Is it? I don't see any comments which seem to be very relevant at all, except possibly one about accesses for the emergency services being blocked (I don't know if that was a factor in the tragedy). But maybe I've missed something - can you point to the warnings about the cladding or holes in the fire-protection screens between floors following the renovation work, which seem to be the two main areas which the experts are saying need investigation?
"Anyone who witnessed the recent tower block fire at Shepherds Court, in nearby Shepherd’s Bush, will know that the advice to remain in our properties would have led to certain fatalities and we are calling on our landlord to re-consider the advice that they have so badly circulated."
The landlord follows the advice of the fire service and the experts. If he ignores that advice and people subsequently die then he will be held responsible - and if he has any conscience will hold himself responsible as well.
I have no idea at the moment whether the landlord in this case is culpable in other ways but on the specific issue of the stay at home advice he had no choice but to follow the recommendations of the fire service.
Edit - that is not to say the advice is right and should not be revisited. When Piper Alpha blew up the majority of the crew followed the instructions that are drummed in to them repeatedly and went to the safe area which was in the galley. Every one who did what they were supposed to died. The only ones who survived were those who couldn't actually make it to the safe area or who decided of their own initiative to ignore the rules. Something that on a normal day would have got them sacked on the spot.
A horrible truth in life: the first one to panic wins. Trust in others to save you is not enough: one must assess the situation and act accordingly. Observe, orient, decide, act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop ). Good advice in life and in gambling.
I was thinking of posting relevant entries but there were so many I'd be here all night. Instead I'll content myself with posting just the links, since the link names themselves are adequate to convince other PB people. Note the dates.
I've looked at a few of those, and haven't found anything relevant, except on access for the emergency services as I already said. To save us wading through stuff about North Korea, have I missed anything?
If they were screaming 'Fire risk!' without explaining why, that would have been of no use to anyone. What do you think the landlords should have done in response? Oh, I know - consult the experts to see if the regulations were being followed, which they did, as far as we know.
Well that was quite a sad news shift. I'm really convinced now that May has to stay until this run of dreadful news ends. She can be the sacrificial, er, goat after that.
I have been trying to find out more about the Grenfell Action Group - and have found it very difficult to track down much about those running it.
Thus it is hard to assess their qualifications to assess fire risk.
They predicted that Grenfell Tower was a fire risk Grenfell Tower was the site of a horrible fire with many fatalities. I reckon their ability to assess fire risk is pretty good.
Beware of extrapolation from small datasets.
Fair point, but sometimes small datasets are all we have.
It seems we can conclude that anecdata was very revealing if only on a very local level @Alice Aforethought, @isam, @valleyboy, and of course @David Herdson (no doubt others, too) were accurately telling us what was happening in their area, from very different political standpoints.For myself, I pointed out the large numbers of Labour activists/enthusiasm in ultra-safe Hexham and the total absence of any Tory campaign. I dismissed this as a feature of a local Party stung by Local election defeat getting off it's arse. There was a 3.9% swing to Labour here. The problem was wildly differing swings in different places. Maybe we need an interpretist study, with a correspondent in each constituency?
I'm not going to say I predicted the scale of the result, because I didn't, but I did post on numerous occasions that the popular logic of adding the 2015 Conservative and UKIP votes was a fools errand in Northern constituencies. As I recall Dixie you are a Wiganer and would doubtless concur that in South Lancs, the "never Tory" mantra still holds strong. Electoral calculus was oblivious to this.
btw are you another PB Evertonian ?
But take a look at Don Valley.
In 2010 the combined Con and UKIP total was 20,699 while this year TP managed 19,182 so he took almost all the votes available - the Yorkshire Party had 1,599 this year which would also likely have been former UKIP voters.
What defeated TP was that Labour's vote rose nearly five thousand.
Now where those extra Labour voters came from baffles me - if they were ex UKIP then TP must have been picking up previous non-voters.
It will be interesting to hear TP's view of his campaign.
Yorkshire, not Lancashire. We are similar in so many ways, but very different in others. Hence the rivalry, and love/hate relationship.
Politically its arguable that South Lancashire (as was) and South Yorkshire are similar (ex mining/ Labour/anti-Tory tradition) whereas the rest of Lancashire and West Yorkshire seems to have much more swing seats .
Well that was quite a sad news shift. I'm really convinced now that May has to stay until this run of dreadful news ends. She can be the sacrificial, er, goat after that.
All my wobbling and bedwetting wasn't without reason. My apolitical brother said it would be closer then people think because Corbyn would bring out people who don't normally vote, sometimes you need to step back for a minute and see the reality on the ground. And the reality on the ground right now is school committees are having to buy basic supplies out of their own pockets instead of the school budgets. Corbybs message was therefore very tempting.
I didn't bet a lot on the election. My initial (and biggest) bet was to sell - at the maximum amount allowed - the LDs on the seat markets at 33 when the election was first called.
After that, I made a small (and dumb) error, buying Conservative seats at 368. Fortunately, SpreadEx limited me to £2/seat, and SPIN wouldn't take my money at all.
I did take some money from those who thought the LibDems were in with a shout in Vauxhall. (Disclaimer: they weren't.) And I lost a tiny amount on Argyll & Bute (which I still need to pay).
My big call was that the LDs would do better in seat terms than people thought. On the day of the election I called 12 seats. (Someone joked that I'd made that prediction in 2015, and was just hoping it would be right this time around.) However, full disclosure, is that I thought the LDs would take 12 seats on a c. 10% vote share. I correctly predicted tactical voting would return, but I did not expect the LDs would go backwards in national vote share.
Of course, I like to think that I've been broadly right (and counter PB-consensus) on the LDs three elections in a row: 2015, 2016 Holyrood, and now 2017. Given that, I will make no more LD forecasts so as to ensure my record remains unsullied.
I really need to thank you.
Your prediction of certain Labour defeats in Cambridge and Hampstead may have helped me get 5/1 on Labour.
I would like to feel rather proud that after carefully analysing the demographics I discovered that Labour to hold Westminster N at 7/2 was incredible value.
But as the swing in Westminster North was similar to that in nearby seats I'm not sure my analysis had any merit after all.
Cambridge I got wrong.
But Hampstead was merely me being concerned that a truly terribly Conservative candidate might be elected. I don't think I ever forget a Labour defeat.
You did at the start - you thought there would be a 10% swing from Labour to LibDem.
Well, I suppose that was what most people thought would happen nationally when the election was called.
Comments
But no doubt we'll find out in due course.
Well, I suppose that was what most people thought would happen nationally when the election was called.