You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Grenfell - who's to blame
December 12 2019 8.47am

Grenfell - who's to blame

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 2 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

 

View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 30 Oct 19 9.01pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by cryrst

I doubt that 200 on sale fridges failed safety standards.
Maybe not as high a standard as they could be or as efficient but really!

A little background I agree that others may challenge their findings but I would rather err on the safe side.

[Link]

One key finding is that the risk of a fridge freezer causing a fire is low that said if a fire occurs Which say the plastic backed ones fail the fire test. I looked at this 2 years ago and it seems that the regulations have now changed although you can still buy the old stock.

Edited by Badger11 (30 Oct 2019 9.06pm)

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 30 Oct 19 10.07pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by ex hibitionist

no offence but if I'm after consumer friendly information I think most people would take Which over your good self

Well that does depend on which items you want information on.
But yes I will admit currys and the like arnt my favourite hang outs and fridge freezer safety standards isnt my strongest forte.
I will concede.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View dollardays's Profile dollardays Flag 30 Oct 19 11.25pm Send a Private Message to dollardays Add dollardays as a friend

There's plenty of blame to go around but the pattern is that it's always innocent people that pay the price.. and that nobody is ever held to account, and nothing ever learned.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View YT's Profile YT Flag Oxford 31 Oct 19 7.44am Send a Private Message to YT Add YT as a friend

Originally posted by dollardays

There's plenty of blame to go around but the pattern is that it's always innocent people that pay the price.. and that nobody is ever held to account, and nothing ever learned.

Do you have any examples to back up these words?

 


Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View TomThePalaceFanatic's Profile TomThePalaceFanatic Flag 31 Oct 19 7.59am Send a Private Message to TomThePalaceFanatic Add TomThePalaceFanatic as a friend

Originally posted by YT

Do you have any examples to back up these words?

The fact that the cladding used or similar is still on hundreds of buildings in London, with the report urging for immediate action?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Matov's Profile Matov Online Flag 31 Oct 19 8.48am Send a Private Message to Matov Add Matov as a friend

Originally posted by TomThePalaceFanatic

The fact that the cladding used or similar is still on hundreds of buildings in London, with the report urging for immediate action?

And the issue is the cladding. That is it. No cladding, no tragedy. Yet this is the fault of the fire-brigade? It f***ing stinks, it really does.


 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View YT's Profile YT Flag Oxford 31 Oct 19 9.49am Send a Private Message to YT Add YT as a friend

Originally posted by TomThePalaceFanatic

The fact that the cladding used or similar is still on hundreds of buildings in London, with the report urging for immediate action?

Just about every building in the UK where a local authority is responsible HAS been rectified, ergo this is not a good example of (quote) "and nothing ever learned".

 


Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View SW19 CPFC's Profile SW19 CPFC Flag Addiscombe 31 Oct 19 10.25am Send a Private Message to SW19 CPFC Add SW19 CPFC as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

It's hard to disagree with this post.

The families wanted someone to blame and the enquiry has provided them.

So you're saying if the fire service had made errors, they shouldn't be called out on it? Or that they should but the report should be of a wider scope so as to apportion blame in a more balanced way.

I get the 'scapegoat' narrative, but if this first phase of the report is mainly focused on assessing the response and actions of the residents and emergency services then that's all that is going to be discussed in the media.

Also, the fact that the cladding was dangerous, flammable and in some cases illegal has already been covered extensively, mainly at the time of the incident. Almost all cladding across the UK that was of the same spec has now been funded to be replaced. But of course that information is not quite as good as a sensationalist, money making headline like 'fire service to blame', now is it? Negativity sells.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (31 Oct 2019 10.27am)

 


said the rabid giraffe whilst brandishing his throbbing member of reason, and twas ever thus.

Did you know? 95% of people are morons.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View jeeagles's Profile jeeagles Flag 02 Nov 19 12.38pm Send a Private Message to jeeagles Add jeeagles as a friend

Originally posted by ex hibitionist

I went to Health and Safety training with a trade union about a year ago, and one official had an encyclopaedic knowledge of all the regulations - apparently in the H&S Act of 1974 the laws, codes of practice and guidance are under three separate categories (as in all Acts of Parliament) but the 'guidance' is not legally binding - all the construction interests involved over time have lobbied MPs to put the codes of practice requirements into the guidance section so that they are no longer legally binding. This is why setting up the official enquiry so the Fire Service are investigated a year before the MPs are in part two of the enquiry is a stich up and a smoke screen - it's the people who altered the law to make that cladding legal who are responsible, all any self-respecting journalist need do is go back through Hansard to find all those secondary legislation committees who changed the law, who arranged and populated these committees and who may have been lobbying them and you'll find the real culprits - that's the context, bit too big maybe, the fire service were poor, but the way it's being presented to the public is a smoke screen.

You've got quite a lot wrong with this post.

The Health & Safety at work at is enabling legislation, and all the regulations that come out of it are legally binding. Guidance is sometimes not legal binding using words like "should" rather than must. It's also criminal legislation and someone is going to go down for the issue surrounding the cladding. If it is just guidance, you still need to show really strong reasons as to why you ignored it. It might be the manufacturer, contractor, designers or client, or a combination of them but they will go down for it.

There were multiple failures which caused the disaster. It is right to check if the fire brigade responded well and see what they can do next time, but they should not get any blame. They were running into an inferno, no training or experience could have prepared then for it because it simply hadn't happened before.

In all these inquiries, 7/7 or Hillsborough etc the inquiry and press seem to forget that the emergency services are simply normal people dealing with extraordinary event. There's always going to be mistakes.

Good to see such public support for the Fire brigade on all social media though. The public know that they gave it everything the could and a hero's.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 02 Nov 19 4.03pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by jeeagles

You've got quite a lot wrong with this post.

The Health & Safety at work at is enabling legislation, and all the regulations that come out of it are legally binding. Guidance is sometimes not legal binding using words like "should" rather than must. It's also criminal legislation and someone is going to go down for the issue surrounding the cladding. If it is just guidance, you still need to show really strong reasons as to why you ignored it. It might be the manufacturer, contractor, designers or client, or a combination of them but they will go down for it.

There were multiple failures which caused the disaster. It is right to check if the fire brigade responded well and see what they can do next time, but they should not get any blame. They were running into an inferno, no training or experience could have prepared then for it because it simply hadn't happened before.

In all these inquiries, 7/7 or Hillsborough etc the inquiry and press seem to forget that the emergency services are simply normal people dealing with extraordinary event. There's always going to be mistakes.

Good to see such public support for the Fire brigade on all social media though. The public know that they gave it everything the could and a hero's.

The cladding may have been to the standards in place at the time.
You cannot retrospectively change that because this happened.
Cladding now has to be a different standard because of grenfell.
Unfortunatly there are many changes made after the event.
It's about learning from mistakes.
Heysel,paddington,grenfell,Hillsborough etc.
Sending someone down so you feel better wont change this being the way.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ex hibitionist's Profile ex hibitionist Flag Hastings 02 Nov 19 6.21pm Send a Private Message to ex hibitionist Add ex hibitionist as a friend

if interested parties have been 'lobbying' MPs so that unsafe materials can be used without it being automatically illegal but subject to interpretation by lawyers then those interested parties are responsible - to what degree their responsibility is criminal depends on how much they knew they were increasing risk and the nature of the lobbying, e.g.were some of the MPs involved on the payroll of some of these organisations?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View dollardays's Profile dollardays Flag 02 Nov 19 9.20pm Send a Private Message to dollardays Add dollardays as a friend

Originally posted by YT

Do you have any examples to back up these words?

The fact that it even happened in the first place. Okay, saying that 'nothing' is learned may be overly negative, but 'we will learn lessons from x' is a daily occurrence on our screens. There is always in life far more brushing under the carpet and diverting blame than there ever is learning.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 2 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Grenfell - who's to blame