You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I'm a bit late to this story so sorry if it's already been done.
A high profile peer, referring to the Grenfell Tower tragedy said:
“Had that been a block full of white people in there, they would have done everything to get them out as fast as possible."
It makes no sense to me. I know a few firefighters and I find it impossible to believe they'd let families burn/suffocate because they thought a higher than average proportion of them were not white.
But beyond that there are practical objections:
- How would they know the ethnic makeup of the people involved in the incident?
- Surely promptly attending is in their own interests - fighting a fire in the early stages must be less risky than in the later stages.
- London Fire Brigade had the highest percentage of firefighters from the Asian, Black, Mixed and Other (including Chinese) ethnic groups. Wouldn't one of them blow the whistle?
- Wouldn't there be at least one non racist who would blow the whistle - or even an actual racist who wasn't willing to stand by and let people burn. (Eg, I don't like cats much, but I'd pull out all the stops to save one from burning.) I'd imagine racists would be the same, just because you don't like X ethnicity doesn't mean you're going to let people of X ethnicity die horribly.
- If she's saying it's the control staff who prioritise on race rather than front line firefighters then it should be trivial to identify them and prosecute them (manslaughter).
FBU response here:
https://www.fbu.org.uk/news/racism-allegations-c4news
I'd be massively surprised is there was a widespread culture of racism in the LFB.
Like most places I'd expect a few racist biggots, but nothing more.
I'd be seriously wondering if that kind of comment wasn't libelous. A lot of very brave firefighters dealt with an unprecedented situation that night, and while it's easy to be wise with hindsight, to allege racism is an appalling insult.
What utter horseshite.
Frankly, it’s an appalling thing for her to say.
I have huge sympathy for her for everything she’s been put through and respect for a lot of what she’s done since, but taking her Grenfell remarks in isolation, she’s out of order.
Seems the very definition of a cheap shot.
I wonder what the ‘high profile peer’ has to gain from making such a statement. I would start my analysis there. Things usually become apparent quicker that way around when it comes to politicians.
What utter horseshite
Aye. That.
aye words failed me when I 1st read that.
I've every respect and sympathy for Dame Lawrence, but her comments, given that the building was filled with folk from every corner of the world, seem out of place. Is there something we're missing from what she said, as it seems so wrong.
Seeing as it's Baroness Lawrence you can understand her view might be skewed by her past experiences. Once upon a time she might even have had reason to think that bl(not that it would necessarily have been true) but not today. Think C4s editorial team should take the heat for this one.
It's contemptible that. After what those firefighters went through...
It's not even like you can say "Had that been a block full of white people in there, they would have done everything to get them cladded safely" because the fact is the people involved in those decisions don't give a shit about anyone, regardless of colour. Race just had nothing to do with it.
What utter horseshite.
Very much this.
Is there something we’re missing from what she said, as it seems so wrong.
That's always my first thought when people say something so incomprehensible so before posting I watched the quote for myself on youtube and it's accurate and complete. People do make slips of the tongue so maybe later on in the interview or elsewhere they retracted it, if so I'd expect someone to say so in this thread.
It’s a ****ing disgraceful insult to those that risked their lives that night, a frankly vile comment.
It’s a **** disgraceful insult to those that risked their lives that night, a frankly vile comment.
I completely agree. No matter what may or may not have gone wrong that night, to suggest that the emergency services dealt with the incident differently because of their supposed perception of the race of the victims is quite horrible.
Bullshit called !
From a quick read of the C4 article she appears to be clumsily conflating the response on the night by the fire brigade with the response in the following months by the authorities. Accusations of racism ON THE NIGHT sound like utter garbage. Less so the response in the following months which are as likely socio-economic as racist.
I clearly remember seeing the photos of the exhausted fire crews sitting down, trying to grab what little rest they could, and the mixed ethnicity was obvious to anyone from even a cursory glance; has this woman never ever seen those photos? Is she so totally out of touch with the events around Grenfell, and those attending it?
Jesus H Christ.
See this guy. I can tell you from experience he will never ever get over that.
At least she's apologised, although if she did it via a better medium it would be a more powerful statement. e.g. BBC interview
Utterly disgraceful comment. The follow-up tweet does little to rectify it.
'I am reassured race played no part in their response'.
What is outrageous is that such a vile thought would not only take residence in her brain, but she would feel sufficiently confident to let it ooze out into the media.
And then that it would require a meeting with the union and fire authority to make her reconsider it.
What is outrageous is that such a vile thought would not only take residence in her brain, but she would feel sufficiently confident to let it ooze out into the media.
I wonder what the ‘high profile peer’ has to gain from making such a statement. I would start my analysis there. Things usually become apparent quicker that way around when it comes to politicians
You do know who she is don't you? I don't find it at all incredible that her battles in the past have lead her to see racism in places where it isn't. She is wrong in this case, but the hysterical reactions to her comments, and personal attacks on her for them are underlined by racism IMO.
"personal attacks on her for them are underlined by racism IMO"
Seriously?
What utter horseshite
Deserves repeating again
Seriously?
A mother of a murdered son, who battled institutional racism for years just to try and get some justice. Who the authorities treated like dog shit on a shoe and just tried to wipe off. But through her battles exposed the racism inherent within the institutions of power, who are meant to protect us all but failed so many.
She said something wrong, but if you can't see that through the prism of her life, and just say "she is wrong, but I understand her history and why she could say that" and instead call her vile, suggest that her thoughts "ooze" then I am happy to believe those using such terms are driven by racism.
You need to know who she is to understand the context. She made an error. We all do.
You do know who she is don’t you?
I can honestly say, that when I posted above I did not realise it was Doreen Lawrence.
personal attacks on her for them are underlined by racism IMO
Not in my case, for the reason above. Not that I would anyway.
At the time I thought it was some other politician with an axe to grind against the FBU or somesuch.
It is good she has retracted her comments as they were out of order, no matter who she is.
The people who are lashing out at the fire brigade are going after the wrong people.
WOW, like the report/inquiry that just out, she is aiming the blame at the wrong people, firefighters are NOT to be blamed, IMO.
THe people who signed off/approving the non fireproof cladding are totally the reason so many people tragically lost their lives, I don't think racism was behind that decision I think it was more to do with the low income area Grenfell is in. I really get the feeling if it was in a ricer part "town" the tower would have had the correct cladding.
Firefighters where following/doing what they thought was right as they didn't know the cladding didn't meet fire standards, as for dodgy equipment that wasn't work well (radios) that is prob down to having years of funding cuts and not been able to by first choice equipment.
I don’t find it at all incredible that her battles in the past have lead her to see racism in places where it isn’t.
That might be fair comment in her case. What's your excuse?
That might be fair comment in her case. What’s your excuse?
No need for excuses from me. You on the other hand have dug your own hole and trying to deflect onto me doesn't unwrite your comments. If you want to convince anyone you are not racist, maybe start by explaining your own statements, I didn't write them you did.
The people who signed off/approving the non fireproof cladding are totally the reason so many people tragically lost their lives, I don’t think racism was behind that decision I think it was more to do with the low income area Grenfell is in. I really get the feeling if it was in a ricer part “town” the tower would have had the correct cladding.
Rob, the cladding did meet building regulations that were in place at the time. The cladding material wasn't the issue, it was the void between the cladding and building structure which created a Venturi effect helping accelerate the flames upwards. Not one contractor will go to prison because at the time nothing they did was wrong. Money was saved from the original spec and replaced with cheaper materials which still met building regs. There's probably not a building in existence where costs have been saved from the original architects plans.
When catastrophic events such as Grenfell occur regulations then change, things are then made safer. Remember the Kings Cross fire? Caused by a fire under a wooden escalator. Today, nothing can be installed in an underground station unless it's fire safe certified. This covers everything from a seat to the coating that protects it.
Regulations covering public buildings such as Grenfell changed late last year.
There are a number of 'exclusive' apartment homes all over the country decorated with wooden cladding. Given what we now know would you rather have aluminium cladding covering your abode or live in one of these tinder boxes?
Oh, one more thing. Let's not get started on asbestos!
The cladding material wasn’t the issue
Hmm…
leeroysilk
Member
Rob, the cladding did meet building regulations that were in place at the time.
In fact, it did not. The cladding products were rated as class B by Arconic's internal testing in 2008, but their subsequent testing of the product range in 2014 rated the riveted cladding as class C. They failed to tell the BBA of this new test result, and so the product remained officially graded and was marketed as class B despite the fact that the manufacturers knew it didn't meet the standard. When independently tested after the fire, the same product again failed to pass the class b test.
Or to put it a different way, it had a certificate that said it passed the class B standard, but it did not. Of course, the BBA doesn't actually test anything or even require independent testing- they purely grant certificates based on the company's testing, which is definitely a totally legit way to test products that couldn't possibly lead to any massive fires because a company doesn't pass on unfavourable test results.
Worth remembering as ever that the actual regulations are disputed; the regs stated that class B was acceptable for the outside surface of a building over 18m, and developers interpreted that as allowing class B cladding; however the government maintains that the cladding is insulation rather than outside surface (ie that only the outer layer of the cladding is surface), and that accordingly it should have met Class A. Of course, it didn't meet either, but it was only certified as meeting the lower of the two.
It seems like the argument that class B is acceptable is pretty reasonable, in the face of badly written codes, but still it depends on the developers looking at a poorly written code and choosing to interpret it in the less safe, cheaper way. Rather than, for instance, seeking clarity from the authorities. But that does seem as far as I've seen to be the worst that the developers themselves were actually guilty of.
But Arconic certainly knew their product didn't meet the legal standards.
Northwind
Subscriber
In fact, it did not.
Thanks Northwind, I stand corrected. I appreciate you correcting me with details as opposed to a pointless "hmm..." as referenced by Kelvin.
You make an interest point regarding the interpretation of the code, it's my understanding even the new code has points that could be interpreted in different ways:
"all structural components should be A1 certified" many would state cladding is not structural and should therefore be A2.
"Materials should not be used which may impede safe evacuation during a fire". Some might interpret this as all materials should meet A1 requirements.
Before Grenfell, my company saw a competitors product claiming to be A1 rated, when reviewing the test report from an independent lab it became clear their product had been supplied to the lab just outside of an industry specification enabling it to pass, in the real world there's no way it could have passed. Fortunately this competitor didn't monopolies on their A1 certificate, however post Grenfell we've started seeing A1 certified products from other competitors which when tested in spec would not meet A1.
“Or to put it a different way, it had a certificate that said it passed the class B standard, but it did not. Of course, the BBA doesn’t actually test anything or even require independent testing- they purely grant certificates based on the company’s testing, which is definitely a totally legit way to test products that couldn’t possibly lead to any massive fires because a company doesn’t pass on unfavourable test results.”
I won’t pretend to know much about this whole case, just what I’ve seen on the news, but blaming LFB and saying they’re racist seems flimsy. Surely a lack of appliances in London able to deal with fires in tall buildings is a much greater issue.
Companies self certifying safety testing seems ludicrous. I’m sure it’s “efficient” I.e. cheap, and my worry is we will see more of this in the future the way things are going.
The worst of it is there have been calls for years for sprinklers and other fire safety measures to be retrofitted to buildings, but there’s no money for silly things like that. But if you want votes from nutters in NI, or 50p coins...
You do know who she is don’t you? I don’t find it at all incredible that her battles in the past have lead her to see racism in places where it isn’t
She is being racist herself here. She assumes that the LFB are all white and made their judgements from that standpoint.
Just because she has met some who do, not everyone with a white face thinks that people of colour are worth less than themselves.
She's using her prejudice to distract from the real culprits. @Northwind has it bang on
The fires penetrated inside the building because the window frames were timber and many of the windows were open, creating almost perfect conditions for the fire in the void to spread inwards.
In the many videos of cladding fires in tower blocks in the middle east, the blocks are newer so they have aluminium window frames, which are usually closed because the buildings are air-conditioned, meaning the advice to stay put may have some validity.
Here's the FBU response:
https://www.fbu.org.uk/news/2019/10/30/fbu-response-grenfell-tower-inquiry-phase-one-report
The mewling pencil and his approach to common sense in tower block fires
So he considers the occupants of greenfell to lack common sense?, perhaps he needs a live situation experience from the fire service in a smoke filled stairwell building with zero visibility to experience what a single lungful of toxic and particulate laden smoke does to his lungs in such an environment.
I'd happily do time for bitch slapping him up and down the stairwell
This article explains very well what happened and why various procedures were followed .
Sums him up well
"Jacob Rees-Mogg talking about common sense is a bit like my dog talking about wifi. It's surprising he even understands the concept."
This article explains very well what happened and why various procedures were followed .
That article seems like compulsory reading for anyone opening their flap on the subject, but I know nothing about it. I'd be interested to hear from people who actually have proper understanding - bruneep for example?
Its already confined and difficult for us to get our gear in place using high rise stairwells as it is in a fire without it being flooded in smoke due to people opening all the doors, it's also very difficult when you have just a few people trying to decend the stairs as your on the way up so god only knows what would have had happened had everyone tried to exit. I personally think more would have died but that's just my opinion
So he considers the occupants of greenfell to lack common sense?
I think it says something about him. You either trust that it has been built correctly and so it is safe to follow the sealed compartment view or you take a cynical approach about the budget spend and so dont trust it. Cant imagine why someone like him would choose the latter.
To take firestarter's comment this pretty much sums up the problem. On an individual level it makes sense to get out immediately but if everyone does that then it becomes a nightmare hence why we should be able to rely on the building design to remove the need.
If it wasnt utterly unethical and liable to end in lawsuits it would be an interesting experiment in a routine building evacuation. Do it with the normal bored its a drill vs lob a couple of smoke grenades and preferably a heat generator. I suspect would end up with plenty of second homes for lawyers once the panic kicks in.
That article seems like compulsory reading for anyone opening their flap on the subject
Seconded. Certainly Rees-Knobjockey would do well to have a read before running his haunted Victorian gums.
I'm very much with Stormzy on his view of Rees-Mogg:
The Grenfell fire was fairly unique, in British fire fighting so there's obviously lessons that can be learned. But the conspiracy bollocks is simply beyond contempt. From the Independent article.
There were 65 rescues in total. All the following would be against the rules, but firefighters did them: going above the fire without breathing apparatus to knock on doors and get people out; attempting snatch rescues without breathing apparatus; going above the fire without a hose and sufficient water; going past the time of whistle and into your safety margin of the last 10 minutes on your breathing apparatus; taking your mask off in a job and putting it on a casualty’s face; multiple wears and entries with breathing apparatus; carrying an adult casualty alone; carrying more than one casualty at a time.
That's a really impactful article from the ex fire bloke. The problem is not enough people Have this info to hand and make comments where they should simply keep schtoom. Very often I have this kind of discussions with normally well intentioned well educated people, but whereas I'm more likely to remain impartial without knowing facts, I find that others will very quickly use heor own e perience or though process to comment on the actions of professional people.. It drives me up the wall (and causes arguments).. The firefighters did a brilliant job, unfortunately media and media whores like to spread garbage which only flames those suffering looking for answers..
Something that struck me was the comment about the forensic teams, that really must be a hard job, from experience seeing body parts after an incidence haunts you..
No grown ups take the cconspiracy theory seriously
What is odd is that so many people are jumping in on the side of Rees mogg, Andrew Bridgen & now wannabe Katie Hopkins is at it too?
Surely this has destroyed any chances of the Tories retaking Kensington, not to mention causing even more distress
https://twitter.com/davemacladd/status/1191839261680640001
https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1191834073414733824
I heard those Andrew Bigden comments on the radio driving home. I couldn't quite believe my ears.
Not just JRM
David Lammy on Newsnight tonight"we learnt that there were firefighters who could have knocked on doors but didn't"
Whether it's in the report or not it's not something that should be said in a simplified manner which he did tonight
The wannabe Hopkins has just made me utter profanity on the Twitter for the first time. Utterly despicable (her attitude and my language).
so the haters have managed to remove Dani Cotton.
The inquiry from the very start was skewed looking for scapegoats for that night and probably those ultimately responsible will walk away without being held to account.
The Grenfell Action Group blog highlighted the safety and welfare shortcomings of Grenfell many years before the fire .
They predicted this disaster .
And remarkably they have defended Dany Cotton and in doing so the firefighters of LFB.
https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/
From the above
In 2015 a group of residents had been concerned about failures and delays in the process of the works, the noise and inconvenience, concerns about fire breaks, the position of boilers in hallways, exposed gas pipes, the loss of emergency road access, the loss of green space at Lancaster Green to build the school close to the Tower, and fears that the building itself may be dangerous post-refurb.
Rather than take residents’ concerns seriously, in November 2016 the Council sent a ‘cease and desist’ letter to the complainants, stating that they were frightening residents.
Six months later a fridge now deemed so dangerous it has been withdrawn from sale burst into flames, and fire services were called. Unknown to them the fire had burnt through a UPVC window frame and flames had begun to tear up the building fuelled by a devastating combination of flammable insulation and flammable cladding. Then –
The stair lighting failed.
The smoke vents failed.
The fire doors failed.
The fire breaks between floors failed.
Badly fitting UPVC windows blazed and emitted deadly gases.
The insulation and cladding failed, due to their combustibility and to poorly fitted breaks and gaps which acted like a chimney.
The gas supply could not be turned off for 18 hours.
And the ‘value engineered’ insulation (now banned) and cladding combination described as ‘solid petrol’ raged for hours.
The devasting fire that had been predicted by residents turned a concrete frame building with fire safe compartmentation, where ‘Stay Put’ policy had worked for 40 years, into a 24 storey bonfire.
Into this nightmare, firefighters had to work to save lives with equipment inadequate for a combination of disastrous errors that should never have been allowed. They went in untrained for a disaster that should never have happened.
And here lies the problem with this back-to-front Inquiry.
And all this according to Grenfell United is Dany Cottons fault
Maybe they should have listened to the authors of the Grenfell Action Group who actually know the facts and the real causes of this disaster
And it wasn’t Dany Cotton
Shame on them
bruneep. I have followed what has being going on and thinking exactly the same.
A residential building can be allowed to be designed and constructed with horrendous fire risk flaws, and now the focus of all problems is at the feet of those dealing with a situation in the moment.
I cant help but think that there are executives in the cladding manufacturing firm saying, 'see the death toll would have been lower if the fire brigade procedures were better'. The whole thing is arse about tit.
Fire rescue systems are like PPE. They should be an absolute last resort. Potential dangers should be design out first.
so the haters have managed to remove Dani Cotton.
Had me absolutely raging at the TV when I heard this tonight, a scapegoat for those that do not understand the situation she was in. It’s tragic for the families they are looking at who to blame, she was not one of them.
I've just read the latest post on Grenfell United. It's worth the time.
This seems to be proper scapegoating.
That is set against lack of names and details over cladding specifiers, advisors, consultants, council officers and more.
Shocking.
https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/
I’ve just read the latest post on Grenfell United. It’s worth the time.
I’ve reads it too. I’ve also read the entire phase 1 Inquiry report. I understand the criticism about dealing with the response to the fire first rather than the fundamental flaw, but there may be lessons to learn quickly whilst other buildings are still at risk and so I can see some pragmatism in doing it the way they have; fundamentally Inquiries are not about assigning blame - but learning lessons.
Had she said, either in the Inquiry or in a public statement afterwards,words to the effect of “That fire was unlike anything LFB have ever experienced, imagined or trained for, and so there must be lessons we can learn. I support fully my officers who executed the rescue operation completely as I would have expected them to at the time, and who showed resilience and courage in the face of unprecedented circumstances. However, all UK fire services must reflect on the situation we found ourselves in, and how we will identify in a major incident if the presumption behind the buildings response to a fire is flawed and how and when to change the protocol to minimize casualties. We will also need to consider how any such change could be communicated in a difficult and complex environment and balance the risk of sticking to the established doctrine versus the risk inherent with mass evacuation in such difficult environments. It is the responsibility of government to set regulations to minimize risk from fire, and to correctly enforce those regulations. It is our responsibility to respond to fires even when they are outside of the possibilities the regulations should permit - and fire services must plan for the very unlikely; in times of constrained resources we will never be able to imagine every scenario or invest in training and equipment for situations we believe are impossible but it is the responsibility of the leadership of LFB to balance the ability to respond to the routine with the capability to adapt to the unforeseen and we will of course learn from this tragedy so that if we ever find ourselves in such horrific circumstances again we can minimize the loss of life.”
Then she would not have faced anywhere near as much pressure to go. If she has become a scapegoat it is because she has allowed herself to present a degree of arrogance. If she had really wanted to go with a bang, since she was retiring anyway, she could have said, “too much time has been wasted on planning for, training and responding to terrorist scenarios, driven by government hysteria about very rare and largely unforeseeable events rather than dealing with the fundamental and much more basic risks which we have become complacent towards. Combined with the demands on fire services to respond to climate related emergencies, which the government is doing little to reduce the ongoing risk from, and the ongoing collision risks from ever busier roads which are poorly policed, the demands on the LFB are bigger and wider than ever before.”
What I will say, is if this is the response for her, then I’d really not want to be the people who actually enabled the disaster in the first place.
Whenever there’s any sort of mess up in the uk the same thing happens. Those at the top start looking at those beneath them to see who they can blame.
“Can I blame the person immediately below me? No, they’ve got too much on me. What about the person below them?”, etc.
As soon as they reach the highest ranking person who cannot punch upwards they put all the blame on them. I’ve seen this over and over agin. Sometimes they have to go right to the bottom to find somebody, but usually it’s someone in middle-management who has little influence and few friends. It never goes to the high-ups.
Somewhat agree with Poly tbh, I don't really see how she could have acted differently re the fire but some of the response afterwards really opened her up for criticism. I don't think that should be enough, frankly, but it seems like the chink that was used.
But yep, so far the only people who've lost out are residents and her. That can't stay the case.
Given how this thread started, it is ironic that now the establishment is circling their wagons and acting in self preservation mode, the Grenfell groups could look to Dame Lawrence and the Hillsbrough families for inspiration on fighting a long battle for the truth and justice.
Don't let the authorities of the hook, keep on pushing to get the truth out there, too often us brits give up too easily against the establishment, but we have examples that the truth can be revealed with perseverance. And in this case, there looks to be more friends than enemies in the media, lets hope that doesn't slip away.
I read an article by a firefighter - wish I could find it again - about what the actual circumstances were like, and how far from realistic it is to imagine that "using common sense" the residents could have strolled to safety. One thing that stuck in my mind was that we recoil from an open oven that is 200 deg, so how should someone open a flat door when there is an inferno outside that is 600-800 deg? Add to that the toxic smoke, the crowded stairs etc etc etc. Maybe "stay put" was the wrong advice or maybe it was the right advice - how can we tell? Seems to me that a judgement has been made before that has been properly demonstrated. Maybe when the firefighters arrived on the scene it was already too late to change much, given the speed of spread of the fire?
(Obviously all I know is what I read, so comments of bruneep and co. much valued 🙂 )