London fire: Twelve confirmed dead but police expect further fatalities after tower block blaze

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Co'tor Shas**

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/jun/14/grenfell-tower-major-fire-london-apartment-block-white-city-latimer-road

Summary

At least 12 people have died after a huge fire engulfed a tower block in west London at 1am on Wednesday. Police have said the death toll is likely to rise.
A huge relief effort has swung into action, with charity workers and volunteers providing aid for those affected by the fire. Residents have voiced their anger at a lack of coordination from the council or other authorities.

Transport for London suspended services on the Circle and Hammersmith and City tube lines between Hammersmith and Edgware Road. The A40 Westway is closed in both directions and there have been bus diversions. Check here for the latest transport updates.

The tower is 24 storeys high and contains 120 flats. A local councillor said it is home to between 400 and 600 people.

More than 200 firefighters tackled the blaze at its peak with more than 40 engines.

The London ambulance service said 68 patients were taken to six hospitals across London, 18 of whom are receiving critical care, while a further 10 patients self-presented at hospitals.
London fire brigade said it had reached the top of the tower block by early evening on Wednesday. No more survivors are expected to be found. Emergency services used drones to access the flats on the highest levels.

Pockets of fire were still burning on Wednesday evening and firefighters will remain on the scene overnight.

Witnesses described screams of terror and people jumping in an attempt to reach safety.

A baby was caught by a member of the public after being dropped from the ninth or 10th floor, a witness said.

Streets around the tower have been sealed off and residents in their houses told to move out.

Falling debris also caused nearby flats to be evacuated.

The fire brigade has called it an “unprecedented incident” and said the cause of the blaze is unknown.

The Grenfell Action Group, a residents’ association, repeatedly warned about the risk of fire in the tower and claimed that a major blaze was narrowly averted after a power surge in 2013. The group said its concerns were dismissed.

Experts said the fire spread at unusual speed and raised concerns whether the cladding may have contributed to this. The tower, which was built in 1974, recently underwent a major refurbishment.
The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, declared the fire a major incident.

The Met has an emergency number for anyone concerned for loved ones. The Casualty Bureau number is 0800 0961 233.

Hope everyone it alright over there.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Terrible all around. . .

I've been seeing some stuff that this could VERY easily have been avoided if a number of very small things had been done.

**Grey Templar**

Yeah, apparently the firecodes had a loophole which allowed for unsafe exterior sheeting to be used. The sheeting is, according to an article I read, banned in the US. But by a loophole is allowed in the UK.

Also they were saying that lots of people were injured because of the standard practice of staying put till the firemen come to rescue you when fleeing would have been the safer path.

**nareik**

What a terrible tragedy :(.

Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, apparently the firecodes had a loophole which allowed for unsafe exterior sheeting to be used. The sheeting is, according to an article I read, banned in the US. But by a loophole is allowed in the UK.

Also they were saying that lots of people were injured because of the standard practice of staying put till the firemen come to rescue you when fleeing would have been the safer path.

Apparently one woman stayed put, but saved her family by blocking her drains and flooding her flat.

I wonder if insurance will refuse to pay out due to water damage?!

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

nareik wrote:
What a terrible tragedy :(.

Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, apparently the firecodes had a loophole which allowed for unsafe exterior sheeting to be used. The sheeting is, according to an article I read, banned in the US. But by a loophole is allowed in the UK.

Also they were saying that lots of people were injured because of the standard practice of staying put till the firemen come to rescue you when fleeing would have been the safer path.
Apparently one woman stayed put, but saved her family by blocking her drains and flooding her flat.

I wonder if insurance will refuse to pay out due to water damage?!

Assuming she has any insurance cover. Sadly those affected aren't exactly the wealthiest. Many survive on state benefits propping up minimum wage, insecure jobs. Stuff like contents insurance is a luxury they may not be able to afford.

**redleger**

Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, apparently the firecodes had a loophole which allowed for unsafe exterior sheeting to be used. The sheeting is, according to an article I read, banned in the US. But by a loophole is allowed in the UK.

Also they were saying that lots of people were injured because of the standard practice of staying put till the firemen come to rescue you when fleeing would have been the safer path.

Why in the flying feth would anyone just sit tight and wait to be rescued when they had the means to rescue themselves? This is a tragedy, but the statement alone makes me wonder about the differences of thought between the UK and America. I would hope no one would ever sit around and wait on someone to help them when they had the means to help them selves. I think that states alot about more than just the tragedy in the fire, and could be a social attitude that is very dangerous.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

The design theory of the building is that each individual flat acts as a firebox.

So, if my front room goes up, it's designed to keep the fire just in my flat - so it's safer for others to stay put.

Issue here was a very warm night meant windows were open, and flammable cladding. Once the outside went up, flames were carried inside.

**Frazzled**

redleger wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, apparently the firecodes had a loophole which allowed for unsafe exterior sheeting to be used. The sheeting is, according to an article I read, banned in the US. But by a loophole is allowed in the UK.

Also they were saying that lots of people were injured because of the standard practice of staying put till the firemen come to rescue you when fleeing would have been the safer path.

Why in the flying feth would anyone just sit tight and wait to be rescued when they had the means to rescue themselves? This is a tragedy, but the statement alone makes me wonder about the differences of thought between the UK and America. I would hope no one would ever sit around and wait on someone to help them when they had the means to help them selves. I think that states alot about more than just the tragedy in the fire, and could be a social attitude that is very dangerous.

Also smoke means you can't see, or breath.

**Galas**

Frazzled wrote:
redleger wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, apparently the firecodes had a loophole which allowed for unsafe exterior sheeting to be used. The sheeting is, according to an article I read, banned in the US. But by a loophole is allowed in the UK.

Also they were saying that lots of people were injured because of the standard practice of staying put till the firemen come to rescue you when fleeing would have been the safer path.

Why in the flying feth would anyone just sit tight and wait to be rescued when they had the means to rescue themselves? This is a tragedy, but the statement alone makes me wonder about the differences of thought between the UK and America. I would hope no one would ever sit around and wait on someone to help them when they had the means to help them selves. I think that states alot about more than just the tragedy in the fire, and could be a social attitude that is very dangerous.

Also smoke means you can't see, or breath.

Also panic. People in the middle of a disaster can react in all different and unexpected ways.
I can agree with what Redleger say in the theory, but in the practique, every situation it is own world.

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

It's important to note that a number of previous tower block fires have occurred where the buildings functioned as designed and staying put (even with the fire next door, above or below you) was the best move

attempting to evacuate means opening your door which may mean letting fire (or smoke) which is outside your flat in with fatal results

Sadly in this case the flammable cladding, design of the building post refurbishment (it seems to have created chimney effects across the outside of the building), open windows due to the hot weather

....& possibly missing fire doors based on what's being found in other London tower blocks (when doors have been damaged due to burglaries, vandalism etc fire doors are replaced with cheaper not fireproof alternatived)

(and even worse from the sound of it language issues than meant that even when the fire service did go in to rescue people some still thought it would be safer to stay put)

all combined to create this disaster

**Kilkrazy**

redleger wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, apparently the firecodes had a loophole which allowed for unsafe exterior sheeting to be used. The sheeting is, according to an article I read, banned in the US. But by a loophole is allowed in the UK.

Also they were saying that lots of people were injured because of the standard practice of staying put till the firemen come to rescue you when fleeing would have been the safer path.

Why in the flying feth would anyone just sit tight and wait to be rescued when they had the means to rescue themselves? This is a tragedy, but the statement alone makes me wonder about the differences of thought between the UK and America. I would hope no one would ever sit around and wait on someone to help them when they had the means to help them selves. I think that states alot about more than just the tragedy in the fire, and could be a social attitude that is very dangerous.

These blocks are 24 stories high. People on the top floor would have to walk down 24 floors against the upcoming movement of firefighters and rescuers, while risking smoke inhalation. There is only one stairwell (a major design flaw, but a factor that has to be considered.)

As said by others, a well designed individual flat, with a fireproof door and a sprinkler system, actually is a safe place to wait out a tower block fire in the absence of ground to roof inflammable exterior cladding (another major design flaw.) These flats of course did not have a sprinkler system (yet another major design flaw.)

To put it another way, if people on the upper floors had rushed out to flee down the stairs, the forensic teams probably now would be finding a lot of bodies on the stairs instead of in their flats.
From the above, it follows that the crucial problem is a combination of three major design flaws, rather than a social attitude of passively waiting to be rescued.

**Grey Templar**

Well, one thing I saw said that if people had fled most if not all could have escaped. The way the fire spread meant that fleeing was in-fact the better option. Outside of the potential for people getting trampled of course.

Fire escape plans should probably be tailored to specific buildings instead of having a "one size fits all" plan for what the public is supposed to do in the event of a fire. Like if you reside in X building, follow plan X which is stay in place. If you live in a Y type building, using the fire escapes and stairwells is the safest option. Etc...

**feeder**

Grey Templar wrote:
Well, one thing I saw said that if people had fled most if not all could have escaped. The way the fire spread meant that fleeing was in-fact the better option. Outside of the potential for people getting trampled of course.

Fire escape plans should probably be tailored to specific buildings instead of having a "one size fits all" plan for what the public is supposed to do in the event of a fire. Like if you reside in X building, follow plan X which is stay in place. If you live in a Y type building, using the fire escapes and stairwells is the safest option. Etc...

Exactly. And the Grenfell Tower was a X type building, albeit one that was shamefully compromised. Did the people living there know that? The fact that most of them stayed put makes that unlikely.

**Kilkrazy**

A month on, it is now easy to see what happened.

If the enquiry is ever completed and gives an honest account, this is what it will say.

At every stage of the process, safety was compromised in order to save money.

Cheaper, less fire resistant cladding was used.
It had been certified safe in a cheap safety test.
The council saved a couple of hundred K by not installing sprinklers and fireproof doors.
Fire inspection and safety certification duties were taken away from the fire service to save money.
The fire service doesn't have any ladders over 30m tall, because they would cost money.
The 30m tall ladder they do have used to be routinely despatched to tower fires, but they stopped that a few years ado, to save money.

None of these issues can be seen as criminal in itself, and not one single person or even a committee owned enough of the process to be held responsible.

But still it added up to a disaster.

**Kilkrazy**

Grenfell Tower: Corporate manslaughter considered by police

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40747241

This will be huge if it goes ahead.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Grenfell Tower: Corporate manslaughter considered by police

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40747241

This will be huge if it goes ahead.

I for one hope it does go forward, but I would hope even more that it's an honest proceeding.

**A Town Called Malus**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Grenfell Tower: Corporate manslaughter considered by police

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40747241

This will be huge if it goes ahead.

Hopefully it does. The change to our corporate manslaughter law in 2007 has at least made it possible for corporate manslaughter convictions, though sadly too late for some people who have died due to corporate actions and attitudes.

**jhe90**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Grenfell Tower: Corporate manslaughter considered by police

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40747241

This will be huge if it goes ahead.

Hopefully it does. The change to our corporate manslaughter law in 2007 has at least made it possible for corporate manslaughter convictions, though sadly too late for some people who have died due to corporate actions and attitudes.

Its a massive investigation.
They calling in heads of various companies, councils, and more.

**nfe**

Am I right in thinking that no individual can be punished beyond potentially losing their job, though? I understand that the only penalty that can be imposed for corporate manslaughter is a fine payable by an organisation?

**Kilkrazy**

I think you're right about that. The potential fines are enormous, though.

The thing is, this case makes it practically impossible to point the finger of blame at any individual. I'm not even sure you can blame any one organisation.

The council used reputable builders.
The builders used an installation system that was considered safe.
The tiles were certified safe using an approved method (desktop testing, which obviously needs to get disapproved.)

The government overall made the rules that allowed the three preceding organisations to create a cascade chain of catastrophe, and also made the rules that took fire safety inspections away from the fire brigade.

The entire system of building regulations and inspection is to blame.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I think you're right about that. The potential fines are enormous, though.

The thing is, this case makes it practically impossible to point the finger of blame at any individual. I'm not even sure you can blame any one organisation.

The council used reputable builders.
The builders used an installation system that was considered safe.
The tiles were certified safe using an approved method (desktop testing, which obviously needs to get disapproved.)

The government overall made the rules that allowed the three preceding organisations to create a cascade chain of catastrophe, and also made the rules that took fire safety inspections away from the fire brigade.

The entire system of building regulations and inspection is to blame.

I think it mentioned in the article you posted KK, that the fine has no upper limit.

**Spetulhu**

nfe wrote:
Am I right in thinking that no individual can be punished beyond potentially losing their job, though? I understand that the only penalty that can be imposed for corporate manslaughter is a fine payable by an organisation?

Absolutely so, though the article does say "Individuals cannot be charged with corporate manslaughter, an offence which is intended to work "in conjunction" with other forms of accountability". So there could be other charges against individuals, if it looks like someone cut corners or should have been aware something was wrong but didn't take measures to correct it. It's not exactly uncommon for even reputable construction companies to systematically ignore problems while building - the common "late fees" for big projects is often so big that it's cheaper and easier to just slap it together in time, somehow, and then deal with complaints and additional repairs after handing over the site to the owner.

**Darkjim**

Here's an example of a company being fined for corporate manslaughter, but the directors being jailed for HWSA (Health and Safety at Work Act) breaches.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/company-directors-jailed-following-/

There has been another in the north-west recently I think. Not sure whether it would extend to deaths caused other than to workers.

**Grey Templar**

Though in this case it seems unlikely that any individual person could be held negligent. The building was technically up to code and followed all regulations. Its that those codes and regulations were not actually safe.

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

I think that's very much not clear yet

the codes and regulations clearly have problems

(mainly letting companies test 'perfect' instalations rather than real world ones with typical builders corner cutting, and even worse 'guess' how fire resistant new stuff would be based on not very similar existing products)

but we still need to establish whether the work done on the block during the recent refit even managed to live up to the woeful standards we currently have, its quite possible the council, the architect, the main builder or the sub contractors cut corners as corporate entities, and that individual builders bodged the installation of what was provided

(for example cutting holes in firebreak walls to fit stuff as has been caught in some other tower blocks since testing has begun)

**master of ordinance**

Wait, has another block caught fire or is this old Grenfield news?

**Grey Templar**

OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
I think that's very much not clear yet

the codes and regulations clearly have problems

(mainly letting companies test 'perfect' instalations rather than real world ones with typical builders corner cutting, and even worse 'guess' how fire resistant new stuff would be based on not very similar existing products)

but we still need to establish whether the work done on the block during the recent refit even managed to live up to the woeful standards we currently have, its quite possible the council, the architect, the main builder or the sub contractors cut corners as corporate entities, and that individual builders bodged the installation of what was provided

(for example cutting holes in firebreak walls to fit stuff as has been caught in some other tower blocks since testing has begun)

I don't think that any evidence was found that the codes were violated with this building. I think thats why everybody is so pissed off. It's a building which is built exactly the code and should be safe. However the safety testing which the code bases its safety compliance on is flawed.

Basically the code allows this particular type of cladding to be used because it passes X safety test. However the safety test itself is flawed because it isn't based on real world conditions. Yet the code still uses it, and thus the material is still legal to use.

It's sort of like the following (silly) example,

A certain safety law legislates that you must have a minimum of 1 layer of Unobtainium shielding on your space ship to pass the safety requirements. This law was passed to protect people from vicious Space Gerbils attacking your ships. However the safety law is flawed because they only used small baby space gerbils in the testing, most wild space gerbils are able to bite through 3 layers of Unobtainium.

Everybody follows the safety code to the letter, with the bare minimum of 1 layer of shielding. It however is not sufficient. But the fault doesn't lie with the people who are following the code, because they do not know that wild space gerbils can bite through up to 3 layers. They think the code is sufficient. The fault lies with the people who made the code itself.