taken2often wrote:Your right, but I was talking about the time the Fire Service arrived. They should have instantly seen that this was a fire outwith all norms and called for evacuation.
I think the Fire Brigade were between a rock and a hard place; follow tried and tested set procedures despite the scene in front of them or do something nobody had trained for and hope it works. The former clearly didn’t work but the latter puts the rescuers at risk of death and injury and those in charge liable to manslaughter charges if it goes wrong.
The Fire Brigade leadership was rightly criticised for saying they wouldn’t do anything different in the future based on their experience that night, but that isn’t the same as trying to create a rescue strategy on the night with no forethought.
taken2often wrote:Also What you mention means that all tall buildings should have Resident emergency teams who know, who and where the vulnerable are. This would be easier than recladding or removing cladding from thousands of building at a cost lots of people cannot afford.
In such buildings nobody even knows the names of their neighbours, let alone whether they are vulnerable. Heck, the council who owned the building and rented the flats out didn’t even know who was living there!
The cost of removing and replacing the cladding should fall to all the companies who distorted the truth about the products supplied, chose inappropriate products, or failed to install the products correctly. But that won’t happen as the crooks will just hide behind the protection of their corporate shield.