Canal World

Join us absolutely Free in just two minutes to gain access to all our features. Once registered, you will be able to submit new content and get answers to your all your canal & boating questions all for absolutely Free!


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


churchward last won the day on May 12

churchward had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

636 Excellent


About churchward

  • Birthday 04/11/58

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Occupation
  • Boat Name
    NB Lady Moonlight
  • Boat Location

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

9,441 profile views
  1. Not with the other towers around the country that have suspect cladding.
  2. Yes indeed. In an interview this morning the council are saying the Fire Service advised the buildings were not safe for the reasons you say. This was even if they put a fire engine outside the buildings 24X7. So I think the Council in these circumstances have no choice to evacuate the towers no matter the inconvenience. Better that than being killed in a fire if one broke out.
  3. I have been listening to a news report interviewing a Cambden Councillor about the evacuation. It seems that the evacuation has been triggered by finding an other issue(s) than the cladding. They were hoping to deal with the cladding issue by having fire watchers 24 hours a day but this other matter (they did not explain what that was) had tipped the balance towards evacuation. One wonders of course what this other matter is.
  4. Yes indeed that is a serious issue. Someone is likely to have known that the cladding was the wrong type and may even constructively ordered the cheaper flammable one to make a little extra profit! Someone must also have signed off the building works too. If it is all proved it is disgraceful and the company desrves all they get and more importantly the individuals too. The trouble is there will be many people I assume in these companies who will be innocent and depend on their job for their income. So it does not help everyone to make the company go bust.
  5. To me it seems Camden are doing the right things. The person in the video in your link from the residents assoc. was explaining how the council have been involved and how they have had fire martials/spotters in the towers since Grenfell. It sounds like they and the residents are doing their best even if some of them do not like getting told to move out now.
  6. Sure, although I have no idea if that has already been done already or not for residents. It is not important that we know that compared to the residents of the tower blocks. I would have thought an evacuation strategy was right if the tower was at risk of cladding spreading a fire. However the fire was so fast at Grenfell it may not have helped everyone if they started to evacuate straight away especially given the time of night. If it is known that a tower block has flammable cladding unless I was confident I could evacuate the Tower in 15-20 minutes at any hour of the day I would be re housing people until the building can be made safe. That is a very disruptive for people but there is a duty of care and when you know these lives are at risk is see little other sensible action. Another way would be to advise people to move out (and help them rehouse temporarily) but say they can stay if they sign a document that sayz they understand the risk they are taking by doing so. I do not see that as satisfactory though. I am not sure what you mean? If you mean the cladding fitted was not what they ordered then it does seem so in Cambden. I expect the Council will want to take them to court and try and claw back the costs for re-cladding with the right material and the costs of re-homing people while they do so.
  7. They may be giving them that option but it is not the only one and they have block booked hotels and other means to house people. It is bound to be inconvenient but what is an authority supposed to do? If they keep people in the Tower and their is a similar fire to Grenfell I can think of the first people that would criticise them for killing the residents when they new the building was a danger in a fire. We have to ask ourselves what would we do if we were responsible and faced with the same situation they are today knowing that the cladding needs to be removed and could be very dangerous in a fire.
  8. The stay put strategy only works in a building that is able to constrain the fire on a single floor or flat for a significant amount of time, at least an hour is the norm. The trouble with the Grenfell fire is that the strategy was in place in an entirely unsuitable buikding made that way by the cladding. Folk are an odd bunch though. I see on the news that residents in a Cambden Tower are complaining that the council have asked them to move out while they take flammable cladding off the building. The council is being blamed for taking a knee jerk reaction and unnecessarily moving people.
  9. It is a reasonable strategy for a suitable design of Tower block. If each flat is designed to contain a fire for at least an hour and each floor to stop a fire spreading upwards for at least an hour then those in flats not around the fire need not immediately evacuate but wait to be told to do so by attending fire officers. This is even more important with buildings with only one stairwell. It is no good if the fireman are prevented fro entering the building by an unnecessary mass evacuation. The fire service should be able to enter the building connect the hoses to the risers and put out the fire in the flat. If it did spread they will have time to evacuate as necessary. There are 100s if not 1000s of fires put out in tower blocks in this way and people safe. The issue at Grenfell was the fast spread of the fire via the cladding. Grenfell was supposed to be such a building. Even if the fire was ignored by the fire service it should have taken the best part of 24 hours go get to the top floor.
  10. I generally have gone by the view there is no need to believe anything someone says when they use the word "apparently" in a sentence. It is either a fact or it isn't.
  11. Indeed the law allows the prosecution of individuals within the corporate manslaughter charge not just the company named. Lengthy jail sentences can be awarded to the guilty. There are other possible criminal charges too for individuals under HSE laws I think. I think we are likely to be a long way away from charges being brought against individuals and tried in court. But you never know. The investigations of course into the causes of the fire and any necessary remedies and the evidence required for that investigation will undoubtedly also provide evidence for any guilty parties too. But we must make people safe in other tower blocks with whatever can be learnt from Grenfell as an up most priority.
  12. I agree. I am sure there are other significant matters that contributed to the disaster in some way directly or indirectly. We have to hope that the ongoing investigations by the authorities will reveal them and that the public enquiry will do the same. There are other remedies I think that will need to be done to make other Tower blocks safer. This is a seminal moment for regulations and standards for this kind of dwelling. I for instance am interested to see how the modifications inside the building were carried out and if any of the fire break capacity was damaged or bridged from floor to floor coupled with the gas supply systems installed.
  13. That is more or less what an expert was explaining on Newsnight earlier in the week. The type of cladding on Grenfell is not explicitly banned for use on tower blocks but given the requirement to have a specific fire test for the actual building it is fitted on and the nature of the tests it would be all but impossible for the cladding to pass. So in pretty much any practical sense the cladding is not usable, able to conform to regs on a Tower block. The stuff should never have been fitted as the mass grave of Grenfell Tower is testament to.
  14. I think that is true and I do like to mix my sources for news and do not buy a particular paper or at all. It is an odd fact that for all the benefits of online sources we have it is no easier to get at the real truth than it ever was and people can end up looking at and talking to only those that they agree with. In part it is a benefit (even with all the tangents we go off at) of a forum like this where we are such a mix of political and social persuasions we can see many points of view. As long as it remains civil it is a healthy mix. All newspapers and their journalists do conduct useful campaigns highlighting injustices and helping to remedy them. Even the Daily Mail (yes indeed) can at times get it right with things like their Stephen Lawrence campaign for the arrest and conviction of his killers.
  15. The one good thing you could say about the present activity is that the investigation has happened quite quickly and the decision to act on buildings that have been found to be the same/similar to Grenfell with flammable cladding is being taken. Thank goodness. I do not really care if it is a Conservative government, any flavour of local council who is driving this action. For the sake of the people living in these towers action must be taken to make the buildings safer and these actions will go a long way to doing that.