It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
'A number of fatalities' confirmed as huge blaze 'sparked by a faulty FRIDGE' engulfs 27-storey buil
page: 4share:
RIP the victims!
Looks like a clear case of negligence and one or two crimes of involuntary manslaughter may be on the cards here.
We should be surprised when those in positions to protect the public don't! Common theme!
Looks like a clear case of negligence and one or two crimes of involuntary manslaughter may be on the cards here.
We should be surprised when those in positions to protect the public don't! Common theme!
originally posted by: Macenroe82
What rattled me even more is how the news felt it was important to state that this building was home to a majority of muslim's.
How in the hell does that have ANY bearing on the fact that the building is on fire and the tenants are trapped inside?
Its sickening that the news felt it was so detrimental in announcing the majority of the occupants faith.
Twisted bastards.
This is a full on tragedy.
If found responsible - I hope the owner is charged for manslaughter for every life lost.
I read through the official newsletters from the management company. Residents had been altering the internal fabric of the building (knocking down walls, merging rooms, adding new walls) to the point that the structure of the building is no longer to national building code.
We have this problem with international visitors. Many countries don't require planning permission to alter a property. So they just go ahead willy-nilly, pave over gardens, build multiplex apartments in their backyard, demolish listed buildings and replace them with monster mansions.
Most legislation covering the fire hazard risk of flammable cladding seems to be advisory and not apply to buildings over 18 meters high.
www.celotex.co.uk...
www.rockwool.co.uk...[editby ]edit on 14-6-2017 by stormcell because: (no reason given)
a reply to: stormcell
Any wall knocking, adding would be stud walls/plasterboard...no-one in social housing is going to be taking out supporting walls.
The fault lies with the company, not the residents, for crying out loud, some of the poorest in our society have just been killed by renovation on the cheap and you want to raise issue with a little bit of harmless renovation work, probably done by residents because they can't get re-housed in a property adequate for their occupancy.
There were residents who have raised concerns over this block, sadly they have been proven right.
Any wall knocking, adding would be stud walls/plasterboard...no-one in social housing is going to be taking out supporting walls.
The fault lies with the company, not the residents, for crying out loud, some of the poorest in our society have just been killed by renovation on the cheap and you want to raise issue with a little bit of harmless renovation work, probably done by residents because they can't get re-housed in a property adequate for their occupancy.
There were residents who have raised concerns over this block, sadly they have been proven right.
a reply to: solargeddon
One of those residents who was involved with an action group to get these matters properly attended to, was minutes away from being engulfed himself, when the fire service located him and escorted him from the building. The Grenfell Action Group (I believe I have that right) were treated like a nuisance by the authorities, both the landlords themselves and the local authority, and their concerns were brushed off by the Housing Minister of the time also.
My thinking is, that the entire mob of them, everyone between the landlords and the former housing minister, needs arresting and incarcerating for conspiring to perform an act of economically motivated genocide.
One of those residents who was involved with an action group to get these matters properly attended to, was minutes away from being engulfed himself, when the fire service located him and escorted him from the building. The Grenfell Action Group (I believe I have that right) were treated like a nuisance by the authorities, both the landlords themselves and the local authority, and their concerns were brushed off by the Housing Minister of the time also.
My thinking is, that the entire mob of them, everyone between the landlords and the former housing minister, needs arresting and incarcerating for conspiring to perform an act of economically motivated genocide.
a reply to: TrueBrit
So stupid to put that cladding on the outside of the building after the incidents on other high rises across the world. How could regulators not have seen that and stopped using it? Not only stop using it, but rip it off any places it had been installed? Just a total cock up if you ask me. I hope some people end up in jail over this.
Is there an estimate on the number of victims yet? I've seen 18 so far but they said the number might go higher....
So stupid to put that cladding on the outside of the building after the incidents on other high rises across the world. How could regulators not have seen that and stopped using it? Not only stop using it, but rip it off any places it had been installed? Just a total cock up if you ask me. I hope some people end up in jail over this.
Is there an estimate on the number of victims yet? I've seen 18 so far but they said the number might go higher....
originally posted by: capncrunch88
a reply to: TrueBrit
So stupid to put that cladding on the outside of the building after the incidents on other high rises across the world. How could regulators not have seen that and stopped using it? Not only stop using it, but rip it off any places it had been installed? Just a total cock up if you ask me. I hope some people end up in jail over this.
Is there an estimate on the number of victims yet? I've seen 18 so far but they said the number might go higher....
Judging by the number of people known to be missing, the final casualty figure is likely to reach 100. However, the police have warned that the exact figure may never be known (nor every fatality identified) because of the destruction of their bodies.
a reply to: TrueBrit
Thanks for that. Existing legislation already provides that properties have to be fit for human habitation so the title of the Independent's article is a little misleading and tenants do have comprehensive rights and can get Legal Aid quite often too to enforce them. Yes, there are bad landlords but there are also bad tenants.
However, any MP who was a landlord would have had a clear conflict of interest and I am disgusted that they were allowed to vote in that debate.
As for your opinion about the law with regard to landlords/tenants we will have to agree to differ but as a practicing lawyer who has represented both landlords and tenants over many years I do know whereof I speak.
That said, I think that some heads are going to roll over this awful tragedy which seems to have been avoidable but I have this nagging feeling that this fire may have been deliberately started - I hope not but time will tell.
Thanks for that. Existing legislation already provides that properties have to be fit for human habitation so the title of the Independent's article is a little misleading and tenants do have comprehensive rights and can get Legal Aid quite often too to enforce them. Yes, there are bad landlords but there are also bad tenants.
However, any MP who was a landlord would have had a clear conflict of interest and I am disgusted that they were allowed to vote in that debate.
As for your opinion about the law with regard to landlords/tenants we will have to agree to differ but as a practicing lawyer who has represented both landlords and tenants over many years I do know whereof I speak.
That said, I think that some heads are going to roll over this awful tragedy which seems to have been avoidable but I have this nagging feeling that this fire may have been deliberately started - I hope not but time will tell.
a reply to: capncrunch88
Interesting document about this issue. Concerns re risks associated with building claddings to high-rise blocks were raised as long ago as 1988.
www.bre.co.uk...
Some relevant case studies included in above pdf doc.
Interesting document about this issue. Concerns re risks associated with building claddings to high-rise blocks were raised as long ago as 1988.
www.bre.co.uk...
Some relevant case studies included in above pdf doc.
originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: TrueBrit
Thanks for that. Existing legislation already provides that properties have to be fit for human habitation so the title of the Independent's article is a little misleading and tenants do have comprehensive rights and can get Legal Aid quite often too to enforce them. Yes, there are bad landlords but there are also bad tenants.
According to the Law Society, these are the housing issues for which tenants might be able to secure Legal Aid:
possession proceedings and eviction - including counterclaims for disrepair
unlawful eviction
homelessness including asylum support for accommodation
anti-social behaviour cases
harassment injunctions
serious disrepair
www.lawsociety.org.uk...
Given as the building had recently undergone refurbishment, it seems unlikely anyone (legal profession) might have wanted to take the case (disrepair being the only property based issue funded by Legal Aid). Also, is Legal Aid available to community groups? I always thought Legal Aid applied only to the legal rights of the individual. Have there been any Legal Aid funded class/joint action cases (housing)? Genuinely interested in learning what support the residents group had recourse to.
a reply to: oldcarpy
Actually, the landlord is a private company, set up in 1996. It is allegedly a non-profit, funneling all income back into investment, so the story goes. But that did not prevent its former chairman from stepping down over safety concerns he had, stemming in his view from how it was being run at the time.
Now, this means that although the properties are in some fashion local authority properties, KCTMO manages these properties on behalf of the local authority, it is responsible for managing these properties, maintaining them and their structure, equipment and otherwise in good and working order, and, contextually important to this topic, safety in all aspects, with regard to matters of fire, structural safety, emergency planning and so on. It takes therefore, responsibility for their upkeep and the lives of tenants, in an event such as this.
This is one of the key reasons why I believe that all social housing should be directly managed by government, so that any and all persons responsible for upkeep of such buildings, are directly employed by the state, not any private company of any kind, for profit or non-profit. Removing degrees of separation between public services, like the provision of social housing, and the government, would mean that in every case such as this, immediate action could be taken against those responsible for the failures on display, and the lives lost, not only by criminal charges being easier to bring (because there is no grey area with regard to responsibility) but also by way of direct action, which could be taken against a government seen or proven to have colluded in some fashion to cut corners, in the event of that corner cutting having even the slightest negative effect on tenant safety.
Furthermore, a holistic approach (no, not trippy, hippy nonsense, but the proper meaning of the word, i.e. broad and complete, of the whole, rather than the quanta which make it up) needs to be taken to understanding the picture here. The building firm which was employed by KCTMO to fit the cladding which has been in question in this matter, claim that their work and materials met all current safety standards. Either they are lying through their teeth, which would be fantastically stupid of them, given the fact that extensive forensic investigation is likely to occur rather soon, OR something is DRASTICALLY wrong with the standards to which they are referring...
And the rabbit hole goes deeper, and deeper here. While some will claim that landlords are held to some of the highest standards in the world in this country, it is not unreasonable to state, that if these claddings, which were clearly problematic and exacerbated the speed of the fires spread up the building, WERE to code, that means that the so called standards for these things are seriously lacking in efficacy and are not fit for purpose. It will interest members to know, that the Conservatives routinely strike down any effort to improve these standards, because members of the party would stand to fork out huge sums to ensure that their properties match up to the new standards.
It ought to come as little surprise to note, that one of the Conservatives who voted against Corbyns proposal to further strengthen standards with regard to landlords responsibilities toward their tenants, and the safety of properties they rent, is none other than the newly minted Police and Fire Minister, Nick Hurd. This individual makes, apparently, around twenty thousand pounds a year from the rental of two properties, one of which is a house, the other some form of apartment. He is also, ironically, and some might say callously so, one of the ministers directly dealing with the fallout from the Grenfall incident.
The former Minister for Housing sitting on reports detailing problems with the building that burned, and the Police and Fire Minister voting against and recommending against better regulation. How deep does the rot go?
Actually, the landlord is a private company, set up in 1996. It is allegedly a non-profit, funneling all income back into investment, so the story goes. But that did not prevent its former chairman from stepping down over safety concerns he had, stemming in his view from how it was being run at the time.
Now, this means that although the properties are in some fashion local authority properties, KCTMO manages these properties on behalf of the local authority, it is responsible for managing these properties, maintaining them and their structure, equipment and otherwise in good and working order, and, contextually important to this topic, safety in all aspects, with regard to matters of fire, structural safety, emergency planning and so on. It takes therefore, responsibility for their upkeep and the lives of tenants, in an event such as this.
This is one of the key reasons why I believe that all social housing should be directly managed by government, so that any and all persons responsible for upkeep of such buildings, are directly employed by the state, not any private company of any kind, for profit or non-profit. Removing degrees of separation between public services, like the provision of social housing, and the government, would mean that in every case such as this, immediate action could be taken against those responsible for the failures on display, and the lives lost, not only by criminal charges being easier to bring (because there is no grey area with regard to responsibility) but also by way of direct action, which could be taken against a government seen or proven to have colluded in some fashion to cut corners, in the event of that corner cutting having even the slightest negative effect on tenant safety.
Furthermore, a holistic approach (no, not trippy, hippy nonsense, but the proper meaning of the word, i.e. broad and complete, of the whole, rather than the quanta which make it up) needs to be taken to understanding the picture here. The building firm which was employed by KCTMO to fit the cladding which has been in question in this matter, claim that their work and materials met all current safety standards. Either they are lying through their teeth, which would be fantastically stupid of them, given the fact that extensive forensic investigation is likely to occur rather soon, OR something is DRASTICALLY wrong with the standards to which they are referring...
And the rabbit hole goes deeper, and deeper here. While some will claim that landlords are held to some of the highest standards in the world in this country, it is not unreasonable to state, that if these claddings, which were clearly problematic and exacerbated the speed of the fires spread up the building, WERE to code, that means that the so called standards for these things are seriously lacking in efficacy and are not fit for purpose. It will interest members to know, that the Conservatives routinely strike down any effort to improve these standards, because members of the party would stand to fork out huge sums to ensure that their properties match up to the new standards.
It ought to come as little surprise to note, that one of the Conservatives who voted against Corbyns proposal to further strengthen standards with regard to landlords responsibilities toward their tenants, and the safety of properties they rent, is none other than the newly minted Police and Fire Minister, Nick Hurd. This individual makes, apparently, around twenty thousand pounds a year from the rental of two properties, one of which is a house, the other some form of apartment. He is also, ironically, and some might say callously so, one of the ministers directly dealing with the fallout from the Grenfall incident.
The former Minister for Housing sitting on reports detailing problems with the building that burned, and the Police and Fire Minister voting against and recommending against better regulation. How deep does the rot go?
a reply to: TrueBrit
I understood that the block is owned by the local authority but is managed by KCTMO on it's behalf. They are Council flats, I believe. So, surely it is the Council who pay for upkeep and renovation etc?
I see that May has ordered a Public enquiry. Given the death toll to date (which is inevitably going to only rise) I believe that what she should be doing is ordering an inquest, with a jury, if she really wants to get to the bottom of all this.
I have to say that I thought she was mad not to have had a TV debate with JC in the election run up, but am disgusted that she would not meet with the surviving relatives when she visited. Shameful.
I understood that the block is owned by the local authority but is managed by KCTMO on it's behalf. They are Council flats, I believe. So, surely it is the Council who pay for upkeep and renovation etc?
I see that May has ordered a Public enquiry. Given the death toll to date (which is inevitably going to only rise) I believe that what she should be doing is ordering an inquest, with a jury, if she really wants to get to the bottom of all this.
I have to say that I thought she was mad not to have had a TV debate with JC in the election run up, but am disgusted that she would not meet with the surviving relatives when she visited. Shameful.
a reply to: TrueBrit
Oh behave Truebrit - Conservative this, conservative that.
There was a Parliamentary committee looking into the fire risk of cladding in November 2000. It concluded it needed urgent attention to the potential fire risk and warned of possible serious consequences. Nothing was done. Who was the government in November 2000 (with a very large majority)? That's right, Labour.
This is not about party politics, it is about repeated failings by pretty much everyone. Trying to make political gains on this issue is, frankly, immoral.
Oh behave Truebrit - Conservative this, conservative that.
There was a Parliamentary committee looking into the fire risk of cladding in November 2000. It concluded it needed urgent attention to the potential fire risk and warned of possible serious consequences. Nothing was done. Who was the government in November 2000 (with a very large majority)? That's right, Labour.
This is not about party politics, it is about repeated failings by pretty much everyone. Trying to make political gains on this issue is, frankly, immoral.
originally posted by: micpsi
Judging by the number of people known to be missing, the final casualty figure is likely to reach 100. However, the police have warned that the exact figure may never be known (nor every fatality identified) because of the destruction of their bodies.
Wha? What is that siding made from? Congealed napalm?
a reply to: oldcarpy
Again, apparently, KCTMO, the non-profit organisation started for the purpose, are legally responsible for the condition of the blocks and properties managed on behalf of the local authority. The idea of them is that any "profit" made is invested back into properties they are managing on behalf of the council, rather than being placed into the pockets of the people running the place to the tune of hundreds of thousands, or millions of pounds a year.
That is the way I have understood what I have been reading today and since the incident started kicking off.
Again, apparently, KCTMO, the non-profit organisation started for the purpose, are legally responsible for the condition of the blocks and properties managed on behalf of the local authority. The idea of them is that any "profit" made is invested back into properties they are managing on behalf of the council, rather than being placed into the pockets of the people running the place to the tune of hundreds of thousands, or millions of pounds a year.
That is the way I have understood what I have been reading today and since the incident started kicking off.
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan
Apparently it has a polythene core...for some ridiculous reason! Instead of a fire proof one
Apparently it has a polythene core...for some ridiculous reason! Instead of a fire proof one
a reply to: TrueBrit
OK. What profits do you think are being made on a block of 1970's era council flats let to Council tenants that cost £10 million (clue - this is a lot of money) to refurbish in 2016, exactly, and if you can answer that then who do you think is pocketing these "profits"?
KCTMO is a management company running the building on behalf of the local authority, who actually owns it.
OK. What profits do you think are being made on a block of 1970's era council flats let to Council tenants that cost £10 million (clue - this is a lot of money) to refurbish in 2016, exactly, and if you can answer that then who do you think is pocketing these "profits"?
KCTMO is a management company running the building on behalf of the local authority, who actually owns it.
a reply to: Flavian
I am not trying to score points here Flavian.
I am making sure that people understand what is, and is not happening here. And once again, Blairs Labour was not a Labour government anyway, so your point falls flat there. It was Tory lite, nothing more or less.
What is not happening here, with this incident, is one of those unavoidable tragedies, where no one could have predicted what would happen, or where a contractors shoddy work is the sole factor which intensified the already dangerous circumstance of a block fire.
What absolutely HAS happened, is that both in the broader sense of who voted for what in terms of safety regulation, and in terms of reports being sat on by the former Housing minister, NOW THERESA MAYS CHIEF OF STAFF no less, the people in that block have been failed by a government who have had a damned long time to get this mess sorted out. Now, you could say, "Ah, but New Labour had years to sort this out too!" and to that I would say:
"Absolutely correct. Have yourself a cookie."
However, it is worth pointing out that an important date on the timeline relating to this situation, is 2015, in which year a fire took hold of Adair Tower, which was arsonised. The incident, rather through luck as opposed to efficient management of the fire risk by KCTMO involved no actual casualties. It DID, however, lead to the management group being slapped with a notice to improve on the key areas, specified elsewhere in this thread, in that year. Concerns were raised once again, with the backing of interested parties as broad as to span the London Fire Brigade, all the way through to British Gas, the energy firm, and a whole host of others, urging the government to, right that minute, do a deep dive into the situation, fire proof these buildings properly, and thereby improve the safety and mortal life of thousands and thousands of people in the process.
Even after that previous fire, even after the report after report which has come out over the decade of Tory rule, and several attempts by various bodies to get standards for safety improved, those CURRENTLY responsible for safety and fire regulation, have consistently voted against actually doing anything about it, even the Police and Fire Minister.
Does that sound OK to you? Do you think that I should not be saying anything about it because the corporatist bastards before this lot, failed to do anything either? Do you dislike the way I frame my statement?
Well bad luck. The fact is, its the government of the day, and the company responsible for the upkeep of these buildings, who are the only parties we can legitimately aim any ire at, right this minute, because they have been in charge for twenty one and seven years respectively, of this situation, which is AMPLE time to get inspections done and make immediate improvements. No excuses can be justified or made, least of all deflection attempts involving people who have had no say in the matter for the last seven years!
I am not trying to score points here Flavian.
I am making sure that people understand what is, and is not happening here. And once again, Blairs Labour was not a Labour government anyway, so your point falls flat there. It was Tory lite, nothing more or less.
What is not happening here, with this incident, is one of those unavoidable tragedies, where no one could have predicted what would happen, or where a contractors shoddy work is the sole factor which intensified the already dangerous circumstance of a block fire.
What absolutely HAS happened, is that both in the broader sense of who voted for what in terms of safety regulation, and in terms of reports being sat on by the former Housing minister, NOW THERESA MAYS CHIEF OF STAFF no less, the people in that block have been failed by a government who have had a damned long time to get this mess sorted out. Now, you could say, "Ah, but New Labour had years to sort this out too!" and to that I would say:
"Absolutely correct. Have yourself a cookie."
However, it is worth pointing out that an important date on the timeline relating to this situation, is 2015, in which year a fire took hold of Adair Tower, which was arsonised. The incident, rather through luck as opposed to efficient management of the fire risk by KCTMO involved no actual casualties. It DID, however, lead to the management group being slapped with a notice to improve on the key areas, specified elsewhere in this thread, in that year. Concerns were raised once again, with the backing of interested parties as broad as to span the London Fire Brigade, all the way through to British Gas, the energy firm, and a whole host of others, urging the government to, right that minute, do a deep dive into the situation, fire proof these buildings properly, and thereby improve the safety and mortal life of thousands and thousands of people in the process.
Even after that previous fire, even after the report after report which has come out over the decade of Tory rule, and several attempts by various bodies to get standards for safety improved, those CURRENTLY responsible for safety and fire regulation, have consistently voted against actually doing anything about it, even the Police and Fire Minister.
Does that sound OK to you? Do you think that I should not be saying anything about it because the corporatist bastards before this lot, failed to do anything either? Do you dislike the way I frame my statement?
Well bad luck. The fact is, its the government of the day, and the company responsible for the upkeep of these buildings, who are the only parties we can legitimately aim any ire at, right this minute, because they have been in charge for twenty one and seven years respectively, of this situation, which is AMPLE time to get inspections done and make immediate improvements. No excuses can be justified or made, least of all deflection attempts involving people who have had no say in the matter for the last seven years!
edit on 16-6-2017 by TrueBrit because: grammatical error removed.
a reply to: oldcarpy
Well, I would say that if four people got a share each of £650,000 pounds, which works out to £162,000 pounds each (thats what the four top brass at the management firm got out of it, just last year), that they can damned well afford to fire proof the damned building. I mean, this is a non-profit company allegedly, so how they are justifying paying these people these ridiculous salaries for failing to do their jobs in such SPECTACULAR fashion, is utterly beyond me.
Well, I would say that if four people got a share each of £650,000 pounds, which works out to £162,000 pounds each (thats what the four top brass at the management firm got out of it, just last year), that they can damned well afford to fire proof the damned building. I mean, this is a non-profit company allegedly, so how they are justifying paying these people these ridiculous salaries for failing to do their jobs in such SPECTACULAR fashion, is utterly beyond me.