If you struggle with the difference between thoughtful policy discussions and snarky political jabs, then perhaps you should stay out of breaking news threads.
Any further comments shoudl be taken to PM or ATMB.
‘Limited by guarantee’, what’s this mean? Limited liability?
I’m stunned that building codes in London permit a gas line in a fire escape, only one stairway to escape, fire hoses that can’t reach and no sprinklers, in such a densely habited public building!
Holy crap! None of that would be permitted where I live. And any call to authorities would have them on the owners in a heartbeat if it concerns fire safety. But apparently several people had concerns and complained yet this situation went unchanged.
Will anyone lose their jobs over this? Be sued? Were any laws actually broken? Or was this within current fire code requirements? Nothing I’m reading seems to address these questions.
What an avaoidable tragedy, absolutely heartbreaking!
I don’t disbelieve you, because that sounds like the kind of weaselling that responsible people do when they screw up - but surely responsibility for safety isn’t a thing that can be fully delegated, is it? I mean, that wouldn’t wash if it was a private landlord.
From what I’ve been reading, the building dates to before many such safety provisions were required, and retrofitting such buildings was up to individual councils to mandate or not. Residents and housing advocates were complaining about that for some time.
Those in charge often gamble on grandfathering less-safe buildings from new safety regs if otherwise they’d be on the hook for an expensive retrofit mandate and have people get displaced.
In the event, the council pled guilty earlier this year to four offences of the relevant fire regulations, so it turns out that the responsibility was theirs. But, amazingly, they weren’t aware of that fact - or certainly not acting like it - at the time.
This makes grim reading now:
According to Al Jazeera, this was predicted a year ago:
I’m can’t see how, not having sufficiently long hoses, running a gas line up a fire escape, or no smoke detectors can be explained by grandfathering, to be honest. And if fire hazards are grandfathered in, why then let them clad in wood?
We have old, expensive to retrofit buildings here too. But if it’s for public use, housing, schools, bars, public venues, etc, it’s still got to meet the minimum fire code standard. And building estate owners don’t get to decide the fire code.
I’m mean this is kinda feels like third world stuff, to be happening in London!
[From The Guardian:
](Met confirms 17 dead with further fatalities expected from Grenfell blaze – as it happened | Grenfell Tower fire | The Guardian)Yeah, fuck that guy. Hey, Mr. Lewis: fuck you! See the impact your regulation has? Asshole.
I’d guess there will be a lot of safety issues looked at over the next few weeks. Won’t help the poor bastards here though.
Fires are going to happen. Fridges, washer dryers etc. can go wrong but the fire shouldn’t spread so wide so fast.
On the live update page there’s a audio clip of a Labour MP explaining sprinklers are expensive.
Use your page search for Harman
I’m absolutely stunned that a basic fire safety system is optional in England.
Cost doesn’t matter. You put in the fire safety systems or the building doesn’t pass inspection and it doesn’t get a occupancy permit.
Is the fire completely out or is the building still smoking/hot? Has there been a complete flat by flat check for any more fatalities?
This day sucks. I woke up to this. Then I heard about the shooting at GOP baseball practice. Then I read about mudslides killing 140 in Bangladesh.
The building is still on fire. They are working on extinguishing the last of the blaze and an inspection of the building has begun to determine whether or not it is still structurally sound before they start working their way thru the floors.
What an utterly horrifying task that will be for the emergency services. Thoughts go out to them, as well as to the victims and their families and friends.
But that is contingent on the regulations actually requiring them, isn’t it?
In the end, every regulator deciding on whether to impose a mandate and every builder/owner/operator deciding on whether to adopt a nonmandated safety measure, is making a judgment on what cost matters.
Sometimes they choose extremely unwisely.
12 now confirmed dead.
Engineers say the building is structurally sound.
ETA: The links I provided in the OP are all being updated continuously.
Does anyone here remember danceswithcats? He was a housing inspector, general contractor, and volunteer firefighter. He testified numerous times to the state legislature about the absolute need to make sprinkler installation mandatory in new housing.
At least one representative said that doing so would make houses too expensive to build, or for consumers to buy, and that the odds were one in (something or other) that it would be necessary and given the odds and expense, it shouldn’t be mandatory. To which another legislator remarked that this was fine, but what if your house was the one?
The house I bought 10 years ago has a sprinkler system, mandated by the local township in all new construction. One of the major reasons I bought this house rather than another one I had my eye on was because it had the sprinkler system. I don’t want to be the one, either.
It is, it sucks, and the sights/sounds/smells stay with you forever. Thankfully the nightmares do not.
I don’t know what to say, except that I can’t think of a group of people who are more universally admired, appreciated and respected than the emergency services. Thank you for being there.
From The Guardian:
No expectation? 
:mad: