Is the UK about to face a very challenging Summer? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Is the UK about to face a very challenging Summer?

£0.00 @
It is sometimes difficult to judge the genuine mood in our major cities if living elsewhere. We are entering a period where there is a combination of benefit cuts starting to bite, actual and perceive… Read More
Saturn Avatar
1w, 3d agoPosted 1 week, 3 days ago
It is sometimes difficult to judge the genuine mood in our major cities if living elsewhere. We are entering a period where there is a combination of benefit cuts starting to bite, actual and perceived austerity, a weak Government, uncertainty over Brexit negotiations and our economic future, dealing with recent terrorist atrocities plus an ongoing threat, and a general mood of division within communities as highlighted in the Referendum and General Election.

Having just seen the London Mayor deliver a short speech in a febrile atmosphere, there was an awful sense of current events potentially being used as a precursor to a period of the civil unrest that can emerge in the hot Summer months. There is considerable and understandable outrage over the horrific fire in North Kensington, and this needs to be addressed comprehensively by all relevant authorities. As seen in the London riots in 2011, a single incident can sometimes act as catalyst for wider unrest. As much as everyone would like to think otherwise, there are those who will adopt a tragic situation to further their own social and political agenda(s). These people will not necessarily have any association at all with the trigger event, but it must be hoped that the terrible news that is still to be shared about the overall loss of life at Grenfell Tower is not used in a way that will not benefit anyone.

I hope I am wrong, but would be interested to hear other views.
Saturn Avatar
1w, 3d agoPosted 1 week, 3 days ago
Options

Top Comments

(3)
11 Likes
Mrs May isn't helping matters and needs to go ASAP.. Her latest shocker is visiting Grenfell and refusing to meet survivors .. What an utter disgrace .
7 Likes
plodging
Mrs May isn't helping matters and needs to go ASAP.. Her latest shocker is visiting Grenfell and refusing to meet survivors .. What an utter disgrace .

Mrs Weak & Wobbly afraid of the backlash from residents, friends and family
Pathetic excuses and still will not answer questions put to her
5 Likes
tempt
The recent fire in london is a direct consequence of the high levels of immigration with everyone after a free council house in desirable areas and end up housed in high rises. May let in thousands as home secretary without making sure there are adequate services to absorb them. Innocent people didn't have to die, it's as if they were lured from far and away into a death trap by a government keen to use them as cheap labour and suppress wages.


No the recent fire in London is because people responsible for the safety of the property never done their job. They never thought these people deserved the extra care and safety because they were seen as not important.

The people living in social housing in these affluent areas are being pushed out its cleansing the capital of the poor.

All Comments

(53) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
3 Likes #1
There would be no need for benefit cuts if we kept immigration to sensible numbers.
1 Like #2
Too big challenge with lack of land of hope and glory multi cutural nationalism for the greatest of everyone who is British.
1 Like #3
So it is easier to grab as much dosh as one can and escape to your holiday destination of choice for your own hope and glory.
[mod]#4
Hello people
This thread isn't actually about where you are planning on going for your summer holidays (please read the OP)
I've tidied it up. Please though, if you wish to discuss your holiday plans and whether Croatia is better than Wales etc. can someone start a new thread. Thanking you all.
11 Likes #5
Mrs May isn't helping matters and needs to go ASAP.. Her latest shocker is visiting Grenfell and refusing to meet survivors .. What an utter disgrace .
7 Likes #6
plodging
Mrs May isn't helping matters and needs to go ASAP.. Her latest shocker is visiting Grenfell and refusing to meet survivors .. What an utter disgrace .

Mrs Weak & Wobbly afraid of the backlash from residents, friends and family
Pathetic excuses and still will not answer questions put to her
2 Likes #7
The recent fire in london is a direct consequence of the high levels of immigration with everyone after a free council house in desirable areas and end up housed in high rises. May let in thousands as home secretary without making sure there are adequate services to absorb them. Innocent people didn't have to die, it's as if they were lured from far and away into a death trap by a government keen to use them as cheap labour and suppress wages.
#8
tempt
The recent fire in london is a direct consequence of the high levels of immigration with everyone after a free council house in desirable areas and end up housed in high rises. May let in thousands as home secretary without making sure there are adequate services to absorb them. Innocent people didn't have to die, it's as if they were lured from far and away into a death trap by a government keen to use them as cheap labour and suppress wages.
I tried that on the other thread
stating 140 apartments with 400 - 600 residents
But was shot down with the excuse that they are 3/4 bedroom apartments
Yet the BBC still keep showing plans with 1/2 bedroom apartments
Which equates to 3.57 persons per apartment (including the 1 bedroom apartments)
5 Likes #9
tempt
The recent fire in london is a direct consequence of the high levels of immigration with everyone after a free council house in desirable areas and end up housed in high rises. May let in thousands as home secretary without making sure there are adequate services to absorb them. Innocent people didn't have to die, it's as if they were lured from far and away into a death trap by a government keen to use them as cheap labour and suppress wages.


No the recent fire in London is because people responsible for the safety of the property never done their job. They never thought these people deserved the extra care and safety because they were seen as not important.

The people living in social housing in these affluent areas are being pushed out its cleansing the capital of the poor.
2 Likes #10
cat123
No the recent fire in London is because people responsible for the safety of the property never done their job. They never thought these people deserved the extra care and safety because they were seen as not important. The people living in social housing in these affluent areas are being pushed out its cleansing the capital of the poor.

So you are also, by choice, excluding the reports that occupants were storing their belongings in inappropriate places
and excluding the fact the overcrowding means less storage meaning greater fire risk?

I'm not disputing the fact that it appears to be bad management and bad design/refurbishment and suspect materials but you cannot put all the blame on just those issues
2 Likes #11
The good ole boys network of masonic freaks will shirk responsibility and make profit from the suffering, and our fair and unbiased media, cough cough, will hide them from behind their corporate owned skirts.
1 Like #12
cowsindahouse
The good ole boys network of masonic freaks will shirk responsibility and make profit from the suffering, and our fair and unbiased media, cough cough, will hide them from behind their corporate owned skirts.

Aprons.
#13
cowsindahouse
The good ole boys network of masonic freaks will shirk responsibility and make profit from the suffering, and our fair and unbiased media, cough cough, will hide them from behind their corporate owned skirts.
Indeed
3 Likes #14
philphil61
So you are also, by choice, excluding the reports that occupants were storing their belongings in inappropriate placesand excluding the fact the overcrowding means less storage meaning greater fire risk?I'm not disputing the fact that it appears to be bad management and bad design/refurbishment and suspect materials but you cannot put all the blame on just those issues

Also correct .. If these were deemed fit for people to live in they should have moved all the MPs into that block instead of allowing them to buy second houses in London on the cheap ,for them to meet their parliamentary duties.
#15
This thread seems the same topic as HotEnglishandWesh's "Anyone else think we might see riots?"
#16
splender
This thread seems the same topic as HotEnglishandWesh's "Anyone else think we might see riots?"

Except that thread seems to have generated more debate.
1 Like #17
fanpages
cowsindahouse
The good ole boys network of masonic freaks will shirk responsibility and make profit from the suffering, and our fair and unbiased media, cough cough, will hide them from behind their corporate owned skirts.
Aprons.
True
1 Like #18
how as on the BBC has the council housed 70 odd families where there is a housing shortage and others are on waiting lists and relocated outside London.
2 Likes #19
traythegreat
This may sound a little harsh given the terrible circumstances that NO ONE deserves to involved in, however it is not meant in that way, but is it only me that is wondering why every single person ( apparently) that lived in that huge London tower block is a foreigner! British people live on streets because we cannot house them! What's going on!!

You what?
Go back to the daily mail comments section please
#20
Destard
You what?Go back to the daily mail comments section please


This is an open forum so I'd rather stay thanks.
1 Like #21
philphil61
I tried that on the other threadstating 140 apartments with 400 - 600 residentsBut was shot down with the excuse that they are 3/4 bedroom apartmentsYet the BBC still keep showing plans with 1/2 bedroom apartmentsWhich equates to 3.57 persons per apartment (including the 1 bedroom apartments)


24 floors with 120 apartments. 4 floors not for residential use. So 20 floors for 120 dwellings is 6 per floor

https://images.hotukdeals.com/comments/content/yN6vt/31211415.jpg

Ok so this floor has 4 x 4 bedroom flats, but surely you can do the maths.

Other floors could well have a combination of different bedroomed apartments. A family could easily have 2 young children in 1 bedroom, so that's 4 people in a 2 bedroom flat. That's not overcrowding if the kids are both babies.

Each floor will accommodate approx 20 people without overcrowding. That's 5 people living in a 4 bed flat, 4 people in a 3 bed flat etc. 2 kids in a room can be offset by single parents etc, but 400 residents is comfortable living.

Is it 400 or 600 residents? Lets take 500 residents. So you may well have 2 bedrooms containing 4 kids. If all the kids are under a certain age it's a non issue.

At the end of the day these were built for social housing in the 70's. The room sizes will put a lot of new builds to shame. 13,12,8 & 8 sq/m bedrooms is not a shoebox.

Here's a floor with 6 apartments. 16 is not overcrowding - 20 with kids sharing bedroom in 2 bed flats is not over crowding
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/14/17/416B9E1900000578-4603286-image-m-4_1497459117971.jpg

Edited By: OllieSt on Jun 16, 2017 05:09: edit
#22
philphil61
cat123
tempt
The recent fire in london is a direct consequence of the high levels of immigration with everyone after a free council house in desirable areas and end up housed in high rises. May let in thousands as home secretary without making sure there are adequate services to absorb them. Innocent people didn't have to die, it's as if they were lured from far and away into a death trap by a government keen to use them as cheap labour and suppress wages.
No the recent fire in London is because people responsible for the safety of the property never done their job. They never thought these people deserved the extra care and safety because they were seen as not important.
The people living in social housing in these affluent areas are being pushed out its cleansing the capital of the poor.
So you are also, by choice, excluding the reports that occupants were storing their belongings in inappropriate places
and excluding the fact the overcrowding means less storage meaning greater fire risk?
I'm not disputing the fact that it appears to be bad management and bad design/refurbishment and suspect materials but you cannot put all the blame on just those issues

I read that residents were shown a model show flat of what refurb would look like, and the reality was boilers were being installed behind front doors. Residents tried to stop 'different' refurb taking place but were threatened with court action
#23
tempt
The recent fire in london is a direct consequence of the high levels of immigration with everyone after a free council house in desirable areas and end up housed in high rises. May let in thousands as home secretary without making sure there are adequate services to absorb them. Innocent people didn't have to die, it's as if they were lured from far and away into a death trap by a government keen to use them as cheap labour and suppress wages.

Yeah of course. A Syrian refugee (the first to be named as dead) really needs Westfields as his local shopping mall, unless of course he was really setting his sights high and shopped in Harrods food hall. Get real,

Edited By: OllieSt on Jun 16, 2017 05:15
#24
OllieSt
philphil61
cat123
tempt
The recent fire in london is a direct consequence of the high levels of immigration with everyone after a free council house in desirable areas and end up housed in high rises. May let in thousands as home secretary without making sure there are adequate services to absorb them. Innocent people didn't have to die, it's as if they were lured from far and away into a death trap by a government keen to use them as cheap labour and suppress wages.
No the recent fire in London is because people responsible for the safety of the property never done their job. They never thought these people deserved the extra care and safety because they were seen as not important.
The people living in social housing in these affluent areas are being pushed out its cleansing the capital of the poor.
So you are also, by choice, excluding the reports that occupants were storing their belongings in inappropriate places
and excluding the fact the overcrowding means less storage meaning greater fire risk?
I'm not disputing the fact that it appears to be bad management and bad design/refurbishment and suspect materials but you cannot put all the blame on just those issues
I read that residents were shown a model show flat of what refurb would look like, and the reality was boilers were being installed behind front doors. Residents tried to stop 'different' refurb taking place but were threatened with court action
You are still ignoring that there were risks from residents belongings being stored in corridors etc

And I cannot understand why you keep attempting to put all the blame on the developers, management and councils.

I've only been to a few tower blocks and multi-storey complexes and on all visits I've seen rubbish piled up, bikes & prams stored in stairwells and changed to railings in the main corridors together with household appliances some dumped and even one plugged in and powered up in the corridor.
Add the above with overcrowding and with overcrowding comes excess family possessions all equal a higher fire risk

Yes those involved in the refurbishment need to be investigated and prosecuted but so do those residents that were overcrowded and/or adding to the fire hazard otherwise it'll just be wasted tax payers money
#25
philphil61
OllieSt
philphil61
cat123
tempt
The recent fire in london is a direct consequence of the high levels of immigration with everyone after a free council house in desirable areas and end up housed in high rises. May let in thousands as home secretary without making sure there are adequate services to absorb them. Innocent people didn't have to die, it's as if they were lured from far and away into a death trap by a government keen to use them as cheap labour and suppress wages.
No the recent fire in London is because people responsible for the safety of the property never done their job. They never thought these people deserved the extra care and safety because they were seen as not important.
The people living in social housing in these affluent areas are being pushed out its cleansing the capital of the poor.
So you are also, by choice, excluding the reports that occupants were storing their belongings in inappropriate places
and excluding the fact the overcrowding means less storage meaning greater fire risk?
I'm not disputing the fact that it appears to be bad management and bad design/refurbishment and suspect materials but you cannot put all the blame on just those issues
I read that residents were shown a model show flat of what refurb would look like, and the reality was boilers were being installed behind front doors. Residents tried to stop 'different' refurb taking place but were threatened with court action
You are still ignoring that there were risks from residents belongings being stored in corridors etc
And I cannot understand why you keep attempting to put all the blame on the developers, management and councils.
I've only been to a few tower blocks and multi-storey complexes and on all visits I've seen rubbish piled up, bikes & prams stored in stairwells and changed to railings in the main corridors together with household appliances some dumped and even one plugged in and powered up in the corridor.
Add the above with overcrowding and with overcrowding comes excess family possessions all equal a higher fire risk
Yes those involved in the refurbishment need to be investigated and prosecuted but so do those residents that were overcrowded and/or adding to the fire hazard otherwise it'll just be wasted tax payers money

Well let me start off by stating I have visited many tower blocks over the past 20 years. Once I can get myself past the fact that some people followed instructions to 'stay put' I'll begin to address living conditions in a tower block.

I've seen rotweillers being locked out on the balaconies on the 20th floor, and lifts obviously used as a urinal by some,

However

In the last month I've visited about 3 different blocks and no bikes chained to a wall, no settees left in stairwell etc. So what if someone has a bike left outside their front door? It will not have an impact on the time it took this building to set alight in the manner it did which is the issue here. Where there signs banning pushchairs and bikes from being left outside? Do they exist?

I believe one block I have recently visited did have excess rubbish on the ground floor because the communal large wheelie bins were full, another inadequacy. As you can understand, it's not something I particularly paid that much attention to, but thinking back the tower blocks may not be where you and me would choose to live, but I do not remember anything that strikes me as a fire hazard.

I'm going to throw back at you the same as you have thrown at me.

I cannot understand why you keep attempting to put blame on the residents. I'm not finding statistics that show overcrowding, and the only household white good I've heard mentioned is an exploding fridge.

Do you have source of information that categorically states that 'rubbish piled up, bikes & prams stored in stairwells and changed to railings in the main corridors together with household appliances' either hampered those trying to escape or the fire and rescue services trying their best to get people out? If not I think you're being bang out of order. If you do, please accept my apologies and a link would be very helpful.





Edited By: OllieSt on Jun 16, 2017 07:31
#26
OllieSt
philphil61
I tried that on the other threadstating 140 apartments with 400 - 600 residentsBut was shot down with the excuse that they are 3/4 bedroom apartmentsYet the BBC still keep showing plans with 1/2 bedroom apartmentsWhich equates to 3.57 persons per apartment (including the 1 bedroom apartments)
24 floors with 120 apartments. 4 floors not for residential use. So 20 floors for 120 dwellings is 6 per floorhttps://images.hotukdeals.com/comments/content/yN6vt/31211415.jpg
Ok so this floor has 4 x 4 bedroom flats, but surely you can do the maths.
Other floors could well have a combination of different bedroomed apartments. A family could easily have 2 young children in 1 bedroom, so that's 4 people in a 2 bedroom flat. That's not overcrowding if the kids are both babies.
Each floor will accommodate approx 20 people without overcrowding. That's 5 people living in a 4 bed flat, 4 people in a 3 bed flat etc. 2 kids in a room can be offset by single parents etc, but 400 residents is comfortable living.
Is it 400 or 600 residents? Lets take 500 residents. So you may well have 2 bedrooms containing 4 kids. If all the kids are under a certain age it's a non issue.
At the end of the day these were built for social housing in the 70's. The room sizes will put a lot of new builds to shame. 13,12,8 & 8 sq/m bedrooms is not a shoebox.
Here's a floor with 6 apartments. 16 is not overcrowding - 20 with kids sharing bedroom in 2 bed flats is not over crowdinghttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/14/17/416B9E1900000578-4603286-image-m-4_1497459117971.jpg
The first floor plan you posted is for where?
According to the BBC website the actual floor plan for Grenfell Tower is as per your second image
4 x 2 bedrooms and 2 x 1 bedroom apartments per floor
500 approximate residents
20 residential floors
= 25 per floor
in 10 bedrooms per floor
that's 2.5 per bedroom (including 1 bedroom apartments)
#27
philphil61
OllieSt
philphil61
I tried that on the other threadstating 140 apartments with 400 - 600 residentsBut was shot down with the excuse that they are 3/4 bedroom apartmentsYet the BBC still keep showing plans with 1/2 bedroom apartmentsWhich equates to 3.57 persons per apartment (including the 1 bedroom apartments)
24 floors with 120 apartments. 4 floors not for residential use. So 20 floors for 120 dwellings is 6 per floorhttps://images.hotukdeals.com/comments/content/yN6vt/31211415.jpg
Ok so this floor has 4 x 4 bedroom flats, but surely you can do the maths.
Other floors could well have a combination of different bedroomed apartments. A family could easily have 2 young children in 1 bedroom, so that's 4 people in a 2 bedroom flat. That's not overcrowding if the kids are both babies.
Each floor will accommodate approx 20 people without overcrowding. That's 5 people living in a 4 bed flat, 4 people in a 3 bed flat etc. 2 kids in a room can be offset by single parents etc, but 400 residents is comfortable living.
Is it 400 or 600 residents? Lets take 500 residents. So you may well have 2 bedrooms containing 4 kids. If all the kids are under a certain age it's a non issue.
At the end of the day these were built for social housing in the 70's. The room sizes will put a lot of new builds to shame. 13,12,8 & 8 sq/m bedrooms is not a shoebox.
Here's a floor with 6 apartments. 16 is not overcrowding - 20 with kids sharing bedroom in 2 bed flats is not over crowdinghttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/14/17/416B9E1900000578-4603286-image-m-4_1497459117971.jpg
The first floor plan you posted is for where?
According to the BBC website the actual floor plan for Grenfell Tower is as per your second image
4 x 2 bedrooms and 2 x 1 bedroom apartments per floor
500 approximate residents
20 residential floors
= 25 per floor
in 10 bedrooms per floor
that's 2.5 per bedroom (including 1 bedroom apartments)

Here you go
#28
OllieSt
philphil61
OllieSt
philphil61
cat123
tempt
The recent fire in london is a direct consequence of the high levels of immigration with everyone after a free council house in desirable areas and end up housed in high rises. May let in thousands as home secretary without making sure there are adequate services to absorb them. Innocent people didn't have to die, it's as if they were lured from far and away into a death trap by a government keen to use them as cheap labour and suppress wages.
No the recent fire in London is because people responsible for the safety of the property never done their job. They never thought these people deserved the extra care and safety because they were seen as not important.
The people living in social housing in these affluent areas are being pushed out its cleansing the capital of the poor.
So you are also, by choice, excluding the reports that occupants were storing their belongings in inappropriate places
and excluding the fact the overcrowding means less storage meaning greater fire risk?
I'm not disputing the fact that it appears to be bad management and bad design/refurbishment and suspect materials but you cannot put all the blame on just those issues
I read that residents were shown a model show flat of what refurb would look like, and the reality was boilers were being installed behind front doors. Residents tried to stop 'different' refurb taking place but were threatened with court action
You are still ignoring that there were risks from residents belongings being stored in corridors etc
And I cannot understand why you keep attempting to put all the blame on the developers, management and councils.
I've only been to a few tower blocks and multi-storey complexes and on all visits I've seen rubbish piled up, bikes & prams stored in stairwells and changed to railings in the main corridors together with household appliances some dumped and even one plugged in and powered up in the corridor.
Add the above with overcrowding and with overcrowding comes excess family possessions all equal a higher fire risk
Yes those involved in the refurbishment need to be investigated and prosecuted but so do those residents that were overcrowded and/or adding to the fire hazard otherwise it'll just be wasted tax payers money
Well let me start off by stating I have visited many tower blocks over the past 20 years. Once I can get myself past the fact that some people followed instructions to 'stay put' I'll begin to address living conditions in a tower block.

I've seen rotweillers being locked out on the balaconies on the 20th floor, and lifts obviously used as a urinal by some,

However

In the last month I've visited about 3 different blocks and no bikes chained to a wall, no settees left in stairwell etc. So what if someone has a bike left outside their front door? It should have an impact on the time it took this building to set alight in the manner it did. Where there signs banning pushchairs and bikes from being left outside?

I believe one block I have recently visited did have excess rubbish on the ground floor because the communal large wheelie bins were full, another inadequacy. As you can understand, it's not something I particularly paid that much attention to, but thinking back the tower blocks may not be where you and me would want olive, but I do not remember anything that strikes me as a fire hazard.

I'm going to throw back at you the same as you have thrown at me.

I cannot understand why you keep attempting to put blame on the residents. I'm not finding statistics that show overcrowding, and the only household white good I've heard mentioned is an exploding fridge.

Do you have source of information that categorically states that 'rubbish piled up, bikes & prams stored in stairwells and changed to railings in the main corridors together with household appliances' either hampered those trying to escape or the fire and rescue services trying their best to get people out? If not I think you're being bang out of order. If you do, please accept my apologies and a link would be very helpful.
There was info on the BBC website - a report explaining concerns about personal posessions being inappropriately stored

and here
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/14/fire-safety-concerns-raised-by-grenfell-tower-residents-in-2012
"Survivors of the disaster said on Wednesday they had raised fears about the fact that there was only one escape route. They also told the Kensington and Chelsea tenant management organisation (KCTMO) of their concerns over the placement of boilers and gas pipes, the absence of a building-wide fire alarm or sprinkler system, and piles of rubbish being dumped and causing a fire risk."
and
"In the same month, the Guardian has learned, KCTMO placed fire safety issues across its estate under review and ordered multiple changes to the way it handled fire risk in its properties. As well as tackling hoarding and clutter in communal areas, it said it would speed up the installation of self-closing doors."
#29
OllieSt
philphil61
OllieSt
philphil61
I tried that on the other threadstating 140 apartments with 400 - 600 residentsBut was shot down with the excuse that they are 3/4 bedroom apartmentsYet the BBC still keep showing plans with 1/2 bedroom apartmentsWhich equates to 3.57 persons per apartment (including the 1 bedroom apartments)
24 floors with 120 apartments. 4 floors not for residential use. So 20 floors for 120 dwellings is 6 per floorhttps://images.hotukdeals.com/comments/content/yN6vt/31211415.jpg
Ok so this floor has 4 x 4 bedroom flats, but surely you can do the maths.
Other floors could well have a combination of different bedroomed apartments. A family could easily have 2 young children in 1 bedroom, so that's 4 people in a 2 bedroom flat. That's not overcrowding if the kids are both babies.
Each floor will accommodate approx 20 people without overcrowding. That's 5 people living in a 4 bed flat, 4 people in a 3 bed flat etc. 2 kids in a room can be offset by single parents etc, but 400 residents is comfortable living.
Is it 400 or 600 residents? Lets take 500 residents. So you may well have 2 bedrooms containing 4 kids. If all the kids are under a certain age it's a non issue.
At the end of the day these were built for social housing in the 70's. The room sizes will put a lot of new builds to shame. 13,12,8 & 8 sq/m bedrooms is not a shoebox.
Here's a floor with 6 apartments. 16 is not overcrowding - 20 with kids sharing bedroom in 2 bed flats is not over crowdinghttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/14/17/416B9E1900000578-4603286-image-m-4_1497459117971.jpg
The first floor plan you posted is for where?
According to the BBC website the actual floor plan for Grenfell Tower is as per your second image
4 x 2 bedrooms and 2 x 1 bedroom apartments per floor
500 approximate residents
20 residential floors
= 25 per floor
in 10 bedrooms per floor
that's 2.5 per bedroom (including 1 bedroom apartments)
Here you go
Who is Justin Hemming and has the floor plan he linked been confirmed as correct?

And if so why are the BBC showing a different floorplan?

Edited By: philphil61 on Jun 16, 2017 07:40
#30
http://www.smallheathalliance.com/read.php?1,2246434,2246929

Grenfell Tower floor plan << another source
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd122/stevehallgreen/416869EB00000578-4602442-image-m-5_1497427893757.jpg
#31
philphil61
OllieSt
philphil61
OllieSt
philphil61
cat123
tempt
The recent fire in london is a direct consequence of the high levels of immigration with everyone after a free council house in desirable areas and end up housed in high rises. May let in thousands as home secretary without making sure there are adequate services to absorb them. Innocent people didn't have to die, it's as if they were lured from far and away into a death trap by a government keen to use them as cheap labour and suppress wages.
No the recent fire in London is because people responsible for the safety of the property never done their job. They never thought these people deserved the extra care and safety because they were seen as not important.
The people living in social housing in these affluent areas are being pushed out its cleansing the capital of the poor.
So you are also, by choice, excluding the reports that occupants were storing their belongings in inappropriate places
and excluding the fact the overcrowding means less storage meaning greater fire risk?
I'm not disputing the fact that it appears to be bad management and bad design/refurbishment and suspect materials but you cannot put all the blame on just those issues
I read that residents were shown a model show flat of what refurb would look like, and the reality was boilers were being installed behind front doors. Residents tried to stop 'different' refurb taking place but were threatened with court action
You are still ignoring that there were risks from residents belongings being stored in corridors etc
And I cannot understand why you keep attempting to put all the blame on the developers, management and councils.
I've only been to a few tower blocks and multi-storey complexes and on all visits I've seen rubbish piled up, bikes & prams stored in stairwells and changed to railings in the main corridors together with household appliances some dumped and even one plugged in and powered up in the corridor.
Add the above with overcrowding and with overcrowding comes excess family possessions all equal a higher fire risk
Yes those involved in the refurbishment need to be investigated and prosecuted but so do those residents that were overcrowded and/or adding to the fire hazard otherwise it'll just be wasted tax payers money
Well let me start off by stating I have visited many tower blocks over the past 20 years. Once I can get myself past the fact that some people followed instructions to 'stay put' I'll begin to address living conditions in a tower block.
I've seen rotweillers being locked out on the balaconies on the 20th floor, and lifts obviously used as a urinal by some,However
In the last month I've visited about 3 different blocks and no bikes chained to a wall, no settees left in stairwell etc. So what if someone has a bike left outside their front door? It should have an impact on the time it took this building to set alight in the manner it did. Where there signs banning pushchairs and bikes from being left outside?
I believe one block I have recently visited did have excess rubbish on the ground floor because the communal large wheelie bins were full, another inadequacy. As you can understand, it's not something I particularly paid that much attention to, but thinking back the tower blocks may not be where you and me would want olive, but I do not remember anything that strikes me as a fire hazard.
I'm going to throw back at you the same as you have thrown at me.
I cannot understand why you keep attempting to put blame on the residents. I'm not finding statistics that show overcrowding, and the only household white good I've heard mentioned is an exploding fridge. Do you have source of information that categorically states that 'rubbish piled up, bikes & prams stored in stairwells and changed to railings in the main corridors together with household appliances' either hampered those trying to escape or the fire and rescue services trying their best to get people out? If not I think you're being bang out of order. If you do, please accept my apologies and a link would be very helpful.
There was info on the BBC website - a report explaining concerns about personal posessions being inappropriately stored
and herehttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/14/fire-safety-concerns-raised-by-grenfell-tower-residents-in-2012
"Survivors of the disaster said on Wednesday they had raised fears about the fact that there was only one escape route. They also told the Kensington and Chelsea tenant management organisation (KCTMO) of their concerns over the placement of boilers and gas pipes, the absence of a building-wide fire alarm or sprinkler system, and piles of rubbish being dumped and causing a fire risk."
and
"In the same month, the Guardian has learned, KCTMO placed fire safety issues across its estate under review and ordered multiple changes to the way it handled fire risk in its properties. As well as tackling hoarding and clutter in communal areas, it said it would speed up the installation of self-closing doors."


Thanks for that. But piles of rubbish being dumped is not an explanation on why this fire started or spread so rapidly. Hoarding! If it's in communal areas I would class it as dumping. Are they referring to hoarding within the confines of a property or the communal areas? It's unclear. Clutter in communal areas, I concede, that would not be helpful, but again I reiterate, is there any evidence that clutter had an impact on anyone trying to leave the tower block. What about the self closing doors? The tower blocks I have recently visited have them.

I'm sorry, I just don't know how you can point fingers at residents. I don't recall any social media info mentioning people stating 'help me, I'm stuck here, goodbye my loved ones, if only the clutter was't there I could have escaped'. No it was more like 'I'm staying put, that's what I've been told to do' or 'I can't escape there's smoke everywhere once I open my front door'. Unless you're going to tell me the smoke everywhere was caused exculsively by clutter.

Can we agree that this 5* hotel in Dubai didn't have clutter and bikes and old white goods lying around. It had the better grade cladding which is more fire retardant. The major difference is the cladding was part of the original build and all people escaped because there was sprinkler systems in place.
#32
philphil61
http://www.smallheathalliance.com/read.php?1,2246434,2246929
Grenfell Tower floor plan << another sourcehttp://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd122/stevehallgreen/416869EB00000578-4602442-image-m-5_1497427893757.jpg


I dig more on my plans I posted, I understand what you're saying here. However do you realise it's the council that will home single parent with 2 kids in 2 or in some case 1 bedroom dwelling and cause any overcrowding that concerns you.
#33
OllieSt
philphil61
OllieSt
philphil61
OllieSt
philphil61
cat123
tempt
The recent fire in london is a direct consequence of the high levels of immigration with everyone after a free council house in desirable areas and end up housed in high rises. May let in thousands as home secretary without making sure there are adequate services to absorb them. Innocent people didn't have to die, it's as if they were lured from far and away into a death trap by a government keen to use them as cheap labour and suppress wages.
No the recent fire in London is because people responsible for the safety of the property never done their job. They never thought these people deserved the extra care and safety because they were seen as not important.
The people living in social housing in these affluent areas are being pushed out its cleansing the capital of the poor.
So you are also, by choice, excluding the reports that occupants were storing their belongings in inappropriate places
and excluding the fact the overcrowding means less storage meaning greater fire risk?
I'm not disputing the fact that it appears to be bad management and bad design/refurbishment and suspect materials but you cannot put all the blame on just those issues
I read that residents were shown a model show flat of what refurb would look like, and the reality was boilers were being installed behind front doors. Residents tried to stop 'different' refurb taking place but were threatened with court action
You are still ignoring that there were risks from residents belongings being stored in corridors etc
And I cannot understand why you keep attempting to put all the blame on the developers, management and councils.
I've only been to a few tower blocks and multi-storey complexes and on all visits I've seen rubbish piled up, bikes & prams stored in stairwells and changed to railings in the main corridors together with household appliances some dumped and even one plugged in and powered up in the corridor.
Add the above with overcrowding and with overcrowding comes excess family possessions all equal a higher fire risk
Yes those involved in the refurbishment need to be investigated and prosecuted but so do those residents that were overcrowded and/or adding to the fire hazard otherwise it'll just be wasted tax payers money
Well let me start off by stating I have visited many tower blocks over the past 20 years. Once I can get myself past the fact that some people followed instructions to 'stay put' I'll begin to address living conditions in a tower block.
I've seen rotweillers being locked out on the balaconies on the 20th floor, and lifts obviously used as a urinal by some,However
In the last month I've visited about 3 different blocks and no bikes chained to a wall, no settees left in stairwell etc. So what if someone has a bike left outside their front door? It should have an impact on the time it took this building to set alight in the manner it did. Where there signs banning pushchairs and bikes from being left outside?
I believe one block I have recently visited did have excess rubbish on the ground floor because the communal large wheelie bins were full, another inadequacy. As you can understand, it's not something I particularly paid that much attention to, but thinking back the tower blocks may not be where you and me would want olive, but I do not remember anything that strikes me as a fire hazard.
I'm going to throw back at you the same as you have thrown at me.
I cannot understand why you keep attempting to put blame on the residents. I'm not finding statistics that show overcrowding, and the only household white good I've heard mentioned is an exploding fridge. Do you have source of information that categorically states that 'rubbish piled up, bikes & prams stored in stairwells and changed to railings in the main corridors together with household appliances' either hampered those trying to escape or the fire and rescue services trying their best to get people out? If not I think you're being bang out of order. If you do, please accept my apologies and a link would be very helpful.
There was info on the BBC website - a report explaining concerns about personal posessions being inappropriately stored
and herehttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/14/fire-safety-concerns-raised-by-grenfell-tower-residents-in-2012
"Survivors of the disaster said on Wednesday they had raised fears about the fact that there was only one escape route. They also told the Kensington and Chelsea tenant management organisation (KCTMO) of their concerns over the placement of boilers and gas pipes, the absence of a building-wide fire alarm or sprinkler system, and piles of rubbish being dumped and causing a fire risk."
and
"In the same month, the Guardian has learned, KCTMO placed fire safety issues across its estate under review and ordered multiple changes to the way it handled fire risk in its properties. As well as tackling hoarding and clutter in communal areas, it said it would speed up the installation of self-closing doors."
Thanks for that. But piles of rubbish being dumped is not an explanation on why this fire started or spread so rapidly. Hoarding! If it's in communal areas I would class it as dumping. Are they referring to hoarding within the confines of a property or the communal areas? It's unclear. Clutter in communal areas, I concede, that would not be helpful, but again I reiterate, is there any evidence that clutter had an impact on anyone trying to leave the tower block. What about the self closing doors? The tower blocks I have recently visited have them.
I'm sorry, I just don't know how you can point fingers at residents. I don't recall any social media info mentioning people stating 'help me, I'm stuck here, goodbye my loved ones, if only the clutter was't there I could have escaped'. No it was more like 'I'm staying put, that's what I've been told to do' or 'I can't escape there's smoke everywhere once I open my front door'. Unless you're going to tell me the smoke everywhere was caused exculsively by clutter.
Can we agree that this 5* hotel in Dubai didn't have clutter and bikes and old white goods lying around. It had the better grade cladding which is more fire retardant. The major difference is the cladding was part of the original build and all people escaped because there was sprinkler systems in place.
You are missing the point or denying the valid point I keep emphasizing

I have in this or a previous thread stated at least 2 times that they cannot be excluded as part of the risk/cause and if evidence can be found that someone died because a resident blocked "good access" with their belongings then that resident should be held accountable and prosecuted as should the developers/management etc.

I suppose you've never seen tv shows or visited high rise/ mult-occupancy properties where smoke detectors are disabled etc. Yes landlords get taken to court and prosecuted when they don't provide a safe environment but when they do and the tenant(s) chose to disabled said safe environment they don't get prosecuted but they still put others lives at risk.

I want justice just like many others do but it has to include all not just single out the developers/management team etc. If the management team has written to a tenant about communal area issues and that tenant failed to act and that failure delayed/denied persons easy escape then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
If someone rented/leased a property stating 4 occupants and they had 6 they also should be prosecuted - there are reasons why housing has limitations to the number of occupants.

But I am not and never will say that it was just the residents fault. Clearly IMHO the materials used and the way in which those materials were installed created a dangerous fire hazard. Together with bad management (maintenance/installation), previous residents concerns, fire systems not functioning correctly, fire doors etc then the management are also to blame. As also the council for not ensuring the safety measures/planning.

Basically anyone who "assisted by whatever means" in the deaths of innocent people should, as per the law states, be brought to justice.

I hope that's clear enough for you?

But still waiting for your confirmation of who is Justin Hemming who provided the questionable floor plan?
I've provided 2 reliable (sorry Graham for using the word reliable with BBC in the same sentence) links for the floor plan BBC and another
#34
philphil61
OllieSt
philphil61
OllieSt
philphil61
OllieSt
philphil61
cat123
tempt
The recent fire in london is a direct consequence of the high levels of immigration with everyone after a free council house in desirable areas and end up housed in high rises. May let in thousands as home secretary without making sure there are adequate services to absorb them. Innocent people didn't have to die, it's as if they were lured from far and away into a death trap by a government keen to use them as cheap labour and suppress wages.
No the recent fire in London is because people responsible for the safety of the property never done their job. They never thought these people deserved the extra care and safety because they were seen as not important.
The people living in social housing in these affluent areas are being pushed out its cleansing the capital of the poor.
So you are also, by choice, excluding the reports that occupants were storing their belongings in inappropriate places
and excluding the fact the overcrowding means less storage meaning greater fire risk?
I'm not disputing the fact that it appears to be bad management and bad design/refurbishment and suspect materials but you cannot put all the blame on just those issues
I read that residents were shown a model show flat of what refurb would look like, and the reality was boilers were being installed behind front doors. Residents tried to stop 'different' refurb taking place but were threatened with court action
You are still ignoring that there were risks from residents belongings being stored in corridors etc
And I cannot understand why you keep attempting to put all the blame on the developers, management and councils.
I've only been to a few tower blocks and multi-storey complexes and on all visits I've seen rubbish piled up, bikes & prams stored in stairwells and changed to railings in the main corridors together with household appliances some dumped and even one plugged in and powered up in the corridor.
Add the above with overcrowding and with overcrowding comes excess family possessions all equal a higher fire risk
Yes those involved in the refurbishment need to be investigated and prosecuted but so do those residents that were overcrowded and/or adding to the fire hazard otherwise it'll just be wasted tax payers money
Well let me start off by stating I have visited many tower blocks over the past 20 years. Once I can get myself past the fact that some people followed instructions to 'stay put' I'll begin to address living conditions in a tower block.
I've seen rotweillers being locked out on the balaconies on the 20th floor, and lifts obviously used as a urinal by some,However
In the last month I've visited about 3 different blocks and no bikes chained to a wall, no settees left in stairwell etc. So what if someone has a bike left outside their front door? It should have an impact on the time it took this building to set alight in the manner it did. Where there signs banning pushchairs and bikes from being left outside?
I believe one block I have recently visited did have excess rubbish on the ground floor because the communal large wheelie bins were full, another inadequacy. As you can understand, it's not something I particularly paid that much attention to, but thinking back the tower blocks may not be where you and me would want olive, but I do not remember anything that strikes me as a fire hazard.
I'm going to throw back at you the same as you have thrown at me.
I cannot understand why you keep attempting to put blame on the residents. I'm not finding statistics that show overcrowding, and the only household white good I've heard mentioned is an exploding fridge. Do you have source of information that categorically states that 'rubbish piled up, bikes & prams stored in stairwells and changed to railings in the main corridors together with household appliances' either hampered those trying to escape or the fire and rescue services trying their best to get people out? If not I think you're being bang out of order. If you do, please accept my apologies and a link would be very helpful.
There was info on the BBC website - a report explaining concerns about personal posessions being inappropriately stored
and herehttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/14/fire-safety-concerns-raised-by-grenfell-tower-residents-in-2012
"Survivors of the disaster said on Wednesday they had raised fears about the fact that there was only one escape route. They also told the Kensington and Chelsea tenant management organisation (KCTMO) of their concerns over the placement of boilers and gas pipes, the absence of a building-wide fire alarm or sprinkler system, and piles of rubbish being dumped and causing a fire risk."
and
"In the same month, the Guardian has learned, KCTMO placed fire safety issues across its estate under review and ordered multiple changes to the way it handled fire risk in its properties. As well as tackling hoarding and clutter in communal areas, it said it would speed up the installation of self-closing doors."
Thanks for that. But piles of rubbish being dumped is not an explanation on why this fire started or spread so rapidly. Hoarding! If it's in communal areas I would class it as dumping. Are they referring to hoarding within the confines of a property or the communal areas? It's unclear. Clutter in communal areas, I concede, that would not be helpful, but again I reiterate, is there any evidence that clutter had an impact on anyone trying to leave the tower block. What about the self closing doors? The tower blocks I have recently visited have them.
I'm sorry, I just don't know how you can point fingers at residents. I don't recall any social media info mentioning people stating 'help me, I'm stuck here, goodbye my loved ones, if only the clutter was't there I could have escaped'. No it was more like 'I'm staying put, that's what I've been told to do' or 'I can't escape there's smoke everywhere once I open my front door'. Unless you're going to tell me the smoke everywhere was caused exculsively by clutter.
Can we agree that this 5* hotel in Dubai didn't have clutter and bikes and old white goods lying around. It had the better grade cladding which is more fire retardant. The major difference is the cladding was part of the original build and all people escaped because there was sprinkler systems in place.
You are missing the point or denying the valid point I keep emphasizing
I have in this or a previous thread stated at least 2 times that they cannot be excluded as part of the risk/cause and if evidence can be found that someone died because a resident blocked "good access" with their belongings then that resident should be held accountable and prosecuted as should the developers/management etc.
I suppose you've never seen tv shows or visited high rise/ mult-occupancy properties where smoke detectors are disabled etc. Yes landlords get taken to court and prosecuted when they don't provide a safe environment but when they do and the tenant(s) chose to disabled said safe environment they don't get prosecuted but they still put others lives at risk.
I want justice just like many others do but it has to include all not just single out the developers/management team etc. If the management team has written to a tenant about communal area issues and that tenant failed to act and that failure delayed/denied persons easy escape then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
If someone rented/leased a property stating 4 occupants and they had 6 they also should be prosecuted - there are reasons why housing has limitations to the number of occupants.
But I am not and never will say that it was just the residents fault. Clearly IMHO the materials used and the way in which those materials were installed created a dangerous fire hazard. Together with bad management (maintenance/installation), previous residents concerns, fire systems not functioning correctly, fire doors etc then the management are also to blame. As also the council for not ensuring the safety measures/planning.
Basically anyone who "assisted by whatever means" in the deaths of innocent people should, as per the law states, be brought to justice.
I hope that's clear enough for you?
But still waiting for your confirmation of who is Justin Hemming who provided the questionable floor plan?
I've provided 2 reliable (sorry Graham for using the word reliable with BBC in the same sentence) links for the floor plan BBC and another


Ok using your floor plan. 2 x 1 bedroom and 4 x 2 bedroom.

What should the occupancy be on that floor in your opinion?
#35
There is a bigger picture here worth us being reminded, Saturn pointed out last year a UK Prosperity Index which was largely ignored on this forum http://www.hotukdeals.com/misc/uk-prosperity-index-2016-2541785
.
The relevant picture here which I cut and paste (Overall ranks 160 in index and look at the 384th safety and security and 388th social capital (last place in ranking is 389 - and this RBKC is a borough of extremes of wealth and poverty) :-
http://i.imgur.com/wBmjMqp.jpg
#36
The above indicates it is not one of two disasters that define us. It is a systematic degration of infrastructure (sold off and increasingly foreign owned) and social capital that has been eroded since the 1980s (now in the hands of private businesses with councils having a hands-off approach). There are just so many of these social services now in private hands with vested interests and laws evolved to support this. E.g. a tiny example amongst the thousands, no VAT for private school fees but VAT on gas/electric for heating which is an essential.
#37
In above, Social Capital is measures using the following Methodology:-
SOCIAL CAPITAL
Measures social network strength, social norms, community participation, and trust. Strong communities and social support are
important for wellbeing and prosperity. High levels of trust have been linked to higher economic growth. Housing affordability
is also measured, as owner-occupancy is a strong predictor of social capital as those who live permanently in an area are more
likely to engage in community activity.
VARIABLES
Recycling rate
Captures local recycling rates, a good proxy for the extent to which a community observe social norms (bridging social capital).
% waste that is recycled, composted, or reused (NI 192)
Source:
England & Wales: DEFRA
Scotland: Environment Scotland
Northern Ireland: Department of the Environment
Coverage: UK, local authority (district) level
Calculated as (total household waste recycled, composted or reused)/(total household waste)*100
Data for Balbergh (Suffolk) is missing—Suffolk data point calculated based on remaining 6 Local Authorities. Dorset collecting
authorities (excluding Bournemouth and Poole) have formed the Dorset Waste Partnership and data is given for this single area.
Volunteering
Measure of social and civic participation (bridging social capital).
% population who have volunteered within the last month
Source:
England: ONS Community Life Survey
Scotland: Scottish Household Survey
Wales: Welsh Government
Northern Ireland: NISRA
Coverage: UK, NUTS1
7
Voter turnout
Measure of civic participation (linking social capital).
Turnout % (registered electors) last scheduled local council election (excluding General Election years)
Source: Electoral Commission (pre 2016), individual local authorities 2016
Coverage: UK, local authority (district) level
Trust
Measure of generalised social trust (bridging social capital).
% who think that people in general can be trusted
Source: Office for National Statistics
Coverage: UK, NUTS1
Housing costs
Housing is a strong predictor of social capital through owner-occupancy rates.
% who have struggled to pay their mortgage or rent in the past 12 months
Source: Understanding Society
Coverage: UK, local authority (district) level
Housing affordability
Housing is a strong predictor of social capital through owner-occupancy rates.
House price affordability ratio (average house price/median annual earnings)
Source: own calculation using ONS data
Coverage: UK, local authority (district) level
Friendship support
Key measure of individual social support (bonding social capital).
% who feel they can rely on their friends if they have a problem
Source: Understanding Society
Coverage: UK, local authority (district) level
Family support
Key measure of individual social support (bonding social capital).
% who feel they can rely on their family if they have a problem
Source: Understanding Society
Coverage: UK, local authority (district) level
#38
In the above chart, The Health and Safety measurement Methodology is this:-
SAFETY & SECURITY
Measures crime rates, road deaths, and feelings of safety.
Methodological note: For the perceptions of personal safety data, England and Wales data is from the England and Wales Crime
Survey (ONS). Data was calculated using 2014 mid year population estimates by sex to weight gender responses to produce an
aggregate figure for each region.
Scotland data is from the Scottish Crime Survey. Data is collected by Police Division and was mapped onto corresponding Local
Authority Areas:
Aberdeen City: Aberdeen City
Aberdeenshire and Moray: Aberdeenshire; Moray
Argyll and West Dunbartonshire: Argyll and Bute; West Dunbartonshire
Ayrshire: East Ayrshire; North Ayrshire; South Ayrshire
Dumfries and Galloway: Dumfries and Galloway
Edinburgh: City of Edinburgh
Fife: Fife
Forth Valley: Stirling; Clackmannanshire; Falkirk
Greater Glasgow: Glasgow; East Dunbartonshire; East Renfrewshire
Highlands and Islands: Highland; Orkney; Shetland; Hebrides
Lanarkshire: North Lanarkshire; South Lanarkshire
Renfrewshire and Inverclyde: Renfrewshire; Inverclyde
Tayside: Dundee; Perth and Kinross; Angus
The Lothians and Scottish Borders: Midlothian; West Lothian; East Lothian; Scottish Borders
Northern Ireland data is from the NI Crime Survey.
A note on crime rates: estimated crime rates are not available for the whole UK by local authority level. Recorded crime is the
next best measure, though it is not a perfect measure of actual crime as it depends on detection rate.
VARIABLES
Safe walking
Perceptions of personal safety.
% who feel safe walking alone at night
Source: See methodological note
Coverage: England & Wales (regions), Scotland & Northern Ireland (local unitary authority)
Perception of community safety
Perceptions about the safety of local public areas.
% who have felt unsafe in public in the last 12 months
Source: Understanding Society
Coverage: UK, local authority (district) level
Road deaths
Records road safety (road deaths are one of the biggest causes of death for young people).
People killed or seriously injured in a road traffic collision per 100,000 people
Source: GB, Department for Transport, Northern Ireland, PSNI
Coverage: UK, local authority (district) level
Violent crime
Records the rate of serious crime, including homicide, attempted murder, and rape.
Number of violent crimes recorded per 10,000 people.
Source: Scottish Government, Office for National Statistics, PSNI
Coverage: UK, local authority (district) level
Theft
Records the rate of theft, including housebreaking, vehicle theft, and shoplifting.
Number of thefts recorded per 10,000 people
Source: Scottish Government, Office for National Statistics, PSNI
Coverage: UK, local authority (district) level
#39
philphil61
You are missing the point or denying the valid point I keep emphasizingI have in this or a previous thread stated at least 2 times that they cannot be excluded as part of the risk/cause and if evidence can be found that someone died because a resident blocked "good access" with their belongings then that resident should be held accountable and prosecuted as should the developers/management etc.I suppose you've never seen tv shows or visited high rise/ mult-occupancy properties where smoke detectors are disabled etc. Yes landlords get taken to court and prosecuted when they don't provide a safe environment but when they do and the tenant(s) chose to disabled said safe environment they don't get prosecuted but they still put others lives at risk.I want justice just like many others do but it has to include all not just single out the developers/management team etc. If the management team has written to a tenant about communal area issues and that tenant failed to act and that failure delayed/denied persons easy escape then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.If someone rented/leased a property stating 4 occupants and they had 6 they also should be prosecuted - there are reasons why housing has limitations to the number of occupants.But I am not and never will say that it was just the residents fault. Clearly IMHO the materials used and the way in which those materials were installed created a dangerous fire hazard. Together with bad management (maintenance/installation), previous residents concerns, fire systems not functioning correctly, fire doors etc then the management are also to blame. As also the council for not ensuring the safety measures/planning.Basically anyone who "assisted by whatever means" in the deaths of innocent people should, as per the law states, be brought to justice.I hope that's clear enough for you?But still waiting for your confirmation of who is Justin Hemming who provided the questionable floor plan?I've provided 2 reliable (sorry Graham for using the word reliable with BBC in the same sentence) links for the floor plan BBC and another


I don't think this is the time or place for speculating or apportioning blame on the general resident community. If you must focus on this area, (rather than the Council, KCTMO, Architects, Contactors etc) questioning the actions, or lack of them, by the individual resident of the specific flat where the fire started would be more appropriate. I have seen the following testimony in a number of reports.

Maryam Adam said the man knocked on her door to warn her about the fire at 12.50am, at which point he had already prepared to leave the building by packing possessions into a holdall.
The fire brigade was called at 12.54am and arrived within six minutes.
The 41-year-old said she could see the fire in the man’s kitchen through his open front door, saying it still appeared small at that time.


Who knows how we would act once a devastating fire had taken hold. If however the above account is accurate, it does beg some obvious questions about the initial decisions taken by the resident who became aware of a small fire in his kitchen.

1) Why did he pack a bag before raising the alarm with a neighbour, or anyone else?

2) Why was the first call to the Fire Brigade 4 minutes after he had told the neighbour? He must have been aware of the fire some time earlier when you consider that he had packed a bag in advance of alerting the neighbour.

3) Why had the resident left both the kitchen door and front door open when, at that time, a small fire was underway? It is surely a basic safety knowledge that closing doors will significantly reduce the speed with which a fire can spread.

None of this should take the focus away from the lack of sprinklers, an effective, working, building-wide fire alarm, or the composition and design of the cladding etc. However if you must speculate on the circumstances that led to such a catastrophic loss of life, any initial investigation should centre on the specifics rather than anecdotal reports that may seek to apportion blame on other residents.
#40
splender
There is a bigger picture here worth us being reminded, Saturn pointed out last year a UK Prosperity Index which was largely ignored on this forum http://www.hotukdeals.com/misc/uk-prosperity-index-2016-2541785
.
The relevant picture here which I cut and paste (Overall ranks 160 in index and look at the 384th safety and security and 388th social capital (last place in ranking is 389 - and this RBKC is a borough of extremes of wealth and poverty) :-http://i.imgur.com/wBmjMqp.jpg


The contrast between the sub-indices for Kensington and Chelsea is very striking. The tragic death of 30 residents, with worse news to come, cannot be attributed directly to the details within that report, but it is hard to ignore the social dichotomy in that Borough, and others.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!