http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40269625
Looks like the whole building is totally engulfed. Prays for those people.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1v1d1e1lmiki1lgcvx32p49h8fe.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F06%2Fwest-london-fire-3-960x540.jpg&hash=65bacf94a5e060fbe365f951d5061f76cedd47eb)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.nbcmiami.com%2Fimages%2F652%2A367%2Flondon%2Bhighrise%2Bfire.jpg&hash=31e4e3ae89de073e1e8d88fc9e70f5990d46b85a)
Damn! What the hell was that building made out of? Match-Light Quick-Start Charcoal? :wow:
dry English humor.
Fire officials confirmed a "number of fatalities" after a massive inferno tore through a 27-story residential building in West London early Wednesday morning, but said it was too early to give an exact number.
Terrible news.
We're watching it on the news now. Terrible thing to happen. Be a while before they can give a more accurate picture or establish a cause. Terrible event.
My deepest sympathy to the victims and families.
Reports are that there could be up to 600 people living in that building. At 1AM most of them would probably be home too.
Man, that would be my deepest fear living in a building like that. Horrible. :-\
Wow. I fear it's too much to ask but I hope everyone was able to get out. :(
That is terrifying.
The casualty list is getting bigger. There were some serious defects with this building that are now coming to light.
Just awful....prayers and best wishes to our cousins across the Atlantic.
Ditto X 100.
Apart from the sad loss of life and injuries - people are getting very angry as more of the circumstances are brought into the open. No fire alarms switched on - no sprinkler system - poor insulating materials used that were, apparently, highly combustable.
This is looking more and more like the Triangle factory fire from ~1911 in Manhattan.
Quote from: bob48 on June 15, 2017, 02:15:20 PM
Apart from the sad loss of life and injuries - people are getting very angry as more of the circumstances are brought into the open. No fire alarms switched on - no sprinkler system - poor insulating materials used that were, apparently, highly combustable.
How do things like that come to pass? Were there no proper inspections? Who is ultimately responsible for upkeep? I've heard that many of these kinds of buildings are subsidized housing called 'council estates'. Who or what is the 'council' referred to in the name? Are they responsible for making sure safety codes are adhered to? Can this 'council' be held liable in the UK for loss of life resulting from negligence?
Quote from: Staggerwing on June 15, 2017, 06:20:00 PM
Quote from: bob48 on June 15, 2017, 02:15:20 PM
Apart from the sad loss of life and injuries - people are getting very angry as more of the circumstances are brought into the open. No fire alarms switched on - no sprinkler system - poor insulating materials used that were, apparently, highly combustable.
How do things like that come to pass?
Money. Also, I've heard that fire regulations have not been updated to take into account new materials being used in the building trade (the cladding on the outside of the building).
Quote from: Staggerwing on June 15, 2017, 06:20:00 PM
Were there no proper inspections?
Apparently the last inspection was around December 2015.
Quote from: Staggerwing on June 15, 2017, 06:20:00 PM
Who is ultimately responsible for upkeep?
It depends on who this building belongs to. For example, My mum owns a ground floor maisonette at the bottom of a block of flats. She owns that - but the rest of the apartments are private landlords. The council "rent" those apartments from the private landlords to house people who cannot afford their own house - an absolutely diabolical situation brought about by the Tory party in the 1980s.
I believe in this case the building is either owned or comes under the responsibility of Kensignton Council
Quote from: Staggerwing on June 15, 2017, 06:20:00 PM
I've heard that many of these kinds of buildings are subsidized housing called 'council estates'. Who or what is the 'council' referred to in the name?
I believe it's Kensington Council
Quote from: Staggerwing on June 15, 2017, 06:20:00 PM
Are they responsible for making sure safety codes are adhered to?
I believe it falls under their remit to make sure when they are housing people, that those buildings meet the standards required.
Quote from: Staggerwing on June 15, 2017, 06:20:00 PM
Can this 'council' be held liable in the UK for loss of life resulting from negligence?
If it falls under their control and they are responsible, then this is possible. However, if it turns out that the building had up-to-date inspections and if it is discovered that the building met building and fire regulations, then I'm not sure how they can be held accountable.
What's happened is terrible. But let me mention here - and everyone will hate my socialist views - but you have a ridiculous system in the UK where the councils (local authorities) have a responsibility to make sure people who cannot afford housing actually have somewhere to live.
In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher introduced a system where people who were renting their accommodation from councils had the ability to buy those properties - at a considerably reduced price. Those houses were sold and people were able to make quite a bit of money from it.
However, what it did was remove the council's housing stock (councils are local authorities). By removing the local authorities housing stock, the councils then had to go to the private sector for their housing. As the council's had an obligation to house people who could not afford to buy their own homes, the private sector was pretty much allowed to charge what they like.
This policy - in my view a disastrous policy has had several knock on effects
- An over inflated private rental sector
- An over inflated private buying sector
- A HUGE increase in the welfare state in the UK where a massive chunk of welfare being paid is on housing benefit - a payment given to people to allow them to live somewhere
The policy is a disaster resulting in an over inflated welfare system, a private sector where people who cannot get a mortgage to buy their own house falling back to the private sector and finding, actually, that they cannot afford to rent. Wages have not kept up with the costs of living resulting in many people not being able to get on a private buying sector or a private rental sector. Kids in the UK are looking to be staying with their parents for decades...I mean the average age of a child being able to move into a home (bought or rented) in the UK has gone up from 22 in the 80's and 90s to 40 years old.
In short, there's very little housing in the UK in total. Successive governments have failed to produce enough housing helping to over inflate a market that is slowly but assuredly cutting people out of that market. As there's a lack of housing, perhaps corners are cut in order to actually house people.
Huge swathes of the UK (particularly inner city areas) are owned by foreign investors. This results in high rents being charged and worse, those landlords allowing people to live in squalor for a quick buck.
Don't believe me? Lets have a look at where my mum lives.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FSnap2_zpsqk2voef0.jpg&hash=cd3acb1a442d81202c590c481c22b4878ad4cfc2) (http://s1160.photobucket.com/user/wmar1967/media/Snap2_zpsqk2voef0.jpg.html)
This is a privately owned area (by owners from many, many different countries...my mum knows because she's been part of the group trying to contact them to get funding from them for a factor to come in and look after the place) where the council HAVE to house people. These blocks of flats are privately owned by people pretty much all over the world who charge the council a small fortune for rent to house people there (KNOWING the council has to house people).
I feel the need to point out that this is a housing area in the fifth largest economy in the world.
So unfortunately, I suspect that this building in London is one of many (across the country) and an urgent investigation needs to be made in order to updating fire regulations - AND advice...people were following advice posted all around this building telling them to stay put if there's a fire and wait for the emergency services.
Private landlords (both foreign and local) have to be brought to boot on the state of the buildings they provide. Some of the places people have to live in the UK are absolutely diabolical and I'd feel guilty housing my dog in them.
So far, 6 victims recovered, 11 more located by not able to be recovered as yet. 60 remain unaccounted for. Very grim and upsetting situation.
Quote from: bob48 on June 16, 2017, 05:19:55 AM
So far, 6 victims recovered, 11 more located by not able to be recovered as yet. 60 remain unaccounted for. Very grim and upsetting situation.
I fear almost 100 lives are lost.
30 confirmed deceased and close to 60 still missing with little or no hope for them.
Holy Christ, JD! :o :wow: My brain had trouble even processing what I was looking at there. Diabolical indeed. :'(
It's a crying shame that a tower full of people will end up having to be holocausted to draw attention to reform here. But the more crying shame is that the chances of reform still seem small. :pullhair:
I know there's a baying mob now but if the council and health and safety executive say it must be built to XXX specifications and the builders did so then it's not their fault
And I find it hard to believe that a building of this nature doesn't also need signing off by the fire service who obviously did
The regulations are what need changing and as JP said, it's horrible that this has had to happen to highlight it
I heard this morning - and I have no guarantee this is correct - that the product used for cladding on the outside of the building had a B2 rating in Germany which equated to ubtreated wood and that the same product was banned in the US.
As I said - I can't confirm this, but it's what I heard on the BBC this morning.
But UCG is right - if the building regs and fire regs were met, then there's no blame really to apportion here. Though Thornbury's statement the other night on Question Time about fire and building regs not being up to date (and therefore missing out on new products coming to market) could be a valid one.
Anyway - tragic.
Seems to me that Tory policy, while having the best of intentions, has done completely the opposite effect. Good luck getting rid of those idiots. I wonder if it will ever get to a point where the government will (or even can) nationalize such properties to get the weasels overseas out of the picture?
CNN reporting that the local neighborhood town hall has been 'stormed' by protestors looking for answers about the missing.
Not only that, but there will be a lot of people who live in similar buildings and will want some answers.
This morning I heard that the 'cladding' on the outside of the building could be one of two different kinds. One is a polyurethane material sandwiched between sheets of aluminum and the other similar but using a fire-retardant mineral in place of the polyurethane. The former is considered unsuitable for use on buildings such as the one that caught fire but could have been used in place of the latter to save money. Considering aluminum itself will burn if heated enough all I could think of when hearing about it was how the Hindenburg was also actually brought down by the aluminum-doped covering over the airship. It caught fire and spread the flames much quicker than the hydrogen lifting gas could ever have done on it's own.
And I'd figured that it was some Muslims setting a fire. Good thing that I was wrong, though I'm surprised that they don't appear to have thought of it, yet. With the lack of access to firearms and explosives, it's an alternative to rented vans and sharp objects.
Cause unknown yet uber
But if it was a Muslim Isis would have claimed responsibility by now
Quote from: Ubercat on June 16, 2017, 08:50:50 PM
And I'd figured that it was some Muslims setting a fire. Good thing that I was wrong, though I'm surprised that they don't appear to have thought of it, yet.
when i saw the TV coverage of the tragedy, the mob looks more like
a staggering area for secretly political-islam admirers, rounded up with an assortment of all other kind of immigrants (or to be real nasty/cynic: i saw lots of Londoners but not one single 'British')
so they would mostly torch there own multicultural sharia breading cells... that are not the softtarget they are looking for.
MikeGER - I'm sorry but I find that fucking downright offensive and absolutely does not deserve a place in this thread where we're discussing the deaths - massive death toll - of innocent British people.
Those people were living in Britain. That makes them British in my eyes. Besides - I have no idea (as you do not) how many were actually British (which means, for your information, holding a British Passport signifying British citizenship). You're entitled to think what you think - as am I - but I don't want to see your diatribe about immigration, refugees and muslims outside of the Religion, Politics and Flame Wars forum and I am deeply saddened by your post.
You need to take this shite to the above mentioned forum where you can throw your hatred for all things muslim about (and by the way, you have absolutely NO FUCKING IDEA what religion ANY ONE of those people were).
As if it even fucking matters when there's such a large, unnecessary loss of life.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 17, 2017, 05:27:09 AM
MikeGER - I'm sorry but I find that fucking downright offensive and absolutely does not deserve a place in this thread where we're discussing the deaths - massive death toll - of innocent British people.
Those people were living in Britain. That makes them British in my eyes. Besides - I have no idea (as you do not) how many were actually British (which means, for your information, holding a British Passport signifying British citizenship). You're entitled to think what you think - as am I - but I don't want to see your diatribe about immigration, refugees and muslims outside of the Religion, Politics and Flame Wars forum and I am deeply saddened by your post.
You need to take this shite to the above mentioned forum where you can throw your hatred for all things muslim about (and by the way, you have absolutely NO FUCKING IDEA what religion ANY ONE of those people were).
As if it even fucking matters when there's such a large, unnecessary loss of life.
+1
No need for you to be sorry JD.
Quote from: MikeGER on June 17, 2017, 03:28:26 AM
Quote from: Ubercat on June 16, 2017, 08:50:50 PM
And I'd figured that it was some Muslims setting a fire. Good thing that I was wrong, though I'm surprised that they don't appear to have thought of it, yet.
when i saw the TV coverage of the tragedy, the mob looks more like a staggering area for secretly political-islam admirers, rounded up with an assortment of all other kind of immigrants (or to be real nasty/cynic: i saw lots of Londoners but not one single 'British')
so they would mostly torch there own multicultural sharia breading cells... that are not the softtarget they are looking for.
Stormfront might be the forum you're looking for
Our local news reported that the contracters 'saved' 6000 € by not using the fire resistant version of the panels on the outside of the building.
http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20170616_02928264
[
Google translation :
John Cowley, Director of Omnis Exteriors, confirms to The Telegraph that his company made the panels used in the lining of the London Tower. The companies that renovated Grenfell Tower asked Omnis Exteriors to provide so-called Reynobond PE lining instead of Reynobond FR lining. The PE version consists partly of plastic and is 2 pounds per square meter cheaper than the FR version. However, this latter variant would have been a much safer option, as FR stands for 'fire resistant'. But it is 6,000 euros more expensive.
And still more bad news :
Among those missing are still fifteen children of the same nursery, so the Grenfell Nursery's manager confirms the British media. The children are between six months and four years old. "Many of those children lived in the skyscraper with their parents. Of fifteen of them, however, there is still no trace, "said Shirley Sylvester. "This is just too bad for words, we simply can not handle it. Those children, their parents ... They are also family for us. "
Quote from: Hofstadter on June 17, 2017, 07:36:47 AM
Quote from: MikeGER on June 17, 2017, 03:28:26 AM
Quote from: Ubercat on June 16, 2017, 08:50:50 PM
And I'd figured that it was some Muslims setting a fire. Good thing that I was wrong, though I'm surprised that they don't appear to have thought of it, yet.
when i saw the TV coverage of the tragedy, the mob looks more like a staggering area for secretly political-islam admirers, rounded up with an assortment of all other kind of immigrants (or to be real nasty/cynic: i saw lots of Londoners but not one single 'British')
so they would mostly torch there own multicultural sharia breading cells... that are not the softtarget they are looking for.
Stormfront might be the forum you're looking for
Is there really no other alternative? We can't simply acknowledge that there are major social problems with mixing western cultures and Islamic saturated/based cultures? You're either peace and love to everyone, indiscriminately, or you're a racist, white supremacist?
I'd call myself an unapologetic culturalist, as opposed to racist, but the term already has a scientific definition. Culturist is also already taken. We might need a new word. All cultures do not have equal value. The way that women and gays are treated all over the Muslim world is abhorrent to me. If the Aztecs were still around, tossing babies off of pyramids and cutting peoples hearts out, I'd have major issues with that as well.
never mind......
Quote from: Ubercat on June 16, 2017, 08:50:50 PM
And I'd figured that it was some Muslims setting a fire. Good thing that I was wrong, though I'm surprised that they don't appear to have thought of it, yet.
Well as you started this with your Muslim statement...
Can I ask you wtf religion had to do with this particular incident? Could you not just have offered your condolences and been on your way? Or perhaps kept you political\religious rhetoric to yourself at the very least?
The fact that you are back here trying to defend what you instigated and what MikeGER jumped on at the very least shows a bad taste in judgement, let alone a window into both your actual characters.
This was a terrible accident with what appears to be 60+ innocent BRITISH people (they were housed here and it was our job to look after them) killed. A lot of those were innocent children with no real understanding of the hate that is propagated around the world.
Perhaps the world - or just the Muslim world - has turned you into the sceptic that you show here. What a shame for you.
I'm proud to say that regardless of the devious attempts by radicals (of any faith) to turn me against my fellow human has failed drastically. What a shame they've managed it with you.
MOD HAT ON:
As far as we know, we are discussing a tragedy here, not an act of terrorism. There is zero reason for conjecture over the ethnic or cultural makeup of the victims or of the neighborhood, nor what their religion may be. It is insensitive and more suitable for R&P. Please refrain from any attempts to turn this thread into a political discussion. If you somehow feel the need to explain yourself further or expound upon your beliefs about things yet unknown, take it to R&P.
We are horrified over these events and we feel for our British cousins. Moderator tolerance for coloring outside of these lines will be very low.....
I apologize, first for mentioning that my first thought was that it was Muslims, and second for bringing up my position regarding the relative merits of cultures. Both were off topic, though I believe the first was a perfectly valid first guess considering recent news in Europe. Just now firing up MSN.com, which is my home page, I see that there has been another vehicle running over pedestrians in London. No word yet who did it.
As for my failure to express sadness over the obvious tragedy of the situation, none of us here know any of the victims. Even in cases where a forum member has suffered a personal loss, I don't post condolences as it seems empty to me, coming from someone only known from a web forum. If I lost my wife or other family member, and I mentioned it here, I don't think I would take any comfort from condolences expressed by my fellow grogheads that I've never met. Gary K might be an exception, as I've at least talked to him over Skype as we played an ASLSK scenario!
Steelgrave,
honestly the thread starting about the ongoing tragedy on 6/14 had already moved on from condolences on the first day, (interupted by untactful joke derailing attempt by Starfury) to a discussion of technical aspects and social-political situations leading to lack of fire safety by JD himself on the 16th and its political fallout (and could have been moved to R&P then)
Cat asked on the 17th why the authorities seemed to had outruled any kind of ilsamic-terror so early and if islamists might take the tragedy as a blueprint for possible future attack planing.
i simply answered that question.
i don't apologize. the pictures of that night painfully reminded me to 9/11
and my emotions of 9/12 and the following days came flashing back.
(I have a personal connection to 9/11. I was on the phone with a lady friend a few blocks to the north when we both witness the tower collapses. i am on TV and she from her window and TV (i was one of the few who had got a free transatlantic phone line after the planes had just hit). Her sister living in that area that i also knew in person was 48h not accounted for, but found unharmed later. also her younger nice, which i knew from visits in NYC and being her tourist guide in my area, was working with the Lehman Brother down there but was not directly harmed i learned later.)
i also do not only remember the Muslims mob celebrating 9/11 in the streets in the Middle East but even more also those more ore less secretly celebrating/admiring/downplaying/excusing 9/11 in German social media and other ways of comments (even factory workers in my occupation) at that time and sometimes till until today.
It changed me.
on a side note
On Saturday there was a call for a big demonstration organized in Germany by Muslims against terrorists constantly abusing the name of their religion.
the plan was for 10 000 attenders. The large Turkish DitiB traditional minded organisation deprecated participation of their large community cause of "to hot a day to do while Ramadan" (it was 19°C and overcast in Cologne) at the end it was 500 marchers. most of the them green-left non-muslim Germans and literally! a handfull of peace-loving and mourning Muslims.... the organiser themself, i hold those in high regard)
Draw you own conclusions...
Quote from: Ubercat on June 18, 2017, 08:30:08 PM
As for my failure to express sadness over the obvious tragedy of the situation, none of us here know any of the victims. Even in cases where a forum member has suffered a personal loss, I don't post condolences as it seems empty to me, coming from someone only known from a web forum. If I lost my wife or other family member, and I mentioned it here, I don't think I would take any comfort from condolences expressed by my fellow grogheads that I've never met. Gary K might be an exception, as I've at least talked to him over Skype as we played an ASLSK scenario!
I don't think empathy requires physical interaction with someone. We've all experienced the pain of loss and offering condolences to someone you know is suffering is no more or less valid when done over the internet.
On top of all that, we have the terrible loss of life in the fire in Portugal, and I believe a big warehouse fire in California(?) that has claimed quite a few lives.
Quote from: mirth on June 19, 2017, 05:01:13 AM
Quote from: Ubercat on June 18, 2017, 08:30:08 PM
As for my failure to express sadness over the obvious tragedy of the situation, none of us here know any of the victims. Even in cases where a forum member has suffered a personal loss, I don't post condolences as it seems empty to me, coming from someone only known from a web forum. If I lost my wife or other family member, and I mentioned it here, I don't think I would take any comfort from condolences expressed by my fellow grogheads that I've never met. Gary K might be an exception, as I've at least talked to him over Skype as we played an ASLSK scenario!
I don't think empathy requires physical interaction with someone. We've all experienced the pain of loss and offering condolences to someone you know is suffering is no more or less valid when done over a the internet.
I can't think of any better example than when Critter passed about 5 years ago and we all had Martok sign our names to his card at the funeral, and then his daughter later popped into our forum to tell us how much it meant to the family.
Quote from: bob48 on June 19, 2017, 06:27:52 AM
On top of all that, we have the terrible loss of life in the fire in Portugal, and I believe a big warehouse fire in California(?) that has claimed quite a few lives.
And a new attack in London today.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/london-pedestrians-struck-by-vehicle-in-major-incident-police-say?via=desktop&source=copyurl
At least one person was killed early Monday after a van struck several worshippers leaving a mosque in North London, authorities said. Several others were reported injured in the incident, which London Mayor Sadiq Khan described as a "horrific terrorist attack."
Great example above BB. Peeps here simultaneously have my love and rage and I never met any of them in person.
Next year, I'm picking you up on the way to Origins and you're meeting a bunch of them in person.
That sounds like a threat on multiple levels.
Be afraid, Gus. Be very afraid.
Around here, always.
My post was not intended to convey the thought that this thread was reserved for expressions of sympathy, although as other's have mentioned, I'm not sure where knowing someone personally involved is a prerequisite for such.
Regarding the injection of politics and religion into the discussion, it was unwarranted as far as the apartment fire went. Disagreeing with the moderator staff on that point is irrelevant, hence the notice this was a moderator comment and not something from me as an individual poster. And rest assured, no matter who takes point, we do discuss these things among ourselves when an issue pops up.
Quote from: mirth on June 19, 2017, 08:13:42 AM
Next year, I'm picking you up on the way to Origins and you're meeting a bunch of them in person.
Quote from: Gusington on June 19, 2017, 08:16:41 AM
That sounds like a threat on multiple levels.
his trunk is about Gus-sized
Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 19, 2017, 09:21:38 AM
Quote from: mirth on June 19, 2017, 08:13:42 AM
Next year, I'm picking you up on the way to Origins and you're meeting a bunch of them in person.
Quote from: Gusington on June 19, 2017, 08:16:41 AM
That sounds like a threat on multiple levels.
his trunk is about Gus-sized
Wondering if it's his car you're talking about......
Nice that we're all being respectful in this thread :uglystupid2:
Gus, better stay away from Origins by all means ... i do! :o
(https://heblogswhenhewantsto.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/tumblr_m576lxehqc1r8g567o1_500.gif)
;)
God help us all.
To steer this thread back to reality, BBC is reporting that there are still ~80 people missing as a result of this fire.
Quote from: Gusington on June 19, 2017, 09:37:30 AM
God help us all.
To steer this thread back to reality, BBC is reporting that there are still ~80 people missing as a result of this fire.
Damn.....
Quote from: Gusington on June 19, 2017, 09:37:30 AM
To steer this thread back to reality, BBC is reporting that there are still ~80 people missing as a result of this fire.
the media circus and the politicians reaction shifted already their focus on the Finsbury Park incident
and while we speak a car hit a police van in Paris, and 'exploded', armed injured driver tackled and arrested, no officers harmed, situation developing....
tragic drama wheel is spinning fast this days :-\
From the looks of the building, and how quickly it caught fire, I'm surprised there were any survivors at all. :(
I read today at CNN that the building had no sprinkler system.
No sprinkler system, and the fire alarm was not active.
How is that even remotely legal??
This will, I suspect, be part of the investigation. The whole sorry mess will likely come down to cost-cutting by the local authorities. Somewhere, though, someone must have authorised the using of inferior materials, and that should not be too difficult to establish. I would not want to be in that persons shoes given the current mood of the country.
Of course, the company that carried out the work on the building went into liquidation, but there should, by law, still be records available, and certainly the records maintained by the local council should be available for auditing.
There will be many people who live in similar building who will now be feeling very insecure and wanting some answers with regards to their own safety. My youngest son lives in an apartment block (although not in that area) and its made him look more closely at safety aspects.
How can you build a high rise without a fire suppresson system? Jesus you need to install a sprinkler system in new single family homes here!
Quote from: Marty Ward on June 19, 2017, 02:19:28 PM
How can you build a high rise without a fire suppresson system? Jesus you need to install a sprinkler system in new single family homes here!
Really?
Quote from: Marty Ward on June 19, 2017, 02:19:28 PM
How can you build a high rise without a fire suppresson system? Jesus you need to install a sprinkler system in new single family homes here!
Where is "here"?
Quote from: Barthheart on June 19, 2017, 02:20:10 PM
Quote from: Marty Ward on June 19, 2017, 02:19:28 PM
How can you build a high rise without a fire suppresson system? Jesus you need to install a sprinkler system in new single family homes here!
Really?
Yes. In most counties here any new construction home must have a sprinkler system, or some other fire suppression system, installed. If your wife thought smoke detectors conflicted with the decor wait until they need to deal with sprinkler heads sticking out of the ceiling! :)
Quote from: DoctorQuest on June 19, 2017, 02:38:35 PM
Quote from: Marty Ward on June 19, 2017, 02:19:28 PM
How can you build a high rise without a fire suppresson system? Jesus you need to install a sprinkler system in new single family homes here!
Where is "here"?
Maryland.
California and DC also have the requirement. Take a guess if Maryland is a Red or Blue State :)
http://www.firesprinklerinitiative.org/legislation/sprinkler-requirements-by-state.aspx
Quote from: Marty Ward on June 19, 2017, 02:41:59 PM
Quote from: DoctorQuest on June 19, 2017, 02:38:35 PM
Quote from: Marty Ward on June 19, 2017, 02:19:28 PM
How can you build a high rise without a fire suppresson system? Jesus you need to install a sprinkler system in new single family homes here!
Where is "here"?
Maryland.
California and DC also have the requirement. Take a guess if Maryland is a Red or Blue State :)
http://www.firesprinklerinitiative.org/legislation/sprinkler-requirements-by-state.aspx
Doesn't Maryland tax you for rain runoff?
Quote from: Bison on June 19, 2017, 02:55:03 PM
Doesn't Maryland tax you for rain runoff?
We called it the Rain Tax! O'Malley signed it. I hope he was sufficiently humiliated by his failed Presidential bid to just leave us alone forever.
Hogan made it an optional assessment for each county affected. Only 9 counties and Baltimore City had to pay it, as if the runoff from the other counties didn't make it to the Bay!!.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 19, 2017, 01:32:15 PM
Quote from: Gusington on June 19, 2017, 01:15:51 PM
How is that even remotely legal??
Its not.
Ah yes but this is the good old UK. It is true new buildings need a sprinkler system. But it is not required by law to retro fit them to existing buildings. There are currently around 4000 tower blocks in the UK with no fire suppression system - and no compulsion on local authorities to fit them. So they spent 8.6 million making the building look nice and didon't spend 200k fitting sprinklers.
4000. How many people does that put in danger? Half million? More?
Detailed article on why Grenfell Tower burned so rapidly and intensely
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/world/europe/grenfell-tower-london-fire.html
So - the latest is the cladding on 27 blocks of flats in England (so far) have failed fire safety tests :idiot2:
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 24, 2017, 11:49:14 AM
So - the latest is the cladding on 27 blocks of flats in England (so far) have failed fire safety tests :idiot2:
Appalling and frightening.
News coming out that there was a good deal of under the table subletting to illegals occurring.
Probably better in religion & politics, but here's an opinion vid explaining some of what's transpiring post-fire.
Quote from: mirth on June 24, 2017, 11:55:12 AM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 24, 2017, 11:49:14 AM
So - the latest is the cladding on 27 blocks of flats in England (so far) have failed fire safety tests :idiot2:
Appalling and frightening.
I'd read some articles that stated that this siding was also pushed to be used because its "green" technology.
34 tower blocks out of 34 tower blocks have had the cladding tested and they've all failed. 100% failure rate. :knuppel2:
Quote from: Bison on June 24, 2017, 10:53:57 PM
Quote from: mirth on June 24, 2017, 11:55:12 AM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 24, 2017, 11:49:14 AM
So - the latest is the cladding on 27 blocks of flats in England (so far) have failed fire safety tests :idiot2:
Appalling and frightening.
I'd read some articles that stated that this siding was also pushed to be used because its "green" technology.
Pushed by who? It wouldn't surprise me if the manufacturer promoted it as such.
Anyway, it sounds like there's plenty of blame to go around for the use of the flammable cladding. Poor decisions by many parties.
There are better articles about why and what it supposedly does but I suspect that there more to the story than just a cheap contractor.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/14/grenfell-tower-inferno-disaster-waiting-happen-concerns-raised/
Quote from: Bison on June 25, 2017, 06:53:45 AM
I suspect that there more to the story than just a cheap contractor.
There's much more to it than just that. That cladding isn't allowed on high rises in the US or most of the EU. It was a known hazard.
There were lapses in over sight and poor decisions made by many parties. It isn't just a matter of prioritizing a "green" construction material over fire safety either.
I didn't say it was the only reason. I said it was also pushed as being "green". No doubt cheaper was also a consideration. And all those other things that have been mentioned. Regulations are motivated for a number of reasons not always altruistic ones.