This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Grenfell - who's to blame
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Badger11  Beckenham 30 Oct 19 9.01pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
I doubt that 200 on sale fridges failed safety standards. A little background I agree that others may challenge their findings but I would rather err on the safe side. One key finding is that the risk of a fridge freezer causing a fire is low that said if a fire occurs Which say the plastic backed ones fail the fire test. I looked at this 2 years ago and it seems that the regulations have now changed although you can still buy the old stock. Edited by Badger11 (30 Oct 2019 9.06pm)
One more point |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
cryrst  The garden of England 30 Oct 19 10.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ex hibitionist
no offence but if I'm after consumer friendly information I think most people would take Which over your good self Well that does depend on which items you want information on.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Invalid user 2019 30 Oct 19 11.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
There's plenty of blame to go around but the pattern is that it's always innocent people that pay the price.. and that nobody is ever held to account, and nothing ever learned.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| YT Oxford 31 Oct 19 7.44am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by dollardays
There's plenty of blame to go around but the pattern is that it's always innocent people that pay the price.. and that nobody is ever held to account, and nothing ever learned. Do you have any examples to back up these words?
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| TomThePalaceFanatic 31 Oct 19 7.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by YT
Do you have any examples to back up these words? The fact that the cladding used or similar is still on hundreds of buildings in London, with the report urging for immediate action?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 31 Oct 19 8.48am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by TomThePalaceFanatic
The fact that the cladding used or similar is still on hundreds of buildings in London, with the report urging for immediate action? And the issue is the cladding. That is it. No cladding, no tragedy. Yet this is the fault of the fire-brigade? It f***ing stinks, it really does.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| YT Oxford 31 Oct 19 9.49am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by TomThePalaceFanatic
The fact that the cladding used or similar is still on hundreds of buildings in London, with the report urging for immediate action? Just about every building in the UK where a local authority is responsible HAS been rectified, ergo this is not a good example of (quote) "and nothing ever learned".
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 31 Oct 19 10.25am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
It's hard to disagree with this post. The families wanted someone to blame and the enquiry has provided them. So you're saying if the fire service had made errors, they shouldn't be called out on it? Or that they should but the report should be of a wider scope so as to apportion blame in a more balanced way. I get the 'scapegoat' narrative, but if this first phase of the report is mainly focused on assessing the response and actions of the residents and emergency services then that's all that is going to be discussed in the media. Also, the fact that the cladding was dangerous, flammable and in some cases illegal has already been covered extensively, mainly at the time of the incident. Almost all cladding across the UK that was of the same spec has now been funded to be replaced. But of course that information is not quite as good as a sensationalist, money making headline like 'fire service to blame', now is it? Negativity sells. Edited by SW19 CPFC (31 Oct 2019 10.27am)
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
jeeagles  02 Nov 19 12.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ex hibitionist
I went to Health and Safety training with a trade union about a year ago, and one official had an encyclopaedic knowledge of all the regulations - apparently in the H&S Act of 1974 the laws, codes of practice and guidance are under three separate categories (as in all Acts of Parliament) but the 'guidance' is not legally binding - all the construction interests involved over time have lobbied MPs to put the codes of practice requirements into the guidance section so that they are no longer legally binding. This is why setting up the official enquiry so the Fire Service are investigated a year before the MPs are in part two of the enquiry is a stich up and a smoke screen - it's the people who altered the law to make that cladding legal who are responsible, all any self-respecting journalist need do is go back through Hansard to find all those secondary legislation committees who changed the law, who arranged and populated these committees and who may have been lobbying them and you'll find the real culprits - that's the context, bit too big maybe, the fire service were poor, but the way it's being presented to the public is a smoke screen. You've got quite a lot wrong with this post. The Health & Safety at work at is enabling legislation, and all the regulations that come out of it are legally binding. Guidance is sometimes not legal binding using words like "should" rather than must. It's also criminal legislation and someone is going to go down for the issue surrounding the cladding. If it is just guidance, you still need to show really strong reasons as to why you ignored it. It might be the manufacturer, contractor, designers or client, or a combination of them but they will go down for it. There were multiple failures which caused the disaster. It is right to check if the fire brigade responded well and see what they can do next time, but they should not get any blame. They were running into an inferno, no training or experience could have prepared then for it because it simply hadn't happened before. In all these inquiries, 7/7 or Hillsborough etc the inquiry and press seem to forget that the emergency services are simply normal people dealing with extraordinary event. There's always going to be mistakes. Good to see such public support for the Fire brigade on all social media though. The public know that they gave it everything the could and a hero's.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| cryrst The garden of England 02 Nov 19 4.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jeeagles
You've got quite a lot wrong with this post. The Health & Safety at work at is enabling legislation, and all the regulations that come out of it are legally binding. Guidance is sometimes not legal binding using words like "should" rather than must. It's also criminal legislation and someone is going to go down for the issue surrounding the cladding. If it is just guidance, you still need to show really strong reasons as to why you ignored it. It might be the manufacturer, contractor, designers or client, or a combination of them but they will go down for it. There were multiple failures which caused the disaster. It is right to check if the fire brigade responded well and see what they can do next time, but they should not get any blame. They were running into an inferno, no training or experience could have prepared then for it because it simply hadn't happened before. In all these inquiries, 7/7 or Hillsborough etc the inquiry and press seem to forget that the emergency services are simply normal people dealing with extraordinary event. There's always going to be mistakes. Good to see such public support for the Fire brigade on all social media though. The public know that they gave it everything the could and a hero's. The cladding may have been to the standards in place at the time.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ex hibitionist Hastings 02 Nov 19 6.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
if interested parties have been 'lobbying' MPs so that unsafe materials can be used without it being automatically illegal but subject to interpretation by lawyers then those interested parties are responsible - to what degree their responsibility is criminal depends on how much they knew they were increasing risk and the nature of the lobbying, e.g.were some of the MPs involved on the payroll of some of these organisations?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Invalid user 2019 02 Nov 19 9.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by YT
Do you have any examples to back up these words? The fact that it even happened in the first place. Okay, saying that 'nothing' is learned may be overly negative, but 'we will learn lessons from x' is a daily occurrence on our screens. There is always in life far more brushing under the carpet and diverting blame than there ever is learning.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.