• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Huge fire in Grenfell Tower - West London

Status
Not open for further replies.

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,758
Location
Scotland
I don't see why somebody sadly being caught up in a fire (and surviving it, unlike many others), should override the fact that they were in the country illegally. I mean, the law is still the law surely?
A lot would depend on why they were here illegally. If it was pure economic migration then sure enough, but if someone fled war in Syria or Libya, or famine or persecution in Sudan (to name a few possibilities) then it would be heartless in the extreme to use the response to another tragedy as the means by which we throw them back into the situation that they put their life on the line in order to escape.

There comes a point where someone has suffered enough and basic human compassion overrules the law.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
But after how long has elapsed will the government want to risk said story being front page news? "Shame of deported Grenfell Tower Victim" for instance.

Well given the ocean of anti-immigration headlines we usually see, is that likely to be an issue? I don't think a great many people would have a massive issue with it, to be honest. The glaring reality of course being that 'if they hadn't been here illegally they wouldn't have been in there' and so on. If a survivor had been in the middle of court proceedings for drugs offences, muggings or whatever, I don't imagine there'd be a massive cry for them to be given an official pardon. I don't really see why the same situation should see illegal immigrants being granted honourary citizenship.
 
Last edited:

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
A lot would depend on why they were here illegally. If it was pure economic migration then sure enough, but if someone fled war in Syria or Libya, or famine or persecution in Sudan (to name a few possibilities) then it would be heartless in the extreme to use the response to another tragedy as the means by which we throw them back into the situation that they put their life on the line in order to escape.

There comes a point where someone has suffered enough and basic human compassion overrules the law.

If they'd fled war or famine, then presumably they'd have legitimately claimed asylum and thus wouldn't be unknown illegal immigrants?
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,725
Location
LBK
There comes a point where someone has suffered enough and basic human compassion overrules the law.

The law is the law. Unless immigration law provides for these compassionate grounds then I don't think anyone has any business picking and choosing which parts of the law apply and which don't.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,671
The law is the law. Unless immigration law provides for these compassionate grounds then I don't think anyone has any business picking and choosing which parts of the law apply and which don't.

Devon and Cornwall Police Force announced a few years ago when the act outlawing fox hunting with hounds was introduced that they would not be policing it. More recently, they said they would not accept call-outs to petrol filling stations where motorists had driven off without paying: such matters would have to be settled in the County Court as a civil matter. Now what business do they have picking and choosing which parts of the law they fancy enforcing?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,758
Location
Scotland
If they'd fled war or famine, then presumably they'd have legitimately claimed asylum and thus wouldn't be unknown illegal immigrants?
Not necessarily. There are numerous examples of asylum claims which have been rejected due to poor representation and that's not even taking into consideration that many illegal immigrants don't know *how* to make a claim for asylum in the first place.

I'm not saying that all will fall into that category but, contrary to what The Mail, et al. have claimed, the immigration system is setup to deny leave to remain by default and at least as many legitimate applications are declined as illegitimate ones are approved.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,758
Location
Scotland
The law is the law. Unless immigration law provides for these compassionate grounds then I don't think anyone has any business picking and choosing which parts of the law apply and which don't.
Unless, of course, you are the Prime Minister or Home Secretary in which case you explicitly have that power.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,725
Location
LBK
Unless, of course, you are the Prime Minister or Home Secretary in which case you explicitly have that power.

They do indeed have that power, that's not in dispute.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
.....

I'm not saying that all will fall into that category but, contrary to what The Mail, et al. have claimed, the immigration system is setup to deny leave to remain by default and at least as many legitimate applications are declined as illegitimate ones are approved.

And rightly so, in my opinion. Our space and resources are not infinite, and moreso in the UK than in many places elsewhere. The system should be such that the default is indeed 'no', with a compelling reason required for a 'yes'; not the other way around.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
Devon and Cornwall Police Force announced a few years ago when the act outlawing fox hunting with hounds was introduced that they would not be policing it. More recently, they said they would not accept call-outs to petrol filling stations where motorists had driven off without paying: such matters would have to be settled in the County Court as a civil matter. Now what business do they have picking and choosing which parts of the law they fancy enforcing?

That is a negligent abandonment of their mandated duty, and I'd be interested to know how a supreme court would interpret such an attitude if a victim of one of the above crimes challenged it. Theft, from a petrol station or anywhere else, is not a civil matter. It is a crime, and I'd like to know where it is written that a snotty local police force have the exclusive right to decide otherwise.

Such nonsense is also, of course, the desperate and pathetic result of reckless funding cuts.
 
Last edited:

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
31,008
Location
UK
That is a negligent abandonment of their mandated duty, and I'd be interested to know how a supreme court would interpret such an attitude if a victim of one of the above crimes challenged it. Theft, from a petrol station or anywhere else, is not a civil matter. It is a crime, and I'd like to know where it is written that a snotty local police force have the exclusive right to decide otherwise.

Such nonsense is also, of course, the desperate and pathetic result of reckless funding cuts.
We had police not interested in shoplifting for a value of less than £75 even back in the New Labour days. Cuts aren't a recent problem.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
Getting back to fires in high rise buildings, earlier reports that 600 blocks of council / housing association flats are at risk have now been clarified. Apparently there are 600 with cladding but only eleven have failed fire risk test so far.

There are an unknown number of privately owned clad buildings

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40366646

Eleven residential high-rise buildings in eight local authority areas have been found to be covered in combustible cladding following safety tests.

It comes as tests are being carried out on about 600 high rises across England.
Meanwhile, the BBC has learned that Premier Inn is "extremely concerned" about cladding on three of its hotels.

Cladding is thought to have contributed to the rapid spread of fire at Grenfell Tower, in which at least 79 people are believed to have died.

Until now, safety fears over cladding have centred on council high rises, but concerns appear to reach beyond the housing sector.

Premier Inn has told BBC Newsnight that cladding on its hotels in Maidenhead, Brentford and Tottenham did not appear to comply with government guidance for tall buildings - although it did appear to be a less flammable type than that used at Grenfell Tower.

The hotel chain said an independent expert has assured them that the hotels were safe to stay open given their "robust" safety measures including fire detectors and smoke alarms in every room.
The hotels do not operate a "stay put" policy and have multiple means of escape.

Newsnight's Chris Cook said Premier Inn was just one of a long list of places that could have fire safety issues - and were only singled out by the programme because they responded so quickly and in full to his questions.


The Department for Communities and Local Government has written to all local authority and housing association chief executives to advise them on steps to take if tower blocks in their area are found to be clad in combustible panels.

Communities Secretary Sajid Javid has also written to all MPs saying landlords of the 11 affected buildings have been told to inform their tenants - once done, the areas could be identified to the public.

Only Camden, Manchester and Plymouth are named in his letter, which also says the Army has been assisting with building repairs.

Speaking earlier, the prime minister's spokesman said extra checks by the fire service would determine whether the 11 high-rise buildings found to have combustible cladding were safe and what - if any - action needed to be taken.

He pointed out that a failed cladding test did not necessarily mean a building was unsafe - that would depend on the amount of cladding used and where it was fitted.
Arconic, an engineering and manufacturing company, said one of its products, Reynobond PE (polyethylene) - an aluminium composite material - was "used as one component in the overall cladding system" of Grenfell Tower.

"We will fully support the authorities as they investigate this tragedy," a spokesman for the US-based firm said.

The BBC has established that Reynobond PE was issued a certificate in the UK in 1997 allowing it to be used on high rise buildings. Chancellor Philip Hammond has said he thought the Grenfell cladding was banned in the UK.

An inquiry into whether it did in fact meet fire safety regulations is due to be published by the weekend.

Earlier, footage emerged showing the prime minister being booed after her latest visit to meet residents of Grenfell Tower.

In the video, cries of "shame on you" are heard but Theresa May does not appear to respond as she is ushered into her official car by waiting security officers.

In the wake of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, councils were told to give the government samples of cladding used in their tower blocks for testing.

Cladding is typically fitted to the outside of high-rise buildings to improve insulation and tidy up the appearance of the exterior.

A Downing Street spokeswoman said no-one would be left to live in unsafe buildings.
"They will be rehoused if they need to be and landlords will be asked to provide alternative accommodation where that's possible," she said.

Arnold Tarling, a member of the Association for Specialist Fire Protection, told BBC 5 live that removing combustible cladding around the country could cost "hundreds of millions of pounds".
Tests showed that decorative cladding around Village 135, a tower block in south Manchester, could have been made with the same materials as the Grenfell Tower.

As a result, that cladding would be replaced "as soon as possible so that residents feel reassured", Wythenshawe Housing Group said.

Another of the blocks found to have combustible cladding is on Camden Council's Chalcots estate, in north London.
The panels, found to have been made up of aluminium with a polyethylene core, are now being removed, the council said.
Its leader Georgia Gould said the panels were "not to the standard" that the council had commissioned, and it would be informing the contractor behind the work that they would be taking legal advice.

Three tower blocks in Plymouth have also been found to be clad in combustible panels, local Labour MP Luke Pollard has said.
He is calling for the government to pay for cladding on the Mount Wise buildings to be "urgently" replaced.
John Clark, CEO of Plymouth Community Homes which manages the buildings, said extra fire safety precautions were being introduced after tests showed the cladding was "aluminium coated with a polyethylene core".

Residents' fears in Tottenham high rise
By Jim Reed, BBC Victoria Derbyshire programme

Residents at a 22-storey block of flats in Tottenham, north London, have been sent an email - seen by the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme - saying the building has the same cladding as Grenfell Tower.

Rivers Apartments - which is shared ownership, so classed as social housing - was built just two years ago, with the cladding incorporated as part of the design.
It is understood the block is clad in Reynobond PE, the same brand of cladding believed to have been used on Grenfell Tower.
The programme was told the tower passed all building regulation checks by Haringey Council.
Unlike Grenfell Tower, this block does contain modern safety features, such as a sprinkler system.
Newlon Housing Trust, the housing association that part-owns the block, said it had arranged with the fire service to carry out more checks.
It is still waiting for final test results to confirm it is the most flammable type of cladding.
It says the cladding on the building may have to be replaced.

Grenfell Tower is coming to be seen as a "political symbol of inequality", the BBC's Iain Watson said.
The new Labour MP for Kensington, Emma Dent Coad, told the Commons the "burnt-out carcass" of the tower revealed the "true face" of her constituency, with poverty, malnutrition and overcrowding existing alongside wealth.

In her maiden speech, she criticised people who think social tenants have "no right to live in an area like desirable Kensington", and called for fire service cuts to be reversed.
Mrs May said she expected to name the judge who will lead a public inquiry into the fire within the next few days.

"No stone will be left unturned. For any guilty parties there will be nowhere to hide," she warned.

Since the fire on 14 June, more than £700,000 has been paid out to survivors - none of which will have to be repaid, said Mrs May.
Resources, including healthcare and accommodation, would be available to everyone affected by the fire, regardless of their immigration status, she added.
The fire destroyed 151 homes - most in the tower block itself, but also a number of surrounding properties.
Mrs May said that 164 "suitable properties" had now been found for those made homeless, and they were being checked over before residents can move in.
The 600 figure does not include Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which have autonomous powers in housing.
The Scottish government and Welsh ministers have said that none of their council high-rise blocks has cladding of the type said to have been used in the Grenfell Tower.
Similarly, there is no evidence of Grenfell Tower-type cladding used on tower blocks managed by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
Checks on other high-rise buildings owned by housing associations or private developers in Northern Ireland and Scotland are continuing.
 
Last edited:

Bornin1980s

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2017
Messages
720
Testing? Would that mean setting fire to some of the sample cladding?

I think it was more than just cladding spreading that fire.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
Considering the entire inside of the building was gutted, presumably so.

No doubt the inquiry will give the answer, but I thought the idea was a fire was contained within an individual flat, so it must have spread externally and into each flat via the windows? If it spread internally via the corridors and stairs that raises new questions as to the fire resistance of the front doors and internal walls.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
No doubt the inquiry will give the answer, but I thought the idea was a fire was contained within an individual flat, so it must have spread externally and into each flat via the windows? If it spread internally via the corridors and stairs that raises new questions as to the fire resistance of the front doors and internal walls.

One of the photos doing the rounds was of a lift area, blackened and charred. Which floor it was I don't know, but clearly the flames were able to make significant progress internally. The fire was said to have been around 1000 degrees, I'd question any 1970s fire proofing against that. I believe also that the 'fire cell' containment theory was only supposed to last a certain time, after which it was accepted that the fire would eventually break through if it hadn't been dealt with.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,758
Location
Scotland
No doubt the inquiry will give the answer, but I thought the idea was a fire was contained within an individual flat, so it must have spread externally and into each flat via the windows? If it spread internally via the corridors and stairs that raises new questions as to the fire resistance of the front doors and internal walls.
Given that it was a warm night, it's to be expected that at least some windows were partially open for ventilation, which would provide an easy path for the propagation of the fire. Even if they weren't open, given that the block was recently refurbished they more than likely have been UPVC frames - which would only provide limited protection against a 1000°C fire. Once they breached then curtains, etc. burning and burning plastic dripping onto floor would turn a flat into an inferno pretty quickly.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,144
Location
Redcar
I believe also that the 'fire cell' containment theory was only supposed to last a certain time, after which it was accepted that the fire would eventually break through if it hadn't been dealt with.

Yes that is my understanding also. The idea being to contain the fire within one flat for long enough that the Fire Brigade can arrive and begin fighting the fire and evacuating people as needed. Considering that Grenfell was burning for around twenty-four hours it is not surprising that the fire penetrated to the interior. The question that might usefully be asked, however, is did the fire penetrate the various cells quicker than it would be expected to have?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,995
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I believe also that the 'fire cell' containment theory was only supposed to last a certain time, after which it was accepted that the fire would eventually break through if it hadn't been dealt with.

I don't believe that's correct, the idea was that it could burn out on its own when it ran out of things to burn. It's been very successful, too, there haven't exactly been a shortage of fires in tower blocks, and the ones that have occurred in as-built concrete blocks have remained quite contained.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,218
Location
SE London
Much as I don't wish to politicise an awful tragedy, Construction News are suggesting that the Grenfell Towers disaster would not have happened if the then coalition Government hadn't relaxed some building regulations.

ConstructionNews said:
Fire experts have said that the Grenfell Tower in west London would not have burned down if safety measures from the London Building Act were still in place.

...(snip)...

Speaking to Construction News, architect and fire expert Sam Webb, who represented families of those who died at the inquest into the 2009 Lakanal Fire in Camberwell, south London, has said that under previous building regulations that were phased out, the 24-storey tower would not have burned down.

Mr Webb said: “Lakanal House and Grenfell were both known as Section 20 buildings, which meant that extra fire safety measures were imposed on their designs.

(You'll need to register to view the full article, but there's no charge to do so).

Googling around, if I've understood it correctly, it seems that many of the provisions of the London Building Act were repealed in the 1980s, but Section 20 - which specifically dealt with fire safety in tall buildings - remained in force until 2012 at which point under Eric Pickles it was abolished and replaced by more relaxed regulations - which would apparently have permitted material that was less fire-resistant to be then used in the Grenfell refurbishment.
 
Last edited:

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,758
Location
Scotland
I believe also that the 'fire cell' containment theory was only supposed to last a certain time, after which it was accepted that the fire would eventually break through if it hadn't been dealt with.
I don't believe that's correct, the idea was that it could burn out on its own when it ran out of things to burn.
The two statements aren't contradictory though - the idea is that any given flat would contain the fire long enough to burn itself out. If there was fuel being added then eventually it would break down and burn through to the adjacent flats.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,725
Location
LBK
The police have said that the fire started in a refrigerator on the fourth floor and the cladding had failed a safety test.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,684
Location
Isle of Man
The police have said that the fire started in a refrigerator on the fourth floor

Specifically, a Hotpoint fridge/freezer.

Interestingly, Hotpoint have been mired in controversy for several years now because some of their tumble dryers have a tendency to self-immolate. Hotpoint have dragged their heels, shall we say, in getting these machines repaired or replaced.

ETA: This is an interesting article. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...ulty-whirlpool-machine-product-safety-scandal Some interesting photographs too. Hotpoint still drag their heels.
 
Last edited:

Barn

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
1,487
Much as I don't wish to politicise an awful tragedy, Construction News are suggesting that the Grenfell Towers disaster would not have happened if the then coalition Government hadn't relaxed some building regulations.



(You'll need to register to view the full article, but there's no charge to do so).

Googling around, if I've understood it correctly, it seems that many of the provisions of the London Building Act were repealed in the 1980s, but Section 20 - which specifically dealt with fire safety in tall buildings - remained in force until 2012 at which point under Eric Pickles it was abolished and replaced by more relaxed regulations - which would apparently have permitted material that was less fire-resistant to be then used in the Grenfell refurbishment.

I'm not qualified to express an opinion on whether the disaster would have happened or not without the change, but your last paragraph is correct: several local acts (not just in London) which gave local councils the power to add more 'onerous' fire safety conditions were scrapped so that a single set of national building regulations applied everywhere.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,995
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I'm not qualified to express an opinion on whether the disaster would have happened or not without the change, but your last paragraph is correct: several local acts (not just in London) which gave local councils the power to add more 'onerous' fire safety conditions were scrapped so that a single set of national building regulations applied everywhere.

That does make sense, because fire safety requirements are essentially the same throughout the UK, and "local rules" benefit nobody. However, those national rules do need to be strict enough.
 

2392

Member
Joined
7 Apr 2015
Messages
248
Location
Felling on Tyne
I for one certainly feel for the Guy who's fridge caught fire and triggered the fire. He from all reports was racing round neigbhouring flats banging on the doors, warning folk of the fire and to leave...... He'll have to live with the outcome for the rest of his days. As we all tend to ignore domestic applainces until/unless they go wrong. In this case with disastrous results.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top