|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jun 23, 2017 21:10:03 GMT
Are evacuating their tower blocks with unsafe cladding. Seems premature to me , just get the cladding ripped off
|
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jun 23, 2017 21:35:48 GMT
Labour Council with a bit of "look at us, we care" dramatic politicking.
Expect some more. Momentum are briefing all Labour inner city council's how to milk this.
Shocking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 21:45:37 GMT
Where the fuck are they evacuating them to?
More political point scoring then I take it?
Cunts.
|
|
|
|
Post by 4372 on Jun 23, 2017 21:49:55 GMT
Not sure they have any choice really. It would only take one accident, or one fanatic to cause more mayhem.
|
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jun 23, 2017 21:50:16 GMT
Where the fuck are they evacuating them to? More political point scoring then I take it? Cunts. Sleeping on the floor of the sports centre, crazy knee jerk decision |
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 23, 2017 23:11:58 GMT
Quite right lads, much better to let the lower classes burn to death in order to not risk embarrassing Theresa May's rock 'ard strong and stable leadership  All those cunts ever do is vote Labour anyway. Scum. Waste of fucking time. Absolutely disgusting for a council to be concerned about its council tenants' wellbeing. Talk about having an agenda. Outrageous  |
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 23, 2017 23:24:35 GMT
Labour Council with a bit of "look at us, we care" dramatic politicking. Expect some more. Momentum are briefing all Labour inner city council's how to milk this. Shocking. Just out of interest, what is it about the poor that you despise so much, todger? A grim reminder of a past life? The inconvenient truth that your preferred economic system doesn't actually work in practice? Or is it just that you like to stick the boot into those less fortunate than you?  |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jun 24, 2017 0:00:35 GMT
Labour Council with a bit of "look at us, we care" dramatic politicking. Expect some more. Momentum are briefing all Labour inner city council's how to milk this. Shocking. What's shocking is the utterly deplorable piece of low life you have become Rog. You are disgusting. |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jun 24, 2017 0:08:04 GMT
The faux outrage, the total lack of facts, the constant attempt to reach the moral high ground, the 'it's always someone else's fault' mentality, the violence when they don't get their way. The playground insults. The laughable Left.
24/7 fire wardens while they just rip the cladding off. "money no object" say's Camden Labour MP. Excellent, so not a problem with central Government funding then.
I'm laughing waiting to hear how all those inner city Labour councils up and down the land will twist and turn to try and blame "The Tories" for cladding.
|
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jun 24, 2017 0:20:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 24, 2017 4:43:41 GMT
The faux outrage, the total lack of facts, the constant attempt to reach the moral high ground, the 'it's always someone else's fault' mentality, the violence when they don't get their way. The playground insults. The laughable Left. 24/7 fire wardens while they just rip the cladding off. "money no object" say's Camden Labour MP. Excellent, so not a problem with central Government funding then. I'm laughing waiting to hear how all those inner city Labour councils up and down the land will twist and turn to try and blame "The Tories" for cladding. No mention of "The Tories" in Camden yet, todge. But do keep us appraised of the politics of the Grenfell Tower tragedy - I'm sure you will Funnily enough, your idea for "24/7 fire wardens while they just rip the cladding off" seems to be exactly what the chaps in Islington are doing. This is outlined in the link you posted - which also doesn't contain any reference at all to "The Tories". So let's tally up those two most recent posts of yours on this thread. Faux outrage? Check. Total lack of facts? Check. Constant attempt to reach the moral high ground? Check. 'It's always someone else's fault' mentality? Check. Playground insults? Check. Does that make you "the laughable left"?!  |
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jun 24, 2017 5:24:24 GMT
Where the fuck are they evacuating them to? More political point scoring then I take it? Cunts. Sleeping on the floor of the sports centre, crazy knee jerk decision So if there was a fire and no action had been taken you would have been one of the first to call foul and been all over it as it was a labour council, they are doing something and being pro active keeping there residents safe while work is done to sort out these blocks and also stopping any legal action should anything go wrong the only ones seeming to make any political point on this are the tory boys on here Edit For information it was not the council that made the decision it was the fire brigade who could not guarantee the safety of the residents |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jun 24, 2017 6:54:09 GMT
Quite right lads, much better to let the lower classes burn to death **************, that's a bit cruel even from you 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jun 24, 2017 6:57:54 GMT
a bearded terrorist sympathiser ? |
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jun 24, 2017 7:05:20 GMT
a bearded terrorist sympathiser ? They're all at Glastonbury trying to look cool |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jun 24, 2017 7:12:48 GMT
Plenty of other ways that the safety could be improved whilst the cladding is taken away.
Fire watches, group of extinguishers on each landing, temporary dry risers fitted (hoses wouldnt take long to run out) etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jun 24, 2017 7:16:14 GMT
I reckon this is the right action from Camden Council.
Of course it prompts a couple of issues, one practical and a second political
1) replacing the cladding - it was installed for a reason mainly to improve insulation and water protection (and not just aesthetics!).
2) (and this one for Corbyn and his class war pals screaming blame the Tories generally and specifically for voting against some proposed housing legislation in January 2016) how are the Tories to blame for this work undertaken between 2006 and 2009.
That second one is a puzzler right enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Jun 24, 2017 9:36:39 GMT
Classic local authority misunderstanding of a risk assessed based approach. Yes the cladding has to be removed as it is not safe, but to evacuate is the extreme no risk approach which will cost loads. A sensible half way position whilst it was removed would've been a 24/7 fire warden on each floor with a properly auditable and documented register of who was in any flat at any given time, and all flats fitted with a £10 smoke alarm.There are even private companies who provide an initial limited fire fighting capacity(such as at festivals). These measures as a whole would surely be cheaper and less of an impact for residents than displacing them as they are doing. Yes, it needs to be replaced but a complete over reaction.....smacks of someone in charge with no balls or an external influence?
|
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jun 24, 2017 9:54:36 GMT
Classic local authority misunderstanding of a risk assessed based approach. Yes the cladding has to be removed as it is not safe, but to evacuate is the extreme no risk approach which will cost loads. A sensible half way position whilst it was removed would've been a 24/7 fire warden on each floor with a properly auditable and documented register of who was in any flat at any given time, and all flats fitted with a £10 smoke alarm.There are even private companies who provide an initial limited fire fighting capacity(such as at festivals). These measures as a whole would surely be cheaper and less of an impact for residents than displacing them as they are doing. Yes, it needs to be replaced but a complete over reaction.....smacks of someone in charge with no balls or an external influence? Have you not seen it was the fire service who could not guarantee the safety of the residents as soon as they said that the council had no choice!! |
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Jun 24, 2017 10:15:42 GMT
Classic local authority misunderstanding of a risk assessed based approach. Yes the cladding has to be removed as it is not safe, but to evacuate is the extreme no risk approach which will cost loads. A sensible half way position whilst it was removed would've been a 24/7 fire warden on each floor with a properly auditable and documented register of who was in any flat at any given time, and all flats fitted with a £10 smoke alarm.There are even private companies who provide an initial limited fire fighting capacity(such as at festivals). These measures as a whole would surely be cheaper and less of an impact for residents than displacing them as they are doing. Yes, it needs to be replaced but a complete over reaction.....smacks of someone in charge with no balls or an external influence? Have you not seen it was the fire service who could not guarantee the safety of the residents as soon as they said that the council had no choice!! The fire service or any other body for that matter will not offer guarantees on anyone's safety as there will always be the complete unknown. The council had every choice, but have chosen one which absolves them of any responsibility should it go wrong. Whether we like it or not, we have an expectation that the public sector or government agencies are competent to make tough decisions on our behalf where risk and cost are a constant dynamic to balance.....it's the easiest thing in the world to operate in a zero risk environment, but then you find costs are extortionate and time scales unworkable. |
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jun 24, 2017 10:20:15 GMT
Have you not seen it was the fire service who could not guarantee the safety of the residents as soon as they said that the council had no choice!! The fire service or any other body for that matter will not offer guarantees on anyone's safety as there will always be the complete unknown. The council had every choice, but have chosen one which absolves them of any responsibility should it go wrong. Whether we like it or not, we have an expectation that the public sector or government agencies are competent to make tough decisions on our behalf where risk and cost are a constant dynamic to balance.....it's the easiest thing in the world to operate in a zero risk environment, but then you find costs are extortionate and time scales unworkable. Have you not watched the news this morning?? It WAS THE FIRE BRIGADE as soon as they said "WE cannot guarantee the safety " under health and safety legislation the council had to act that's why businesses and flats etc have fire safety checks every few months  |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jun 24, 2017 11:35:04 GMT
The fire service or any other body for that matter will not offer guarantees on anyone's safety as there will always be the complete unknown. The council had every choice, but have chosen one which absolves them of any responsibility should it go wrong. Whether we like it or not, we have an expectation that the public sector or government agencies are competent to make tough decisions on our behalf where risk and cost are a constant dynamic to balance.....it's the easiest thing in the world to operate in a zero risk environment, but then you find costs are extortionate and time scales unworkable. Have you not watched the news this morning?? It WAS THE FIRE BRIGADE as soon as they said "WE cannot guarantee the safety " under health and safety legislation the council had to act that's why businesses and flats etc have fire safety checks every few months Have you not read and understood what others have said  your tunnel vision and not being able to understand both sides of a discussion is plain to see, no doubt that's why you were offered to stand for a seat for labour on a local parish council. Yes, the fire brigade said they cannot guarantee the safety, but if you remember earlier on in this thread I said the fire brigade said they cannot fight fires above 8 stories high, are we to empty the shard, and all of the city of London and Docklands and every tower block above 8 stories high? No, as xchpotter said, they have gone for the zero risk, high cost option instead of looking at alternatives to reduce the risk as an interim, even when the cladding is removed and measures put in place the fire brigade will stay say they cannot guarantee the safety of people above 8 or 10 stories high. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2017 12:00:17 GMT
If a single resident was burned to death in another fire in a high rise deemed unsafe by the fire brigade that persons council would be held criminally responsible.
Now then which one of you well off boys would risk prison time to save a few bob? how many lives would you risk?
I think you will find the shard has not got cheap cladding or dodgy gas pipes and has duel lifts smoke extractors emergency lit exit signs working fire doors and alarms and sprinklers.
These buildings at risk are old out of date and have been given fire safety certificates for years when they were not up to standard.
This is not a one off instance this is decades of neglect and the fire has only served to become the lid on a can of worms.
As most of these neglected building are in areas that have been controlled by both Labour and Conservative councils political point scoring may be better replaced with hanging their heads in shame.
I fully expect this to rumble on for a good 5 year period at least where public enquiry after public enquiry digs out the inept decision makers that are responsible for this tragedy. That won't bring anyone back though will it, there is nothing that reimburses a family for the loss of a loved one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2017 15:07:03 GMT
They should have lined a load of static caravans for the people to live in rather than a sports hall. They are still taking the cheaper option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jun 24, 2017 16:08:47 GMT
If a single resident was burned to death in another fire in a high rise deemed unsafe by the fire brigade that persons council would be held criminally responsible. Now then which one of you well off boys would risk prison time to save a few bob? how many lives would you risk? I think you will find the shard has not got cheap cladding or dodgy gas pipes and has duel lifts smoke extractors emergency lit exit signs working fire doors and alarms and sprinklers. These buildings at risk are old out of date and have been given fire safety certificates for years when they were not up to standard. This is not a one off instance this is decades of neglect and the fire has only served to become the lid on a can of worms. As most of these neglected building are in areas that have been controlled by both Labour and Conservative councils political point scoring may be better replaced with hanging their heads in shame. I fully expect this to rumble on for a good 5 year period at least where public enquiry after public enquiry digs out the inept decision makers that are responsible for this tragedy. That won't bring anyone back though will it, there is nothing that reimburses a family for the loss of a loved one. ive been all the way up Tower 42 (formerly known as natwest tower in the city of london) all 42 floors of the emergency exit, there aint no sprinklers and its like a concrete funnel, get trapped up there and youve had it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2017 16:41:24 GMT
They should have lined a load of static caravans for the people to live in rather than a sports hall. They are still taking the cheaper option. Thought a cruise liner on the Thames myself or at least HMS Belfast |
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jun 24, 2017 16:54:43 GMT
They should have lined a load of static caravans for the people to live in rather than a sports hall. They are still taking the cheaper option. Thought a cruise liner on the Thames myself or at least HMS Belfast No roger would want it torpedoed! |
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Jun 24, 2017 19:17:07 GMT
Classic local authority misunderstanding of a risk assessed based approach. Yes the cladding has to be removed as it is not safe, but to evacuate is the extreme no risk approach which will cost loads. A sensible half way position whilst it was removed would've been a 24/7 fire warden on each floor with a properly auditable and documented register of who was in any flat at any given time, and all flats fitted with a £10 smoke alarm.There are even private companies who provide an initial limited fire fighting capacity(such as at festivals). These measures as a whole would surely be cheaper and less of an impact for residents than displacing them as they are doing. Yes, it needs to be replaced but a complete over reaction.....smacks of someone in charge with no balls or an external influence? Have you not seen it was the fire service who could not guarantee the safety of the residents as soon as they said that the council had no choice!! Its not the job of the fire service to guarantee safety. That is down to a redident of any building by using your appliances correctly, not falling asleep while smoking, not leaving stoves unattended and a few more precautions. We have sunk into a society where responsibility is always someone elses. |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jun 24, 2017 19:23:15 GMT
Camden council leader says she asked for fire wardens on every floor and an individual fire engine stationed outside of each block.
Fire service said they still couldn't guarantee everyone's safety.
Army fire patrols and green goddess'??
Mentioned earlier "a properly auditable and documented register of who was in any flat at any given time" is obviously going to be a problem in these London social housing blocks with illegal sub-letting to illegal immigrants.
Shameful.
|
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jun 25, 2017 7:56:19 GMT
The 31 year old leader of Camden council clearly lacks experience and common sense. As has been stated already, a thorough risk assessment of the hazard should have been undertaken which could have put in place many control measures that would have allowed for a rapid and safe evacuation of the block. With a register of who is in the building at any given time, fire patrols and temporary fire fighting equipment installed on every floor would considerably reduce the risk. Of course human rightists would cry foul at any register of people regardless of its principles. To put it in health and safety terms risk is defined as the potential for death or injury from a hazard multiplied by the chance of it occurring. Clearly the potential for death or serious injury is high but the chance of it occurring is, historically speaking, very low. Therefore the risk to residents is probably low. But let's not allow well founded health and safety hazard assessment procedure get in the way of political point scoring and oneupmanship.
|
|
