London Fire and Aftermath RIP

steddyeddy · 22-06-2017 6:57pm

It seems the residents from the luxury apartments that will house the fire survivors are a bit upset at the less fortunate in life moving in with them. Is there anything more ugly than discrimination?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/rehousing-of-grenfell-tower-families-in-luxury-block-meets-mixed-response

Stheno · 22-06-2017 7:00pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

It seems the residents luxury apartments that will house the fire survivors are a bit upset at the less fortunate in life moving in with them. Is there anything more ugly than discrimination?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/rehousing-of-grenfell-tower-families-in-luxury-block-meets-mixed-response

Apparently fifty odd of the apartments were earmarked for social housing regardless

steddyeddy · 22-06-2017 7:05pm

Stheno wrote: »

Apparently fifty odd of the apartments were earmarked for social housing regardless

That's the thing! The original plans stated a percentage was destined for social housing. People who bought flats are worried the new residents might affect prices. A bit reminiscent of people's fears that people of colour might lower the price of a neighbourhood in the 70s.

arayess · 22-06-2017 7:12pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

It seems the residents luxury apartments that will house the fire survivors are a bit upset at the less fortunate in life moving in with them. Is there anything more ugly than discrimination?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/rehousing-of-grenfell-tower-families-in-luxury-block-meets-mixed-response

in general terms..
if you've paid a ton for your dwelling and others rock up to the neighborhood and get similar for free or knock down price.

nothing wrong with that..

steddyeddy · 22-06-2017 7:21pm

arayess wrote: »

in general terms..
if you've paid a ton for your dwelling and other rock up to the neighborhood and get similar for free or knock down price.

nothing wrong with that..

Well I'm sure those residents were beneficiaries of other unfair advantages that allowed them to buy those apartments. Background, privilige and inherited wealth.

These people suffered hugely, in part because of some money saving scheme. One survivor on Channel 4 News lamented "are we worth less because we have less money". Some might consider this unfair, but I suspect a lot of those are those who were born relatively well off. They usually are.

Stheno · 22-06-2017 7:24pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well I'm sure those residents were beneficiaries of other unfair advantages that allowed them to buy those apartments. Background, privilige and inherited wealth.

These people suffered hugely, in part because of some money saving scheme. One survivor on Channel 4 News lamented "are we worth less because we have less money". Some might consider this unfair, but I suspect a lot of those are those who were born relatively well off. They usually are.

I'd wonder if the owners complaining about this checked the planning conditions tbh

steddyeddy · 22-06-2017 7:30pm

Stheno wrote: »

I'd wonder if the owners complaining about this checked the planning conditions tbh

I think they probrably assumed the worst (people like these moving in) would never happen.

Stheno · 22-06-2017 7:33pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think they probrably assumed the worst (people like these moving in) would never happen.

More money than sense? Or an engrained sense of entitlement?

jackofalltrades · 22-06-2017 8:27pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

It seems the residents luxury apartments that will house the fire survivors are a bit upset at the less fortunate in life moving in with them. Is there anything more ugly than discrimination?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/rehousing-of-grenfell-tower-families-in-luxury-block-meets-mixed-response

I don't really want to get into a discussion about social housing policy, but I think this guy has a fair point here.

Nick, who pays 2,500 a month rent for a one-bedroom flat in the complex, also expressed doubts about the plan. "Who are the real tenants of Grenfell Tower?" he asked.
"It seems as though a lot of flats there were sublet. Now the people whose names are on the tenancies will get rehoused here, and then they'll rent the flats out on the private market.
And the people who were actually living unofficially in the tower at the time of the fire won't get rehoused."

I think there's a whole other debate on who should be given a new house and who shouldn't.

orangerhyme · 22-06-2017 8:38pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I don't really want to get into a discussion about social housing policy, but I think this guy has a fair point here.

I think there's a whole other debate on who should be given a new house and who shouldn't.

Some of Grenfell residents owned their flats, others were renting off private landlords, lots were social housing too.
It's complicated to ascertain who deserves/entitled to what.

A Dub in Glasgo · 22-06-2017 8:59pm

Presumably Nick who pays £2.5k per month for his one bedroom flat knew that some of the building was earmarked for social housing? What does it matter to him if it is a 'deserving' social tenant as long as they are a responsbile social tenant?

Ronaldinho · 22-06-2017 9:58pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well I'm sure those residents were beneficiaries of other unfair advantages that allowed them to buy those apartments. Background, privilige and inherited wealth.

That's an awfully cynical view you have. You speak as if everyone that has some wealth behind them has something to be ashamed of.

steddyeddy · 22-06-2017 10:04pm

Ronaldinho wrote: »

That's an awfully cynical view you have. You speak as if everyone that has some wealth behind them has something to be ashamed of.

Telling the way you ignored the bit where people are looking down on those without wealth behind them. Wealth isn't a bad thing. Assuming it denotes self worth or lack of, is a bad thing. That's what has led to this tragedy and its aftermath.

steddyeddy · 22-06-2017 10:09pm

Ronaldinho wrote: »

That's an awfully cynical view you have. You speak as if everyone that has some wealth behind them has something to be ashamed of.

Anyway you missed my point. These residents state that free housing is unfair for fire survivors. I'm saying that there's plenty in their lives that could be viewed as unfair or unearned.

orangerhyme · 22-06-2017 10:10pm

Ronaldinho wrote: »

That's an awfully cynical view you have. You speak as if everyone that has some wealth behind them has something to be ashamed of.

I genuinely believe there should be a limit to how much inherited wealth someone is entitled to.
Can you imagine how much capital and land it would free up?
It will never happen and is unenforcable but it makes sense to me.

Nothing wrong with being wealthy per se, its when they think they are better than everyone and more deserved of justice.

Ronaldinho · 22-06-2017 10:12pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm saying that there's plenty in their lives that could be viewed as unfair or unearned.

Such as?

steddyeddy · 22-06-2017 10:12pm

orangerhyme wrote: »

I genuinely believe there should be a limit to how much inherited wealth someone is entitled to.
Can you imagine how much capital and land it would free up?
It will never happen and is unenforcable but it makes sense to me.

Nothing wrong with being wealthy per se, its when they think they are better than everyone and more deserved of justice.

Or when they assume that they are in that position because of hard work alone. It lends to the view that poor people are poor simply because of life choices.

steddyeddy · 22-06-2017 10:15pm

Ronaldinho wrote: »

Such as?

Inherited wealth, private school (also unearned) or any other form of social Darwinism. I spend a lot of time with the Oxford set. Although they're lovely it would be silly to assume they haven't had a priviliged upbringing.

Nothing wrong with that but if one or two of these guys bemoan a fire victim getting rehoused, then a look in the mirror is required.

orangerhyme · 22-06-2017 10:17pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Or when they assume that they are in that position because of hard work alone. It lends to the view that poor people are poor simply because of life choices.

Its not even just the money itself thats the advantage but also education, connections, sense of security.

Also unquantifiable things like confidence, esteem, expectations etc...

steddyeddy · 22-06-2017 10:19pm

orangerhyme wrote: »

Its not even just the money itself thats the advantage but also education, connections, sense of security.

Also unquantifiable things like confidence, esteem, expectations etc...

Bingo. They have a safety net so trying to reach that next rung is easier

mikeybrennan · 22-06-2017 10:24pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Bingo. They have a safety net so trying to reach that next rung is easier

I can't take people seriously when they say 'bingo' to make a point

just saying

Ronaldinho · 22-06-2017 10:24pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Inherited wealth, private school (also unearned) or any other form of social Darwinism. I spend a lot of time with the Oxford set. Although they're lovely it would be silly to assume they haven't had a priviliged upbringing.

Nothing wrong with that but if one or two of these guys bemoan a fire victim getting rehoused, then a look in the mirror is required.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you don't know the backgrounds of anyone having purchased property in that development.

Ergo you're just making sweeping assumptions and generalisations.

steddyeddy · 22-06-2017 10:27pm

Ronaldinho wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but you don't know the backgrounds of anyone having purchased property in that development.

Ergo you're just making sweeping assumptions and generalisations.

Listening to the phone in from one of angry residents will assauge any uncertainties one might have about background.

mikeybrennan · 22-06-2017 10:41pm

justice secretary saying cladding is illegal now

jackofalltrades · 23-06-2017 12:35am

steddyeddy wrote: »

Listening to the phone in from one of angry residents will assauge any uncertainties one might have about background.

Did the caller detail the background of herself and the other people in the Guardian's article?
Because unless she did then you're just making assumptions and generalisations.

Samaris · 23-06-2017 5:34am

Ronaldinho wrote: »

That's an awfully cynical view you have. You speak as if everyone that has some wealth behind them has something to be ashamed of.

I suspect only those that - while having wealth behind them and in many cases always having had wealth behind them, denigrate and turn their noses up at sharing an estate with poor people who have recently lost everything - have something to be ashamed of.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Did the caller detail the background of herself and the other people in the Guardian's article?
Because unless she did then you're just making assumptions and generalisations.

S'true. Very likely that a group of people living in the posh side of Kensington in an estate where the starting price is over a million in the richest borough in the UK are middle of the road or below in terms of financial security.. :P

Making the assumption that they're well-off isn't exactly a huge leap of logic. Making the assumption that yer wan was being a snobby bat doesn't need any confirmation of background, just listening to her comments.

tara73 · 23-06-2017 9:56am

mikeybrennan wrote: »

justice secretary saying cladding is illegal now

do you have a link to this? thanks

mikeybrennan · 23-06-2017 10:14am

the insulation and cladding failed safety tests according to guardian

the insulation was more flammable than the cladding

I believe that's a new development as the insulation which is fixed to the building definitely can't be flammable.

tara73 · 23-06-2017 10:25am

mikeybrennan wrote: »

the insulation and cladding failed safety tests according to guardian

the insulation was more flammable than the cladding

I believe that's a new development as the insulation which is fixed to the building definitely can't be flammable.

the cladding has an insulation core too. Can't be immediately flammable either and it definetely was.

why do you not posting links? searched for it but wasn't anything there.

mikeybrennan · 23-06-2017 10:39am

tara73 wrote: »

do you have a link to this? thanks

he said it on question time

tara73 · 23-06-2017 10:47am

mikeybrennan wrote: »

he said it on question time

yes, found something now.

Water John · 23-06-2017 10:49am

The cladding has an internal core. In the cladding in question that core was PE.
So Clad/PE/ Clad.

mikeybrennan · 23-06-2017 10:55am

if the pe cladding and wall insulation are flammable

it's reasonable to guess there are issues with the installation and fire stops which are supposed to close off the vent gap between them in a fire situation,it certainly looked that way

jackofalltrades · 23-06-2017 12:12pm

Samaris wrote: »

S'true. Very likely that a group of people living in the posh side of Kensington in an estate where the starting price is over a million in the richest borough in the UK are middle of the road or below in terms of financial security.. :P

Making the assumption that they're well-off isn't exactly a huge leap of logic. Making the assumption that yer wan was being a snobby bat doesn't need any confirmation of background, just listening to her comments.

My post wasn't questioning whether they were well off or not.
It was replying specifically to Steddyeddys claim of " there's plenty in their lives that could be viewed as unfair or unearned."
He doesn't know these people, where they've came from or what struggles they've had in their lives.
He's pulling assumptions out of thin air, largely driven by his own prejudices.
But hey there's nothing more ugly than discrimination. :rolleyes:

orangerhyme · 23-06-2017 3:00pm

mikeybrennan wrote: »

if the pe cladding and wall insulation are flammable

it's reasonable to guess there are issues with the installation and fire stops which are supposed to close off the vent gap between them in a fire situation,it certainly looked that way

If you look at the fluted/ridged columns here, there doesnt appear to be any fire stops between floors. However on the panels around the windows there does appear to be firestops. To me it looks like the fire spread up the columns and then laterally across the panels.

Then if you look at the video below, which is the earliest video from when the fire started, you can see the column is completely in flames, right up the building.
It looks like a "chimney effect" to me. Ive read that flames will jump up to 10 times its height in cavities in search of oxygen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AYUZ5Snxzo&t=17s

orangerhyme · 23-06-2017 3:08pm

This photo shows similar. If you look at side of the building to the right, you can see the columns were burning and carrying the flames whilst the cladding around the windows remains intact.

deandean · 23-06-2017 6:32pm

Smart lad Orangerhyme. Spot on.
I'd be interested in finding out which apartment the fire started in. I wonder was it on the side facing us in that photo, 3rd floor up and 3rd window in. It looks well scorched.

Water John · 23-06-2017 7:08pm

I think it was on the 4th floor, from memory.

GM228 · 23-06-2017 7:09pm

And so it begins (no doubt the first of many).

161 homes in an apartment in Chalcots, Camden currently being evacuated due to fire concerns over cladding.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40389148?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

tara73 · 23-06-2017 7:30pm

GM228 wrote: »

And so it begins (no doubt the first of many).

161 homes in an apartment in Chalcots, Camden currently being evacuated due to fire concerns over cladding.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40389148?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

Relieved they're doing it. Didn't thought they will.

GM228 · 23-06-2017 8:03pm

800 homes in 5 tower blocks now being evacuated.

Harry Palmr · 23-06-2017 8:09pm

This is going to be a bit of a challenge even for a place the size of London given the immediacy of it all.

tara73 · 23-06-2017 8:26pm

they also suspect the material on schools, hospitals, universities... imagine evacuating hospitals... good lord, great times in the United Kingdom...I just ask myself why this loonheads in doing regulations, councils and building industry allowed this sh** of a cladding to be used. I mean, it's not that it wasn't known that it's that flammable. just crazy and they should all go to jail for manslaughter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/23/camden-tower-block-evacuated-grenfell-fire-raises-cladding-concerns/

GM228 · 23-06-2017 8:34pm

tara73 wrote: »

they also suspect the material on schools, hospitals, universities... imagine evacuating hospitals... good lord, great times in the United Kingdom...I just ask myself why this loonheads in doing regulations, councils and building industry allowed this sh** of a cladding to be used. I mean, it's not that it wasn't known that it's that flammable. just crazy and they should all go to jail for manslaughter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/23/camden-tower-block-evacuated-grenfell-fire-raises-cladding-concerns/

And I wonder is there concerns/checks outside the UK?

Would Ireland have any buildings with cladding?

Also I wonder what the "particular set of circumstances on this estate that make this [evacuation] necessary" are?

mikeybrennan · 23-06-2017 8:53pm

GM228 wrote: »

And I wonder is there concerns/checks outside the UK?

Would Ireland have any buildings with cladding?

Also I wonder what the "particular set of circumstances on this estate that make this [evacuation] necessary" are?

Dubai ,Qatar is riddled with the stuff on high rises

Lack of building regulations

tara73 · 23-06-2017 8:55pm

I wonder, is this cladding a UK product?

mikeybrennan · 23-06-2017 9:00pm

tara73 wrote: »

I wonder, is this cladding a UK product?

Edit : Arconic US company

i think

tara73 · 23-06-2017 9:08pm

mikeybrennan wrote: »

Edit : Arconic US company

i think

yes, thanks, US

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arconic

mikeybrennan · 23-06-2017 10:26pm

Begs the question

If this can slip through the net

What other public safety scandal is lurking out there

prinzeugen · 23-06-2017 10:50pm

GM228 wrote: »

And I wonder is there concerns/checks outside the UK?

Would Ireland have any buildings with cladding?

Also I wonder what the "particular set of circumstances on this estate that make this [evacuation] necessary" are?

Of course there are buildings in Ireland with it. Almost all the boom time apartments and office blocks are clad (even if they look brick, its cladding).

How much is dangerous I don't know but I would bet my wages some of it is lethal.

The "circumstances" I believe are the proximity of the blocks to each other. If one goes up, any burning material that comes off could ignite another block if the wind is blowing the right way.

London Fire and Aftermath RIP

Comments