoats but highlighting that fact that the fire staff wasn’t trained to deal with high rise fires. I used to live in the neighbourhood before the tragedy and local council member were a pain to deal with. Even getting a parking permit from them was a mission! They categorically ignored those people’s voices about the fire risk in the building. I would be very angry if they weren’t prosecuted including the building contractors, architects and the governing body! I'd forgotten about that interview. If the chief inspector of the fire brigade says his personnel aren't properly trained, isn't that an admission of guilt? With the number of high rises there are in London you'd think that would be a priority. I wouldn’t say it’s guilt but it is due to funding cuts.. boris Johnson went around closing fire stations in his time as mayor. They had to get a crane from Kent to reach the top of the building where the fire was. They didn’t even have a crane in London available to reach the top of the building to tackle the fire. But the fire staff did the best with what they had. Also no helicopters were used to tackle the fire either??!! What could helicopters do to help? They could drop water/anti fire material from top of the building and to save people from windows no chance of using helicopters to drop water or people the wind from the rotary propellers would just enhance and spread the flames more. im still thinking plugs in baths and sinks and flood every apartment may have slightly helped ,if there was still running water of course , pipes may have melted I believe the water supply to upper floors was damaged which probably hindered the fire fighting efforts." Besides,this thread was never supposed to be about speculation on fire fighting tactics. It was originally more about seeming to place blame on the officer in charge of the first response. Bearing in mind that the first reponse was probably in response to a phone call,possibly from someone in quite an agitated and distressed state.The first responders could only have reacted to the situation that they found. The big decisions must surely be taken further up the chain. If the enquiry wanted to know about tactics and policies,then maybe they should have been asking the chief fire officer rather than the guy who was first on the scene. I believe this definitely was an attempt at scapegoating and it was completely wrong to target the officer that they did. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I heard part of the enquiry on Radio 4 yesterday, as one of the first fire fighters to arrive on scene was being questioned? It really seemed as though there was an implication that the fire service did not do their duty properly and that more lives could have been saved if they had. If this really was what was being implied,does anyone else feel as angry as I do that such heroes should be made a scapegoat for incompetent planning departments and penny pinching building contractors? I know who I'd rather have coming to my aid in an emergency and it wouldn't be a councillor or a politician. . So all councillors and planning department workers are wankers out to screw you out of your hard earned taxs but all fireman are heroes?. You seem very biased politically,a left wing slant if you don't mind me saying. 80 odd people died in a accident, a very rare accident, according to the inquiry less than 10 people would have died if they hadn't had a "stay put" policy in place,10 people in a once in ten year fire!. Sure there's lessons to be learned, but spending billions ripping cladding of thousands of buildings is crazy and this kinda of nonsense is only ever driven by politically leaning left/right extremists who really aren't interested in how we run a country effectively yet reasonably. I don't mind at all if you interpret my post as having a left leaning slant but I do mind you misrepresenting what I posted. I never said anything like the way you have chosen to interpret it. You may consider me to be a leftist extremist but I don't quite see how my support for firefighters and my dislike for the shoddy reporting style of The Sun might lead you to that conclusion." . Well you say silly things like "I know who I'd prefer to be rescued by in a fire",I mean what's the point of saying that?. It's like saying who would you prefer to fly the plane, the pilot or the CEO!. If you think the reporting is shoddy don't frigging read it, if your REALLY offended by it report it to the ombudsman. It's entirely possible that the fire service did fuck up the fire fighting of the building not through lack of want or will but just through lack of knowledge and practise, these fires don't exactly occur regularly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"yeah, it’s a cunts trick to point the finger of blame at the only people on the ground working their arses off to save people. The fire was unprecedented in this country. The fireman who went into the flat put out a small kitchen fire and radio’d control to say job done. He got the shock of his life when he walked outside and saw the whole building engulfed. The firemen and women arn’t to blame, maybe further up the chain of command but not those on the ground doing as they are told. It seems blame ought start at the very beginning, with planners, safety officer, building regs etc. Not the people who try to put the fire out when it all went wrong. That's wrong as I said yesterday, so why repeat it? I posted yesterday the name of that firefighter, who with his colleague could see the fire on the outside of the building from that kitchen, and then started to fight it. He was also told about it on the radio. Your attitude stinks mate. Do you think we all hang off your every word and read everything you have posted? Well I’m sorry but I got one don’t. I read that guy transcript from the evidence he gave and that’s how it read. I havnt repeated anything I’ve said before, this is the first time I’ve been on this thread or any other to do with Grenfell. Stop being a prick, there are better ways to point out wrong information. You clearly haven't read the transcript, otherwise you wouldn't post things that are patently untrue. You just posted what you wanted to believe were the facts, because they suit your agenda, which is to criticise anyone in the vernacular, who dares to suggest that the fire service share no responsibility for the tragedy." I posted about what had read which was a transcript of the firefighters evidence, I read it on the sky news app, whether it was complete I don’t know but that’s how it read. I don’t have an agenda unlike you who seems to dislike any opinion that differs to your own which says a lot more about you than anybody else. I stand by my comment about your attitude, it stinks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be fair to all, a lot of people and conditions had a part to play and it's not right to pin the blame an any one person or group. First, the cladding was done to a budget. Had the council spend a fortune on using fire proof cladding and the fire never started, they would have been under fire for spending so much on cladding a tower block while council tax is increasing and services being cut. Second, councillors are not engineers. They don't know about flame retardant chemicals, they employed a contractor to deal with that. Thirdly the contractor who tendered for the contract and had to negotiate with the council. Regardless of whether brown envelopes or secret handshakes were involved in the contract, the price had to be approved by the council. Given the austerity measures councils are facing, the contractor would have been pressured into keeping the cost down which in turn meant reducing the cost of the materials. Had they gone back demanding more money to complete the works, the press and media would have had a field day. Fourth, the manufacturers and suppliers of the cladding. While the cladding did not comply with the regulations today, it complied with those at the time it was installed, though had it been tested using current tests it would have failed. The crux of the matter was we now know the material was unsuitable but at the time, it was believed to be suitable due a lack of contrary information. Fifth the fire brigade may not have turned up at the fire early enough with adequate equipment, however the fire brigade are under budgetary restraints and will turn up at a fire with the equipment they think is required based on the information they have. The climate was also largely responsible. It was a very hot spell. Windows would have been open. This is what allowed the fire to spread between the inside and outside of the building. Had the windows been closed the cladding would have had no source of ignition. Having lived in a flat, I am also aware that fire doors are usually wedged open rendering them useless. There was even a report of the resident who lived in the flat wedging his front door open while he took his belongings outside, before even raising the alarm. Each and every one of these had a contributing effect, but no one of them is responsible for the disaster." There's no place here for logic and common sense, how dare you!! Great post. Sums the situation up perfectly. Too many armchair experts being smart as fuck from the comfort of their settee, months after the event, without knowing any of the actual facts and details..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But accept that the fire service had a part to play in the disaster also." Their part was to attend which they did and to go into that inferno some several times even without water which is pretty much unless it's a 'snatch rescue' a don't do.. That incident was on the cards sadly after the advice post the fatal Lakanal house fire waiting to happen.. That was not down to the crews attending Grenfell but the powers that be that let the tenants and families of those in the building down.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But accept that the fire service had a part to play in the disaster also. Their part was to attend which they did and to go into that inferno some several times even without water which is pretty much unless it's a 'snatch rescue' a don't do.. That incident was on the cards sadly after the advice post the fatal Lakanal house fire waiting to happen.. That was not down to the crews attending Grenfell but the powers that be that let the tenants and families of those in the building down.. " Let's not forget many of the tenants who sub let and overcrowded and removed the fire doors or wedged them open. The responsibility for this tragedy lies in many contributing factors. Under normal circumstances none of these would have been a problem. But when one plate stops spinning, the rest come crashing down. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A lot of the immediate backlash was toward the government when I'd think the fire service should have signed off safety checks. Things like smoke alarms, fire doors, fire extinguishers, adequate routes out even signage.. I think these were things that were found missing. If this had been raised by fire officials then yes the management firm or council should be culpable. If residents had raised them but the fire service had checked them, then questions still need to be asked." The responsibility for checks such as fire doors, extinguishers etc were taken away from the fire brigade to their concern | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
