Doreen Lawrence says Grenfell tragedy was linked to racism

[pavarotti1980]

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.

To be fair to LFB, they were oblivious to the cladding. They didnt have up to date information on Grenfell and had previously sent people to assess the the building during the refurbishment who werent qualified to do so. From an organisational point of view that is negligent.

 

[wilberforce]

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.

did they know it was clad in cladding that would burn ? do you have any evidence ?
I did not know that any building in this country was fitted with materials that would burn ! I would have done exactly the same as the crew that attended the initial fire that night. why on earth would you clad ANY building in a material that burns so rapidly ?
I know the pump that put the fire out in the kitchen where it started were putting the stop message in sat on the appliance, when the gaffer looked up and saw a wall of flames licking up the building, so in his mind, the fire was out, no more resources were needed

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

they are putting the blame on the lfb
lfb will get their arses kicked, because policy and procedure went out of the window that night, but if they followed p&p then more people would have lost their lives ! they broke many a rule that night. so rightly or wrongly they will get an improvement notice
some ffs wore 10 and 11 times, climbing to the top of the building recuing people, they were on their knees ! how lfb didn't lose 3 to 7 ffs that night is a complete miracle tbh

 

[pavarotti1980]

they are putting the blame on the lfb
lfb will get their arses kicked, because policy and procedure went out of the window that night, but if they followed p&p then more people would have lost their lives ! they broke many a rule that night. so rightly or wrongly they will get an improvement notice
some ffs wore 10 and 11 times, climbing to the top of the building recuing people, they were on their knees ! how lfb didn't lose 3 to 7 ffs that night is a complete miracle tbh

i thought the report said that "Stay put" meant more people lost their lives

 

[Deleted member 5265]

i thought the report said that "Stay put" meant more people lost their lives

It did.

 

[pavarotti1980]

The LFB: planning and preparation
2.17 Planning and preparation by the LFB for fires in high-rise buildings is examined in Chapter 27. National guidance requires fire and rescue services to draw up contingency evacuation plans for dealing with fires in high-rise buildings that spread beyond the compartment of origin causing a “stay put” strategy to become untenable. They should understand, for any given high-rise building in their area, when a partial or full evacuation might become necessary and provide appropriate training to incident commanders.
2.18 The LFB’s policy for fighting fires in high-rise buildings, PN633, envisages that evacuation of a high-rise residential building may be necessary and suggests that during familiarisation visits officers consider evacuation arrangements. However, the LFB’s preparation and planning for a fire such as that at Grenfell Tower was gravely inadequate. In particular:
a. The otherwise experienced incident commanders and senior officers attending the fire had received no training in the particular dangers associated with combustible cladding, even though some senior officers were aware of similar fires that had occurred in other

 

[Deleted member 5265]

did they know it was clad in cladding that would burn ? do you have any evidence ?
I did not know that any building in this country was fitted with materials that would burn ! I would have done exactly the same as the crew that attended the initial fire that night. why on earth would you clad ANY building in a material that burns so rapidly ?
I know the pump that put the fire out in the kitchen where it started were putting the stop message in sat on the appliance, when the gaffer looked up and saw a wall of flames licking up the building, so in his mind, the fire was out, no more resources were needed


they are putting the blame on the lfb
lfb will get their arses kicked, because policy and procedure went out of the window that night, but if they followed p&p then more people would have lost their lives ! they broke many a rule that night. so rightly or wrongly they will get an improvement notice
some ffs wore 10 and 11 times, climbing to the top of the building recuing people, they were on their knees ! how lfb didn't lose 3 to 7 ffs that night is a complete miracle tbh

They're putting the blame on SENIOR MANAGEMENT of LFB, not the lads and lasses who went into the tower that night. You need to take your blinkers off, criticism of those at the top doesnt mean every fire fighter fucked up, far from it. As it happens I agree with you that it's a miracle no fire fighters died.

 

[pavarotti1980]

The LFB: at the incident ground
2.19 My findings about operations on the incident ground are to be found in Chapter 28. The firefighters who attended the tower displayed extraordinary courage and selfless devotion to duty, but the first incident commanders, although experienced, were of relatively junior rank. They were faced with a situation for which they had not been properly prepared. In particular:
a. None of them seem to have been able to conceive of the possibility of a general failure of compartmentation or of a need for mass evacuation; they neither truly seized control of the situation nor were able to change strategy.
b. Once it was clear that the fire was out of control and that compartmentation had failed, a decision should have been taken to organise the evacuation of the tower while that remained possible. That decision could and should have been made between 01.30 and 01.50 and would be likely to have resulted in fewer fatalities. The best part of an hour was lost before AC Roe revoked the “stay put” advice.
c. The LFB continued to rely on the “stay put” strategy in place for Grenfell Tower which was not questioned, notwithstanding all the early indications that the building had suffered a total failure of compartmentation.
d. No systematic arrangements were made for information about the number and source of FSG calls to be communicated to the incident commanders. Similarly, information about the internal spread of the fire and the results of rescue operations was not effectively shared with incident commanders; pictures from the police helicopter were not available to them.
e. There were serious deficiencies in command and control. Although additional resources arrived swiftly, some senior officers failed to give sufficient practical support or inform themselves quickly enough of conditions and operations within the building.
f. Many of the physical or electronic communication systems did not work properly, such as the command support system (CSS) on the command units.

 

[Deleted User 2893]

did they know it was clad in cladding that would burn ? do you have any evidence ?
I did not know that any building in this country was fitted with materials that would burn ! I would have done exactly the same as the crew that attended the initial fire that night. why on earth would you clad ANY building in a material that burns so rapidly ?
I know the pump that put the fire out in the kitchen where it started were putting the stop message in sat on the appliance, when the gaffer looked up and saw a wall of flames licking up the building, so in his mind, the fire was out, no more resources were needed


they are putting the blame on the lfb
lfb will get their arses kicked, because policy and procedure went out of the window that night, but if they followed p&p then more people would have lost their lives ! they broke many a rule that night. so rightly or wrongly they will get an improvement notice
some ffs wore 10 and 11 times, climbing to the top of the building recuing people, they were on their knees ! how lfb didn't lose 3 to 7 ffs that night is a complete miracle tbh

Haway man, what do you know about fires and stuff? An SMB armchair expert has spoken and you should bow to her superior knowledge.

From speaking to LFB about that night they have said that pretty much every policy and rule in place to protect firefighters at incidents was ignored for the greater good of attempting to save members of the public. Every member of the emergency services there that night broke rules to do the right thing, it’s why they joined, to help people in need.

To have people like Lawerence then trying to turn this into a racism row is an insult to everyone who worked that night. If she had any dignity she would resign, after all if a white member of the Lords had said the same but with the tables turned she would be in outrage calling for them to be stripped of the title.

 

[bassman]

Discuss.

You misspelled Disgrace.

 

[wilberforce]

i thought the report said that "Stay put" meant more people lost their lives

it did, but that is policy, and if you read the report I posted, it is a policy for a reason ! if the building is up to spec, then fire spread would NEVER happen. how would a lfb senior manager know that it wasn't, and that the cladding was like a torch, and there wasn't any compartments inside the building ? (which there wasn't because of cost cutting) he would have made every decision thinking that building was up to standard, why would he think any different ? therefore stay put is the best policy

They're putting the blame on SENIOR MANAGEMENT of LFB, not the lads and lasses who went into the tower that night. You need to take your blinkers off, criticism of those at the top doesnt mean every fire fighter fucked up, far from it. As it happens I agree with you that it's a miracle no fire fighters died.

we are a team, and all in it together
the reason managers will get the blame that night is because, as some rocked up, they reverted back to ff's. they knew it was out of control, but were SO desperate to get in to save a life, they threw a ba set on and ran up the building (instead of rightly taking over the incident)
that is where policy went wrong, they shouldn't have done it, but they just had to help the poor people inside. that is where they will get done !
look I have spoken to ffs who were there that night, have a friend who is part of the enquiry. so with the greatest of respect again (as I am not arguing, I am just stating the facts to debate here) don't read a enquiry and base your evidence on that alone, I mean when has any government in this country influenced reports/enquiries of a significant nature, to lean in their direction.....

Haway man, what do you know about fires and stuff? An SMB armchair expert has spoken and you should bow to her superior knowledge.

From speaking to LFB about that night they have said that pretty much every policy and rule in place to protect firefighters at incidents was ignored for the greater good of attempting to save members of the public. Every member of the emergency services there that night broke rules to do the right thing, it’s why they joined, to help people in need.

To have people like Lawerence then trying to turn this into a racism row is an insult to everyone who worked that night. If she had any dignity she would resign, after all if a white member of the Lords had said the same but with the tables turned she would be in outrage calling for them to be stripped of the title.

excellent post mate
and I concur, the police and ambulance service were fantastic that night, breaking many of their own rules too

 

[Deleted member 5265]

don't read a enquiry and base your evidence on that alone, I mean when has any government in this country influenced reports/enquiries of a significant nature, to lean in their direction.....

I'll just quote that bit. I'm sorry you don't have faith in the enquiry. I do. Very strong trust in its process, it's extensive consideration of written and live evidence, and its robust intelligence and independence. If you don't, there's little more to debate with you about it.

I would only add that the brother of a very good friend of mine is a faith leader of a church nearby, one of the ones that became a centre in the aftermath. I've had a lot of intel from her.

 

[wilberforce]

btw I agree the stay put policy should have been abandoned about an hour or so earlier
but, they have put these policies in place so that they can retrospectively hold senior managers to account, therefore managers are shit scared to make a call outside of policy, because if they do, and it goes wrong, they are in the dock for corporate manslaughter, lose their job, and go to jail
that is what's massively wrong with the system !

I'll just quote that bit. I'm sorry you don't have faith in the enquiry. I do. Very strong trust in its process, it's extensive consideration of written and live evidence, and its robust intelligence and independence. If you don't, there's little more to debate with you about it.

I would only add that the brother of a very good friend of mine is a faith leader of a church nearby, one of the ones that became a centre in the aftermath. I've had a lot of intel from her.

therefore my debate is over, all because you choose not to believe me btw
did your faith leader tell you how many missing posters are still up on the wall at Grenfell ? the official death toll is 72, but there are hundreds missing, it was the last night of Diwali or Ramadan (pardron me for not remembering which one) on the night, meaning families have massive parties to celebrate, all going round to each others houses. so it isn't actually known how many people actually died, as most remains have just disintegrated in the severe heat
of course this hasn't ever been reported in the press, as they wouldn't want the death toll to go any higher, would they...…..

 

[pavarotti1980]

it did, but that is policy, and if you read the report I posted, it is a policy for a reason ! if the building is up to spec, then fire spread would NEVER happen. how would a lfb senior manager know that it wasn't, and that the cladding was like a torch, and there wasn't any compartments inside the building ? (which there wasn't because of cost cutting) he would have made every decision thinking that building was up to standard, why would he think any different ? therefore stay put is the best policy

By assessing the refurbishment correctly with suitably trained members of staff and having an up to date information about Grenfell as stated in the report:

2.18 The LFB’s policy for fighting fires in high-rise buildings, PN633, envisages that evacuation of a high-rise residential building may be necessary and suggests that during familiarisation visits officers consider evacuation arrangements. However, the LFB’s preparation and planning for a fire such as that at Grenfell Tower was gravely inadequate. In particular:
a. The otherwise experienced incident commanders and senior officers attending the fire had received no training in the particular dangers associated with combustible cladding, even though some senior officers were aware of similar fires

I would also expect an experienced firefighter looking at a building and seeing it go up as it did maybe, just maybe have thought "oh this isnt normal" and act accordingly. But it seems that position was never questioned either

 

[wilberforce]

By assessing the refurbishment correctly with suitably trained members of staff and having an up to date information about Grenfell as stated in the report:

2.18 The LFB’s policy for fighting fires in high-rise buildings, PN633, envisages that evacuation of a high-rise residential building may be necessary and suggests that during familiarisation visits officers consider evacuation arrangements. However, the LFB’s preparation and planning for a fire such as that at Grenfell Tower was gravely inadequate. In particular:
a. The otherwise experienced incident commanders and senior officers attending the fire had received no training in the particular dangers associated with combustible cladding, even though some senior officers were aware of similar fires

I would also expect an experienced firefighter looking at a building and seeing it go up as it did maybe, just maybe have thought "oh this isnt normal" and act accordingly. But it seems that position was never questioned either

I don't dispute that. but as previously stated, the senior officer in charge of that building would have expected fire regulations to be conformed to, therfore the stay put policy is there for a reason ! he would have made all decisions based on it being fire proof
I'm not going to go round in circles here mate, I've criticised him for nor evacuation an hour earlier. but like my previous post, he will have been shit scared to make that judgement call be a use of the reasons I stated

 

[pavarotti1980]

I don't dispute that. but as previously stated, the senior officer in charge of that building would have expected fire regulations to be conformed to, therfore the stay put policy is there for a reason ! he would have made all decisions based on it being fire proof
I'm not going to go round in circles here mate, I've criticised him for nor evacuation an hour earlier. but like my previous post, he will have been shit scared to make that judgement call be a use of the reasons I stated

Why should he be scared of making a decision based on experience and what was visible at the time?

 

[wilberforce]

Why should he be scared of making a decision based on experience and what was visible at the time?

because they go to jail if they make the wrong one
I know its there to protect people, but at incidents like that, which was way out of the ordinary, and unprecedented. it acts as a major stopping point to the right rationale of a decision that needs to be made

 

[pavarotti1980]

because they go to jail if they make the wrong one
I know its there to protect people, but at incidents like that, which was way out of the ordinary, and unprecedented. it acts as a major stopping point to the right rationale of a decision that needs to be made

Therefore you agree that the people who made the decision to stay put and not change quickly enough (resulting in more deaths) were wrong and should be criticised accordingly. Potentially they could be prosecuted but at the very least LFB will most likely be prosecuted for corporate manslaughter. I will stick my neck on the line and say alongside all other organisations/companies involved.

 

[wilberforce]

Therefore you agree that the people who made the decision to stay put and not change quickly enough (resulting in more deaths) were wrong and should be criticised accordingly. Potentially they could be prosecuted but at the very least LFB will most likely be prosecuted for corporate manslaughter. I will stick my neck on the line and say alongside all other organisations/companies involved.

I think it should have been made earlier yes (and that might be in hindsight btw, I wouldn't have want to make that call on the night to be totally honest) but the reasons i have stated are the factors as to why they weren't made earlier
the managers didn't want to go to jail. so if anything comes out of this half of the enquiry, is that these p&p need looking at MASSIVELY ! every fire that you attend is different, and decisions should be made on the incident you are attending alone, not from some standard operating procedure that tells you that you can only do a or b !

 

[pavarotti1980]

I think it should have been made earlier yes (and that might be in hindsight btw, I wouldn't have want to make that call on the night to be totally honest) but the reasons i have stated are the factors as to why they weren't made earlier
the managers didn't want to go to jail. so if anything comes out of this half of the enquiry, is that these p&p need looking at MASSIVELY ! every fire that you attend is different, and decisions should be made on the incident you are attending alone, not from some standard operating procedure that tells you that you can only do a or b !

You have just posted and backed up the exact reason why LFB are being criticised so much. It seems that the fire service is very hierarchical and nobody is able to question decision making which in times like Grenfell had fatal consequences.

 

[Deleted User 2893]

I'll just quote that bit. I'm sorry you don't have faith in the enquiry. I do. Very strong trust in its process, it's extensive consideration of written and live evidence, and its robust intelligence and independence. If you don't, there's little more to debate with you about it.

I would only add that the brother of a very good friend of mine is a faith leader of a church nearby, one of the ones that became a centre in the aftermath. I've had a lot of intel from her.

You have had information from a source. It is not intel until it is corroborated.

The fact they are a faith leader opens up many arguments about their credibility.

I don't dispute that. but as previously stated, the senior officer in charge of that building would have expected fire regulations to be conformed to, therfore the stay put policy is there for a reason ! he would have made all decisions based on it being fire proof
I'm not going to go round in circles here mate, I've criticised him for nor evacuation an hour earlier. but like my previous post, he will have been shit scared to make that judgement call be a use of the reasons I stated

He should have began testing the cladding in the mobile lab in the back of the truck to see if it was flammable or not. Then he could have asked everyone just to hang on a bit while he came up with another plan.