Manslaughter charges eyed in Grenfell Tower blaze, Refrigerator to Blame For Fire Starting - Sensationalist Headlines

[quote]Manslaughter charges are among the offenses under consideration in the devastating Grenfell Tower blaze that killed 79 people, London police said Friday. In its most detailed briefing yet on the criminal investigation, Metropolitan Police Detective Superintendent Fiona McCormack confirmed suspicions by residents that a refrigerator had sparked the June 14 blaze. She also revealed that cladding placed on the building during a recent renovation had failed safety tests conducted by police in connection with their investigation. Documents from a number of organizations have been seized. “We are looking at every criminal offense from manslaughter onwards, we are looking at every health and safety and fire safety offenses and we are reviewing every company at the moment involved in the building and refurbishment of Grenfell Tower,” she said. The British government has ordered an immediate examination of the model of refrigerator. McCormack said the Hotpoint FF175BP fridge-freezer had not been subject to any product recalls. The investigation comes as authorities realize the horrific fire will have national consequences for thousands of people living in tower blocks across the country. Eleven buildings around Britain have tested positive for the combustible cladding found in the Grenfell Tower. The cladding is being studied amid fears that the panels fueled the fire in the 24-story building since it was engulfed in less than an hour. Buildings in London, Manchester and Plymouth are among those where problem cladding has been identified. McCormack also repeated calls for anyone with information on who might have been in the tower to come forward. That comes after London Mayor Sadiq Khan pledged to seek an amnesty for people who may have been living in the public housing block illegally.[/quote] [url=https://www.apnews.com/e55b1efd8b524fceb0f9eda5de7f7967/Manslaughter-charges-eyed-in-deadly-Grenfell-Tower-blaze]AP[/url]

Honestly, fuck the fridge. It doesn't matter what the origin point of the fire was, the simple fact that the exterior was covered in air-gapped insulation and clad externally with [I]non- flame retardant[/I] ACM means that someone's discarded cigarette could have done the same thing. The exterior of the building may as well have been soaked in gasoline. I've worked with the exact brand of ACM they're talking about, both the 'combustible' and the 'flame retardant' flavors. The polyethylene core will catch fire when heated enough [I]with direct flame[/I]. That means the insulation caught fire first, was fed through the chimney effect from the air gap between the insulation and the cladding, and then the ACM went up shortly afterwards. The FR version of it is heavier and more expensive. Its fire retardant properties give it [I]some[/I] resistance to catching fire, but it still will. it'll take longer for it to catch and it'll smolder far before it actually catches, but it still will. IMHO, every part of that exterior renovation is at fault. The insulation was cheap and flammable, the air gap caused it to increase in heat rapidly, and the ACM cladding added additional fuel to the fire and trapped [I]all[/I] the heat close to the building. Find the contractors who handled the renovation, arrest everybody who approved that design. If they didn't test it, they're guilty of manslaughter/negligent homocide. If they did, it would have failed, and they went anyway, get them on murder 2 instead.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;52393191]Honestly, fuck the fridge. It doesn't matter what the origin point of the fire was, the simple fact that the exterior was covered in air-gapped insulation and clad externally with [I]non- flame retardant[/I] ACM means that someone's discarded cigarette could have done the same thing. The exterior of the building may as well have been soaked in gasoline. I've worked with the exact brand of ACM they're talking about, both the 'combustible' and the 'flame retardant' flavors. The polyethylene core will catch fire when heated enough [I]with direct flame[/I]. That means the insulation caught fire first, was fed through the chimney effect from the air gap between the insulation and the cladding, and then the ACM went up shortly afterwards. The FR version of it is heavier and more expensive. Its fire retardant properties give it [I]some[/I] resistance to catching fire, but it still will. it'll take longer for it to catch and it'll smolder far before it actually catches, but it still will. IMHO, every part of that exterior renovation is at fault. The insulation was cheap and flammable, the air gap caused it to increase in heat rapidly, and the ACM cladding added additional fuel to the fire and trapped [I]all[/I] the heat close to the building. Find the contractors who handled the renovation, arrest everybody who approved that design. If they didn't test it, they're guilty of manslaughter/negligent homocide. If they did, it would have failed, and they went anyway, get them on murder 2 instead.[/QUOTE] So what you're telling me is a bunch of stingy contractors did something half assed to save a quick buck and it ended in disaster? Wow. Seriously the government should fuck those guys with a rake as long as the tower itself.

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52396835]So what you're telling me is a bunch of stingy contractors did something half assed to save a quick buck and it ended in disaster? Wow. Seriously the government should fuck those guys with a rake as long as the tower itself.[/QUOTE] Absolutely agreed.

Why are they looking at the fridge eyeing for recalls? This wouldn't have got to this point if the building was properly made.

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;52396974]Why are they looking at the fridge eyeing for recalls? This wouldn't have got to this point if the building was properly made.[/QUOTE] sure but it's still a faulty product if it bursts into flames randomly

[QUOTE=Cone;52397090]sure but it's still a faulty product if it bursts into flames randomly[/QUOTE] I agree, but an appliance bursting into flames isn't the root failure here, it's the construction of the building. There would have been substantially less damage and loss of life if it was built correctly, and up to proper fire and safety codes.

Was the construction of the building actually illegal?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52397171]Was the construction of the building actually illegal?[/QUOTE] [quote]She also revealed that cladding placed on the building during a recent renovation had failed safety tests conducted by police in connection with their investigation. Documents from a number of organizations have been seized.[/quote] Well if you read the article

the tower block was constructed in the 70's and renovated in 2015/16 so through out the years inbetween a lot of safety laws had changed, someone "council or government" was slow in bringing the build up to standard

[QUOTE=Kyle902;52397209]Well if you read the article[/QUOTE] That doesn't mean they were illegal. Were they legally required to change it? Was there a time limit to change it? Etc. "Failing safety standards" can mean anything from requiring a small change to requiring a full rebuild. I'm trying to figure out of they clearly broke any laws or it if was more the result of a hole in the legal requirements that allowed this to stand.

[QUOTE=The golden;52397415][URL]https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/18/cladding-on-grenfell-tower-banned-in-uk-says-philip-hammond[/URL] Using banned materials is extremely illegal.[/QUOTE] Murder 2. Every single one of them.

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;52396974]Why are they looking at the fridge eyeing for recalls? This wouldn't have got to this point if the building was properly made.[/QUOTE] Recalls exist for widespread problems, this was probably one faulty unit