At least 12 dead after fire guts London high-rise where residents complained about safety for years

[smut_clyde]

@skr1

Isn’t the management company an ALMO which are not-for-profit?

“Arms-length management” sounds better than “plausible deniability”.

[simonize]

@lava

You can be certain there was a gap - in current best practice cladding like this is installed as a “rain screen” with a gap behind it standing off from the other substrates. And yes, perfect for a chimney effect.

According to this story, there was a lack of “fire stopping” between each floor, which guarantees rapid, “chimney effect” spread once the fire starts… http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-fire-cladding-idUKKBN19538U

[anon73430903]

London fire: just last year, Tory landlord-MPs rejected Labour's tenant safety law

The cladding was not for the benefit of the residents of Grenfell Tower but for the rich neighbours who thought the tower was an eyesore.

Musician Akala: People died in London fire 'because they were poor’

[anon68287401]

Bizarrely the UK media is apparently suppressing all reporting on the true number of missing people.

There’s speculation that it could be as large as the Piper Alpha or Herald of Free Enterprise disasters.

[OhhJim]

@RickMycroft

Exactly. People forget that the whole reason for the rules in the first place is that usually a lot of people died horribly.

I pointed out to a Trump supporter that this is why regulations are often a good idea. He responded that if you live in a defective home, it’s your own fault if something like this happens.

Trump supporters can be really stupid.

[Auld_Lang_Syne]

@OhhJim

I pointed out to a Trump supporter that this is why regulations are often a good idea. He responded that if you live in a defective home, it’s your own fault if something like this happens.

Trump supporters can be really stupid.

And/or heartless.

[john_c]

@peregrinus_bis

“limited company limited by guarantee”

It’s normally used by non-profits. It means that profits can’t be paid out as dividends, because there are no shareholders, only “guarantors.” I think that would be local Council officials, in this case? They are the “owners,” not that it means much in the case of a nonprof.

[JonS]

I’m not sure they’re suppressing it. Everyone - fire, police, media - seems to being really careful about trying to stick to a common, verifiable version of reality.

There are plausible estimates of how many people lived there (120 apartments, with ~4 per apartment = 4-600), and totals for people in hospital (~70 was the last number I saw(WTLNIS)) and in emergency accommodation (~300 WTLNIS), plus known dead (17 WTLNIS).

I assume is the number of fatalities is what the police and fire are being especially careful about releasing, in order to avoid double or triple counting. But that care necessarily slows things down, which can superficially appear to be ‘suppression of information’ … and I guess in a way it is, but for good reason.

Noting that the WTLNIS numbers are from different times, the people so far accounted for is around 400. My guess is that the final total of fatalities will be around 100. Which is horrific and appalling for a reasonably modern building in the heart of a G7 capital.

Regulations save lives.

[anon68952647]

@simonize

When they investigate fatal fires, they rarely find new things that can be done to prevent fatalities.

THIS  

[anon68952647]

@peregrinus_bis

You’d think that cladding would have undergone sun-heat tests.

- YouTube

[anon68952647]

@lava

How much do you want to bet the Chinese sourced product is missing the fire retardants.