Doreen Lawrence says Grenfell tragedy was linked to racism

Status
Not open for further replies.


The firefighters wouldn't have a clue who was in the building when it went up, the evil witch suggesting racism should be deselected by the Labour Party and sued by everyone concerned for defamation.
 
Pop said:
Well, you didn't say proportionally.
Click to expand...

Thought it was implied by the discussion. proportionally blacks are hugely less likely than whites to own their own home (Home ownership and renting: demographics - Commons Library briefing - UK Parliament) so proportionally hugely more likely to be living in tower blocks. Even if you drop the word proportionally Prof Danny Dorling's book "So you think you know Britain" is continually quoted in reference to Greenfell - "Most children who live above the fourth floor of tower blocks in England are Black or Asian. The higher you go in a building, the darker skinned children tend to be." (I know, I hate quoting it because I cant find his raw numbers anywhere).

My point was that (as far as i am aware) this wasn't due to some actively racist behaviour from anyone directly involved, just due to the social and economic factors of housing in the area and for all Doreen Lawrence has earned a right to be heard in this case shes been bang out of order, as she's seemingly pretty much realised after having a sit down and a think.
 
MattyM 09/109 said:
Thought it was implied by the discussion. proportionally blacks are hugely less likely than whites to own their own home (Home ownership and renting: demographics - Commons Library briefing - UK Parliament) so proportionally hugely more likely to be living in tower blocks. Even if you drop the word proportionally Prof Danny Dorling's book "So you think you know Britain" is continually quoted in reference to Greenfell - "Most children who live above the fourth floor of tower blocks in England are Black or Asian. The higher you go in a building, the darker skinned children tend to be." (I know, I hate quoting it because I cant find his raw numbers anywhere).

My point was that (as far as i am aware) this wasn't due to some actively racist behaviour from anyone directly involved, just due to the social and economic factors of housing in the area and for all Doreen Lawrence has earned a right to be heard in this case shes been bang out of order, as she's seemingly pretty much realised after having a sit down and a think.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying pal. It’s perfectly valid.

But you could apply the reverse in so much as more white people are killed skiing or in speed boat accidents at the other end of the social divide.

Nevertheless a good debate.
 
MattyM 09/109 said:
Thought it was implied by the discussion. proportionally blacks are hugely less likely than whites to own their own home (Home ownership and renting: demographics - Commons Library briefing - UK Parliament) so proportionally hugely more likely to be living in tower blocks. Even if you drop the word proportionally Prof Danny Dorling's book "So you think you know Britain" is continually quoted in reference to Greenfell - "Most children who live above the fourth floor of tower blocks in England are Black or Asian. The higher you go in a building, the darker skinned children tend to be." (I know, I hate quoting it because I cant find his raw numbers anywhere).

My point was that (as far as i am aware) this wasn't due to some actively racist behaviour from anyone directly involved, just due to the social and economic factors of housing in the area and for all Doreen Lawrence has earned a right to be heard in this case shes been bang out of order, as she's seemingly pretty much realised after having a sit down and a think.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

Any idea what is behind the large gap between the black and Asian ethnic groups?
 
wilberforce said:
surely though, a tower block and a private residential home don't have the same fire regulations mate ?
the problem with Grenfell was that there wasn't adequate fire protection between compartments, meaning the fire spread was inevitable ! the oic of the lfb would have been making his plans on all of this being in place, and wouldn't have had a clue that none of this was in place due to cost cutting when it was refurbed a year or so previous
if I had one criticism of him, it was that he should have just said ecvacuate a bit earlier. but, and this is a MASSIVE BUT, they have made senior managers so policy driven that if they veer off it, they fear the sack, or jail for corporate manslaughter. so because of this they are shit scared to step outside of procedure. once again mind, if the correct spec was in the building, the stay put policy would have worked, Christ there wasn't even any fire doors inside ! lfb deal with around 20 high rise flat fires per night, it's their bread and butter, this one was way way out of the ordinary
Click to expand...

This wasn't the problem. Fire did not spread internally between compartments. It spread across the exterior of the building due to the cladding and entered flats at weak points such as kitchen extractors and windows (their UPVC frames buckled, or their glass was blown out).

The OIC of LFB (and it's a she not a he by the way) and its leadership seem to have ignored national guidance to plan for when fire spreads in spite of compartmentalisation. There was enough warning from earlier fires that cladding meant compartmentalisation would fail, and that stay put was therefore an outdated policy. In spite of this, LFB did not adapt their policies and procedures.

This is not to take away from the fact that the refurbishment was carried out in breach of building regulations, resulting in the building being a death trap.
 
Keawyeds said:
Surely that statement alone is defamatory and racist in itself.

What I was saying was if she was going to look for a racism angle, it would have been my original post, but as @ajthemackem rightly pointed out, it wasn't so much race as it was the Tories not giving a shit about poor people living in high rise flats
Click to expand...
So basically there was no racist angle but both you and Doreen found one.
 
janiep said:
This wasn't the problem. Fire did not spread internally between compartments. It spread across the exterior of the building due to the cladding and entered flats at weak points such as kitchen extractors and windows (their UPVC frames buckled, or their glass was blown out).

The OIC of LFB (and it's a she not a he by the way) and its leadership seem to have ignored national guidance to plan for when fire spreads in spite of compartmentalisation. There was enough warning from earlier fires that cladding meant compartmentalisation would fail, and that stay put was therefore an outdated policy. In spite of this, LFB did not adapt their policies and procedures.

This is not to take away from the fact that the refurbishment was carried out in breach of building regulations, resulting in the building being a death trap.
Click to expand...

Stay put is not outdated at all, it is the safest and most effective way of ensuring safety and giving the fire service the best opportunities to fight the fire and rescue people.
 
janiep said:
This wasn't the problem. Fire did not spread internally between compartments. It spread across the exterior of the building due to the cladding and entered flats at weak points such as kitchen extractors and windows (their UPVC frames buckled, or their glass was blown out).

The OIC of LFB (and it's a she not a he by the way) and its leadership seem to have ignored national guidance to plan for when fire spreads in spite of compartmentalisation. There was enough warning from earlier fires that cladding meant compartmentalisation would fail, and that stay put was therefore an outdated policy. In spite of this, LFB did not adapt their policies and procedures.

This is not to take away from the fact that the refurbishment was carried out in breach of building regulations, resulting in the building being a death trap.
Click to expand...

i'm sorry, but that is COMPLETE RUBBISH ! I don't know where you are getting your information from, but there isn't a scrap of truth in it !
I don't, and wouldn't say my source, as it would breach confidence, but trust me, you are a million miles away from the right story
 
wilberforce said:
i'm sorry, but that is COMPLETE RUBBISH ! I don't know where you are getting your information from, but there isn't a scrap of truth in it !
I don't, and wouldn't say my source, as it would breach confidence, but trust me, you are a million miles away from the right story
Click to expand...
You need to break down 'complete rubbish' into which bits are 'complete rubbish' (unless you think it all is) if you want a considered answer.

I'm getting my information from the public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower disaster and its public hearing days and public report which has just been made public. It's also been brillaintly - and publicly - covered throughout its duration by this outstanding podcast: BBC Radio - The Grenfell Tower Inquiry with Eddie Mair - Downloads
 
janiep said:
You need to break down 'complete rubbish' into which bits are 'complete rubbish' (unless you think it all is) if you want a considered answer.

I'm getting my information from the public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower disaster and its public hearing days and public report which has just been made public. It's also been brillaintly - and publicly - covered throughout its duration by this outstanding podcast: BBC Radio - The Grenfell Tower Inquiry with Eddie Mair - Downloads
Click to expand...

you mean the public enquiry that is trying to pass the buck away from the real perpetrators ! I am not having a go at you, but please don't believe what you read in the daily mail etc ! its horseshit !
I am getting my info from someone who is a lead investigator for the enquiry. the fire also spread because of lack of compartmentation, there wasn't any tbh ! it spread like a raging inferno from floor to floor inside the building because of this, as well as the exterior cladding of course
and I know dany cotton is a she, I am a serving ff, she is also a fbu member (not many chief fire officers are) the fbu have raised concerns after EVERY major high rise fire over the last 25 years, they had major concerns over the stay put policy, and told the government to change this. the then fire ministers told them to tittle off away and be done with yourself tbh !
please don't read the gutter press and try to tell me my job, with the greatest respect, I wouldn't tell you how to do yours, because you know it way better than I do
after every major incident, a training package is produced, and we are sent on a training day of how to deal with said incidents in future, this also will include a case study of the incident, how it happened, what went wrong, what can be done to stop it happening again. and these have included all the (major) high rise incidents that have happened over the last 20 years or so
this inquiry has been a whitewash up to now, blaming people who thought they were going to burn to death whilst trying to save as many people as they could
 
wilberforce said:
you mean the public enquiry that is trying to pass the buck away from the real perpetrators ! I am not having a go at you, but please don't believe what you read in the daily mail etc ! its horseshit !
I am getting my info from someone who is a lead investigator for the enquiry. the fire also spread because of lack of compartmentation, there wasn't any tbh ! it spread like a raging inferno from floor to floor inside the building because of this, as well as the exterior cladding of course
and I know dany cotton is a she, I am a serving ff, she is also a fbu member (not many chief fire officers are) the fbu have raised concerns after EVERY major high rise fire over the last 25 years, they had major concerns over the stay put policy, and told the government to change this. the then fire ministers told them to tittle off away and be done with yourself tbh !
please don't read the gutter press and try to tell me my job, with the greatest respect, I wouldn't tell you how to do yours, because you know it way better than I do
after every major incident, a training package is produced, and we are sent on a training day of how to deal with said incidents in future, this also will include a case study of the incident, how it happened, what went wrong, what can be done to stop it happening again. and these have included all the (major) high rise incidents that have happened over the last 20 years or so
this inquiry has been a whitewash up to now, blaming people who thought they were going to burn to death whilst trying to save as many people as they could
Click to expand...
1. No the public enquiry is not trying to pass the buck. It has completed Phase 1, it will now move to Phase 2 and take extensive evidence about the building and its refurbishment. It has already ruled the building was not compliant with the building regs.
2. I do not read the daily mail.
3. IIRC there has been no evidence before the enquiry that the fire spread internally. If your contact is lead investigator, please ask him/her about whether this is right, and if I am right why this evidence has not yet been put before the enquiry, and when it will be. Actually I will qualify that a bit in that the condition of the doors led to some spread of smoke and, possibly though I doubt it, fire. Some did not have proper closing mechanisms (ie they weren't fire doors) and some fire doors were propped open by FB equipment - which I guess is inevitable and not something to be criticised.
4. Interesting re FBU and the concerns it raised. As I say, when I've a moment I'll dig out the bit in the report which says LFB under Dany Cotton did not do what they should have done re planning for fires in clad buildings.
5. Please don't accuse me of reading the gutter press and try to tell me, a lawyer, how to interpret evidence presented to a public enquiry, and how to interpret that enquiry's report. With the greatest respect.
6. LFB officers had no training on how to deal with fires of this type.
7. The inquiry has not 'blamed people who thought they were going to burn to death'. It is high in its praise for the LFB officers in the tower that night.
 
janiep said:
1. No the public enquiry is not trying to pass the buck. It has completed Phase 1, it will now move to Phase 2 and take extensive evidence about the building and its refurbishment. It has already ruled the building was not compliant with the building regs.
2. I do not read the daily mail.
3. IIRC there has been no evidence before the enquiry that the fire spread internally. If your contact is lead investigator, please ask him/her about whether this is right, and if I am right why this evidence has not yet been put before the enquiry, and when it will be. Actually I will qualify that a bit in that the condition of the doors led to some spread of smoke and, possibly though I doubt it, fire. Some did not have proper closing mechanisms (ie they weren't fire doors) and some fire doors were propped open by FB equipment - which I guess is inevitable and not something to be criticised.
4. Interesting re FBU and the concerns it raised. As I say, when I've a moment I'll dig out the bit in the report which says LFB under Dany Cotton did not do what they should have done re planning for fires in clad buildings.
5. Please don't accuse me of reading the gutter press and try to tell me, a lawyer, how to interpret evidence presented to a public enquiry, and how to interpret that enquiry's report. With the greatest respect.
6. LFB officers had no training on how to deal with fires of this type.
7. The inquiry has not 'blamed people who thought they were going to burn to death'. It is high in its praise for the LFB officers in the tower that night.
Click to expand...


www.independent.co.uk

'I was a firefighter at Grenfell Tower. Here's the truth behind the myths'

As politicians and celebrities were making wild allegations about cover-ups, a colleague of mine was attending Grenfell in the aftermath and watching a forensic archaeologist who had spent two hours that morning sifting through ash, trying to reconstruct one small part of a jawbone
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
wilberforce said:
www.independent.co.uk

'I was a firefighter at Grenfell Tower. Here's the truth behind the myths'

As politicians and celebrities were making wild allegations about cover-ups, a colleague of mine was attending Grenfell in the aftermath and watching a forensic archaeologist who had spent two hours that morning sifting through ash, trying to reconstruct one small part of a jawbone
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
Click to expand...
I know all that. These points about why stay put is the best option were all put before the enquiry. It rejected them in this specific case. Stay put is fine in buildings that are built only/principally of concrete, like Grenfell was before it was 'refurbished'.

Frankly, if you in the FB and still think the right advice to give people in a tower block clad with petrochemicals that is on fire is to stay put, then I'm very worried.
 
wilberforce said:
you mean the public enquiry that is trying to pass the buck away from the real perpetrators ! I am not having a go at you, but please don't believe what you read in the daily mail etc ! its horseshit !
I am getting my info from someone who is a lead investigator for the enquiry. the fire also spread because of lack of compartmentation, there wasn't any tbh ! it spread like a raging inferno from floor to floor inside the building because of this, as well as the exterior cladding of course
and I know dany cotton is a she, I am a serving ff, she is also a fbu member (not many chief fire officers are) the fbu have raised concerns after EVERY major high rise fire over the last 25 years, they had major concerns over the stay put policy, and told the government to change this. the then fire ministers told them to tittle off away and be done with yourself tbh !
please don't read the gutter press and try to tell me my job, with the greatest respect, I wouldn't tell you how to do yours, because you know it way better than I do
after every major incident, a training package is produced, and we are sent on a training day of how to deal with said incidents in future, this also will include a case study of the incident, how it happened, what went wrong, what can be done to stop it happening again. and these have included all the (major) high rise incidents that have happened over the last 20 years or so
this inquiry has been a whitewash up to now, blaming people who thought they were going to burn to death whilst trying to save as many people as they could
Click to expand...
Phase 1 was the response to the fire. Therefore allowing for recommendations to be made and implemented whilst the remainder of the inquiry (phase 2) is complete. Phase 2 is looking at the rest of the circumstances which will look at the cladding which has already been declared in breach of building regulations.

I think you are looking at it with blinkered bias. The phase 1 report was extremely critical of the fire service but made a specific point about the actual firefighters not being to blame for what happened. They were rightly critical of senior fire officers and explained the reasons for the criticism. If you can point out the part of the report which blamed the firefighters in the building then I will be shocked
 
duff_man said:
Stay put is not outdated at all, it is the safest and most effective way of ensuring safety and giving the fire service the best opportunities to fight the fire and rescue people.
Click to expand...
It is indeed in buildings built principally of concrete and not clad with petrochemicals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top