Doreen Lawrence (4 Viewers)

Nick said:

Didn't they say that usually with flats the protocol is to tell them to stay in them but they weren't expecting the cladding to be so flammable?

I'm sure I heard something like that.

Click to expand...

Nick said:

Didn't they say that usually with flats the protocol is to tell them to stay in them but they weren't expecting the cladding to be so flammable?

I'm sure I heard something like that.

Click to expand...

OffenhamSkyBlue said:

The concrete core of the building structure should have been (and is normally) adequate to limit the speed of the fire spread, thus enabling a structured evacuation (with the majority of people being able to stay put). This makes blocks like Grenfell actually quite safe, particularly if they have also had sprinklers installed. The problem that they didn't spot early enough was that the fire was spreading SO rapidly (and unexpectedly) up the OUTSIDE of the building, due to the higher-than-assessed combustibility of the new cladding. That prevented them from doing a dynamic risk assessment and REACTING appropriately.

Click to expand...

Sky Blue Pete said:

Are you in the profession? Do you think ih was criminally negligent not to change the plan?

Click to expand...

OffenhamSkyBlue said:

I'm in the safety profession. Fire safety isn't my specialism, although i have taken an interest in this, and discussed with a number of experts (including those who provide fire safety advice to the construction industry).
As for criminal negligence, do you mean that it was negligent not to change the plan during the fire, or to not have reviewed and revised the evacuation plan after the refurbishment had been completed by the management company?
I don't know whether the LFB had advised building control during the planning application for the refurb, but i have a feint recollection that the spec of the cladding was changed subsequently (and it is likely that that unassessed increase in risk was the principal immediate cause of the loss of life through the speed of the vertical spread of the fire). I would say that if there had NOT been a review of evacuation procedures conducted during and after the refurb then someone is negligent (potentially to a criminal level). It COULD be that the decisions were made to change the materials used without informing or consulting the LFB, which would put the duty on those parties.
As far as criminal negligence in respect of the actions taken by LFB commanders on the night goes, in respect of their conduct "falling far below what might reasonably be expected" (the burden of proof for the common-law offence of manslaughter by gross negligence), i think the case could be made, yes.
The problem is that the fire brigade are regarded by the public as being "untouchable", or "heroes", and shouldn't be vilified by this sort of inquiry, so there will obviously be something of an outcry if someone gets prosecuted with that. But equally the LFB Commissioner (Dany Cotton) saying that she would not, even with hindsight, change anything about the LFB's response to Grenfell will not have cast her in a good light AT all - the report appears to be heavily critical of her.

We'll see what happens - not much until phase 2 of the inquiry has taken place (next year) and the police investigation (who knows when - these are horrendously complex enquiries) is complete.

Click to expand...