they are going on about "did it have sprinklers now"....can you imagine
sprinklers in X kooncil flats? .....

On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 08:13:10 UTC+1, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
they are going on about "did it have sprinklers now"....can you imagine
sprinklers in X kooncil flats? .....

The building doesn't appear to even have had fire alarms

Only last November residents were still concerned.

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpres...ing-with-fire/

Owain

wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 08:13:10 UTC+1, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
they are going on about "did it have sprinklers now"....can you imagine
sprinklers in X kooncil flats? .....

The building doesn't appear to even have had fire alarms

Only last November residents were still concerned.

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpres...ing-with-fire/

Owain

I don't think any high flats had fire alarms just mains powered smoke
alarms ....

wrote:

The building doesn't appear to even have had fire alarms

The BREEAM pre-assessment says "Fire and carbon monoxide detectors will
be installed in each flat", residents on the radio this morning said
there was no central system and their own alarms only went off once they
opened doors onto communal areas. The advice in case of a fire was to
stay within individual flats and await rescue.

It has a dry riser that requires a fire tender to park directly at the
base of the tower to pressurise hydrants on each floor, but presumably
that requires fire fighters to enter the building and fight it from inside?

On 14/06/2017 08:13, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
they are going on about "did it have sprinklers now"....can you imagine
sprinklers in X kooncil flats? .....



Why not?



--

Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud

En el artículo , Andy Burns
escribió:

It has a dry riser that requires a fire tender to park directly at the
base of the tower to pressurise hydrants on each floor, but presumably
that requires fire fighters to enter the building and fight it from inside?

Which may have been difficult:

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpres...8/fire-safety-
scandal-at-lancaster-west/

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

It has a dry riser that requires a fire tender to park directly at the
base of the tower to pressurise hydrants on each floor

Which may have been difficult:

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpres...8/fire-safety-
scandal-at-lancaster-west/

Yes I saw that, in a building where there's a single entrance/exit
that's required for emergency access, it's no use slapping wrists and
issuing parking tickets, get a tow-truck there *every* time someone
blocks the access.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
news
On 14/06/2017 08:13, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
they are going on about "did it have sprinklers now"....can you imagine
sprinklers in X kooncil flats? .....



Why not?


Council tenants don't appreciate their rented properties in general and
would use the damage caused by such convnient damage causing devices to
achieve their ultimate goal which is..."want own front and back door"

En el artículo , Andy Burns
escribió:

It has a dry riser that requires a fire tender to park directly at the
base of the tower to pressurise hydrants on each floor, but presumably
that requires fire fighters to enter the building and fight it from inside?

following on from that, and after looking at the community action group
website, it's perfectly clear that in about 2013 emergency access to the
north side of the tower from Lancaster Road/Silchester Road, a small car
park and three football pitches, was blocked by removal of the car park
and courts and construction of an "academy".

The Grenfell residents' association complained about this to no effect,
their main concern being that access to the tower in emergencies was now
only possible from the narrow Grenfell Road which was frequently
obstructed by illegal parking.

Google Earth's historical view facility makes this /very/ clear.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

The Grenfell residents' association complained about this to no effect,
their main concern being that access to the tower in emergencies was now
only possible from the narrow Grenfell Road which was frequently
obstructed by illegal parking.

Though lets be honest, fire appliances have front "bumpers" made from
steel box girders, so would soon bump a transit out of the way if
necessary ...

En el artículo , Andy Burns
escribió:

Though lets be honest, fire appliances have front "bumpers" made from
steel box girders, so would soon bump a transit out of the way if
necessary ...

Grauniad (I know...) report from someone who was the

"A car had been left in the middle of the road and nobody knew who the
driver was, so the fire engines and ambulances couldn't get through"

maybe there was just no space to shove it into.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 11:21:08 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

The Grenfell residents' association complained about this to no effect,
their main concern being that access to the tower in emergencies was now
only possible from the narrow Grenfell Road which was frequently
obstructed by illegal parking.

Though lets be honest, fire appliances have front "bumpers" made from
steel box girders, so would soon bump a transit out of the way if
necessary ...

but too afraid to get sued out of everything to ever do it. Might require a legal change.


NT

On 14/06/2017 13:54, wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 11:21:08 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

The Grenfell residents' association complained about this to no effect,
their main concern being that access to the tower in emergencies was now
only possible from the narrow Grenfell Road which was frequently
obstructed by illegal parking.

Though lets be honest, fire appliances have front "bumpers" made from
steel box girders, so would soon bump a transit out of the way if
necessary ...

but too afraid to get sued out of everything to ever do it. Might require a legal change.

The only time I have seen the situation arise. Car parked on a fire
access point and fire engine wanting access for a 999 call the guy
engaged low gear inched up to the cars bumper and shunted it ahead of
him doing surprisingly little damage to the car in the process.

In this situation I'd support them totalling the obstructing car to
enable high pressure water pumping to the dry risers. It is only bent
metal against dozens of lives of people trapped in a burning building.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
news
On 14/06/2017 13:54, wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 11:21:08 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

The Grenfell residents' association complained about this to no effect,
their main concern being that access to the tower in emergencies was
now
only possible from the narrow Grenfell Road which was frequently
obstructed by illegal parking.

Though lets be honest, fire appliances have front "bumpers" made from
steel box girders, so would soon bump a transit out of the way if
necessary ...

but too afraid to get sued out of everything to ever do it. Might require
a legal change.

The only time I have seen the situation arise. Car parked on a fire access
point and fire engine wanting access for a 999 call the guy engaged low
gear inched up to the cars bumper and shunted it ahead of him doing
surprisingly little damage to the car in the process.

In this situation I'd support them totalling the obstructing car to enable
high pressure water pumping to the dry risers. It is only bent metal
against dozens of lives of people trapped in a burning building.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bl...w=1280&bih=601

On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 14:35:49 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 14/06/2017 13:54, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 11:21:08 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

The Grenfell residents' association complained about this to no effect,
their main concern being that access to the tower in emergencies was now
only possible from the narrow Grenfell Road which was frequently
obstructed by illegal parking.

Though lets be honest, fire appliances have front "bumpers" made from
steel box girders, so would soon bump a transit out of the way if
necessary ...

but too afraid to get sued out of everything to ever do it. Might require a legal change.

The only time I have seen the situation arise. Car parked on a fire
access point and fire engine wanting access for a 999 call the guy
engaged low gear inched up to the cars bumper and shunted it ahead of
him doing surprisingly little damage to the car in the process.

In this situation I'd support them totalling the obstructing car to
enable high pressure water pumping to the dry risers. It is only bent
metal against dozens of lives of people trapped in a burning building.

Of course. But I bet the law would cause the fire truck driver to be sued for the damage.


NT

wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 14:35:49 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 14/06/2017 13:54, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 11:21:08 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

The Grenfell residents' association complained about this to no
effect,
their main concern being that access to the tower in emergencies was
now
only possible from the narrow Grenfell Road which was frequently
obstructed by illegal parking.

Though lets be honest, fire appliances have front "bumpers" made from
steel box girders, so would soon bump a transit out of the way if
necessary ...

but too afraid to get sued out of everything to ever do it. Might
require a legal change.

The only time I have seen the situation arise. Car parked on a fire
access point and fire engine wanting access for a 999 call the guy
engaged low gear inched up to the cars bumper and shunted it ahead of
him doing surprisingly little damage to the car in the process.

In this situation I'd support them totalling the obstructing car to
enable high pressure water pumping to the dry risers. It is only bent
metal against dozens of lives of people trapped in a burning building.

Of course. But I bet the law would cause the fire truck driver to be sued
for the damage.


NT
the merrycans don't mess about ......

On 6/14/2017 2:45 PM, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
news
On 14/06/2017 13:54, wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 11:21:08 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

The Grenfell residents' association complained about this to no effect,
their main concern being that access to the tower in emergencies was
now
only possible from the narrow Grenfell Road which was frequently
obstructed by illegal parking.

Though lets be honest, fire appliances have front "bumpers" made from
steel box girders, so would soon bump a transit out of the way if
necessary ...

but too afraid to get sued out of everything to ever do it. Might require
a legal change.

The only time I have seen the situation arise. Car parked on a fire access
point and fire engine wanting access for a 999 call the guy engaged low
gear inched up to the cars bumper and shunted it ahead of him doing
surprisingly little damage to the car in the process.

In this situation I'd support them totalling the obstructing car to enable
high pressure water pumping to the dry risers. It is only bent metal
against dozens of lives of people trapped in a burning building.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bl...w=1280&bih=601


Not strictly necessary to go through two windows in most cases, I would
have thought. One rather suspects that the firemen enjoy doing that. And
so would I.

"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 6/14/2017 2:45 PM, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
news
On 14/06/2017 13:54, wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 11:21:08 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

The Grenfell residents' association complained about this to no
effect,
their main concern being that access to the tower in emergencies was
now
only possible from the narrow Grenfell Road which was frequently
obstructed by illegal parking.

Though lets be honest, fire appliances have front "bumpers" made from
steel box girders, so would soon bump a transit out of the way if
necessary ...

but too afraid to get sued out of everything to ever do it. Might
require
a legal change.

The only time I have seen the situation arise. Car parked on a fire
access
point and fire engine wanting access for a 999 call the guy engaged low
gear inched up to the cars bumper and shunted it ahead of him doing
surprisingly little damage to the car in the process.

In this situation I'd support them totalling the obstructing car to
enable
high pressure water pumping to the dry risers. It is only bent metal
against dozens of lives of people trapped in a burning building.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bl...w=1280&bih=601


Not strictly necessary to go through two windows in most cases, I would
have thought. One rather suspects that the firemen enjoy doing that. And
so would I.

they obviously have good taste as they spared that mustang ...

http://1y4yclbm79aqghpm1xoezrdw.wpen...26-620x370.jpg

On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 14:59:30 UTC+1, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 14:35:49 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 14/06/2017 13:54, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 11:21:08 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:

Though lets be honest, fire appliances have front "bumpers" made from
steel box girders, so would soon bump a transit out of the way if
necessary ...

but too afraid to get sued out of everything to ever do it. Might
require a legal change.

The only time I have seen the situation arise. Car parked on a fire
access point and fire engine wanting access for a 999 call the guy
engaged low gear inched up to the cars bumper and shunted it ahead of
him doing surprisingly little damage to the car in the process.

In this situation I'd support them totalling the obstructing car to
enable high pressure water pumping to the dry risers. It is only bent
metal against dozens of lives of people trapped in a burning building.

Of course. But I bet the law would cause the fire truck driver to be sued
for the damage.


NT
the merrycans don't mess about ......

I don't know what the legal position is here, but we ought to have a law permitting fire & ambulance to damage things if necessary to access life saving measures. I'd bet no such provision exists.


NT

On 14/06/2017 11:25, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Andy Burns
escribió:

Though lets be honest, fire appliances have front "bumpers" made from
steel box girders, so would soon bump a transit out of the way if
necessary ...

Grauniad (I know...) report from someone who was the

"A car had been left in the middle of the road and nobody knew who the
driver was, so the fire engines and ambulances couldn't get through"

maybe there was just no space to shove it into.

Then a bunch of firemen will bounce it or even pick it up and move it -
I've seen it done. No excuse for parking in a way that blocks a road though.

SteveW

On 14/06/2017 19:39, wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 14:59:30 UTC+1, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 14:35:49 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 14/06/2017 13:54, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 11:21:08 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:

Though lets be honest, fire appliances have front "bumpers" made from
steel box girders, so would soon bump a transit out of the way if
necessary ...

but too afraid to get sued out of everything to ever do it. Might
require a legal change.

The only time I have seen the situation arise. Car parked on a fire
access point and fire engine wanting access for a 999 call the guy
engaged low gear inched up to the cars bumper and shunted it ahead of
him doing surprisingly little damage to the car in the process.

In this situation I'd support them totalling the obstructing car to
enable high pressure water pumping to the dry risers. It is only bent
metal against dozens of lives of people trapped in a burning building.

Of course. But I bet the law would cause the fire truck driver to be sued
for the damage.


NT
the merrycans don't mess about ......

I don't know what the legal position is here, but we ought to have a law permitting fire & ambulance to damage things if necessary to access life saving measures. I'd bet no such provision exists.

Possibly this, though I'm not sure how it applies under English law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(criminal_law)

--
Max Demian

wrote:

I don't know what the legal position is here, but we ought to have a
law permitting fire & ambulance to damage things if necessary to
access life saving measures. I'd bet no such provision exists.
Thankfully, you lose :-P

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/21/section/44

An employee of a fire and rescue authority who is authorised in writing
by the authority for the purposes of this section may do anything he
reasonably believes to be necessary

if he reasonably believes a fire to have broken out or to be about to
break out, for the purpose of extinguishing or preventing the fire or
protecting life or property;

In particular, an employee of a fire and rescue authority who is
authorised as mentioned in subsection (1) may under that subsection

move or break into a vehicle without the consent of its owner;

On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 20:59:10 UTC+1, Max Demian wrote:
On 14/06/2017 19:39, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 14:59:30 UTC+1, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 14:35:49 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:

The only time I have seen the situation arise. Car parked on a fire
access point and fire engine wanting access for a 999 call the guy
engaged low gear inched up to the cars bumper and shunted it ahead of
him doing surprisingly little damage to the car in the process.

In this situation I'd support them totalling the obstructing car to
enable high pressure water pumping to the dry risers. It is only bent
metal against dozens of lives of people trapped in a burning building.

Of course. But I bet the law would cause the fire truck driver to be sued
for the damage.


NT
the merrycans don't mess about ......

I don't know what the legal position is here, but we ought to have a law permitting fire & ambulance to damage things if necessary to access life saving measures. I'd bet no such provision exists.

Possibly this, though I'm not sure how it applies under English law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(criminal_law)

That would make it not criminal, but doesn't remove liability.


NT

On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 21:14:27 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:

I don't know what the legal position is here, but we ought to have a
law permitting fire & ambulance to damage things if necessary to
access life saving measures. I'd bet no such provision exists.
Thankfully, you lose :-P

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/21/section/44

An employee of a fire and rescue authority who is authorised in writing
by the authority for the purposes of this section may do anything he
reasonably believes to be necessary

if he reasonably believes a fire to have broken out or to be about to
break out, for the purpose of extinguishing or preventing the fire or
protecting life or property;

In particular, an employee of a fire and rescue authority who is
authorised as mentioned in subsection (1) may under that subsection

move or break into a vehicle without the consent of its owner;

That doesn't cut it. What's needed is a law that permits
a) a vehicle to be damaged (eg rammed out the way)
b) no liability for doing it.
Until those are there, almost no firefighter wold want to bankrupt themselves to save lives by doing this.


NT

On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 20:59:10 UTC+1, Max Demian wrote:
On 14/06/2017 19:39, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 14:59:30 UTC+1, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 14:35:49 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 14/06/2017 13:54, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 11:21:08 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:

Though lets be honest, fire appliances have front "bumpers" made from
steel box girders, so would soon bump a transit out of the way if
necessary ...

but too afraid to get sued out of everything to ever do it. Might
require a legal change.

The only time I have seen the situation arise. Car parked on a fire
access point and fire engine wanting access for a 999 call the guy
engaged low gear inched up to the cars bumper and shunted it ahead of
him doing surprisingly little damage to the car in the process.

In this situation I'd support them totalling the obstructing car to
enable high pressure water pumping to the dry risers. It is only bent
metal against dozens of lives of people trapped in a burning building.

Of course. But I bet the law would cause the fire truck driver to be sued
for the damage.


NT
the merrycans don't mess about ......

I don't know what the legal position is here, but we ought to have a law permitting fire & ambulance to damage things if necessary to access life saving measures. I'd bet no such provision exists.

Possibly this, though I'm not sure how it applies under English law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(criminal_law)

How about this for a possible solution?
A sign on the access road saying:
CRUSH ZONE
You may park here for 20 minutes max
If emergency access is required your vehicle may be damaged or destroyed without recompense.

Then all you need is a ramming fire truck. People can park there if they want, and they know the price.


NT

On 15/06/2017 01:31, wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 21:14:27 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:

I don't know what the legal position is here, but we ought to have a
law permitting fire & ambulance to damage things if necessary to
access life saving measures. I'd bet no such provision exists.
Thankfully, you lose :-P

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/21/section/44

An employee of a fire and rescue authority who is authorised in writing
by the authority for the purposes of this section may do anything he
reasonably believes to be necessary

if he reasonably believes a fire to have broken out or to be about to
break out, for the purpose of extinguishing or preventing the fire or
protecting life or property;

In particular, an employee of a fire and rescue authority who is
authorised as mentioned in subsection (1) may under that subsection

move or break into a vehicle without the consent of its owner;

That doesn't cut it. What's needed is a law that permits
a) a vehicle to be damaged (eg rammed out the way)

A fully laden fire engine just engages a low gear and moves forward
slowly it doesn't need to ram anything to move it out of the way. A few
scratches and bumper dints was all they did to the one I saw.

b) no liability for doing it.
Until those are there, almost no firefighter wold want to bankrupt themselves to save lives by doing this.

ISTR firemen of my acquaintance reckon they are already immune if they
are doing what they deem necessary to save lives or put out a fire.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In message , at
17:31:22 on Wed, 14 Jun 2017, remarked:

In particular, an employee of a fire and rescue authority who is
authorised as mentioned in subsection (1) may under that subsection

move or break into a vehicle without the consent of its owner;

That doesn't cut it. What's needed is a law that permits
a) a vehicle to be damaged (eg rammed out the way)
b) no liability for doing it.
Until those are there, almost no firefighter wold want to bankrupt
themselves to save lives by doing this.

The unions would never allow an individual fireman on a call to take the
rap for such a thing. I don't think the public would either. And it'
laughable to think the CPS would consider it appropriate to prosecute
for criminal damage. They'd be more likely to prosecute the vehicle
owner for obstructing the emergency services.
--
Roland Perry

On Thursday, 15 June 2017 10:02:44 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 15/06/2017 01:31, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 21:14:27 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:

I don't know what the legal position is here, but we ought to have a
law permitting fire & ambulance to damage things if necessary to
access life saving measures. I'd bet no such provision exists.
Thankfully, you lose :-P

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/21/section/44

An employee of a fire and rescue authority who is authorised in writing
by the authority for the purposes of this section may do anything he
reasonably believes to be necessary

if he reasonably believes a fire to have broken out or to be about to
break out, for the purpose of extinguishing or preventing the fire or
protecting life or property;

In particular, an employee of a fire and rescue authority who is
authorised as mentioned in subsection (1) may under that subsection

move or break into a vehicle without the consent of its owner;

That doesn't cut it. What's needed is a law that permits
a) a vehicle to be damaged (eg rammed out the way)

A fully laden fire engine just engages a low gear and moves forward
slowly it doesn't need to ram anything to move it out of the way. A few
scratches and bumper dints was all they did to the one I saw.

That doesn't fly in a narrow access road as at Grenfell tower. Lack of space means cars would inevitably get seriously damaged if the fire tender is to get through.

And how long does it take to very slowly push tens of cars out the way? Not that there is anywhere to push them to with Grenfell, one would have to squash them out the way or push them through the railings, with obviously considerable damage.


b) no liability for doing it.
Until those are there, almost no firefighter wold want to bankrupt themselves to save lives by doing this.

ISTR firemen of my acquaintance reckon they are already immune if they
are doing what they deem necessary to save lives or put out a fire.


NT

On 15/06/2017 01:31, wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 21:14:27 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:

I don't know what the legal position is here, but we ought to have a
law permitting fire & ambulance to damage things if necessary to
access life saving measures. I'd bet no such provision exists.
Thankfully, you lose :-P

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/21/section/44

An employee of a fire and rescue authority who is authorised in writing
by the authority for the purposes of this section may do anything he
reasonably believes to be necessary

if he reasonably believes a fire to have broken out or to be about to
break out, for the purpose of extinguishing or preventing the fire or
protecting life or property;

In particular, an employee of a fire and rescue authority who is
authorised as mentioned in subsection (1) may under that subsection

move or break into a vehicle without the consent of its owner;

That doesn't cut it. What's needed is a law that permits
a) a vehicle to be damaged (eg rammed out the way)
b) no liability for doing it.
Until those are there, almost no firefighter wold want to bankrupt themselves to save lives by doing this.

c) Immunity from murder charge if there is a driver in the vehicle who
refuses to move.

--
Max Demian

On Thursday, 15 June 2017 13:52:24 UTC+1, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/06/2017 01:31, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 21:14:27 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:

I don't know what the legal position is here, but we ought to have a
law permitting fire & ambulance to damage things if necessary to
access life saving measures. I'd bet no such provision exists.
Thankfully, you lose :-P

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/21/section/44

An employee of a fire and rescue authority who is authorised in writing
by the authority for the purposes of this section may do anything he
reasonably believes to be necessary

if he reasonably believes a fire to have broken out or to be about to
break out, for the purpose of extinguishing or preventing the fire or
protecting life or property;

In particular, an employee of a fire and rescue authority who is
authorised as mentioned in subsection (1) may under that subsection

move or break into a vehicle without the consent of its owner;

That doesn't cut it. What's needed is a law that permits
a) a vehicle to be damaged (eg rammed out the way)
b) no liability for doing it.
Until those are there, almost no firefighter wold want to bankrupt themselves to save lives by doing this.

c) Immunity from murder charge if there is a driver in the vehicle who
refuses to move.

I can't see what that has to do with it. Unless you're proposing ramming be done at high speed en masse! Running speed ought to be enough.


NT

On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 08:35:05 UTC+1, wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 08:13:10 UTC+1, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
they are going on about "did it have sprinklers now"....can you imagine
sprinklers in X kooncil flats? .....

The building doesn't appear to even have had fire alarms

Only last November residents were still concerned.

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpres...ing-with-fire/

Owain

One of my first jobs when I moved to Stoke was o claad a roof with celotex and mdf. I don't think that fire precautions ever occurred to anyone.

On 17/06/17 05:06, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 08:35:05 UTC+1, wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 08:13:10 UTC+1, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
they are going on about "did it have sprinklers now"....can you imagine
sprinklers in X kooncil flats? .....

The building doesn't appear to even have had fire alarms

Only last November residents were still concerned.

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpres...ing-with-fire/

Owain

One of my first jobs when I moved to Stoke was o claad a roof with celotex and mdf. I don't think that fire precautions ever occurred to anyone.


celotex is not flammable. Polyethylene foam faced with thin zinc or
aluminium is very flammable

--
€œit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.€�

Vaclav Klaus

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

celotex is not flammable. Polyethylene foam faced with thin zinc or
aluminium is very flammable

And the flames from the PE will burn away the PIR foam, generating huge
volumes of nasty smoke ... would the alu get hot enough to burn, or
would it have melted and fallen away before then?

On 15/06/2017 01:36, wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 20:59:10 UTC+1, Max Demian wrote:
On 14/06/2017 19:39, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 14:59:30 UTC+1, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 14:35:49 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 14/06/2017 13:54, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 11:21:08 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:

Though lets be honest, fire appliances have front "bumpers" made from
steel box girders, so would soon bump a transit out of the way if
necessary ...

but too afraid to get sued out of everything to ever do it. Might
require a legal change.

The only time I have seen the situation arise. Car parked on a fire
access point and fire engine wanting access for a 999 call the guy
engaged low gear inched up to the cars bumper and shunted it ahead of
him doing surprisingly little damage to the car in the process.

In this situation I'd support them totalling the obstructing car to
enable high pressure water pumping to the dry risers. It is only bent
metal against dozens of lives of people trapped in a burning building.

Of course. But I bet the law would cause the fire truck driver to be sued
for the damage.


NT
the merrycans don't mess about ......

I don't know what the legal position is here, but we ought to have a law permitting fire & ambulance to damage things if necessary to access life saving measures. I'd bet no such provision exists.

Possibly this, though I'm not sure how it applies under English law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(criminal_law)

How about this for a possible solution?
A sign on the access road saying:
CRUSH ZONE
You may park here for 20 minutes max
If emergency access is required your vehicle may be damaged or destroyed without recompense.

Then all you need is a ramming fire truck. People can park there if they want, and they know the price.


NT

All New Zealand motorway patrol cars have 'rubber-faced roo bars'
on the front, which they use to push damaged cars off the
highway.