In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
In a well behaved high rise building the damage is usually contained in
a single flat and limited to smoke damage in adjacent properties. Barely
makes the local news unless it affects traffic flow on a major road.

Quite.

Clearly most have a fire that is contained very effectively

Then they wouldn't be non-compliant.

But which is more important issue to deal with?

The sub optimal performance of the fire service on the night when faced
with a fire that grew in a way that should *NEVER* have been possible.
(if UK building regulations had been followed)

or

The idiots that allowed such a death trap of a building to be
constructed in the first place (and all the others like it).

It was not the original design or construction that was at fault. Or
rather if it was, there are many thousands the same. It was the
reburbishement using a combination of poor materials and workmanship.

They made two sides of the fire triangle with both fuel *and* oxygen
freely available and the only thing missing was a source of ignition.

Grenfell tower didn't even have a building wide evacuation fire alarm,
floor plans on site or a working fire emergency override in the lifts.
It was quite literally a disaster waiting to happen.

Evacuating an entire building of that size without a properly policed
evacuation drill would likely have resulted in injuries. Of course with
hindsight, better than all those deaths. But would have resulted in the
same blame game.

My view is the investigation reports were in the wrong order. The cause of
the disaster and those responsible for that should have been the first
part released. And things like any failings of the FB, later.

--
*It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.