The KCTMO, that's the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation, who are in charge of Grenfell Tower, are coming in for serious criticism now, because they ignored concerns raised by the residents during the refurbishment last year.
Yes, there's one in Carmarthen which I'm going to attend. I'm planning on making cakes and just handing them out - the whole thing is free and cake always goes down well
Sorry . I know what I am about to post will be in popular, but listen to this . http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-london-40239008 IF what he says happened , did indeed happen . The Company who carried out the work , should in no way be held accountable . It is just a crying shame , that it always takes something tragic to occur , before anyone listens , / takes action .
I don't agree with this at all. It is nothing to do with spending money on more expensive non-flammable materials. The products used would all have been approved and just by spending more on fire-proofing products will not improve the safety. You can spend as much as you want but if the work is not done well, it will not perform as desired. A building should have a fire strategy and the interior walls would have had fire corridors, fire alarms and sensors and a mitigation scheme like a sprinkler system. Even cladding systems come with fire proofing measures and there was likely to be fire battens incorporated within the cladding system to prevent the passage of fire. It appears that the fire spread through the exterior of the building and by-passed the measures within. Any enquiry is likely to look at:- 1. Who was responsible for the design ? Was it the client's architect or did the contractor have design responsibility? 2. Did the design work ? Who is responsible for the design ? (Architect / contractor / subcontractor.) The services engineer will also be questioned about any fire prevention measures. 3. Why didn't specified cladding product able to perform to it's intended fire proofing measures ? Was the correct product used ? Is there a defect with the product? Was the cladding product installed correctly and, if not, who sign the cladding off as satisfactory once installed ? 4. If the contractor was operating under a design and build contract, did he value engineer the cladding for an inferior system and who checked to see if any proposed value-engineered alternative was compliant with the employer's Requirements / technical documents such as specification and drawings? None of the above has anything to do with the government and the budget set could have incorporated an upgrade of fire protection measures which simply failed. I don't think that anyone should be playing politics with this tragic situation and there are far too many factors which need to be considered before any conclusions can be drawn. The idea that cladding is solely cosmetic and has no other function is totally incorrect and it is totally ridiculous to suggest that the money should have been spent on other issues other than cladding without knowing the facts. It is quite likely that the cladding was replaced because the original cladding system had deteriorated and was unsafe. Until the facts come out, no one can comment but to suggest that this is a budget issue is far too hasty because the budget may have been correct to carry out the work that was necessary and that the product has failed for some reason. If there is a question of regarding the building, the obvious one is that there was only one staircase. On the buildings I construct, you would have more staircases on a temporary scaffold design !
It's not directly about the budget, it's the fact that recommendations were made following the inquest in 2013 into the deaths at the much smaller fire at Lakanal House in Camberwell in 2009. The Tories promised to review building regulations but 4 years later this has yet to be done. One of the recommended changes was the retrofitting of sprinklers to all tower blocks, not just newly built ones. The ACM cladding material, notorious for its implication in several other major fires around the world, is used for rain-screening and is also fitted with insulation material on the inside. The current regulations state that cladding only needs to be fire-resistant on the outside, so if the insulation catches fire a chimney can form between the wall and the outside of the cladding. This could explain why the fire at Grenfell Tower spread so incredibly quickly. The Grenfell Action Group, classed as "troublemakers" by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council and their Tenant Management Organisation, have been raising concerns about the ACM cladding during and since the refurbishment which finished in May 2016.
Theresa May visited the scene today but purposely did not speak to any residents or survivors - who does her PR?! Yes the people are going to rant and rave and be emotional and probably sound off on you, but that's part of the situation.
It's quite clear that Theresa May is quite able to cope, indeed is comfortable, in a professional environment. But put her into a scenario where ordinary people will ask questions that break the professional rules, where emotion might overcome logic, especially in a media situation, she is acutely uncomfortable. Yes, it's a character defect in a politician, but a common one. Margaret Thatcher had the same issue in pressure situations with the general public, and she received tuition and training to cope, but she was never fully comfortable. To be fair to May, she has had several disasters occur right in front of her within recent weeks.
Oh, this is just absolutely ****ing heartbreaking. That last message... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-victim-grenfell-fire-syrian-refugeemohammad/
if you read the story, he raised the alarm when his flat caught fire and the pictures of him drinking a beer are holiday snaps
