3 ms·
In Grenfel, the building itself won't have been particularly combustible in the first instance, but the cladding - being plastic most certainly was. Add to tha
by stuaxo 2y ago
In Grenfel, the building itself won't have been particularly combustible in the first instance, but the cladding - being plastic most certainly was.
Add to that the lack sprinklers, and a council that is not sympathetic to the residents there and we got a disaster.
It was a confluence of indifference by the council to residents calls to sort out sprinklers and firedoors, pandering to richer residents of Kensington: the cladding only went on to make richer residents view better.
Add on faming of results about how fire worthy the cladding was by the people selling it, and it being badly fitted so fire could travel up the building underneath it.
And then after this tragedy, how little was done in its wake.
- michaelt 2y agoAgree on all points except this: > the cladding only went on to make richer residents view better. The cladding should have reduced the residents' heating bills substantially, reducing fuel poverty and helping the environment. In fact one of the reasons the building was clad in turns-out-its-highly-flammable Celotex instead of a truly non-flammable insulation like Rockwool was because of its higher U-value.