and who would have the guts to come forward eh????

Labour MP for Tottenham said " very serious questions need to be asked why did the Borough stockpiled £274million of usable reserves following years of chronic underspending" ?

Heres an essentially laymans document that appears to cover this area:

http://www.rockwool.co.uk/globalassets/rockwool-uk/downloads/brochures/regulation-guides/rw16-041-routes-to-compliance-update-may16-for-web.pdf

"Materials of Limited Combustibility
The first and by far least restrictive option is to use
materials of limited combustibility (MOLC) for all
elements of the cladding system that are situated both
above and below 18m. "

Page 4. The table below that lists materials of limited combusibility, by my reading, as "High Density & High Binder or Faced Stone/Glass Wool".

Probably needs more research but Hammond may be totally correct in saying that, if this material wasnt' considered "MOLC" it already shouldn't have been used.

Why is it making it worse Lammy asks the sky 'protector' oops I mean sky interviewer.
Lammy is spot on

I think there is more water and foam being poured on people asking awkward questions in an attempt to politically stabilise the situation than was poured on the actual fire. 
Don't know about other coverage but sky is rather mild and non investigative - avoiding almost anything controversial.  Guess they want to keep their jobs.  The editors have decided their agenda.  Avoid being sued ha ha!!

JC, I'm out of this business, a few years, so I could be wrong on the following,... unlike other countries these 'rules' are recommendations and not written into statute law, which is what is needed.

From the link you put up..'It is important to note that a Surface Spread of Flame
Classification does not infer any resistance to combustibility;
it is solely a measure of the spread of a flame across the
materials surface'. Does not INFER, FFS That's called a get out clause.

Mineral infills such as rock wool are infinitely better than the toxic rubbish used. Hammond playing catch up, 'Could have', 'should have', what we need, etc, feckin worn out political speak.

This document here is much better:
http://www.nhbc.co.uk/NHBCPublications/LiteratureLibrary/Technical/TechnicalExtra/filedownload,61351,en.pdf
Go to page 16. It's like a literal description of what apparently has happened, complete with diagram .
The industry obviously knows exactly how these things spread and have done a lot of research into, and there already specific regulations.
It comes down to if the materials are approved or not, if they weren't, as Hammond suggests, people will be in very deep water.

Any political point scoring is unwise. The likelihood is that the Labour govt also presided over this type of refurb.

I certainly wouldn't be throwing any stones in this greenhouse..

lol I misspelled accounts - it was not liked

"particularly given the delamination and spalling nature of some of the components when heated"
How many times has this exact behaviour been described? From my reading, it's almost like the people who chose the components hadn't even read the regulations on it?
Did the council building officers?

Yes I'm still familiar with that stuff, the most important thing written there is the header, REGULATION AND COMPLIANCE, where's the compliance, where's the regulators, design and build if commissioned unchecked will lead to this scenario every time. Statute laws mean people have to sit up and take notice or face 'Corporate manslaughter' charges when it goes badly wrong.

I have no doubt that a catalogue of ignored warnings, poor decision making, and buck passing will emerge with many of the professional bodies involved in this disaster, saying we produced a report which was not acted on or followed up by housing management team or indeed the authors themselves.

they did say right at the start of all this that the council had had plans to knock it down and built beautiful new flats for the rich, now I know life is very cheap but to think it was all part of a plan and that it was starting on purpose is too shocking to even think about

"they did say right at the start of all this that the council had had plans to knock it down and built beautiful new flats for the rich"
Who said this.

they are prepared to kick down doors over manchester and london bridge  but perhaps

these are not the right sort of 'suspects'

they charged into the guardian, cliff richard and many more to grab evidence

NOTHING HAS HAPPENED

how long has it been now?

probably those at the top involved are in the main parties for starters

yeah makes sense.  Spend £10m on refurbishment to then knock it down.

10m is fook all m8  in the bigger picture

Bradford City fire in 85 where 56 died would be a better comparison ,

The Fires in Dubai and other countries are well documented ,was looking at a report the other day on the Downtown Addressa fire which contained a paragraph from a UK fire prevention consultant  working in Dubai who said this could not happen in UK due to  very strict regulations .
Been searching for it to post the link but cant  seem to find it .

Seems its diff to nail those responsible for allowing the cladding to be fitted ,too easy to blame the people that carried the work out as opposed to who oversaw the project .The problem was how easily the fire spread outside and then back in again elsewhere .
The window frames appeared to be somewhat intact but the glass was not  ,perhaps it simply fell out as the frames softened  ,its not as easy to see the exact reason the fire spread so quickly ,if the cladding was that flammable where was the basic intelligence applied from planners/architects/fire reg departments/ect ect
Of course the regs could have been neatly circumnavigated on account of it being an old building and a retro fit but somewhere down the line someone must be held to account .

Been aware for a while about the retro insulation of buildings being a minefield ,even cavity wall filling have a risk ,some of the early cavity wall stuff can give off toxic fumes in a fire ,some other stuff has fire retardant  in it but even the fire retardant chemicals can be a health hazard .

Part of the reason the insulation is fitted externally is for fire hazard reasons ,to prevent toxic chemicals being released ,perhaps in high rise they need to find a way of fitting insulation on the inside and leaving the exterior free of combustible material ,they could paint them in a way that was aesthetically  pleasing and much safer .This would allow the money to be spent on interior fire prevention ,better fire doors ,better fire escape systems ect .
The heat from the burning cladding and associated fittings was so intense the entire buildings fire prevention was compromised in a very short space of time .
We here about education and the universities and colleges and the way a better educated population helps everyone but when you see this sort of thing it makes you wonder .

I rem years ago listening to someone talk about the regs and how a high rise building was supposed to have higher regs for all fixtures and fittings ,right down to the carpets ,that would include ratings for things like kitchen units .Wonder what the actual regs are and if they have been adhered too .

I also wonder if the windows were of the correct type for that building ,but tbh everything about this is bad ,everything from cladding to even the lack of space around the building for an emergency response .

Does anyone know what the rent is for this type of accommodation is ? they said 8.6m was spent on the block ,120 flats .
that means about 70k per property .Reckon the refit costs would be recouped in under 10 years ,of course there are other costs involved but in the end it does boil down to money and it does not grow on trees .

The speed at which the left has tried to turn this into something political was as quick as the spread of the fire ,frightening stuff from the usual suspects.

Be a rare tennant that pays the Rent mostly unemployed in the Block .

If you're in London on a minimum/low wage you will be on housing benefit.