[Beso]

But they had to sign a non disclosure before they were allowed the documents..

[Cherie]

Blame being put on the firefighters with regard to the stay put policy

The conclusion of the report: More lives could have been saved if the Tower had been evacuated sooner

The correct conclusion

All lives would have been saved if the illegal cladding wasn't on the building

[Cherie]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...cid=spartandhp




he London fire brigade’s readiness for the Grenfell Tower fire was “gravely inadequate” and fewer people would have died if it had been better prepared, a long-awaited public inquiry report into the disaster that killed 72 people has concluded.
The report into the biggest single loss of life in London since the second world war also ruled that the building had been refurbished in breach of safety regulations and that contrary to the evidence so far of the cladding panel manufacturer, Arconic, “the principal reason why the flames spread so rapidly up the building” was its aluminium composite panels and the “melting and dripping of burning polyethylene”.


why would they be prepared for illegal cladding?

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Blame being put on the firefighters with regard to the stay put policy

The conclusion of the report: More lives could have been saved if the Tower had been evacuated sooner

The correct conclusion

All lives would have been saved if the illegal cladding wasn't on the building

That is phase 2 of the report...phase 1 was only about the events on the night.

Which are not looking good for the London fire brigade.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by parmnion

That is phase 2 of the report...phase 1 was only about the events on the night.

Which are not looking good for the London fire brigade.

If you have ever had anything done to your house vis a vis an extension or such like, building regs are so tight around firedoors, fireproof this, fireproof that, smoke detectors on all levels that have to be linked into the wiring system and backed up with a battery, in all seriousness how on earth would they have known the cladding would be flammable?

yes maybe they should have evacuated earlier but their policy is to stay put due to the building construction....and I assume like everyone else they would have assumed cladding was to a legal requirement

its not down to the fire brigade that the smoke detectors, were not working and that there was only one way out.... all of which the residents had highlighted with the management company for years previously

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Cherie

If you have ever had anything done to your house vis a vis an extension or such like, building regs are so tight around firedoors, fireproof this, fireproof that, smoke detectors on all levels that have to be linked into the wiring system and backed up with a battery, in all seriousness how on earth would they have known the cladding would be flammable?

yes maybe they should have evacuated earlier but their policy is to stay put due to the building construction....and I assume like everyone else they would have assumed cladding was to a legal requirement

its not down to the fire brigade that the smoke detectors, were not working and that there was only one way out.... all of which the residents had highlighted with the management company for years previously

Youtube video

[The Slim Reaper]

Youtube video

Youtube video

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Blame being put on the firefighters with regard to the stay put policy

The conclusion of the report: More lives could have been saved if the Tower had been evacuated sooner

The correct conclusion

All lives would have been saved if the illegal cladding wasn't on the building

In a nutshell, disgraceful how they're trying to blame the fire service who were no doubt only following procedure for a building that should have been up to standard

[The Slim Reaper]

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Confused about the content of that tweet. The tweet says that the council asked the assessor to bury the report... the linked article says that the assessor advised the council that they could bury the report.

"Mr Stokes advised the organisation that they did not have to disclose safety risks and risk being obliged to deploy expensive “additional fire safety measures”, the Mail on Sunday reported."

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Confused about the content of that tweet. The tweet says that the council asked the assessor to bury the report... the linked article says that the assessor advised the council that they could bury the report.

"Mr Stokes advised the organisation that they did not have to disclose safety risks and risk being obliged to deploy expensive “additional fire safety measures”, the Mail on Sunday reported."

I posted it for the article not the tweet, so I'd take the info from there.

[arista]

Yes the Lady Fire Chief
is standing down

She should have told them all to leave

[Liam-]

Cold blooded bastards, the lot of them.

[Beso]

I think it's unfair that the London fire brigade as a whole is coming under criticism, but the person in charge on the night obviously didn't understand fire...so how they got the job in the first place can only be put down to how they talk the talk..sadly, they couldn't walk the walk.

[arista]

Originally Posted by parmnion

I think it's unfair that the London fire brigade as a whole is coming under criticism, but the person in charge on the night obviously didn't understand fire...so how they got the job in the first place can only be put down to how they talk the talk..sadly, they couldn't walk the walk.

Yes Bang On Right
they were not in the Loop.
The 999 people were not updated
not in the loop

[Kazanne]

It's so unfair them blaming the Fire service when they were the ones that put their lives at risk,surely they should be targeting the council , lack of sprinklers , cheap cladding etc, the blame game will not bring anyone back but surely the people in charge of that building and it's upkeep should be culpable .

[Kizzy]

I have no words... it's like a month python sketch in its preposterousness.

Who in their right mind given what we know of the errors in the refurbishment of grenfell and the concern of the residents in the weeks leading up to the fire would blam the fire service?!

Everyone I've spoke to has said the same. ..cover up.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I have no words... it's like a month python sketch in its preposterousness.

Who in their right mind given what we know of the errors in the refurbishment of grenfell and the concern of the residents in the weeks leading up to the fire would blam the fire service?!

Everyone I've spoke to has said the same. ..cover up.

Almost all the survivors are blaming the fire service I'm afraid.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Almost all the survivors are blaming the fire service I'm afraid.

Why though... all fire services have contingency plans to aid their preparedness, that sit and wait decision is a very common part of the response.
However seeing as the nature of the fire it didn't behave like an average high rise fire, but this can't have been known as the fire spread much more rapidly than it would ordinarily do.
I can't believe that the focus is on the fire service, Revolting!!

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Why though... all fire services have contingency plans to aid their preparedness, that sit and wait decision is a very common part of the response.
However seeing as the nature of the fire it didn't behave like an average high rise fire, but this can't have been known as the fire spread much more rapidly than it would ordinarily do.
I can't believe that the focus is on the fire service, Revolting!!

You can't blame anyone else yet, this enquiry was about the events on the night...and I'm sorry to be blunt.....


But if you still tell people to remain in their house when you see that building going up like that from a safe distance..as firemen are reporting back to you that they can't reach the floor they were directed to go to because of certain things.....

Im sorry...but you have condemned those people to death, perhaps you may have known that if you said evacuate, you may have had another sort of catastrophe on your hands.


But sadly I would think most people were dead before a flame touched them..

And very goulishly, I think we should all be thankful to someone that the number wern'tt as high as the maths may assume...so on that basis, you got to imagine that some people just left the building as soon as they noticed. While others remained....

[Twosugars]

Stay put advice is counterintuitive tbf

[Ammi]

...the thing is...the survivors and their families are not blaming the Fire Service, though...they’re rightfully looking at fault/blame being apportioned where it needs to be ...which obviously looks at the ‘stay put’ instruction of the Fire Service as well...but there is also frustration because the cladding and design of the building is a huge blame/fault in this ...but it’s going to be quite some time before that report is put together...the two parts of this report should surely have come together as a complete, which would complete the blame/faults that the survivors feel and have expressed...I can’t see why it couldn’t have been done that way...but this way has a long, long time to settle in the public thoughts that the Fire Service are at fault, before the full context of the report is revealed...my heart breaks for those firefighters of how intentionally divisive this seems to be...

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Stay put advice is counterintuitive tbf

I would imagine it isn't if the building is up to regulation, which the fire service would naturally assume it was since it's a social housing building

[Cherie]

If they really had to split the delivery of the report, and not sure why it was necessary, the report on the building, its condition, and what is was wrapped in should have come first, it was the building that caught fire

[The Slim Reaper]