Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[omega2018]

That's assuming the more expensive panels would have prevented the loss off life, which is a big assumption at this stage. 

big, like £33 per person worth of big

[STEMO]

This nice fella got what he deserved:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/16/man-jailed-sharing-photo-dead-grenfell-tower-fire-victim-facebook/

wow thats fast justice. can't see it being delivered so quickly for the people responsible for the deaths.  can't see them pleading guilty either..

also don't paid professional war photographers take those sort6s of pictures all the time?  oh silly me they take pics of dead foreigners so thats ok .

I think the point is that this particular dead body hadn't yet been identified and seeing your missing relative burned and in a body bag is probably not a good way to find out what happened to them.

[STEMO]

I'm just watching the news and my sympathy for the survivors is diminishing somewhat. 

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

That's assuming the more expensive panels would have prevented the loss off life, which is a big assumption at this stage. 

big, like £33 per person worth of big

That doesn't even make sense. 

[omega2018]

That's assuming the more expensive panels would have prevented the loss off life, which is a big assumption at this stage. 

big, like £33 per person worth of big

That doesn't even make sense. 

must be all those copper molecules in the air 

let me explain - it would have cost £33 per dead person to fit the fire resistant ones.  £5,000 for the whole building.  On a 10 million pound refurbishment budget.  do you really need to spend much time making certain that they would have saved lives to make the decision to spend that?

anyway its not a big assumption that fire resistant panels are more fire resistant than the non fire resistant version is it?

[Varche]

Presumably the panels met the regulations at the time. 


Did the steel that melted in the twin towers meet spec and building regs? Rhetorical question.

Lets hope the lessons learnt are actually implemented. I suspect they wont be once rhe focus moves to something else.

[biggriffin]

I'm just watching the news and my sympathy for the survivors is diminishing somewhat. 

 

The amount of "survivors" who seem to be popping up on the news, threatening court cases,and their will be riots if they try to 're- house us somewhere else. 

Some of them will be 're-housed in other area's, as k+c council will ask other councils do you have properties.

[TheBoy]

apprently retro fitting sprinklers during the £8 million refit would have cost £200k. less than £2,000 per life.

And where would this cash come from? And remember, the local authority would be refurbing several buildings at the same time.

The local authority paid the contractor to refurb it to the legal requirements (and probably the mandatory requirements for the next few years).  We're yet to see if somebody illegally cut corners somewhere along the way.


Just because Corbyn implied he had a money tree forest during the election, that don't make it real. The work isn't going to get done for free. Somebody has to pay for it, and its not going to be the people living there if its an authority owned block. An the authority has over financial demands from all the other spongers it has to support.

[TheBoy]

I'm just watching the news and my sympathy for the survivors is diminishing somewhat. 

 

The amount of "survivors" who seem to be popping up on the news, threatening court cases,and their will be riots if they try to 're- house us somewhere else. 

Some of them will be 're-housed in other area's, as k+c council will ask other councils do you have properties.

Yup. More for the cull list.  If you gave them Buckingham Palace for free, they'd complain.


I pay for house insurance, and have suffered a significant fire (a few mins away from losing the house), had the house gone or deemed unsafe by the fire services, my insurance would have covered temporary accommodation, until house rebuilt or financially settled.

Presumably these people are above paying for thet?

[biggriffin]

I'm just watching the news and my sympathy for the survivors is diminishing somewhat. 

 

The amount of "survivors" who seem to be popping up on the news, threatening court cases,and their will be riots if they try to 're- house us somewhere else. 

Some of them will be 're-housed in other area's, as k+c council will ask other councils do you have properties.

Yup. More for the cull list.  If you gave them Buckingham Palace for free, they'd complain.


I pay for house insurance, and have suffered a significant fire (a few mins away from losing the house), had the house gone or deemed unsafe by the fire services, my insurance would have covered temporary accommodation, until house rebuilt or financially settled.

Presumably these people are above paying for thet?

A vast majority of those in social housing, seem to think that they pay rent, and that entitles them to the world, Once the fire services have conducted there investigation, and the outcome of the refurbishment, if refurbishment was all to the regulations of the day, and the fire was started by a cigarette or something else, let's see what would happen if all the residents try to. claim from them.
As TB says those of us with our homes should and do take out insurance, nothing to stop social housing tenants being responsible and doing the same...

[STEMO]

I lived in a council house for years. Of course you take out insurance, be silly not too. But, of course, if you're on benefits, it would, imo, be unaffordable.

[STEMO]

Now I come to think of it, Wakefield council did offer contents insurance on top of your rent for about £4 a week. Don't know if other councils do this.

[Lizzie Zoom]

Reports are now coming in that the cladding used on this building was a cheaper, less fire safe, example than is actually available at £2 more per panel.

So, as I have said, one of the richest boroughs in one of the worlds richest city fitted sub standard panels as it was housing for the poor. A bloody disgrace, and no doubt will result in heads rolling. The police have launched a criminal investigation, gathering evidence, already

Ffs, really?

If it had been your property, and you needed 1500 panels, you would buy the £20 ones instead of the £22. Any of us would, so stop being such a sodding hypocrite.

No you wouldn't, if you were responsible for the safety of hundreds of families and you knew these panels were not up to the highest standard.  We as a family always bought the best from a H&S point of view for our family, and would never skimp when their lives were involved!

So , no, I am not being a "sodding hypocrite" as you so nicely put it, and stop being so bloody rude when all people are doing is expressing an opinion. You never stop inputting on every damn thread you can as though you have nothing better to do!  As I have stated before it is not surprising this forum has not still got scores of members contributing. Apart from us who are able to hold our own, who would when you are always there being cynical and plain bloody rude to other members.

Get off my back!

well said  

by the way estimates suggest that the cost of using the more expensive version (of the panels) would have cost about £5,000, that's for the whole building. so about £33 a life: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fire-resistant-grenfell-tower-cladding-10631733

That's assuming the more expensive panels would have prevented the loss off life, which is a big assumption at this stage. 

That is what the experts in that field are saying, plus the outstanding question about how they were fitted, with fire breaks or not.  It will all come out in the inquires to come

[Lizzie Zoom]

I lived in a council house for years. Of course you take out insurance, be silly not too. But, of course, if you're on benefits, it would, imo, be unaffordable.

Exactly right

When you have £20 left in your pocket to feed the kids for the week, what do you do? Spend a part of it on insurance, or give your kids a meal each of the 7 days, or just on 6?!

As for those living in a block of high rise flats, they may well insure on a contents only basis, which in any other ground based home would be just fine, but they are taking the risk of potential fires, floods and explosions in potentially 119 other homes.  With the increasing possibility that the recent refurbishment was sub-standard, they perhaps should have insured for that as well?  Coming out of that "spare" £20 per week?

No, of course not, and that is why the authorities must step in and help out these families who have lost everything, including relatives and friends, regardless of their "insured" status.  What they have seen and heard many not familiar with a battleground situation would never have experienced before, and that is something that will need much state help for them to gradually resolve in their minds, if they ever do!  Even hardened fire fighters, medics and police have never seen anything like it before, and they will need all the assistance "we", the greater society, can give them.

[omega2018]

Yup. More for the cull list.  If you gave them Buckingham Palace for free, they'd complain.


I pay for house insurance, and have suffered a significant fire (a few mins away from losing the house), had the house gone or deemed unsafe by the fire services, my insurance would have covered temporary accommodation, until house rebuilt or financially settled.

Presumably these people are above paying for thet?

"cull list"

you paid insurance because you own the house.  if you rented it from a landlord or a council you would sort of expect the owner to insure their building, not the tenant