Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Grenfell Tower - Deadly Fires: Mismanagement, or just no managers present

Golf that £630K thing comes up in a couple other news orgs but not much
It first came up Nov 6 on
Then Nov 6 Welsh language website
also But on Nov 6th Breitbart ran Police Slam ‘Long Line’ of Grenfell Fraudsters as Another Jailed
Then that Republic of Ireland article Nov7

Another longer article on Nov 7

It's quite strange no London MSM covered it
But almost 2 days earlier had been t wild for reporting 6 people who had blasphemed by making a joke about burning two cardboard boxes with Grenfell faces on it..
Something that last 2 minutes

2 minute of joke is more newsworthy than £600K worth of stealing !

Nov 12, 2018 at 11:22 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

and another ....

from the CPS

Dec 11, 2018 at 7:42 PM | Registered Commentertomo

Stormzy + Adele in Grenfell cladding video

"This is not a charity film, this is a clarity film".

Dec 15, 2018 at 10:38 PM | Registered Commentertomo

Is this an inappropriate time to ask whether a shift to EU Certified building materials was a contributory factor?

Dec 15, 2018 at 11:08 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie


They just keep coming

I suppose the publicity deflects from awkward questions like the prevalence of fraudulent subletting in London's public housing stock.

Jan 12, 2019 at 10:09 AM | Registered Commentertomo

Mar 7, 2019 at 7:53 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

gc - they'll have to wait till the grass grows long enough to obscure those with direct responsibility then

Mar 7, 2019 at 11:03 PM | Registered Commentertomo

The Oxygen thieves at EHRC "at it"


I'm struggling to see how these gits are any different to any of the dozen+ fraudsters already revealed.

Mar 13, 2019 at 10:20 AM | Registered Commentertomo

£200 million grant for private cladding replacement - BBC story HERE

Still no sign of the architects in front of cameras / microphones.

May 9, 2019 at 2:23 PM | Registered Commentertomo

May 9, 2019 at 2:23 PM | tomo

With the Inquiry underway, I have tried to avoid speculating, and this link:
Mar 7, 2019 at 7:53 AM | golf charlie

... contained this:

"Campaigners have reacted with frustration at news that criminal charges over the Grenfell Tower fire may not be considered until 2021.

Scotland Yard said it would not hand a file to prosecutors until the end of a public inquiry into the disaster.

Survivors' group Grenfell United said families were disheartened by a lack of official progress.

But police said it "would be wrong" not to take into account evidence given to the independent hearing."

When an Insurance Company or its Policy Holder accepts any responsibility, there may be financial liability, and where there's blame, there is a claim.

Rightly and wrongly, the Inquiry represents a Legal process superior to decisions by insurance claims handlers, the media, politicians and those emotionally involved.

Crash for Cash has revealed the scale of some insurance frauds. The Government offering blank cheques has invited fraudsters, many are now in jail. More will probably follow, before the Police are able to proceed with any Criminal Charges.

This story raises some interesting questions:
"£200 million grant for private cladding replacement - BBC story HERE
Still no sign of the architects in front of cameras / microphones.
May 9, 2019 at 2:23 PM | tomo"

What is a Privately Owned Block of Flats? Obviously there are investment companies (including Insurers) building blocks of flats for sale, rent and leasehold for profit. But, because Grenfell Tower was built by a Council and then transferred to a Housing Association, did it become "Privately Owned" under the BBC's definition? I don't know! Blocks of Flats MAY be owned by a private individual, but every flat is rented to those claiming their rent from one or other Taxpayer funded department.

May 10, 2019 at 3:14 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

just dropping this here to avoid wrestling with unthreaded...

The cladding story is a tangled one... see one version here

The RoI was just daft - if the penny pinching detailed in the link is true - then I'd say the perps couldn't be trusted to run a bath never mind a TMO.

I'm very familiar with Kingspan / Celotex and can confirm that it can seemingly initially burn quite well when entrained gases near the surface are heated and a source of ignition is there .... throwing some on a bonfire shows it to flare and then char (burn with a MAPP torch) - which seems consistent with 24 floors in 15 minutes.

The entry of the fire into dwellings a result of a design change.... (word search "window")

So the spread and extent of the fire seem to be being addressed - not that you'd know from the MSM.

The Planning Application seems strong on eco and aesthetics....

May 11, 2019 at 12:17 AM | Registered Commentertomo

" .. throwing some on a bonfire shows it to flare and then char (burn with a MAPP torch"
May 11, 2019 at 12:17 AM | tomo

I remember 30(?) years ago being asked to take some material samples into the car park with a cigarette lighter. They all reacted to a flame in some way, allowing it to move across a surface, or glowing or releasing some gas, smoke or fumes. The material samples were all labelled in a manner that I presumed meant "didn't burn".

I suspect that many windows were open before the fire as it was a warm night. I expect many windows were opened by those trapped, seeking fresh air. I suspect that if the fire warmed the closed windows, the frames would have deformed allowing the sealed glazing units to fall out anyway.

May 12, 2019 at 9:53 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie


check out the e-architect link on the (late project) design changes - my skim through what detail was offered seemed to me to indicate that the window integrity was compromised via protruding the surround out of the opening - in effect suspending the frame outside the wall....

If the fire was initially outside the building why would you open a window?

Quite a lot of detail seems to have emerged away from the grotesque politicised hoo-hah.

There seems to be little appetite for addressing what looks to me like a procession of failings which allowed the disaster to happen and then made it worse when it did.... Art history graduates in housing management everywhere will be monitoring the outcome closely.

May 13, 2019 at 12:46 AM | Registered Commentertomo

May 13, 2019 at 12:46 AM | tomo

Installing new windows within the new cladding would have been cheaper and quicker for contractors, than replacing them like-for-like within the concrete panels, and then detailing and trimming the new cladding back towards the windows. Residents would have benefitted from larger window cills for their pot plants.

The new windows would not have been structural, neither adding to the strength of the cladding, nor being part of it. If no fire breaks or barriers were installed around the window frame, then flames rising within the cladding will have come in to direct contact with the window frames (uPVC?)

Heat will have melted/deformed the frames, even if they did not actually burn. The glass will not have remained insitu even if it didi not shatter.

The fire spread very rapidly up and within the cladding. Via the wiindows, the fire will have entered and risen within the building as AK has pointed out. The rising heat and diminishing supply of fresh air may have caused people to open their windows, but empty and evacuated may have had windows open anyway.

May 15, 2019 at 12:38 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie


thanks for that.

There's several views that I had not seen before which seem to indicate that the eco-cladding burned very rapidly indeed assisted by convection.

Design decisions look to have been something of a moving target through the project and it wouldn't be a surprise to discover that due diligence and engineering specification came way down the list of tasks in what was essentially a municipal bureaucratic undertaking where it is exasperatingly common that process trumps delivery in an environment where few decision takers have the requisite skills or knowledge to take informed decisions.

It strikes me that there have been institutional failings that perhaps a present Boeing executive might have an understanding of....

May 15, 2019 at 6:28 AM | Registered Commentertomo

" .... that the eco-cladding burned very rapidly indeed assisted by convection."
May 15, 2019 at 6:28 AM | tomo

At this stage, be careful about describing it as "eco-cladding". The Green Party would have preferred compressed straw as insulation. The window frames were not made from sustainable timber shipped across oceans.

Total cost will have been the top priority for the designers, manufacturers and on-site installers.

Whether Greenie/Brownie Points were awarded for exceeding current insulation standards, and whether the "cladding" as installed, including the windows met required standards is not yet clear. Sections of cladding have now been tested, and they failed. Has anyone tested a section of cladding that included a window, all fixed to a concrete panel as was the case on Grenfell?

The chimney or flue effect, is the rushing in of air to fill the void caused by hot combustion flames and gases rising and expanding. The incoming air accelerates the fire. This occurs in most buiding fires, as air rushes in at low level and fans the flames to higher levels. On a larger scale, with multiple buildings, it is known as a Firestorm. See Dresden for details.

May 15, 2019 at 10:50 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie


it doesn't look like a flue or chimney affect in the video - simple heated air rising ....

The apparent to-ing and fro-ing during construction phase over how to do the job isn't very confidence inspiring.

Add in the status of the fire doors, the integrity of the escape stairs and the apparent absence of any fire drills in a shared occupancy building....

I have yet to see any admission beyond "the fire brigade had to wait for the gas board" (WTF) to turn off the building's gas supply - about the contribution of gas to the inferno.

Few organisations (vs individuals) it seems are going to come out of this well.... so prominently throwing money around will restore public confidence .... yup, that'll work.

May 15, 2019 at 12:21 PM | Registered Commentertomo

tomo, the absence of evidence does not mean there isn't any, just that it cannot be released yet. The Inquiry is NOT a Trial, but you cannot expect Expert Witnesses and their Evidence to be available for public discussion before being presented.

The timing of the Gas Supply being isolated will have been recorded, along with the timing of the instruction/request to have it isolated. Gas was not involved in starting the fire, or for it escaping the Flat or spreading up the cladding. The location of the Gas Main(s) rising within the building will be on the Plans, along with pipe routes within each flat.

ANY pipe rising through a building must pass through the concrete slabs of each floor, whether it is a Soil and Vent Pipe or Gas Pipe, and can allow fire to spread, and fresh air to feed it.

Changes in design and specification during construction should be approved by "Building Control" if they effect Fire Ratings etc. Who was responsible for deciding that they did or did not?

Everyone involved will be seeking to shift the blame on to everyone else, and their Liability Insurers will be very reluctant to allow the voluntary release of incriminating evidence.

It would be interesting to know how much was paid to "Professionals" for their expertise, when all they demonstrated was complacency.

May 16, 2019 at 12:34 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie