In message , at 10:44:07 on Fri, 8 Nov
2019, Martin Brown remarked:
On 07/11/2019 20:36, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 06:11:57 on Fri, 8
Nov 2019, Rod Speed remarked:

*While it's politically incorrect to say so, fire brigades do
have a* track record of blundering when it comes to large fires.
Another was the* Liverpool Echo.

Cherry picking failures from a very large number of successes

At fighting fires in big public buildings? Perhaps there are
non-compliant* tower blocks and multi-storey car parks going up in
flames all the time,* being put out, and they never make the news?

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.

In that case it's not a "large fire", is it?

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).

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.

Neither of the above. Read the report.
--
Roland Perry