On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 17:28:59 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:06:04 on Wed, 21 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

One properly protected stairwell and we'd not have had this appalling
outcome.

What do you think would have protected it better? (Genuine question,
not a devils advocate).

All the usual things it was built to do. Preventing fire and smoke
getting into it.

That's down to fire doors, and we have yet to see the conclusions drawn
by the enquiry.

Having emergency lights and so on. Proper signs etc. There weren't even
any floor numbers on it. Great help to the rescue services - not.

If those were missing, I'm sure the enquiry will tell us.

It was mentioned by a fireman on TV.

But yes. Let's hope any enquiry is comprehensive and findings acted on.
Sad it has taken a disaster of this magnitude for some to realise building
regs etc aren't just red tape to annoy people.

Some certainly are. Some are life saving. And every shade inbetween also exists. There are perfectly ok houses around that meet hardly any current BRs. And equally there are unsatisfactory ones that do (Grenfell?).

If BR vanished we'd be back to how it was over a century ago. Some houses were built properly to last, some weren't and haven't survived the test of time. And some have worked well, some have been unsatifactory.


NT